Deal 3-2 legality
05 Nov 2024 14:01 #113000
by acbishop
Replied by acbishop on topic Deal 3-2 legality
I do understand your point, but the Play to Win rules state you need to play for the GW but they don't say or force you to go for the highest score on that GW, you can of course do it.
The rules right now allow you to concede if you have the GW if you wish to do that.
The question on this thread is about the 3-2 deal prey-predator, the player getting the 3 VPS and the GW, can if they wish to concede and let 2 vp to the other player, the issue here is in semantics and the reason why that player is leaving the 2vp, as it is for a previous deal, and it is also in the rules that precious deals in the final duel are void.
So, when you have the GW, are you ok to concede. The answer by the rules is yes. But the reason you are conceding is due to a previous deal that it is supposed to be void when arriving to duel.
That's the question I got from one player and that's the situation where a statement or clarification from Ankha would be good, so it might be maybe something to add (or not) to the rules.
A player can concede if they have the GW already no matter the reason they have to do that. That should close the debate about the 3-2 validity contradicting the "all deals are void in duel"
The rules right now allow you to concede if you have the GW if you wish to do that.
The question on this thread is about the 3-2 deal prey-predator, the player getting the 3 VPS and the GW, can if they wish to concede and let 2 vp to the other player, the issue here is in semantics and the reason why that player is leaving the 2vp, as it is for a previous deal, and it is also in the rules that precious deals in the final duel are void.
So, when you have the GW, are you ok to concede. The answer by the rules is yes. But the reason you are conceding is due to a previous deal that it is supposed to be void when arriving to duel.
That's the question I got from one player and that's the situation where a statement or clarification from Ankha would be good, so it might be maybe something to add (or not) to the rules.
A player can concede if they have the GW already no matter the reason they have to do that. That should close the debate about the 3-2 validity contradicting the "all deals are void in duel"
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
05 Nov 2024 14:05 #113001
by acbishop
Replied by acbishop on topic Deal 3-2 legality
note that I'm not stating whether I think it is allowed or not, as what I think is not really relevant to get Ankha's confirmation
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
05 Nov 2024 18:29 #113007
by acbishop
Replied by acbishop on topic Deal 3-2 legality
on that particular situation that started this query, the player getting 2 vps was barely surviving, so from his point of view he would do probably 0 on that game, so 2vp was maximising his VPs as his prey had already 2 vps and he was under lot of pressure from his predator
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
06 Nov 2024 07:56 - 06 Nov 2024 07:59 #113018
by Ankha
Once the duel begins, player B has the GW and may decide to continue playing (to score more VP) or concede (by tournament rule 3.5 because they already have the GW), no matter what previous deals were struck before that.
(NB: it was player B who had 3vp in the original post, just to be clear)
Replied by Ankha on topic Deal 3-2 legality
Correct by all points.I do understand your point, but the Play to Win rules state you need to play for the GW but they don't say or force you to go for the highest score on that GW, you can of course do it.
The rules right now allow you to concede if you have the GW if you wish to do that.
The question on this thread is about the 3-2 deal prey-predator, the player getting the 3 VPS and the GW, can if they wish to concede and let 2 vp to the other player, the issue here is in semantics and the reason why that player is leaving the 2vp, as it is for a previous deal, and it is also in the rules that precious deals in the final duel are void.
So, when you have the GW, are you ok to concede. The answer by the rules is yes. But the reason you are conceding is due to a previous deal that it is supposed to be void when arriving to duel.
That's the question I got from one player and that's the situation where a statement or clarification from Ankha would be good, so it might be maybe something to add (or not) to the rules.
A player can concede if they have the GW already no matter the reason they have to do that. That should close the debate about the 3-2 validity contradicting the "all deals are void in duel"
Once the duel begins, player B has the GW and may decide to continue playing (to score more VP) or concede (by tournament rule 3.5 because they already have the GW), no matter what previous deals were struck before that.
(NB: it was player B who had 3vp in the original post, just to be clear)
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.092 seconds
- You are here:
-
Home
-
Foro
-
V:TES Discussion
-
Rules Questions
- Deal 3-2 legality