Concerning PTW

Me and another player had discussion about a tournament finals scenario. This is the theoretical situation:

Final table:

Players A, B and C are still on the table. A is fifth seed with 0 vps, B is third seed with 0 vps and C is first seed with 2 vps.

Seating A -> B -> C ->

It's B's trun. B has no resonable chance to take a GW/tournament win (per Play to win rule). B has to options in this scenario. 1) Give all B got to go forward and (maybe) get 1 vp and then (most probably) loose the heads up with A. (Ending on 1 vps) 2) Backoust get into the heads up with C and (most probably) oust C in the heads up. (Ending on 2 vps)

You could argue that option 2 is illegal, because then it's theortically impossible to get a GW/tournament win.(as state previously, player B have no resonale chance to get the GW/tourament win)

You could agrue that option 2 is the best way to go, since is maximizes the number of vps for player B (as per Play to win).

My question is: Is choosing option 2 illegal for player B?

These sources as been used by me and the other player to make our case, needless to say we have not reached an agreement and need a clarifiction from an official souce, i.e. Pascal:

newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/2007-12/msg00107.html

newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/2007-12/msg00131.html

4.8. Play to Win

One aspect of sportsmanlike conduct is that players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the game as stated in the V:TES rulebook (e.g., attacking certain players on the basis of their V:EKN ratings or overall tournament standing, etc.). For tournaments, playing to win means playing to get a Game Win if it is reasonably possible, and when a Game Win is not reasonably possible, then playing to get as many Victory Points as possible.

Neither the basic game rules nor the tournament rules enforce or regulate deals made between players. The tournament rules acknowledge deals, however, in that a deal which represents the best interests of the players involved at the time the deal is made is allowed to be honored, even when the normal play to win rule would indicate that a deal should be broken. This only applies to deal that are in the best interests of the players involved at the time the deal is made. That is, it applies only when making the deal is playing to win. (It is also allowable to break such a deal, of course).

Exception: when only two Methuselahs remain, the tournament rules no longer acknowledge any deals. Prior deals are voided, even if they were play to win when made. When only two Methuselahs remain, both Methuselahs must play to win based only on game state, without regard to any deals.

I'd tell player 'B' to act like an adult and oust his prey.

But.. But.. But.. But..

No.

Are you an adult or are you a little baby?

Stop talking and oust your prey. and try to have some fun while you're at it.

This isn't difficult.

I really can't see why B would ever want to backoust and try a headsup in Finals if he can't win that way. I mean, there's nothing for the one coming second. Sometimes there is, but honestly.

In a non-final tournament game I'd call it okay to backoust and try to win the headsup. It's up to people themselves decide which way to get their best position in the tournament, and it helps no one to be left with no VPs.

I think the 'play to win' rule should be even thought of only in cases where other palyers are trying to help someone else win. Like, "I'll buy you stacks of beer if you help me get into the finals".

Other than this, a simple "That's how I intend to win the game" is reason and justification enough to play how one pleases.

Playing stupid is legal. A and C, or KevinM, should remind B that a 2-2 tie isn't winning the game and he should play accordingly.

If B can backoust A, why can't he just weaken him to make the duel easier? The situation seems to require more careful play than full forward or full backward.

If B has any chance of getting the GW, he should go for that. In this situation, back-ousting is clearly not in any of the ways that bring B to the GW.

Otherwise (B has 0% change of getting the GW), B should try to maximize VPs, as described in the PTW rule.

If B has 0% change of getting a single VP (thus 0% chance of getting the GW), then he's free to go amok, and back-oust, oust, or self-oust. Or continue playing.