Play to Win situation

I have a question regarding the play-to-win rule.

Assume the following situation:
5-player table. Tournament rules are in effect.

Sequence is as follows:
A-B-C-D-F

F is already ousted by D (D has 1 VP).
There is still plenty of time on the clock.
A: intercept gun-combat
B: Matthias () intercept
C: Euro -combat/bleed
D: Osebo intercept combat

A has 3 vampires in torpor, 1 ready, 3 pool
B has 3 vampires in torpor, 1 ready, 3 pool
C has 3 vampires ready, 12 pool
D has 3 vampires in torpor, 0 ready, 5 pool

At the end of his turn, C plays Dragonbound.

The playing of Dragonbound changes the games status fundamentally: D has a reasonable chance to get another VP, maybe even the GW.
A's only ready vampire has 0 blood, no gun. He controls Palatial Estate and Fetish Club Hunting Ground. If he manages to rescue 1 single vampire, he stays alive, otherwise he ousted (3 vampires in torpor and 3 pool left).
B has shown consistant ability to block actions regardless of stealth and has Miriam Benyona ready, tapped.

The question is: is D allowed to self oust by using Vessels and transfers during his turn?

I would say no, as he has a reasonable chance to at least get another VP, and if Miriam blocks the rescue action of player A and gets torporized, D would get a 3rd VP and the GW.

One could argue that player D would have to ask player B if he is going to block the rescue action.
However, during the whole game, C has taken a alot of -actions against B, which resulted in B having no chance at any VP. So it would be reasonable to assume that B would try to stop giving the GW to C (B is known to the other players as being a bit spiteful).

Knowing no other details and not talking to player B, D would have a 50% chance of another VP - B's Miriam Benyona either blocks the rescue action of A or not.

If D self-ousts he seems to be clearly in violation of the play-to-win rule. Player C claims that judges could not force D to not self-oust. Is this true?

Thank you for helping clearing up the situation.

Amenophobis wrote:

The question is: is D allowed to self oust by using Vessels and transfers during his turn?

If D really thinks that he does not have a reasonable chance of getting more VPs he is allowed to die in the way he wants.

Self-ousting is only play-to-win if it results in a win. For example, the first seed of a tournament self-ousts to his predator in the final assuring a 2VP tie (and win by tournament rank).

But it's all moot. You can't play the game for the player. If the judge deems the misplay spiteful or otherwise unsportsmanlike, he or she is free to punish the player. Seeing as they are already losing the game, perhaps by Warning or Disqualification (in an egregious case like self-ousting to boost a friend's VP total).

My personal judgement based on your description: maybe bad play, but not unsportsmanlike. Clearly there's no violation here.

Relevant sections of the tournament rules (emphasis mine):

5.2. Unsportsmanlike Conduct

Unsportsmanlike conduct is unacceptable and will not be tolerated at any time. Players who engage in unsportsmanlike conduct will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines and will be subject to further V:EKN review. Judges, players, spectators, and officials must behave in a polite, respectable, and sportsmanlike manner. In addition, players must not use profanity, argue, act belligerently toward tournament officials or one another, or harass spectators, tournament officials, or opponents. See also "Play to Win" in section 4.8 above.

4.8. Play to Win

One 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.

Dorrinal wrote:

Self-ousting is only play-to-win if it results in a win. For example, the first seed of a tournament self-ousts to his predator in the final assuring a 2VP tie (and win by tournament rank).

A player who is in a position where they do not have a reasonable chance of getting any more VPs can get the 0 extra VPs in any manner they choose. Including self-ousting.

Note that - though apparently not relevant to the situation at hand - getting more VPs does including playing to reach the time limit. That is, not slow play or stalling, but - for example - doing things like bloating to prevent yourself (or other people) being ousted, rather than futilely attempting to oust someone.

acbishop wrote:

If D really thinks that he does not have a reasonable chance of getting more VPs he is allowed to die in the way he wants.

Since judges are not issued with psychic probes, what D "really thinks" isn't something a judge can factor into his or her decision.

Instead, the judge has to substitute their own reasoning, using their own judgment.

Amenophobis wrote:

The playing of Dragonbound changes the games status fundamentally: D has a reasonable chance to get another VP, maybe even the GW.

At this point, you have answered your own question. Assuming the judge (in this case, you) thinks D has a reasonable chance to get more VP, play-to-win requires D to attempt to get more VP.

(D is allowed to use risk assessment and (for example) go for the solid 1 VP, rather than the risky 3VP-or-bust route.)

Precisely what action the judge takes is up for discussion, and may depend on the reactions of the players. It is difficult to take over the deck of a player who storms off in a huff over a ruling imposed on him or her, for example, whereas it is much easier to deal with things if players call you over and ask for a ruling.