TIE Breaker for finals

The goal of the game is to have more VPs than the others, not staying alive.
Being first seed means you have scored more VPs during the preliminary rounds; as a reward you win the final in case of a tie.

Ankha wrote:

The goal of the game is to have more VPs than the others, not staying alive.
Being first seed means you have scored more VPs during the preliminary rounds; as a reward you win the final in case of a tie.

The goal of the game can be changed, if enough people think it´s stupid. Personally I think being first seed is strong enough as you get to choose seating late. Logically being ousted out of the Eternal Struggle should mean you cannot win the Eternal Struggle (at least unless there is a timeout). Please give us some strong argument for the rules not being changed!

Ashur wrote:

Ankha wrote:

The goal of the game is to have more VPs than the others, not staying alive.
Being first seed means you have scored more VPs during the preliminary rounds; as a reward you win the final in case of a tie.

The goal of the game can be changed, if enough people think it´s stupid. Personally I think being first seed is strong enough as you get to choose seating late. Logically being ousted out of the Eternal Struggle should mean you cannot win the Eternal Struggle (at least unless there is a timeout). Please give us some strong argument for the rules not being changed!

What is the strong argument for changing it ?

(people "thinking it's stupid" is not an argument. And "logically" doesn't apply if you're refering to lore when considering tournament rules).

I respect your opinion.

Personally, I think that a player who scores 3 vps and gets ousted in the duel still deserves to win the game, especially if that player exhausted all his resources and loses to a player who just waited until the others die.

If the first seed player manages to score 2 vps, then either the other players are to blame (you don't let the first seed player scores vps if you want to win, whatever position on the table he has), or the first seed was clearly superior and deserves to win.

In the situation you describe, the predator of the first seed still has a chance to get the GW so it was a bit of a gambit for the first seed player. The fact that the third player who apparently wasn't very effective (no vp at that time) has no chance of winning the tournament doesn't seem a problem to me.