tournament rules/penalties/etc: LSJ? Robert Goudie?
Joshua Duffin
not just trolling; these are questions I really want to discuss,
as a tournament organizer as well as a player.
I could swear reading not too long ago that, if a player in a
tournament attempts to inadvertently make a play that would
oust her, she is not required to make the play on a "card laid
is a card played" basis. But I can't find the article now.
Anyone else remember this?
If such a rule (against being forced to do something that hurts
you when you didn't realize it would) does exist, how far does
it extend? Suppose a Methuselah is taking a bleed action and,
when her prey attempts to block with a War Ghoul, the bleeding
Meth attempts to play Daring the Dawn to make the action
unblockable, not realizing (despite admittedly clear cardtext)
that this will not prevent the War Ghoul from blocking. The
bleeding Meth is then able to play Day Operation to make the
action entirely unblockable, but her position is clearly
weakened by having played the useless Daring the Dawn. Should
she be allowed to "take it back", or is the rule in this case
that a card laid *is* a card played?
LSJ wrote, on 20010120, that:
> > When does a play in a tournament have to be in your best interest.
>Always. Or at least - in your perceived best interests (since none
>of the players has perfect knowledge of the other players' hands,
>decks, and intentions).
(the > > text is Walter Denny's.)
According to the VEKN Penalty Guidelines, "Players are not
permitted to waive penalties on behalf of their opponents. The
judge must ensure that the appropriate penalty, if any, is
imposed."
This seems to me to imply that, in the situation above, even if
the other players are inclined to allow the bleeding Meth to
"change her mind" about playing the Daring the Dawn, they do not
have the authority to allow it (if in fact such mind-changing is
not permitted by the tournament rules). Does this also apply
to situations such as a player announcing terms for a Kine
Resource Contested and then realizing (or being told) that the
other players won't let the referendum pass under those terms,
but would under others (ie the other players want to negotiate
the terms initially stated)? Are the terms set in stone the
moment they're first stated, or do they remain negotiable until
the vote-calling Methuselah (or all Methuselahs) are willing to
accept that the terms are no longer negotiable?
It would also imply that if a Methuselah forgets to gain a pool
for the Edge during her untap phase, she can't go back and do
it even if the other players are willing to allow her to. Right?
From the VEKN tournament rules: "Players have the right to
request that any person, other than tournament officials, not
observe their game."
Given that "scouting" in earlier rounds is almost always useful
to the finalists (quotes on "scouting" because it is not
prohibited by VEKN rules as far as I can see), should this rule
exist? If you think you might make it to the finals, wouldn't
you benefit from always requesting that no one watch games you're
in (so that they don't get to see what your deck does unless they
actually play against you), but trying to watch other people's
games as much as possible? Even watching them surreptitiously
so that they don't request that *you* not watch *them*? It seems
to me that this kind of thing would have an unpleasant effect on
the mood of the tournament. (At the moment, yes, most players are
"nice" enough that they won't do this kind of thing, but the rules
shouldn't rely on that, I think...)
Thanks in advance for comments, explanations, et cetera.
Josh
VEKN Prince of Washington DC
LSJ
>
> I know, I'm probably reopening a big can of worms here, but I'm
> not just trolling; these are questions I really want to discuss,
> as a tournament organizer as well as a player.
>
> I could swear reading not too long ago that, if a player in a
> tournament attempts to inadvertently make a play that would
> oust her, she is not required to make the play on a "card laid
> is a card played" basis. But I can't find the article now.
> Anyone else remember this?
From the "thing that was discussed not too long ago":
It doesn't matter if it would oust her or not.
There is no "card laid is a card played" rule.
Every card is well-defined when played.
If you play illegally (attempt to play a HG as a 0-pool
cost master or attempt to play a Discpline card on an
ally), then the play is canceled - you do not have to
come up with a legal play for the card - the play was
illegal and so is taken back.
> LSJ wrote, on 20010120, that:
> > > When does a play in a tournament have to be in your best interest.
>
> >Always. Or at least - in your perceived best interests (since none
> >of the players has perfect knowledge of the other players' hands,
> >decks, and intentions).
>
> (the > > text is Walter Denny's.)
>
> According to the VEKN Penalty Guidelines, "Players are not
> permitted to waive penalties on behalf of their opponents. The
> judge must ensure that the appropriate penalty, if any, is
> imposed."
You're mixing two different things: illegal mechanical play
and illegal "unsportsmalike" like (this "mixing" assumes
improperly that you already knew the answer to the "thing
that was discussed not too long ago" question).
>
> This seems to me to imply that, in the situation above, even if
> the other players are inclined to allow the bleeding Meth to
> "change her mind" about playing the Daring the Dawn, they do not
> have the authority to allow it (if in fact such mind-changing is
> not permitted by the tournament rules). Does this also apply
If a card is correctly played, you cannot undo that (without a
canceling effect like Sudden Reversal).
> to situations such as a player announcing terms for a Kine
> Resource Contested and then realizing (or being told) that the
> other players won't let the referendum pass under those terms,
> but would under others (ie the other players want to negotiate
> the terms initially stated)? Are the terms set in stone the
> moment they're first stated, or do they remain negotiable until
> the vote-calling Methuselah (or all Methuselahs) are willing to
> accept that the terms are no longer negotiable?
They're set once they're set. Once set, they cannot be changed.
You are free to discuss the matter prior to setting terms, of course.
> It would also imply that if a Methuselah forgets to gain a pool
> for the Edge during her untap phase, she can't go back and do
> it even if the other players are willing to allow her to. Right?
Exactly.
> From the VEKN tournament rules: "Players have the right to
> request that any person, other than tournament officials, not
> observe their game."
[Snip]
I have nothing to add there.
--
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/
Robert Goudie
news:59b20daa.01102...@posting.google.com...
> I know, I'm probably reopening a big can of worms here, but I'm
> not just trolling; these are questions I really want to discuss,
> as a tournament organizer as well as a player.
Let me see if I can shed some light on this. If I leave something out its
because Scott would be better at answering it.
> I could swear reading not too long ago that, if a player in a
> tournament attempts to inadvertently make a play that would
> oust her, she is not required to make the play on a "card laid
> is a card played" basis. But I can't find the article now.
> Anyone else remember this?
I think I remember. There were some people that made players stick with an
improperly defined card play--LSJ did address this. For example, if I announce
a Golconda on Didi Myers, I am not required to play the card on a different
target based on "a card layed is a card played". An improperly announced or
targeted card play should be picked-up and may or may not be re-announced.
> If such a rule (against being forced to do something that hurts
> you when you didn't realize it would) does exist, how far does
> it extend? Suppose a Methuselah is taking a bleed action and,
> when her prey attempts to block with a War Ghoul, the bleeding
> Meth attempts to play Daring the Dawn to make the action
> unblockable, not realizing (despite admittedly clear cardtext)
> that this will not prevent the War Ghoul from blocking. The
> bleeding Meth is then able to play Day Operation to make the
> action entirely unblockable, but her position is clearly
> weakened by having played the useless Daring the Dawn. Should
> she be allowed to "take it back", or is the rule in this case
> that a card laid *is* a card played?
That's how I'd rule it.
> LSJ wrote, on 20010120, that:
>
> > > When does a play in a tournament have to be in your best interest.
>
> >Always. Or at least - in your perceived best interests (since none
> >of the players has perfect knowledge of the other players' hands,
> >decks, and intentions).
>
> (the > > text is Walter Denny's.)
Ah. The above section is only addressing the issue of "playing to win". While
a player is required to do their best play to win (and benefit themselves),
Scott wasn't intending to create a rule that allows, or requires, players to
take back plays that inadvertantly harm them. Two different subjects.
> According to the VEKN Penalty Guidelines, "Players are not
> permitted to waive penalties on behalf of their opponents. The
> judge must ensure that the appropriate penalty, if any, is
> imposed."
> This seems to me to imply that, in the situation above, even if
> the other players are inclined to allow the bleeding Meth to
> "change her mind" about playing the Daring the Dawn, they do not
> have the authority to allow it (if in fact such mind-changing is
> not permitted by the tournament rules).
Correct.
> Does this also apply
> to situations such as a player announcing terms for a Kine
> Resource Contested and then realizing (or being told) that the
> other players won't let the referendum pass under those terms,
> but would under others (ie the other players want to negotiate
> the terms initially stated)? Are the terms set in stone the
> moment they're first stated
Yes. Players who want to *discuss* terms do it before the action is announced
or they make it clear that they are just discussing the possible terms with the
rest of the table. Once its announced that's it.
> It would also imply that if a Methuselah forgets to gain a pool
> for the Edge during her untap phase, she can't go back and do
> it even if the other players are willing to allow her to. Right?
Right. At GenCon, I played a Secret Horde and meant to say I wanted to put 6
pool and match it with 6 from the bank. I recklessly said that I wanted to put
12 *pool* on it. A player from Los Angeles told me what I had done and I,
without complaint, put my 12 pool on the card and matched it with 12 from the
blood bank. I made a boo boo and I stuck it out.
> From the VEKN tournament rules: "Players have the right to
> request that any person, other than tournament officials, not
> observe their game."
>
> Given that "scouting" in earlier rounds is almost always useful
> to the finalists (quotes on "scouting" because it is not
> prohibited by VEKN rules as far as I can see), should this rule
> exist? If you think you might make it to the finals, wouldn't
> you benefit from always requesting that no one watch games you're
> in (so that they don't get to see what your deck does unless they
> actually play against you), but trying to watch other people's
> games as much as possible? Even watching them surreptitiously
> so that they don't request that *you* not watch *them*? It seems
> to me that this kind of thing would have an unpleasant effect on
> the mood of the tournament. (At the moment, yes, most players are
> "nice" enough that they won't do this kind of thing, but the rules
> shouldn't rely on that, I think...)
I think the lack of a scouting rule is so that players are permitted to watch
the games...as long as no one cares. If someone does care, then they can
request that the spectators be cleared. Also, sometimes the spectators are
commenting on the game or having conversations that slow the whole thing down.
Even without scouting concerns I've seen players or judges clear the area.
> Thanks in advance for comments, explanations, et cetera.
Hope that helps a bit. Also, we've got a document for Los Angeles events that
explains how we will judge some of these issues. It might be of interest to
you. Its at: http://www.vtesinla.org/judgesnotes.htm
Robert Goudie
Chairman, V:EKN
rob...@vtesinla.org
Andrew S. Davidson
>There is no "card laid is a card played" rule.
>Every card is well-defined when played.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Players are misplaying cards like
equipment by putting them in limbo rather than on the minion or in the
ash pile (depending on where you think the cards ought to go before the
action is finally resolved). This sort of informality is not what I'd
call "well-defined". If take-backs are completely verboten then when is
the card actually locked in?
*when revealed
*when laid on the table
*when the inferior/superior choice is announced
*when costs are paid
*only after all the above
And then there are all sorts of misplays which might arise, e.g.
verbally announcing one card but physically playing another; playing two
cards together, etc.
>> From the VEKN tournament rules: "Players have the right to
>> request that any person, other than tournament officials, not
>> observe their game."
>
>I have nothing to add there.
Presumably it's up to the tournament officials what they do about this
request. In some venues, games are played alongside each other and so
scouting opportunities must necessarily arise.
Andrew
Robert Goudie
news:8084AC5CDE058344.3CE05A56...@lp.airnews.net...
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:24:10 -0400, LSJ wrote:
>
> >There is no "card laid is a card played" rule.
> >Every card is well-defined when played.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. Players are misplaying cards like
> equipment by putting them in limbo rather than on the minion or in the
> ash pile (depending on where you think the cards ought to go before the
> action is finally resolved). This sort of informality is not what I'd
> call "well-defined".
Not what he's talking about. Like the other example I gave in a different post.
If you drop a Golconda to the table and announce a Golconda on Didi Myers
(illegal) you are not then required to play the card on a different target just
because you've revealed your intention to play the Golconda. What Scott means
is that players must fully define their actions when they play the card. If the
action is improperly or not fully defined, the player is not bound somehow
because the card was "layed".
> If take-backs are completely verboten then when is
> the card actually locked in?
When its been fully defined.
> *when revealed
No.
> *when laid on the table
No. (unless the accompanying action or play was fully defined by this point)
> *when the inferior/superior choice is announced
No, unless that choice is enough to have fully defined the action.
> *when costs are paid
On actions, the costs are paid when successful so that's definitely out.
> *only after all the above
No.
Showing the Golconda, dropping it to the table, announcing a Bum's Rush (without
yet choosing a target), or paying for a card isn't enough. Once the action has
been fully defined it cannot be retracted.
> And then there are all sorts of misplays which might arise, e.g.
> verbally announcing one card but physically playing another; playing two
> cards together, etc.
Right. And when players announce the Golconda on an invalid target they are
able to put the card back into their hand and re-announce the Golconda card
play. Same resolution for the other examples you gave. Add in a possible
warning for revealing cards from their hand.
--
Andrew S. Davidson
>Right. At GenCon, I played a Secret Horde and meant to say I wanted to put 6
>pool and match it with 6 from the bank. I recklessly said that I wanted to put
>12 *pool* on it. A player from Los Angeles told me what I had done and I,
>without complaint, put my 12 pool on the card and matched it with 12 from the
>blood bank. I made a boo boo and I stuck it out.
I made a similar mistake at the same con. I'd have been willing to live
with it but decided that it was so game-skewing that it was silly and
asked if I could change my mind - everyone seemed fine with it.
Andrew
LSJ
> > for the Edge during her untap phase, she can't go back and do
> > it even if the other players are willing to allow her to. Right?
>
> Right. At GenCon, I played a Secret Horde and meant to say I wanted to put 6
> pool and match it with 6 from the bank. I recklessly said that I wanted to put
> 12 *pool* on it. A player from Los Angeles told me what I had done and I,
> without complaint, put my 12 pool on the card and matched it with 12 from the
> blood bank. I made a boo boo and I stuck it out.
You should've just put 12 counters on it.
Card says to put "2X blood from the blood bank" on it.
If you (or rather, your opponent) wants to get "technical" on the use of the
word "pool", there are plenty of other equally technical "outs" available from
card text to render the play invalid (and then to be redone properly).
"No takebacks" shouldn't be taken into the realm of actively attempting to
pervert someone's play into something it isn't.
LSJ
>
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:24:10 -0400, LSJ wrote:
>
> >There is no "card laid is a card played" rule.
> >Every card is well-defined when played.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by this.
From the rest of the message, snipped from your reply, it should be clear.
The play of a card includes the defining of its effect. If the effect as
defined is not legal, then the play is not legal.
> Players are misplaying cards like
> equipment by putting them in limbo rather than on the minion or in the
> ash pile (depending on where you think the cards ought to go before the
> action is finally resolved). This sort of informality is not what I'd
> call "well-defined".
Different topic.
> If take-backs are completely verboten then when is
> the card actually locked in?
When it is played.
> *when revealed
> *when laid on the table
> *when the inferior/superior choice is announced
> *when costs are paid
> *only after all the above
Defining the effect of the card play as part of the card play locks in the play.
> And then there are all sorts of misplays which might arise, e.g.
> verbally announcing one card but physically playing another; playing two
> cards together, etc.
Exactly. If you lay a "Dodge" on the table while saying (defining the play as)
"Lucky Blow for strength+1 damage", then the play is illegal.
Frederick Scott
>
> "Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
> >
> > If take-backs are completely verboten then when is
> > the card actually locked in?
>
> When it is played.
I think the most succinct answer to Andrew's question, given
what I think is the confusion, is, "When it's played _legally_."
Fred
Joshua Duffin
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > I could swear reading not too long ago that, if a player in a
> > tournament attempts to inadvertently make a play that would
> > oust her, she is not required to make the play on a "card laid
> > is a card played" basis. But I can't find the article now.
> > Anyone else remember this?
>
> From the "thing that was discussed not too long ago":
>
> It doesn't matter if it would oust her or not.
> There is no "card laid is a card played" rule.
> Every card is well-defined when played.
> If you play illegally (attempt to play a HG as a 0-pool
> cost master or attempt to play a Discpline card on an
> ally), then the play is canceled - you do not have to
> come up with a legal play for the card - the play was
> illegal and so is taken back.
OK, I must have misremembered the previous discussion. I
thought you (or Chairman Goudie?) had said that a player who,
for example, announced the play of a Hunting Ground while not
realizing she was at 2 pool, should be allowed to take back
that play because it would oust her. As you said, though,
this seems to confuse being required to "play to win" with
mere play errors: in fact there is no rule against making
foolish decisions, even if they "give away" a VP to another
Methuselah, right? (Though if you were actually doing it
intentionally rather than foolishly, it'd violate the "playing
to win" tournament rule.)
> > According to the VEKN Penalty Guidelines, "Players are not
> > permitted to waive penalties on behalf of their opponents. The
> > judge must ensure that the appropriate penalty, if any, is
> > imposed."
>
> You're mixing two different things: illegal mechanical play
> and illegal "unsportsmalike" like (this "mixing" assumes
> improperly that you already knew the answer to the "thing
> that was discussed not too long ago" question).
:-)
That does make sense. And the other players don't have the
authority to waive penalties (or allow "takebacks") for
either type of offense, right?
> > to situations such as a player announcing terms for a Kine
> > Resource Contested and then realizing (or being told) that the
> > other players won't let the referendum pass under those terms,
> > but would under others (ie the other players want to negotiate
> > the terms initially stated)? Are the terms set in stone the
> > moment they're first stated, or do they remain negotiable until
> > the vote-calling Methuselah (or all Methuselahs) are willing to
> > accept that the terms are no longer negotiable?
>
> They're set once they're set. Once set, they cannot be changed.
> You are free to discuss the matter prior to setting terms, of course.
If the calling Methuselah vocalizes some terms, after all players
agree that the action has not been blocked and is now going to
referendum, and another Methuselah convinces the acting Meth that
those terms are not the ones that ought to be used, can the
acting Meth then decide that she wants to set terms other than
the ones she first described? I think what you've said is, once
the acting Methuselah says "these terms are set", there is no
going back. (And, if the acting Meth names some potential terms
and can't be convinced to alter them, then clearly the terms are
what she says they are.) But if the acting Meth doesn't initially
use the magic phrase "the terms are such-and-such", and then
decides that when she said, "Anson calls a Kine Resources Contested.
No blockers? Three to my prey, one to my grandprey?" she was
asking a question rather than making a statement... well, I guess
what I'm getting at is, do terms ever become nonnegotiable before
the calling Meth says "no more negotiation"? And if so, how do
you (I) know when she's no longer allowed to change her mind?
> > From the VEKN tournament rules: "Players have the right to
> > request that any person, other than tournament officials, not
> > observe their game."
>
> [Snip]
> I have nothing to add there.
Because it's outside your scope as VTES rules authority? I should
take this up with the VEKN, then? You are listed as "Rules
Librarian", you know. :-)
thanks again,
Josh
Joshua Duffin
[snip...]
> Ah. The above section is only addressing the issue of "playing to win". While
> a player is required to do their best play to win (and benefit themselves),
> Scott wasn't intending to create a rule that allows, or requires, players to
> take back plays that inadvertantly harm them. Two different subjects.
Yes, that makes more sense to me now.
[snip some other comments that also make sense to me]
> > From the VEKN tournament rules: "Players have the right to
> > request that any person, other than tournament officials, not
> > observe their game."
> I think the lack of a scouting rule is so that players are permitted to watch
> the games...as long as no one cares. If someone does care, then they can
> request that the spectators be cleared. Also, sometimes the spectators are
> commenting on the game or having conversations that slow the whole thing down.
> Even without scouting concerns I've seen players or judges clear the area.
Sure. Obviously spectators shouldn't be allowed to disrupt the
game. But given how useful it is to know what your potential
opponents in the finals are playing, the "players have the right
to request that any person ... not observe their game" rule seems
to me to invite abuse. Perhaps the disruption-avoidance should
be left in the hands of the judge, instead.
I don't want to see "scouting" prohibited, because VTES players
always want to watch the other games when they're finished with
their own. But if that's going to be allowed at least some of
the time, it seems to me that players shouldn't be able to try
to manipulate it to their advantage.
Of course some players will be "lucky" enough to have played
against all the other finalists in the earlier rounds and thus
know what they're playing without having to watch other games.
And maybe I'm making too much of it. But from my tournament
experience, it certainly seems that the finalists who do know
what to expect are at a substantial advantage over finalists
who don't.
> Hope that helps a bit. Also, we've got a document for Los Angeles events that
> explains how we will judge some of these issues. It might be of interest to
> you. Its at: http://www.vtesinla.org/judgesnotes.htm
Yes, that was definitely interesting. :-)
thanks again,
Josh
LSJ
> mere play errors: in fact there is no rule against making
> foolish decisions, even if they "give away" a VP to another
> Methuselah, right? (Though if you were actually doing it
> intentionally rather than foolishly, it'd violate the "playing
> to win" tournament rule.)
Right.
> That does make sense. And the other players don't have the
> authority to waive penalties (or allow "takebacks") for
> either type of offense, right?
Right.
> > They're set once they're set. Once set, they cannot be changed.
> > You are free to discuss the matter prior to setting terms, of course.
>
> If the calling Methuselah vocalizes some terms, after all players
> agree that the action has not been blocked and is now going to
> referendum, and another Methuselah convinces the acting Meth that
> those terms are not the ones that ought to be used, can the
> acting Meth then decide that she wants to set terms other than
> the ones she first described? I think what you've said is, once
> the acting Methuselah says "these terms are set", there is no
> going back. (And, if the acting Meth names some potential terms
> and can't be convinced to alter them, then clearly the terms are
> what she says they are.) But if the acting Meth doesn't initially
> use the magic phrase "the terms are such-and-such", and then
> decides that when she said, "Anson calls a Kine Resources Contested.
> No blockers? Three to my prey, one to my grandprey?" she was
> asking a question rather than making a statement... well, I guess
> what I'm getting at is, do terms ever become nonnegotiable before
> the calling Meth says "no more negotiation"? And if so, how do
> you (I) know when she's no longer allowed to change her mind?
Another reason I recommend declaring the steps explicitly.
If it's not clear, ask the acting Meth to clarify.
At any rate, once the acting Meth starts voting ("I've got 3 in
favor" or "One to zero, passing"), you can rest assured the terms
are set in stone.
Talo...@hotmail.com
>> There is no "card laid is a card played" rule.
Wouldn't that fall under the 'cant show your cards to other players'
rule?
T
LSJ
Yes.
"accidentally" playing the wrong card on purpose would garner you a penalty
in a tournament.