Can I give VP to someone if I will win anyway ? (LSJ)
Richard Labrecque, aka Khaleph Alendis
I have some questions about the deal making and about the VP
maximising. Some situation :
A) In a game of 5 players, I oust 3 players and so, it's 3VP for me
and I will win the game. Before that and during all that game, the
other last player did not do anything to help me and I can oust that
player realy fast, but I decide to withdraw and so, win 4 VP and let
the last player have 1 VP.
Can I legaly do that? It seem to me that I can not since the VEKN
tournament rule said : «Players must play each game toward the goal
stated in the rulebook of gaining the most victory points in the
current game.»
B) Same situation has A, but this time I decide to let the last player
oust me and so I win with 3 VP and I let the last player have 2 VP.
Can I legaly do that? For the same reason has for situation A, I
think that it's not legal, but I would like to have an official
answer.
C) In a game of 5 players, I oust 2 players. After that, I do to the
last 2 players the offert to play to the limit of time for the game
and so, I will won with 2.5 VP and the last 2 players will have 0.5
VP. I can oust realy fast those last 2 players. Also those players
can probably not do more than that 0.5 VP if they dont agree with me.
Can I legaly do that offert ? Has for the situation A and B, I think
the answer is no, but maybe I'am very wrong.
Note : I dont play like that. I always try to win and to have the
maximum of VP in a game. I never give VP to someone if I can have
them myself. I only ask those questions to clarify the subject since
me and some players that I know dont see that the same way.
Thanks,
Richard Labrecque, aka Khaleph Alendis
VEKN Canada : http://www.oricom.ca/melkor/khaleph/index_ang.htm
LSJ
> A) In a game of 5 players, I oust 3 players and so, it's 3VP for me
> and I will win the game. Before that and during all that game, the
> other last player did not do anything to help me and I can oust that
> player realy fast, but I decide to withdraw and so, win 4 VP and let
> the last player have 1 VP.
>
> Can I legaly do that? It seem to me that I can not since the VEKN
> tournament rule said : «Players must play each game toward the goal
> stated in the rulebook of gaining the most victory points in the
> current game.»
You have the most VPs. You win. How you win is up to you.
> B) Same situation has A, but this time I decide to let the last player
> oust me and so I win with 3 VP and I let the last player have 2 VP.
>
> Can I legaly do that? For the same reason has for situation A, I
> think that it's not legal, but I would like to have an official
> answer.
Yes. You win. So long as you're not working toward out-of-game goals
(not being bribed, etc.), how you win is up to you.
> C) In a game of 5 players, I oust 2 players. After that, I do to the
> last 2 players the offert to play to the limit of time for the game
> and so, I will won with 2.5 VP and the last 2 players will have 0.5
> VP. I can oust realy fast those last 2 players. Also those players
> can probably not do more than that 0.5 VP if they dont agree with me.
> Can I legaly do that offert ? Has for the situation A and B, I think
> the answer is no, but maybe I'am very wrong.
You still win. How you win is up to you.
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
arwall
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3BB0DCE4...@white-wolf.com>...
> "Richard Labrecque, aka Khaleph Alendis" wrote:
> > A) In a game of 5 players, I oust 3 players and so, it's 3VP for me
> > and I will win the game. Before that and during all that game, the
> > other last player did not do anything to help me and I can oust that
> > player realy fast, but I decide to withdraw and so, win 4 VP and let
> > the last player have 1 VP.
> >
> > Can I legaly do that? It seem to me that I can not since the VEKN
> > tournament rule said : «Players must play each game toward the goal
> > stated in the rulebook of gaining the most victory points in the
> > current game.»
>
> You have the most VPs. You win. How you win is up to you.
but doesn't the rules means that you must try to have the maximum of
VP because as it is written i understand that khaleph will have to
oust the players and have 5 VP . no ?
arwall
Stone
"arwall" <arw...@my-deja.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3c5617c7.01092...@posting.google.com...
> but doesn't the rules means that you must try to have the maximum of
> VP because as it is written i understand that khaleph will have to
> oust the players and have 5 VP . no ?
The rules say players must play to win. Having more VP than any other player
is a win. I think the expression "VP maximising" is very misleading. It
should only say "having more VP than anyone else at the end of the game"
IMHO.
Stone
Richard Labrecque, aka Khaleph Alendis
> > B) Same situation has A, but this time I decide to let the last player
> > oust me and so I win with 3 VP and I let the last player have 2 VP.
> >
> > Can I legaly do that? For the same reason has for situation A, I
> > think that it's not legal, but I would like to have an official
> > answer.
>
> Yes. You win. So long as you're not working toward out-of-game goals
> (not being bribed, etc.), how you win is up to you.
Thank you for the answer, but that put an other question on my mind :
How someone can give free VP (without any deal) to an other player
without doing this toward out-of-game goals ?
Can someone outside of the game can ask for a ruling of the judge
about that kind of act ? (Someone that will miss the finale round
because of those 2 free VP by example)
Thank you again,
Richard Labrecque, aka Khaleph Alendis
VEKN Canada : http://www.oricom.ca/melkor/khaleph/index_ang.htm
LSJ
>
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3BB0DCE4...@white-wolf.com>...
> > "Richard Labrecque, aka Khaleph Alendis" wrote:
> > > B) Same situation has A, but this time I decide to let the last player
> > > oust me and so I win with 3 VP and I let the last player have 2 VP.
> > >
> > > Can I legaly do that? For the same reason has for situation A, I
> > > think that it's not legal, but I would like to have an official
> > > answer.
> >
> > Yes. You win. So long as you're not working toward out-of-game goals
> > (not being bribed, etc.), how you win is up to you.
>
> Thank you for the answer, but that put an other question on my mind :
>
> How someone can give free VP (without any deal) to an other player
> without doing this toward out-of-game goals ?
When faced with two paths to winning, you are free to choose one
arbitrarily.
> Can someone outside of the game can ask for a ruling of the judge
> about that kind of act ? (Someone that will miss the finale round
> because of those 2 free VP by example)
Sure. It's very hard to fault the winner for not playing to win,
however.
Frederick Scott
IMNLSJ but if I understand correctly, you _do_ have to attempt to maximize your
number of victory points to the extent that's realistically possible - until you
get to three. At that point, you have guaranteed yourself a win and, as Scott
said, "How you win is up to you."
Fred
Shaun McIsaac
> > Can someone outside of the game can ask for a ruling of the judge
> > about that kind of act ? (Someone that will miss the finale round
> > because of those 2 free VP by example)
> Sure. It's very hard to fault the winner for not playing to win,
> however.
It's not the winner that would necessarily be at fault, but the person
accepting 2 VP. Making a deal which would get you 2VP and someone
else get 3VP would be fine for the person getting 3VP because they are
playing towards a win, but not for the person getting 2VP because they
are playing towards a non-win. If one person already has 3VP, that
person letting someone else get 2 is ok since the game win is already
decided. If they haven't got the 3 yet you should be forced to try
and get the 3. Anything less is collusion, and -- if there's enough
cross-region play -- will lead to a game where teams donate VP to
members to shore up their position in the finals (was a big deal in
magic a few years back; and after realising how bad this would be, the
DCI canned it). Best to avoid it if possible.
LSJ
Quite right. That's the current rule.
The questioner was asking about the winner, not the loser, in the deal.