Concerning PTW

This question pertains the final table only. The two rulings quoted from the discussion about the 2008 tournament rules are about final table only. They do not concern PTW in general.

Unless there has been a written explicit reversal then we have a ruling by LSJ stating that a 0.001% chance at winning the tournament means you go for the 0.001% chance. We also have an equally explicit ruling that reads, I quote: "Any player still in the game has a chance at 1st vs. 2nd (and nothing else), so must try for 1st."

That leaves zero wiggle-room for a judge to decide.

The above ruling obviously includes a false statement if any player has managed to get 3 VP during the final round, in which case the tournament is effectively finished.

Observe that the above rulings say absolutely nothing about PTW during any round except the final round.

Edit: I'm perfectly aware that this lands us with two different sets of PTW-rules depending on if it's a prelim or a final round being played.

Mephistopheles wrote:

From an "ethical" side I think you should go for the backoust and make the 2vps. You are still 2nd like everybody else, but at least you maximized your vp's, which should be some sort of secondary priority.

WTF?

2-2 split with first seed: 0% chance at winning.
Ousting the guy who has 2 VPs already: Greater than 0% chance at winning.

Your answer makes no sense. The question makes no sense. The idea that a judge would even have to be involved makes no sense.

Ankur wrote:

Play. The. Game.

So I always thought and still think that PTW is way too subjective and that more than often its interpretation depends on what mood the Judge is in. Therefore it's best we forget about it (sort of).

I have therefore my own guideline what to do in certain situations:

1. Try to get the game win
2. If you see no way (~0% chance) to make the game win maximize your vp's, even in the final when everybody else is still 2nd. 0,5 VPS > 0 VP!!!
3. If you are in a dead position where even 0,5 VP can not be achieved don't suicide into your prey, or anybody else. Try to stay in game for as long as possible, because maybe something totally unpredictable happens. This doesn't mean you should totally ruin your predator just to give your grand predator 2 vp's!

I think this is ethical play, since you cause the least damage to others. Some people show the tendency to suicide into their prey when in a lost position just to make their predators 2 vp's. Or the other way. I hate that.

See there are certain decks that need to hurt there predator to stay alive. Suiciding into that deck with the argument "because you did that or that" is lame imo. You should never punish somebody for playing a deck the way it is supposed to be played. Of course if there is a small chance to somehow oust it go for it! Sure! But just crashing in a guy as a revenge is unethical.

/sorry I went a little offtopic since this is general game play and really has little to do with the original example/

Ashur wrote:

Mephistopheles wrote:

Try to stay in game for as long as possible, because maybe something totally unpredictable happens.

I think this should be the second best think, if you cannot win. That is what a vampire would do

But I´ve heard that sometimes it is better for you tournament result to self-oust, although I have never been in such a situation myself.

I think that would be an out of game consideration, which is illegal as far as I know. Pascal could you please confirm that?