Play to win rule in a final

I think the main problem is the difference in the attitude of us players. Some players, like me, want to win hard. Some players don't care that much, they happy if they win, but don't really care if they don't and therefore won't fight or try as much. The problem with this is that such decisions have a high influence on the table, which will benefit one player but hurt 3 others. What I don't understand is if a players doesn't want to win a tournament than why is he attending it? Of course, because he wants to have fun and has all right to do so.

It just sucks if you loose because of this. I need to learn to deal with that.

I need to learn to deal with that.

You just earned an extra point of Karma for that one, mate.

In that situation I would definitely have called the judge just to let the guy know, that he is watched closely. If it is true, that he didn't bleed for one at least instead of rushing crosstable without need it seems strange.
I saw a judge enforce play to win at a tournament in Belgium some years back. Two guys arranged a table split deal. The judge enforced one player to play harder/ to use his possibilities and try to oust the other in the heads up. He had to play his political actions although he didn't want to. In another game he didn't allow another deal because it violated play to win IIRC.
As you already mentioned the problem is not the judge but players, who does not try to win a game. That is more often the case, not only in finals. Sad.
Another bad thing is the pov "nobody gets an oust but me". I have the impression this got better in the meantime.

Mephistopheles wrote:

No really, has anybody anywhere ever seen a play to win rule being enforced?

I have experienced the play-to-win rule being enforced. It was at the 2010 EC, the First-Chance Qualifier.

Table: Me (Ventrue Law Firm with Arika) -> B (Mata Hari vote) -> C (Nosferatu Royalty) -> D (!Brujah rush with titled vampires) -> E (Mistress Fanchion/Orlando Oriandus vote/bleed)

As you can see, there were lots of votes on the table. I don't remember everything exactly, but there was a lot of shifting around of voting allegiances. Player C called Parity Shift on Player E and had the vote support to pass it. Player E complained to the judge that it was not play-to-win, and the judge agreed and made Player C choose a different target or take back his action. Player E ended up ousting me, got 1.5 VPs (the most at the table), and went to the final of the tournament.

I think that Player C's prey was a legitimate target of Parity Shift, which I believe was Player D's argument. I have never seen a player insist an action be taken back because of Play-to-Win, much less succeed.

Player C, Player D, and I had formed a voting block, but none of us was articulate enough to argue past E, who was very insistent. But this is not a case of someone potentially breaking Play-to-Win because of inaction, but rather because of cross-table action.

Aaron wrote:

I have experienced the play-to-win rule being enforced. It was at the 2010 EC, the First-Chance Qualifier.

Table: Me (Ventrue Law Firm with Arika) -> B (Mata Hari vote) -> C (Nosferatu Royalty) -> D (!Brujah rush with titled vampires) -> E (Mistress Fanchion/Orlando Oriandus vote/bleed)

As you can see, there were lots of votes on the table. I don't remember everything exactly, but there was a lot of shifting around of voting allegiances. Player C called Parity Shift on Player E and had the vote support to pass it. Player E complained to the judge that it was not play-to-win, and the judge agreed and made Player C choose a different target or take back his action. Player E ended up ousting me, got 1.5 VPs (the most at the table), and went to the final of the tournament.

I think that Player C's prey was a legitimate target of Parity Shift, which I believe was Player D's argument. I have never seen a player insist an action be taken back because of Play-to-Win, much less succeed.

Player C, Player D, and I had formed a voting block, but none of us was articulate enough to argue past E, who was very insistent. But this is not a case of someone potentially breaking Play-to-Win because of inaction, but rather because of cross-table action.

Things to take into account: player C was forfeiting the GW and it had been 20 min played so far (thus, another 1h40m remaining) (that is - if my memeory serves me well).

Mephistopheles wrote:

Hi!

I would like to ask how the play to win rule must be interpreted in a final. You have a player who never during the final attempts to make any action against his prey even when his predator offers him to not to go forward until he ousts his prey and than play a heads-up for the Game Win. His prey is not an anti deck which he couldn't oust even with Gods help. He simply doesn't want to go forward for any reason. By this behavior he denies himself any chance to win on purpose. Is that legal in a final? Can he be disqualified by the judge?

Thanks for the answer

I haven't read your blog,and I do not know the whole table dynamic- but here is one idea I have. Was the non-aggressive player thinking that he had a better chance to defeat his prey than his predator? Perhaps he wanted to let his prey oust the the third player then oust in the one-on-one. If he felt this could happen, then why would he care for the deal his predator was offering? If this was the case, and I don't know that it was or wasn't, wouldn't this be playing to win? Based on the information given, I don't think he can be disqualified.