Play to win rule in a final

Pascal wrote:

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).

How was player C forfeiting the GW? Based on the information given (again), couldn't player B, with 1h40min remaining, have liked his chances in the 4-player game more than in the 5-player?

I'm curious about this because I've never seen a judge tell a player "you are not playing to win?" Which is my answer to Mephistopheles' question in an earlier post. That is, I've never seen it happen.

I have seen a judge threaten to disqualify if a player were to transfer out. But this was a general announcement and not specific to an in game situation.

I am in favor of using this "don't collude" rule for kibitzing. many times I simply fail to notice an important card on the table affecting the situation, and then make the wrong move that eliminates my chances for a Gamewin. I should ask the judge every time I do something, "am I playing to win?" so he can advise me what to do -- "NO! Fame will oust your prey. Take that action back, and play that other card in your hand so you can score some VPs."

"Have I done everything during my Untap phase that satisfies Play To Win, judge?" "NO! You forgot you have the edge. Gain 1 pool or I disqualify you." "Oh ok"

TorranceCircle wrote:

Pascal wrote:

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).

How was player C forfeiting the GW? Based on the information given (again), couldn't player B, with 1h40min remaining, have liked his chances in the 4-player game more than in the 5-player?

By the deal C was passing with D - where C would have been ousting each of D's preys in a row (again, that's what I recall now from that game which happened 1 year ago and of which I saw 3 minutes). And the answer given to "would such a deal be legal?" was "No."

TorranceCircle wrote:

I'm curious about this because I've never seen a judge tell a player "you are not playing to win?" Which is my answer to Mephistopheles' question in an earlier post. That is, I've never seen it happen.

I have seen a judge threaten to disqualify if a player were to transfer out. But this was a general announcement and not specific to an in game situation.

Transfering oneself out is a valid move. Not respecting the PTW (or a deal previously made) is an illegal move. Only in these situations should a call to the judge be made.

It sounds to me like this player was just a fool and really has no idea how to manipulate the cards properly. You can't legislate against stupidity.

Pascal wrote:

By the deal C was passing with D - where C would have been ousting each of D's preys in a row (again, that's what I recall now from that game which happened 1 year ago and of which I saw 3 minutes). And the answer given to "would such a deal be legal?" was "No."

I don't remember the part where C had agreed to oust E for D, and then me as well. It certainly might have been the agreement - C wasn't acting very logically, and he certainly was not able to argue his actions in terms of Play-to-Win when confronted by Pascal. I was surprised he Parity Shifted E, because no one ever falls for my powers of persuasion. I didn't get that C had explicitly forfeited the game, but we were speaking French (I was being nice to one of the players whose English was weak), and maybe I missed that part.

To be honest, getting Player E out of the game might not have been a bad thing at all for C since E had 10 votes and was in a better position than the rest of us. E was in a very strong position. D couldn't get past E's Obediences and Deflections; Arika was Sense Depped and I couldn't draw enough Deflections; B couldn't pass any votes between me and C, and he had to pay pool for his vote-gaining locations because of Arika. Getting rid of me would have gotten rid of another 6 votes plus the Ventrue HQ. It's possible that with B, C, and D in the game only, C would have had a great chance to Parity Shift with impunity (12 extra pool to get), blocking back rushes with his Progenies.

I don't necessarily disagree with the ruling; I might have made the same ruling. I could see how Pascal made it, especially because of the way that Player C acted. All C had to do was say, "That is my strategy, and I think it will help me win.", but he didn't do that.