Re: RFC: A problematic situation with the new tournament rules regarding deals

On May 21, 10:06 am, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Please make some comments on the following situation.


Let's see if I have this right. We have...

A -- Dem stealth beed, 2VP
B -- Shambling Hordes, 2 pool
C -- Unknown


It's B's turn. He can smash A's minions. We're meant to feel bad for C
because B can offer A a roll-over deal of sorts, and C can't.

This is a travesty of justice. The no roll-over rule should be
scrapped.

Did I miss anything?

My Comments:

It not clear why B is offering a split deal at all. Why not just smash
A, and use the no-predator-time to go after C. Go for 2-3 VP instead
of 1. Does C have combat defense? Does B have deck that can't oust his
prey?

Let's say, C has combat defense. B needs A to back-oust his prey for
him. Why does it have to be split deal? Why can't B tell A to back-
oust C or get smashed? But wait, if A does back-oust C, won't B untap
and smash A during his turn?

And why does C have to be silent in all this? You act like a roll-over
deal is the only kind of deal there is. C can offer to rescue A's
minions if he declines B's offer. C can offer to tap out bleeding A if
B does the smashing...

In all cases, I don't see where letting players make roll-over deals,
even in your hand-picked scenario, makes the world a better place for
V:tes players.

Disalowing the endgame split forces the players to consider the table
dynamics, the end game table state, and relative capabilities of the
players and their decks. It's called playing the game.

-Ben Swainbank





.

Relevant Pages