Deal 3-2 legality

1. The deal has to be deemed legal at the time it was struck
2. You reach the 1 vs 1 and all deals are void
3. B can win in any way he wants

So the only relevant question would be if No.1. is valid.

Well, to be clear, the question is how conflict is handled:

4.8 ...
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.

The conceding liberty granted by having game win is not contested. Consider for context that the timing is Player A has 2 VP his predator Player B 0. Grandpredator Player C may or may not oust Player B. Player A is running out of library, therefor is crafting a P2W deal to minimize risk of running out of library in 1v1 with boost of pool to player C, going into it with 2VP.

Player A proposes a deal to split 3-2 with Player B. Player C warns upholding the split is against the cited and bolded parts of rules. Player A ignores it citing 3.5, ie that they do not have to P2W, but the point is, the deal is no more to upheld if played by the bolded parts then. While 3.5 voids maximizing VP part, the deal voiding part is still there, as it's not part of maximizing VPs and is explicitly applying for P2W deals, such as proposed.

Of course a player can play dumb and concede for other reasons, aside from upholding the deal. For such cases a clear ruling is needed. It's not the first time wording conflicted with intended design and ruling may resolve (unintended) potential conflicts in wording.

As neither I or acbishop found a ruling, it is relevant more for rather typical situations, such as if a sweeping methuselah is allowed to upheld a deal with predator to secure 3rd VP easier, as in this case.

If not, accompanying to ruling it would be instructive to learn, what kind of deals are then the exception is meant to void, as splitting the table deal is perhaps the most powerful deal which can be made.

acbishop wrote:

Yes, I agree with that, and I don't have a problem with the player conceding.

The only caveat and the reason that player wants a statement from Ankha is due to the fact that that player who already has the GW with 3 points is letting the 2 VPs to the other player because they had a deal before, and the rules said deals are no longer valid when in duel. Which is a valid point.

A simple statement from Ankha stating that whatever reason the player has to concede and gives those 2 points is not relevant and the player can do it regardless of a deal before or not deal before, that would solve the issue.

The only rule I can think of regarding upholding deals is that on 1-on-1 all the deals are off so you DO NOT HAVE TO uphold any deals.

BUT you CAN if you WANT TO.
Want for whatever reason.
Like for upholding your good name as a person who always keeps their part of a deal.

Then again, you are NEVER forced to uphold ANY deal in VTES.
Go ahead and break as many deals as you want to. But after a while people might not trust you to keep any deals if you nearly always tend to break the deals.

I dont understand how the play to win rule isnt violated when one meth has the ability to win the game.

Why even have this rule if its going to be ignored.

dalefi wrote:

I dont understand how the play to win rule isnt violated when one meth has the ability to win the game.

Why even have this rule if its going to be ignored.

GW 2 is win the game
GW 2.5 is win the game
GW 3 is win the game
GW 3.5 is win the game
GW 4 is win the game
GW 5 is win the game

Rules enforce players to get GW but they don't force players to go for a sweep of the biggest amount of VPs while getting a GW

OK, I understand this distinction. Is this a result of some "rule mongers" parsing every word in the rule book, or is it how the game was intended to be played?

If it were up to me, I would say that one cannot concede unless their situation is truly and actually hopeless, otherwise play it out until the timer stops. This is basically what I think the play to win rule is meant to convey.

Personally, I would not continue playing with people who are going to concede a game where they could potentially sweep the table.

If I have 5 pool, my vampires are all beat up, and my opponent has 20 pool and is relatively unscathed, this is a situation to concede as it is hopeless, otherwise play it out.