Play to win rule in a final

Was B ever able to do anything?
B was, it seems, playing a rush deck. Are we sure B wasn't lacking the rush cards?
Maybe B was waiting for the lunge window - play Fame + Dragonbourd, and torporize enough of C's vampires to oust him.

"B did nothing in this game" is an argument, but it might not be enough. It's down to what B did regarding what B could have done.

Was B trying to cycle cards? Did B bleed for 1 from time to time? How much pool was C on? Did someone ask B why he wouldn't / didn't go forward?

So B is the stronger seed than C? In that case, he has all the power in THE WORLD to sit still until C ousts E, and then finish the game one-on-one as he sees fit to do.

It seems that player E was more afraid of Player C, and then offered a deal that meant nothing to player B, as player b probably felt that he could not win one-on-one against player E.

Also, he could still be potentially fearing the dealbrake from player E, which would spell doom for him if he taps out
(for instance).

Weather deck C is impossible to oust to player B in that case is irrelevant. What is relevant, is weather Player B has confidence that he can win against player E, once the player C is gone. If the answer to that (from B's ) perspective is that he cannot, than he has all the right to wait for player C to torture a little player E. Or, in this situation, he feels that player E is a real table threat, as he already rushed CROSS-TABLE to oust player E.

Or maybe he has a hand full of deflections, and is waiting for E's offense to finish player C, and therefore conserve resources against player E.

I am sorry, but if i was player B, i would also probably sit it out. If i was convinced that player E was such a threat as to rush him cross-table earlier, i would also probably not want to be left with him one-on-one, in ANY circumstances.

And involving a judge in this kind of situation is , i feel, not only unwarranted, bud bad sportsmanship in its own right. What is next, if somebody does not IMMEDIATELY oust the player that he can oust, he is to be disqualified??

I just read your report on your blog. You are player E, right? These are your own words : "I cycled my deck like hell, to draw damage causing votes. Meanwhile I am totally against breaking a deal, but in this situation? I would have totally tried to oust Dávid if I could. Unfortunately I drew nothing good and we timed out."

So you WERE going to break a deal, if situation arose.

You cannot blame others for playing safe, in that situation, much less ask for a judge to disqualify them.

If we ever sit on the same table, count me against taking any deal from you. Good day to you, sir!

Mephistopheles wrote:

It is a little more than personal vindication. There is rule which I never ever see enforced. You can either just forget about this rule and delete it or try to define it so it can be enforced. In this given case I see a violation of the rule.

You should discuss this with the tournament judge. Unfortunately, while you may be in the right you can't expect moral backing from anyone on this forum based on nothing but your own subjective and limited account of the situation.

Maybe B didn't see an opening to oust BOTH C and E, which would be required for him to win.

Obviously E needs C to get ousted. Also, E would not have been offering such an odd deal ("hey prey! I'll let you have 6 pool and a VP no problem!") if he either wasn't 100% sure he could oust B before the time limit or planned on breaking the deal and snatch up a second VP. Since B is a rushdeck (from the description) and E is afraid of C, the LAST thing E needs is B to go backwards.

B, realizing this, understands he needs to oust both C AND E to secure the tournament victory and hopes C will weaken E enough for him to have a shot at this.

Since C (rightfully) isn't moving and E starts making a move on him, realizes a gamewin is unattainable and -in fact- even a VP may very well be out of reach with E pounding on him. He therefore plays for what he thinks is the maximum attainable - 0,5 VP.

Sounds perfectly fine to me.

Too bad you didn't see the entire table. It is impossible to give it back. Yeah, you can read it the way that I am a Jerk. Point taken.

But if you read back a little to the situation when all 5 players were still in the game you might find a reason which let to it. I talked to a few guys who have watched the final. B never showed any attitude to win.

And totally regardless of what happened or not, I am still curious if this whole play to win rule makes any sense. It is way too subjective.

and f.y.i.: never during the entire final did I ask the judge anything about it or complained to him about this. However I wanted to check what the rule is. I avoided all personal information here, so nobody gets "hurt". Quoting in the personal data from another source isn't a nice thing either.