Play to win.

Playing VTES is one of my favorites hobbies, however, sometimes playing it might lead to endless discussions. One of the most controversial rules in this sense is the "Play to Win" rule.  I have seen players from many countries applying it in different ways. On one hand this rule may be regarding cheating by explicit or underneath agreements done by players in order to get decisive advantage and in the other hand this rule says "players must not play toward goals that conflict with the goal of the game as stated in the VTES rule book"and also "...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..." But what that really means ? If I am playing in an ideal 5 players table and lets suppose that one of the decks is in conflict with mine and also the player playing it is either my grand prey or my grand predator, is it ok if I add my own forces to banish that player either by bleeding him, throwing referendums against him or using my minions to sabotage this player's permanents?

I would like to know more about this rule and how to apply it properly, due this I would really appreciate all the comments that allow me to understand it clearer. In advance thank you for all the support. 

Regards!4.8. Play to WinOne 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).During the finals, playing to win means playing to finish as tournament winner (as defined in 3.7.5).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.

Well,

It is a difficult subject as you stated it.

But for the question you gave about playing against a player whose deck/behavior is clearly against you winning the game, YES you are allowed to do just that.

2 practical situations :

- you play a classic legacy of pander deck and you already have established a vote lock in your favor BUT your grand-prey has 2 magagi both with a no secret and a sniper rifle.
Even if your prey is oustable right away with 1 pool damage, you are allowed (and you should ^^) oust your grand prey with cross-table vote if you can because when your grand prey become your prey, you will no longer be able to win the game

- you are in a 5 players game and your 2 "cross-table buddies" make a deal splitting the table between them. If you think that this deal will make it easy for them to win the table with not a single victory point for you, you are allowed to help "break" that deal by playing against them in order to oust 1 of the player involved

Play to win is about your intentions.

If you honestly think that controversial action (e.g. multi-rushing crosstable) will let you earn more VP/GW in this game than not doing so, it's totally PtW regardless if this is really effective or not (its not a crime to make honest but bad in-game decisions).

But if you do this understanding it will reduce (means they must be above 0%, otherwise you are free to act as you wish) your chances for VP/GW, for any other reasons (improve overall seeding, revenge for last round, personal conflict, etc), then it's not PtW.

For judge it impossible to read your intentions (so hard to make just decision), but the nature of PtW is in intentions and it's not something easily described like "it's not PtW to rush crosstable or to let panders pass first title votes if you can block it".

smeeag wrote:

Play to win is about your intentions.

 

Exactly that !

I often see people invoke the PtW rule on casual tables (and even tournaments) to contest a play on the table. AFAIK the only kind of play that would really fall under this rule and be addressed (ie. rollbacked) by a judge in a tournament is when the play is obviously making you lose the game or VPs.

Rushing and ousting cross-table is OK, destroying your predator is OK. Almost anything is OK, as far as you do it to win, not to serve the victory to a friend or to self-sabotage out of spite.

On the other hand, invoking the PtW rule to contest a play you fin suboptimal is not okay. You are basically accusing another player of cheating when they are not, this is not sportsmanlike and could be penalized.

lip wrote:

Rushing and ousting cross-table is OK, destroying your predator is OK. Almost anything is OK, as far as you do it to win, not to serve the victory to a friend or to self-sabotage out of spite.

On the other hand, invoking the PtW rule to contest a play you fin suboptimal is not okay. You are basically accusing another player of cheating when they are not, this is not sportsmanlike and could be penalized.


 

This is something that people get wrong in tournaments all the time. They don't know what a judge can and can't do and will often try to frame their predator/cross on this without any basis on reality.

What a judge can and cannot do is very clear by the judges guide: www.vekn.net/judges-guideTheres no point in there saying that the judge should read someone's mind to figure out if they are playing ot win or not. Players of different playgroups will have different approaches and playstyles in many situations and this is part of the beauty of the game.

A lot of mildly experienced players get annoyed that they have to learn to play around their opponents because they aren't doing exactly what they, in their unmatched wisdom, have decided that the best course of action should be. 

Self-sabotaging out of spite in an entirely different (and interesting) conversation. A judge can't stop you from influencing yourself to death if, let's say, you have 4 pool, a 10 cap uninfluenced and 4 hungry bleeders on your back. But perhaps he should, because those 4 pool are actions that your predator doesnt have to take anymore.