Play to win
The matter has already been heavily discussed for more than 10 years. Here's one of the occurence:
groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/UNgikrN6FR8/h1g_VQYuFXoJ
> Q 3: Is self ousting illegal when a player can not reasonably
> get any more victory points or a GW?
No.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.
Basically, if 0 VP is the maximum number of VP you can get, you are free to get your 0 VP anyway you want, including by self-ousting.
I edited my post because what cordovader wrote is convincing.
So the only question remains is what is wrote at the beginning of point 4.8 Is it "sportsmanlike" to on purpose deny other player VPs by self-ousting
Well so let’s put it in a different way :
There are 5 players on the table
A > B > C > D > E
Let’s say that A plays Tupdog and C Arika.
So A is really afraid of C and rushes crosstable since the beginning. E helps C by rescuing and so on. B and C are low on pool and A is going to snipe 2 VPs with a chance to win.
Is it sportsmanlike to transfer out as C, to try and limit A’s game win and thus helping E to be able to stand a chance against A?
Well, IMHO it’s not less sportsmanlike than doing nothing and letting A snipe 2 VPs, since doing nothing is the same as doing something (you are influencing on the results by either choice).
I guess that it’s legit to discuss if a player should be allowed to transfer his last pool or not, but this is a different question (I have seen judges forbidding that by stating that the player still had chances of making better than 0, which is logic).
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- cordovader
-
- Offline
- Methuselah
-
- Posts: 253
- Thank you received: 120
The matter has already been heavily discussed for more than 10 years. Here's one of the occurence:
groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/UNgikrN6FR8/h1g_VQYuFXoJ
> Q 3: Is self ousting illegal when a player can not reasonably
> get any more victory points or a GW?
No.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.
Basically, if 0 VP is the maximum number of VP you can get, you are free to get your 0 VP anyway you want, including by self-ousting.
I edited my post because what cordovader wrote is convincing.
So the only question remains is what is wrote at the beginning of point 4.8 Is it "sportsmanlike" to on purpose deny other player VPs by self-ousting
Well so let’s put it in a different way :
There are 5 players on the table
A > B > C > D > E
Let’s say that A plays Tupdog and C Arika.
So A is really afraid of C and rushes crosstable since the beginning. E helps C by rescuing and so on. B and C are low on pool and A is going to snipe 2 VPs with a chance to win.
Is it sportsmanlike to transfer out as C, to try and limit A’s game win and thus helping E to be able to stand a chance against A?
Well, IMHO it’s not less sportsmanlike than doing nothing and letting A snipe 2 VPs, since doing nothing is the same as doing something (you are influencing on the results by either choice).
I guess that it’s legit to discuss if a player should be allowed to transfer his last pool or not, but this is a different question (I have seen judges forbidding that by stating that the player still had chances of making better than 0, which is logic).
Off course is better to act as a suicide bomber and blow up yourself for benefit of others, make a statement and decide who lives or dies, win and lose. with absolutely no benefits for you. And saying it's playing to win is a joke but an official joke as we can see
If the situation on the table developed like this it means negotiations failed and you die like a man. Self-ousting is toxic unnecessary mechanic that create favoritism(I don't like my pray so i will kill myself to help my predator, or may my predator is my friend or kinsman I prefer he will win ). One player by killing himself without any gain decide who will get point and live, show me any other competitive game in which you can do that. To make thing worse this rule is open to interpretation so every judge can decide differently.
I hope BC and VEKN will analyze this option and remove it from this game asap.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
But anyway - by reanimating this long buried topic without adding anything new to it you are expressing serious disrespect for fellow players. This one is much worse than self ousting.






Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- you want the player in the game
- you want the player out of the game
If you want the player out, why should you care about a self-oust
If you want the player in the game, you should dose the pressure you put on him to let him stay (for example letting him know that you would rush him only if he does this and that for your own survival but letting him a chance to play).
Just saying.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- cordovader
-
- Offline
- Methuselah
-
- Posts: 253
- Thank you received: 120
- You are here:
-
Home
-
Foro
-
V:TES Discussion
-
Rules Questions
- Play to win