Play to win rule in a final

Hi!

I would like to ask how the play to win rule must be interpreted in a final. You have a player who never during the final attempts to make any action against his prey even when his predator offers him to not to go forward until he ousts his prey and than play a heads-up for the Game Win. His prey is not an anti deck which he couldn't oust even with Gods help. He simply doesn't want to go forward for any reason. By this behavior he denies himself any chance to win on purpose. Is that legal in a final? Can he be disqualified by the judge?

Thanks for the answer

That largely depends of the situation, imho.

I would guess (based on your description) is
Player A (does not want to go forward) > Player b > Player c (offers to hold until one-on-one)

Now, if player A, for instance, is higher seed than player B, and if by ousting player c, player b will not have MORE than 2vp's, then Player A's action NOT do do anything is perfectly legal, as he prefers to be left one-on-one with player b (which deck he can oust), than player C (which deck he may potentially lose to).

Also, why would he trust player c? Maybe he fears that , as soon as he moves forward, player C will lunge and kill him, breaking the offered deal? I have seen such things happen in the finals.

See my point? Without knowing all the details, seeding, seating, decks, situations, and ousts prior to the situation, it is possible for us to assume that player A has all the benefit of the doubt to remain composed, and play this out in a way he sees fit. After all, nobody wants to lose a final...

Mephistopheles wrote:

Hi!

I would like to ask how the play to win rule must be interpreted in a final. You have a player who never during the final attempts to make any action against his prey even when his predator offers him to not to go forward until he ousts his prey and than play a heads-up for the Game Win. His prey is not an anti deck which he couldn't oust even with Gods help. He simply doesn't want to go forward for any reason. By this behavior he denies himself any chance to win on purpose. Is that legal in a final? Can he be disqualified by the judge?

Thanks for the answer

Assuming all of the above, he is denying himself any chance to win. This is clearly illegal. The judge can clearly disqualify him if that's what it comes down to. But I get the distinct feeling that you already knew the answer. Does this hypothetical situation happen to be based on actual events?

The situation as it happened (yes it did happen):

A -> B -> C -> D -> E

Seating is:

1. (top) A
2. B
3. C
4. D
5. E

Funny, cause we just sat down in this order, but hey things happen

So until all 5 players are in the game player A plays against player E, because E has vote lock with C and can stop A's deck. Time progresses meaning A is still winning the final. At this point A convinces B to rush E consistently. B doesn't gain anything from this. Because of said cross table interference E offers C a 1-1 vp deal, meaning A and D will get ousted. The deal includes nothing against B! This happens meaning B is the furthest away from winning the final since C and E have a vp already. E than offers B to hold until he ousts C, since he is afraid of C and than play a clean heads-up for the tournament win. B agrees in words, but takes no action whatsoever against C in the remaining 20 minutes. C doesn't have to do anything since he is winning. E tries to cycle cards like hell to find a way of somehow ousting B after he realizes that B gave up on going forward.

The final ends without B having taken any single action against C while being in a losing position during the entire final.

I think this is not ok. I avoided information on decks and players on purpose, but if additional information is required feel free to ask. Let it be said that C was in no way an impossible deck for B to oust.

Thoughts?

Mephistopheles wrote:

Thoughts?

Losing undeservedly is frustrating. Nevertheless, the Rules Questions-section is not the place to look for personal vindication.

It is a little more than personal vindication. There is rule which I never ever see enforced. You can either just forget about this rule and delete it or try to define it so it can be enforced. In this given case I see a violation of the rule.