file Question about play to win rule…

16 Jan 2026 16:15 - 16 Jan 2026 16:35 #116219 by 1muflon1
I observed on many tournaments players in 2 player game just shaking hands and finishing game early by one player giving up.

Sometimes this was result of an in-game deal, which although not enforceable, a player decided to honor the deal and give up (eg player got promised VP in 3 player game and then just shakes hand with the player that helped him instead still battling it out).

I recently had a debate with a player who told me such play is only acceptable under the play to win rule, if the player that gave up didn’t had any chance scoreing GW.

Is this correct? Is this a situation where observer should call the judge even though both players agreed? Is the play to win rule in such situation violated?

More generally under what game conditions should judge prevent one player from giving up?
Last edit: 16 Jan 2026 16:35 by 1muflon1.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kilrauko

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
17 Jan 2026 10:38 #116223 by Lönkka
When you have already won the game you are not enforced to try to get even more VPs.

So instead of just, say, on every turn hunting with all minions and transferring out as many pool as possible you just yield. This way the person who (probably) helped you to get the GW gets their victory points (2 or less -you could also consider this to be 30 pieces of silver...)

Granted, there are situations where the amount of pool and/or lack of pool damage combined with short time left might make the actual ousting, even with above style co-operation, impossible.

Finnish :POT: Politics!
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kilrauko

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Lönkka
  • Lönkka's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Antediluvian
  • Antediluvian
  • War=peace, freedom=slavery, ignorance=strength
More
17 Jan 2026 19:03 #116224 by 1muflon1
But my question is rather about situation where you don’t have game win

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
18 Jan 2026 20:05 #116232 by ur_vampire
If you are in a situation where you cannot gain a GW, you have to do whatever you can to get as much VP as possible, as far as I know(Following all rules, of course:-) ).

Best regards

Richard
NC Austria
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kilrauko

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 Jan 2026 23:04 #116244 by Kilrauko

But my question is rather about situation where you don’t have game win


You should never be afraid of calling a judge and asking for confirmation of something. Just remember that being a spectator has certain things that must be followed;
2.4. Spectator Responsibilities

A spectator of a game is defined as any person other than a judge or an organizer who is not playing in that game. A player who is ousted from a game is considered a spectator for the remainder of the round. All spectators are expected to remain silent during the course of a game and are not permitted to communicate with players in any way while a game is in progress. Spectators who believe that they have observed rules violations should inform a judge, but they must not interfere with the game. Players have the right to request that any spectator not observe their game. All such requests must be made through a judge, who may grant or deny the request as he or she sees fit. The judge or organizer may choose to prohibit all specatators at any table(s) or round(s) of the tournament.

As spectator you *should* contact the judge if you think rules have been broken. But you should not go and tell the players they are not playing to win, after all communicating with players is against the rules and hence also unsportsmanlike conduct.

As for why handshakes tend to happen and why judges tend to allow them;

Tournament rules have 3.5 in them along with Judge guide 152 that basically result in a situation where judges cannot prevent players agreeding to end their game unless they're willing to also "play" the remaining game to more VP's for the player. If opposing player has minions on the table, cards in hand and deck remaining all the withdrawing player needs to state is they're maximizing their VP's by getting 0.5 from withdraw deal instead of conceding as they have no knowledge what their opponent has in hand. 0.5 is more then 0 hence it's play to win. If they do not care for the 0.5 vp, they could just concede even without the other player's agreement on it and it's up to judge to find the way to get more VP's, which inherently is judge playing the game for the player by granting info that the player should not have.

Judge cannot make play to win decisions with knowledge that the player does not have, aka they cannot check both players hands, decks and declare both players can win and therefore need to play to win and finish the game. In that situation, if the "losing player" decides to pack their deck and not follow the judge's order, all the judge can do per the rules is declare that player receives a game loss, aka the same outcome as player is receiving from conceding with the difference that judge has to paperwork AND explain the infraction of not wanting to play a game by showing how they would have won more VP's. Which is night impossible if the player has scooped their ash heap and deck together as any game state is lost at that point.

Hence judges tend to either 1) pay attention to the game to monitor play to win rule following (usually for finals, in addition to just enjoying on seeing other players play) or 2) trust in players judgement on whether or not they can win with their own deck in a given board state where only two players remain unless there's been clear VP fixing (other player out of cards, out of minions, mandatory action locked or similar). But as highlighted in this years EC, spectators should still contact judge if they think something is happening that should not be happening. Even if it does not result in something immediate, there are tools available to sort out if people are fixing final positions or something and patterns can be observed over multiple events.

The Relevant rules
3.5. Conceding Games

Players may concede a game at any time provided all but one of the players agree to concede, and provided it doesn't violate the play to win rule, with the result that game is recorded as if the remaining player had succeeded in ousting the conceding players in sequence. Please note that players who attempt to bribe, coerce, or otherwise improperly induce their opponents to concede will be subject to the appropriate section of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines.
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.

Neither the basic game rules nor the tournament rules enforce or regulate deals made between players. The tournament rules acknowledge deals, however, in that a deal which represents the best interests of the players involved at the time the deal is made is allowed to be honored, even when the normal play to win rule would indicate that a deal should be broken. This only applies to deal that are in the best interests of the players involved at the time the deal is made. That is, it applies only when making the deal is playing to win. (It is also allowable to break such a deal, of course).

During the finals, playing to win means playing to finish as tournament winner (as defined in 3.7.5).

Exception: when only two Methuselahs remain, the tournament rules no longer acknowledge any deals. Prior deals are voided, even if they were play to win when made. When only two Methuselahs remain, both Methuselahs must play to win based only on game state, without regard to any deals.
152. Unsportsmanlike Conduct - Major

Definition:

Major Unsportsmanlike Conduct is defined as behavior that is disruptive to a player or players at the tournament, but does not cause delays or include any form of physical contact or significant emotional distress.

Example:

(A) A player repeatedly calls a judge and argues that an opponent should lose the game for insignificant procedural oversights.

(B) A player fails to obey the instructions of a tournament official.

(C) A player refuses to play a game.

Philosophy:

Different levels of Unsportsmanlike conduct should be penalized accordingly. The head judge is always the final authority on what constitutes Unsportsmanlike conduct and is free to interpret the guidelines as he or she sees fit for the appropriate situation.

Penalty:

Game loss.
Game Loss: A warning is always given with this penalty. If the player is between games, the loss should be applied to the player's next game. A Game Loss is recorded as a loss to all active players and tied with any other players who have a Game Loss. If the penaly occurs in the middle of a game, the judge should award pool and/or Victory Points to the player's Predator, or making other arrangements to preserve game balance for the remaining players, as warranted (possibly awarding partial VPs). Game losses must be communicated to the head judge and the tournament official responsible for the permanent tracking of the warning. Judges must communicate game losses to the player and explain the infraction and possible consequences if the infraction is repeated.

Trust in Jan Pieterzoon.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Joscha

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
Moderators: AnkhaKraus
Time to create page: 0.063 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum