Announcing of actions :LSJ:
Blooded Sand
If I declare an action, and do not explicitly state every single
variable in regards to that action, then at any point the action can
be ruled illegal, and has to be reset?
This is could lead to an extremely slippery slope, whereby any action,
insufficiently declared, on purpose, can be taken back and reset.
Which leads to chaos. Or it ends up with people having to read out
every card, every time. This leads to tedium. We are all fairly
intelligent people playing this game (the game is hard enough that if
you are a complete brick for brains, you will most likely never start
playing), so why do we want to chain ourselves with this kind of idiot
proofing? This entire approach smacks to me of the pervasive and
idiotic way political correctness attempts to make everyone equal by
dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
Surely we can find a way where we can play this game without needing
to spoonfeed everyone everything, all the time?
henrik
> Scott, just to clarify what is being said in the Dumb moves thread.
>
> If I declare an action, and do not explicitly state every single
> variable in regards to that action, then at any point the action can
> be ruled illegal, and has to be reset?
If deemed so by the judge, I'd say.
And it should probably not be judged that way unless some special
circumstances came up that made it (more or less) obvious that
something was misplayed in the declaration.
> This is could lead to an extremely slippery slope, whereby any action,
> insufficiently declared, on purpose, can be taken back and reset.
> Which leads to chaos. Or it ends up with people having to read out
> every card, every time. This leads to tedium. We are all fairly
> intelligent people playing this game (the game is hard enough that if
> you are a complete brick for brains, you will most likely never start
> playing), so why do we want to chain ourselves with this kind of idiot
> proofing? This entire approach smacks to me of the pervasive and
> idiotic way political correctness attempts to make everyone equal by
> dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
And, as always, if someone is exploiting rules like you're suggesting,
that should be discussed and dealt with by the judge/s.
So if a player, for instance, keeps announcing xis KRC as a +2 stealth
(D) action, xe should get a warning or something.
> Surely we can find a way where we can play this game without needing
> to spoonfeed everyone everything, all the time?
People can read their cards properly before playing them, and announce
correctly. For the most common cards in the playgroup, I think stating
stuff like "I bleed you with GtU" should be enough. But some cards
should probably be given some more time and notice during the announce
phase, to get around misplays.
If something goes wrong anyway, I think it's up to the judge to decide
how it's dealt with.
Blooded Sand
> On Mar 5, 9:30 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Scott, just to clarify what is being said in the Dumb moves thread.
>
> > If I declare an action, and do not explicitly state every single
> > variable in regards to that action, then at any point the action can
> > be ruled illegal, and has to be reset?
>
> If deemed so by the judge, I'd say.
> And it should probably not be judged that way unless some special
> circumstances came up that made it (more or less) obvious that
> something was misplayed in the declaration.
>
> > This is could lead to an extremely slippery slope, whereby any action,
> > insufficiently declared, on purpose, can be taken back and reset.
> > Which leads to chaos. Or it ends up with people having to read out
> > every card, every time. This leads to tedium. We are all fairly
> > intelligent people playing this game (the game is hard enough that if
> > you are a complete brick for brains, you will most likely never start
> > playing), so why do we want to chain ourselves with this kind of idiot
> > proofing? This entire approach smacks to me of the pervasive and
> > idiotic way political correctness attempts to make everyone equal by
> > dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
>
> And, as always, if someone is exploiting rules like you're suggesting,
> that should be discussed and dealt with by the judge/s.
> So if a player, for instance, keeps announcing xis KRC as a +2 stealth
> (D) action, xe should get a warning or something.
However, according to LSJ in another thread, not announcing KRC as a
+1 stealth political action when played, would mean that the card was
illegally played, and needs to be taken back, because your prey tries
to block with zero intercept, then says that xe did not know it had
stealth, even though Pol Actions are inherently at stealth, thus
making the declaration illegal, and thus the whole play is illegal
>
> > Surely we can find a way where we can play this game without needing
> > to spoonfeed everyone everything, all the time?
>
> People can read their cards properly before playing them, and announce
> correctly. For the most common cards in the playgroup, I think stating
> stuff like "I bleed you with GtU" should be enough. But some cards
> should probably be given some more time and notice during the announce
> phase, to get around misplays.
> If something goes wrong anyway, I think it's up to the judge to decide
> how it's dealt with.
But as explicitly stated by LSJ, no assumptions can be made, and if
made and responded to incorrectly, it counts as an illegal play, thus
allowing take backs, or, even worse, penalisation of the player who
assumes that everyone who plays this game competitively knows what GtU
does.
This leads to all kinds of pedantic nightmares.
James Coupe
>If I declare an action, and do not explicitly state every single
>variable in regards to that action, then at any point the action can
>be ruled illegal, and has to be reset?
No, he's not said that - as has been shown with references to other
posts where this has been discussed before, where he's pointed out that
various players try to undermine the ruling by announcing everything to
the N-th degree. Could you go back and read those? It will aid you,
and prevent you claiming LSJ is saying things he hasn't said.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/50e4464dfe330ee0
The player must announce everything that needs to be announced.
What exactly needs to be announced is primarily a function of
the environment --- the players. If one of the players doesn't
realize that Lucita's ability affects younger vampire's
intercept, then that ability needs to be announced. If someone
doesn't know that Faceless Night will leave them tapped if they
fail to block, then that fact needs to be announced.
and
I've brought this up before, with the result that some players
felt inclined to teach me that this is a Bad Idea (tm) by
announcing everything (the minion's strength, even though it was
the default; the lack of a title, &c.). Killing the game with
tedium, as it were. But, of course, that's not how things are to
be done, either.
You should make sure that the effects are well understood by all
players, which will include explicitly announcing various of them where
you have to make a choice, and reminding players of the existence of
others of them where appropriate.
The appropriate guidance is: don't be a dick. Examples:
- If you're using a Freak Drive Una Happy Fun Time deck and you hunt 76
times in one turn, after the second or third one, you'll almost
certainly be just fine saying "And again..." or "Una hunts..." rather
than spelling out all the details for the thirteenth time.
- When bringing out Arika *again* in a Turbo Arika deck, you probably
don't need to let people know what her disciplines or abilities are,
because they already know from when you first brought her out.
- When acting with Jost Werner, to point out his additional stealth.
Don't be a dick and wait for a player to announce "Wake, Spirit's
Touch" before pointing out the action is at +2 stealth. But
similarly, if you're in the end-game and it's down to 2 Methuselahs
and you're repeatedly trying the same thing each turn (you're hoping
he runs out of 2nd Tradition before you run out of Majesty, to get a
final vote through), it's clearly going to be well understood what's
going on.
- When Angus the Unruled is bounced to your grand-prey, it would be
sensible to point out that Angus has +1 strength. (However, if that
player had had their own Angus burned that game, you can probably skip
it.) Your prey probably doesn't need this pointed out the seventy-
fifth time you bleed/rush with him, however, although if you've just
burned a Disarm, now might be a good time to remind them.
If "Don't be a dick" is too difficult to understand in a fun card game,
sell your cards. Seriously.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
andreas.s...@gmail.com
I agree. The game is getting twisted enough as it is with all these
special rules and situations emerging. Explaining the combat system
these days to a new player is hard enough, and keeping track of what
happens if you play card x when card y is on the table is a pain
already. But now having to announce in detail when doing an
action...its just to much.
People ask of me as prince in my city to hold tournaments and act as
judge. This scares me alot since beeing a judge of vtes today is very
hard imho.
It's a game, a very fun one, can't we keep it that way? Do we have to
break it down into 1000000 rules. If someone complains that you didnt
announce your KRC with +1 stealth, smack him on the head and keep the
game going.
/Andreas
henrik
> However, according to LSJ in another thread, not announcing KRC as a
> +1 stealth political action when played, would mean that the card was
> illegally played, and needs to be taken back, because your prey tries
> to block with zero intercept, then says that xe did not know it had
> stealth, even though Pol Actions are inherently at stealth, thus
> making the declaration illegal, and thus the whole play is illegal
Depends.
If the minion attempting to block was untapped and no cards were
played by the blocking methusaleh, I'd say the action could just go on
without any takebacks or whatever.
If the attempting blocker had played a WWEF or similar, there's a
different story and things would need some more attention.
I'd also advice the blocking methusaleh to, in the future, ask about
stealth and stuff before playing wake cards etc.
> But as explicitly stated by LSJ, no assumptions can be made, and if
> made and responded to incorrectly, it counts as an illegal play, thus
> allowing take backs, or, even worse, penalisation of the player who
> assumes that everyone who plays this game competitively knows what GtU
> does.
There's a difference in "allowing take backs" and "possibly being
taken back by the judge", though. A rather big difference the way I
see it.
But in the end, I'd say that the one playing a card have the
responsibility to make sure that the other players understand it's
effect/s. And if it's made unclear that should be investigated by a
judge and then ruled in some way (be it take backs or whatever).
> This leads to all kinds of pedantic nightmares.
Well, you're leading it there. A combination of announcing and
assuming that the other players knows the basics usually works in my
playgroup.
It there's a new player at the table, I announce stuff more clearly of
course.
Sometimes there are mishaps, but they're usually easily corrected. And
during tournaments people should ask before doing stuff if they're
unsure, to avoid unneeded rewinds of the game state.
LSJ
> Scott, just to clarify what is being said in the Dumb moves thread.
>
> If I declare an action, and do not explicitly state every single
> variable in regards to that action, then at any point the action can
> be ruled illegal, and has to be reset?
To repeat: no.
> This is could lead to an extremely slippery slope, whereby any action,
> insufficiently declared, on purpose, can be taken back and reset.
That would be cheating and should be dealt with as such.
See also: any other intentional misplay.
> Which leads to chaos. Or it ends up with people having to read out
> every card, every time. This leads to tedium. We are all fairly
> intelligent people playing this game (the game is hard enough that if
> you are a complete brick for brains, you will most likely never start
> playing), so why do we want to chain ourselves with this kind of idiot
> proofing? This entire approach smacks to me of the pervasive and
> idiotic way political correctness attempts to make everyone equal by
> dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
It is a way to better gaming, and it happens to deny the "gotcha game" players
some aspects of their game-about-the-game, yes.
> Surely we can find a way where we can play this game without needing
> to spoonfeed everyone everything, all the time?
Surely. No one is suggesting that.
LSJ
> However, according to LSJ in another thread, not announcing KRC as a
> +1 stealth political action when played, would mean that the card was
> illegally played,
No. Playing it an announcing it in such a way that not everyone knows it's at 1
stealth, leaving someone thinking it is at zero stealth, is illegal.
It's a good idea to get into the habit of taking the minuscule amount to time
needed to say "at 1 stealth" to avoid those (very infrequent) occurrences.
> But as explicitly stated by LSJ, no assumptions can be made, and if
No. Assumptions can be made.
It's when those assumptions are wrong that problems pop up, so it's recommended
to get into the habit of not depending on them.
LSJ
> It's a game, a very fun one, can't we keep it that way?
Yes. Indeed, this "rule" is made with an eye on keeping it fun. Playing the
gotcha game-about-the-game is fun for very few people and make the game much
less fun for the others.
brandons...@yahoo.com
I find the "gotcha" element of the game to be one of the more
complicating parts of VTES. Over the course of a game, table effects
and vampires' specials can mount into a patchwork of conflicts and
things that otherwise seriously effect the game. There is a difference
between the "stuff on the table" and game knowledge (i.e. cards have
errata, one card trumps another, specific timing of what can and
cannot be played in what situation), and one could be considered fair
play while the other being "better" at the game. When my parents were
putting together my character sheet, they neglected to give me the
three dots in Bureaucracy that it sometimes takes to manage all of
these elements, but my xp is getting me closer.
What can be done to make effects more obvious while not making the
game too tedious? Some ideas I've heard so far include announcing
effects as they come into play depending on the level of understanding
of the game at the table (i.e. new player, moderately experienced,
coming back after a long break), and how frequently you announce
them.
I would put forward another idea: some kind of board to keep track of
table effects, either for each player or one for the entire game. Some
things, like events with constant effects that don't require movement
would be good candidates. This sort of thing need not be required, but
might be a good idea to try out.
Brandon
brandons...@yahoo.com
I find the "gotcha" element of the game to be one of the more
brandons...@yahoo.com
I find the "gotcha" element of the game to be one of the more
brandons...@yahoo.com
Sorry for double post
librarian
I think what LSJ, Kevin Mergen, Peter Bakija, and Matt Morgan are
saying, in response to Jase, Grail, and Salem from OZ, me from LA, and
you, and others:
This game is suggested for mature players. Not just in that you can see
a picture of 2 naked chicks kissing, or tons of gore being spattered
about; but in the sense that we are mature enough to realize that it's
only a game, and we should have fun. And that we are mature enough to
behave in an adult manner when things go awry, as they can in this very
complex game.
To whit: All reasonable relevant declarations should be made when a card
is played, or an action undertaken. If game state changes (for
instance, the bleed is deflected to someone with a younger sabbat vamp
in Dasein's case), and there are new facts that need to be declared,
they should be declared at that time. (In Dasein's example, his predator
should have said when the bleed was deflected - "you know that Lucita
gives -1 intercept to younger Sabbats, don't you?")
If folks make true mistakes based on improper declaration of game state,
the game should be backed up to the point of poor declaration, proper
declaration made, and then move on. If folks make a mistake in spite of
knowledge of game state, they should live with that mistake. (As in a
case at a qualifier when a methuselah who will remain nameless was
bleeding Ira Fay. Ira had Enkidu with 7 raptors and 6 pool. This
nameless methuselah knew Ira had 6 pool, and chose to bleed with Arika
with Govern the Unaligned. This nameless methuselah also had a
conditioning in hand. However, he chose *not* to play that conditioning,
thinking Arika with Govern - that's a bleed of 6! Do the math again, or
hapless nameless methuselah - Arika +2 bleed, +2 from Govern, it's only
5. Needless to say, said methuselah still lays awake thinking about
it... ahem... so I'm told...).
This is the mature thing to do, allow everyone to have equal footing in
terms of declarations of game state. I have finally come around to what
LSJ et al. are saying - anything else is simply gaming the game, not
playing the game. It's a reasonable way to play. It still keeps
everything fun, and will make us better players because we are doing
complete relevant declarations (In my example of the nameless
methuselah, if I, erm... I mean if HE had declared the bleed correctly,
he would have won the game: "Arika base bleeds for 3, Governs for +2
bleed, for 5 (DI?), plays Seduction on Enkidu so he can't block (DI?),
block with your chump? Ok, plays Cloak the Gathering for +1s, 5 bleed
at +1stealth, Enkidu can't block. Intercept? No? Arika plays
Conditioning, costing her 1 blood for additional bleed of +3, total of 8
bleed. DI? Reduce? No? Good game.)
So anyway, it's a maturity thing ultimately.
best -
chris
LSJ
> This game is suggested for mature players. Not just in that you can see
> a picture of 2 naked chicks kissing, or tons of gore being spattered
> about; but in the sense that we are mature enough to realize that it's
> only a game, and we should have fun. And that we are mature enough to
> behave in an adult manner when things go awry, as they can in this very
> complex game.
>
> To whit: All reasonable relevant declarations should be made when a card
> is played, or an action undertaken. If game state changes (for
> instance, the bleed is deflected to someone with a younger sabbat vamp
> in Dasein's case), and there are new facts that need to be declared,
> they should be declared at that time. (In Dasein's example, his predator
> should have said when the bleed was deflected - "you know that Lucita
> gives -1 intercept to younger Sabbats, don't you?")
Indeed, as the acting Methuselah, I always try to redeclare the action after a
bounce (with the new target, of course), since I have the impulse after the
bounce is played.
B: I Deflect to C.
A: VampA is bleeding C for 2 and younger Sabbat vampires get -1 stealth when
blocking. Do you block?
Juggernaut1981
>
> - Show quoted text -
The issue I'm hearing on the other end of this is mostly from a bunch
of Judges (particularly those from Oz) who are basically wanting a
form of indirect guidance on where the line should exist for them
between ordering a rewind of the game-state and "sucks to be you cause
you did a dumb thing".
What things should they be taking into this decision...
Experience of the Acting Meth?
Experience of the Target Meth?
What level of assumptions were made by the Acting/Target Meth?
For them I think it becomes relevant when they are placed with the
situation of an otherwise experienced Methuselah in a Final having a
colossal brain-fart and having Hesha equipping with Aaron's Feeding
Razor when they have 1 pool left. Or a player (for lack of experience
of the card) didn't know that Hektor's hand-damage is aggravated and
decided to block with a Famous vampire expecting a friendly little
"slap each other and go home" combat instead of "Hektor bins your
vamp, you lose 3 pool and you are now an easy-kill for your Pred".
As a player, I'd like to know what to expect from Judges before you go
asking rulings. I know that each Judge will be slightly different in
their choices (they are humans not computers) but I'd like to know
where they are supposed to draw the line (approximately) between
stupidity and ignorance... in case I end up being the person in the
example above controlling Hektor and accidentally smashing my Cross-
Table out of the game because of their ignorance.
jason...@iinet.net.au
> The issue I'm hearing on the other end of this is mostly from a bunch
> of Judges (particularly those from Oz) who are basically wanting a
> form of indirect guidance on where the line should exist for them
> between ordering a rewind of the game-state and "sucks to be you cause
> you did a dumb thing".
>
> What things should they be taking into this decision...
>
> Experience of the Acting Meth?
> Experience of the Target Meth?
> What level of assumptions were made by the Acting/Target Meth?
This is the rub of it. I'm all for "DON'T BE A D*CK" to be embossed in
gold leaf as rule 1.1 in every rulebook printed from now on. And 99%
of the time, this golden rule is enough.
However, sometimes it simply isn't. And claiming that there is no
advantage to gaming the game, and that we're all mature and nobody is
ever going to do it is just plain ignorant. Particularly at National
Level competition where stakes are high, tempers get higher and
players don't neccessarily know each other.
I want to know where the line is drawn and why, because with my
current understanding of the game and despite my experience, I am
drawing it in a vastly different place than LSJ. If I am judging
badly, i want to correct the situation.
jase
LSJ
> However, sometimes it simply isn't. And claiming that there is no
> advantage to gaming the game, and that we're all mature and nobody is
> ever going to do it is just plain ignorant.
No one is claiming there is no advantage to gaming the game.
Indeed, gaming the game is inherently advantageous to the one gaming it (not to
mention unfair to the player being gamed).
That's why we keep saying not to do it, and instead to play reasonably
(including handling announcements of card plays and actions).
Calling "Oh, but he's got -1 intercept, cause he's a younger Sabbat. Guess you
lose your wake and he burns a blood. Gotcha." is gaming the game.
> I want to know where the line is drawn and why, because with my
> current understanding of the game and despite my experience, I am
> drawing it in a vastly different place than LSJ. If I am judging
> badly, i want to correct the situation.
Excellent. But, of course, there is no black-and-white description of the line
(which would either be incomplete or too lengthy to be useful, and would just
invite more gaming the game in either event).
However, the line has been described quite a bit in this thread and its parent
thread (and in threads that have been linked from them)
Juggernaut1981
LSJ: So the crux of this in your position is "Judges, there is no hard
line, use your opinon"
In the example given, all I am seeing is that a judge would walk over
and say "Congratulations dumbass, you ousted yourself". The card was
from his hand. It was played appropriately by the Methuselah and the
result was to oust himself.
To be brutally honest I don't how that situation is different to one
where I use a Vast Wealth and somehow forget that all my equipment
costs and I don't have the pool to pay for it (thereby ousting myself
because of the "if the minion can use it, they equip it and you pay
for it" ruling on Vast Wealth). The only difference between them is
that the equipment is not in my hand when I Vast Wealth, it WAS in
that Methuselah's hand and presumably they had seen the nice white
"diamond/lozenge" shape on the bottom left of the card with a nice
skull outline and a "1" underneath it.
If you think that a Judge can't assume the player can read the card in
their hand, then please reverse the ruling on Vast Wealth so that if
you cannot pay for the equipment from your library you burn it
instead. Then nobody gets penalised for being an idiot and not having
the pool to cover their stupid equip actions.
LSJ
> To be brutally honest I don't how that situation is different to one
> where I use a Vast Wealth and somehow forget that all my equipment
> costs and I don't have the pool to pay for it
The difference: The equip Razor action was, arguably, announced as a zero-cost
action.
The Vast Wealth action was mis-announced how, exactly?
Juggernaut1981
What I'm stating is:
If its okay to be deemed to have misread a card from my hand (which I
can see) is it okay to be deemed to have forgotten that all the
equipment in my library will oust me after I have used Vast Wealth to
equip?
I may have used Vast Wealth correctly (as the player also did when
equipping with Aaron's Feeding Razor) but I was not aware the cost
would oust me (as was also the case with Aaron's Feeding Razor). So
therefore a judge should do one of the following
a) rewind the action because I was ignorant it would oust me, since I
had presumed I could pay for the equipment and as it turned out I
could not (as was proposed for the Aaron's Feeding Razor situation)
b) allow the action to oust me (because I performed a successful Vast
Wealth action that resulting in my ousting)
I would suggest that option b) is the easiest to consistently enforce
across all play groups in the world. Summarised as "You performed a
successful action, and it ousted you". Option a) places the
responsibility for the action with the Methuselah, because presumably
you know what the cards in your own library do; if you don't then what
the heck are you doing???
Juggernaut1981
That should read Option b) above.
Option a) places responsibility with Judges and creates chances for
inconsistency.
jason...@iinet.net.au
> Calling "Oh, but he's got -1 intercept, cause he's a younger Sabbat. Guess you
> lose your wake and he burns a blood. Gotcha." is gaming the game.
How? Nothing has been hidden from the player, he is in full possession
of all relevant facts. He can at any point stop and take stock of the
situation, before he declares any reaction. If he jumps the gun and
reacts in a way that is disadvatageous to him, and other people point
this out, how is this a "gotcha" scenario?
The player f*cked up. It's tough, but it happens. How is forcing him
to wear the consequences of his error "gaming the game"?
> Excellent. But, of course, there is no black-and-white description of the line
> (which would either be incomplete or too lengthy to be useful, and would just
> invite more gaming the game in either event).
Ok, then please tell me if you consider this a reasonable way to
conduct my tournaments:
*Any card feature that is implicitly described in the rules can be
taken as read, and need not be stated as part of any card play. This
includes but is not limited to the inherint stealth on Political and
Equip actions, the Directed nature of Bleeds, the Undirected nature of
Recruit and Equip actions, etc.
*Any effect which CHANGES the status of cards specifically described
in the rules, such as a Minion ability which increases or decreases
base stealth, or changes the elligibility of blockers, must be stated
as part of playing the card. This statement need not be repeated on
subsequent plays of the same card or same type of card.
*The first time any card is played during the tournament, it's cost
and effect must be read verbatim from the card. This reading need not
be repeated on subsequent plays of the same card.
*The first time any minion enters play, it's full text must be read to
the table, including Sect, Title and special abilities.
*You are expected to know the inherint nature, function, cost and
effects of any card in your own deck.
*At any point in any play, play can be paused and clarification
sought.
*Don't be a d*ck.
Does this sound reasonable?
jase
chr...@comcen.com.au
>
> Excellent. But, of course, there is no black-and-white description of the line
> (which would either be incomplete or too lengthy to be useful, and would just
> invite more gaming the game in either event).
>
I have an example that occurred last night that i'm curious about. My
prey played a Heroic Might without announcing any part of the card
except its name. I had an untapped KRCG and a Patrol in my hand and no
other intercept. I woke with a WWEF but failed to block. Can you
comment on these two interpretations?
1) I was tired and momentarily forgot that Heroic Might was a +3
stealth action and had I known I wouldn't have wasted my WEEF in
attempting to block. Should the action be rewound?
2) I knew that Heroic Might was at +3 stealth but miscalculated the
amount of intercept I could generate. Could I ask for the action to be
rewound? Is that cheating?
Chris.
LSJ
> On Mar 6, 12:58 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> The difference: The equip Razor action was, arguably, announced as a zero-cost
>> action.
>>
>> The Vast Wealth action was mis-announced how, exactly?
>
> What I'm stating is:
> If its okay to be deemed to have misread a card from my hand (which I
> can see) is it okay to be deemed to have forgotten that all the
> equipment in my library will oust me after I have used Vast Wealth to
> equip?
Illegal play is not the same as bad play.
> I may have used Vast Wealth correctly (as the player also did when
> equipping with Aaron's Feeding Razor)
No. The conjecture is that the player did *not* use the Razor correctly.
The other conjecturable option -- bad play *and* with the Razor used correctly
*and* with the Razor's announcement incomplete *and* with the omitted bit
understood (implied) correctly -- is the one your example parallels. They both
get filed under "bad play, sorry you ousted yourself".
Then it's just up to the judge to decide what the declaration was (and implied).
Which leads us back to the fact that it's a good idea to get into the habit of
properly announcing actions and card plays.
> but I was not aware the cost
> would oust me (as was also the case with Aaron's Feeding Razor). So
> therefore a judge should do one of the following
>
> a) rewind the action because I was ignorant it would oust me, since I
> had presumed I could pay for the equipment and as it turned out I
> could not (as was proposed for the Aaron's Feeding Razor situation)
No. This is not an option at all (since you use "ignorant" in there, meaning
that you are not intentionally violating play to win).
> b) allow the action to oust me (because I performed a successful Vast
> Wealth action that resulting in my ousting)
Correct.
> I would suggest that option b) is the easiest to consistently enforce
> across all play groups in the world. Summarised as "You performed a
> successful action, and it ousted you".
Correct.
> [Option b) places the
> responsibility for the action with the Methuselah, because presumably
> you know what the cards in your own library do; if you don't then what
> the heck are you doing???
> Option a) places responsibility with Judges and creates chances for
> inconsistency].
Moot. A is not an option.
LSJ
>> Calling "Oh, but he's got -1 intercept, cause he's a younger Sabbat. Guess you
>> lose your wake and he burns a blood. Gotcha." is gaming the game.
>
> How? Nothing has been hidden from the player, he is in full possession
> of all relevant facts. He can at any point stop and take stock of the
> situation, before he declares any reaction. If he jumps the gun and
> reacts in a way that is disadvatageous to him, and other people point
> this out, how is this a "gotcha" scenario?
>
> The player f*cked up. It's tough, but it happens. How is forcing him
> to wear the consequences of his error "gaming the game"?
It wasn't his error. Certainly not alone, anyway. Primarily it was the error of
the player who didn't properly announce the effect. And, as others have added,
it could also be considered an error on everyone at the table for not correcting
that error.
But all of that has been covered before. If the body of work on the subject is
insufficient to change your mind, I have no secret argument that will.
>> Excellent. But, of course, there is no black-and-white description of the line
>> (which would either be incomplete or too lengthy to be useful, and would just
>> invite more gaming the game in either event).
>
> Ok, then please tell me if you consider this a reasonable way to
> conduct my tournaments:
>
> *Any card feature that is implicitly described in the rules can be
> taken as read, and need not be stated as part of any card play. This
> includes but is not limited to the inherint stealth on Political and
> Equip actions, the Directed nature of Bleeds, the Undirected nature of
> Recruit and Equip actions, etc.
You mean explicitly described in the rules.
And no.
That would violate another thing explicitly described in the rules.
The rules on announcing cards and actions.
> *Any effect which CHANGES the status of cards specifically described
> in the rules, such as a Minion ability which increases or decreases
> base stealth, or changes the elligibility of blockers, must be stated
> as part of playing the card.
That's good. It matches the rules.
> This statement need not be repeated on
> subsequent plays of the same card or same type of card.
Hmm, no. It should be said every time, per the rules. Any card is to be fully
announced when played. First time, second time, and every time.
> *The first time any card is played during the tournament, it's cost
> and effect must be read verbatim from the card. This reading need not
> be repeated on subsequent plays of the same card.
A needless complication and one that violates the explicit rules on announcing
actions and cards. Not necessarily verbatim from the card (which often is less
useful in conveying information than paraphrasing is).
But, in practice, a reasonable rule is to say it when it needs repeating, if the
player cannot remember to say it all the time (it takes an inconsequential
amount of time to do so).
> *The first time any minion enters play, it's full text must be read to
> the table, including Sect, Title and special abilities.
This matches the rules. The rules don't limit it to "first time", though. Any
card, crypt cards included, is to be fully announced when played. "As necessary"
can be appended when players are reasonable.
> *You are expected to know the inherint nature, function, cost and
> effects of any card in your own deck.
This is not a rule. It's a declaration of expectation, with no effect on how the
game is played.
The rule that seems to be the implied target effect of the statement seems only
to provide greater "gotcha"ing.
Beyond the gotcha factor, the implied rule would also make sealed deck and draft
tournaments much harder, as well as making the game very hard for new players to
get into.
> *At any point in any play, play can be paused and clarification
> sought.
This is fine.
But it just runs in the shadow of the primary rule/guideline: the player playing
a card makes sure everyone understands the play.
> *Don't be a d*ck.
This could be rule #0.
> Does this sound reasonable?
Except where noted.
LSJ
> I have an example that occurred last night that i'm curious about. My
> prey played a Heroic Might without announcing any part of the card
> except its name. I had an untapped KRCG and a Patrol in my hand and no
> other intercept. I woke with a WWEF but failed to block. Can you
> comment on these two interpretations?
>
> 1) I was tired and momentarily forgot that Heroic Might was a +3
> stealth action and had I known I wouldn't have wasted my WEEF in
> attempting to block.
Meaning: having not been announced otherwise, you reasonably assumed that the
action was at zero stealth. Or maybe you remembered it has stealth, but thought
it was only one stealth.
> Should the action be rewound?
The action? No. Just rewind to the point where you play the WwEF (pick up the
Wake). Then, with the action properly announced, play on.
> 2) I knew that Heroic Might was at +3 stealth but miscalculated the
> amount of intercept I could generate.
... or made the play hoping to draw more intercept to replace the Patrol.
> Could I ask for the action to be
> rewound? Is that cheating?
No. Yes.
Juggernaut1981
LSJ: Please carefully explain how your conjecture that the Methuselah
with the card sitting there in his hand, fully printed, fully aware of
the rules of the game (i.e. what symbols constitute a pool cost) who
takes the action to equip with the Aaron's Feeding Razor, is not
blocked and at that point realises they cannot pay for the cost, is
anything other than "bad play" rather than an action which is illegal.
From the scenario you could safely assume the player knew the cost of
the card (because they had it in their deck/hand), undertook the
requisite steps to have their minion equip with the card (declared to
undertake an action with a vampire to equip the Aaron's Feeding Razor)
and at the point of paying the pool cost realised they would be
ousted. All I have seen so far regarding that original scenario is
that it was a prime example of foolish play.
LSJ
> LSJ: Please carefully explain how your conjecture that the Methuselah
> with the card sitting there in his hand, fully printed, fully aware of
> the rules of the game (i.e. what symbols constitute a pool cost) who
> takes the action to equip with the Aaron's Feeding Razor, is not
> blocked and at that point realises they cannot pay for the cost, is
> anything other than "bad play" rather than an action which is illegal.
> From the scenario you could safely assume the player knew the cost of
> the card (because they had it in their deck/hand), undertook the
> requisite steps to have their minion equip with the card (declared to
> undertake an action with a vampire to equip the Aaron's Feeding Razor)
> and at the point of paying the pool cost realised they would be
> ousted.
I've done so many times already.
Assuming that he's not intentionally violating play to win, he is either
1) unaware he has only 1 pool *and* is playing the Razor as a 1-pool cost action
*and* the failure to announce that bit is due to the fact he's just assuming it
or simply forgetting to say it.
or
2) unaware he Razor costs 1 pool *and* announces the Razor without stating the
cost because he thinks it costs zero pool and the zero pool doesn't need to be
stated.
You claim that it's clear that the case is 1) since he's "fully aware", yet
don't ever explain how a "fully aware" player can overlook the fact he's at 1
pool when announcing but couldn't possibly overlook the cost of the equipment.
I've seen cases where even good players are sometimes less than "fully aware" of
the rules of the game, and certainly less than that "fully aware" of the cost of
a given card. It happens more frequently toward the end of the gaming marathon
we call a VTES tournament, but it happen even at the start.
> All I have seen so far regarding that original scenario is
> that it was a prime example of foolish play.
Yes. Either by overlooking his 1 pool or by overlooking the cost of the Razor.
The Lasombra
>Assuming that he's not intentionally violating play to win,
Third and final minion takes an action while on 1 pool.
This is a lost position.
Every action is play to win.
Even equipping an Aaron's Feeding Razor.
Juggernaut1981
LSJ: My main point for why it should be treated as a mistake and not
"incorrect play" is straight-forward...
The player had the card in his hand where he could see it, read it and
had every opportunity to be aware of the cost. Ditto for the pool.
Every opportunity to be aware of the position and impacts of the cards
in his hand and his current game-state were there to be seen. Not
reading a card and analysing its resulting effect is bad play, not
automatically incorrect play merely because he would oust himself.
My analogy to Vast Wealth is similar. The player with Vast Wealth is
aware of their pool, the workings of the Vast Wealth card and
presumably of the equipment remaining within their library. If they
forget that all of those cards cost enough pool to oust them, they are
ousted because Vast Wealth was used successfully and they are
mandatorily required to equip the item and pay its cost or as much of
it as they have pool to pay and are then ousted if they end up on 0
pool after making that pool payment.
So, how can a player with more information available to them (the
actual item of equipment there in their hand to see and read as
opposed to the Vast Wealth scenario) be given some mysterious benefit
of the doubt and their foolish action treated as an illegal play
instead of a stupid play.
I would hope that most judges would take the position that the player
who had all information they required to make the decision and chose
to take the action to equip Aaron's Feeding Razor made a stupid play
and not an illegal one.
Or does that lead to another situation where stupid decisions can be
undone by a Judge because their stupidity has violated PtW?
LSJ
> On Mar 7, 4:30 am, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 06:19:45 -0500, LSJ wrote:
>>> Assuming that he's not intentionally violating play to win,
>> Third and final minion takes an action while on 1 pool.
>>
>> This is a lost position.
>>
>> Every action is play to win.
>>
>> Even equipping an Aaron's Feeding Razor.
>
> LSJ: My main point for why it should be treated as a mistake and not
> "incorrect play" is straight-forward...
That's Lasombra you're replying to. Not me.
> The player had the card in his hand where he could see it, read it and
> had every opportunity to be aware of the cost. Ditto for the pool.
> Every opportunity to be aware of the position and impacts of the cards
> in his hand and his current game-state were there to be seen. Not
> reading a card and analysing its resulting effect is bad play,
"Every opportunity" is just a self-serving story one tells oneself in order to
justify playing the "gotcha" game.
It is well known that sometimes players forget or overlook some aspect of a card
or the game environment in front of them. For example, overlooking that the
vampire playing superior Govern has only one level of Dominate is a frequent
occurrence.
Playing superior Govern with a vampire who has only one level of Dominate is
illegal.
So is playing Govern to target a vampire of the same age.
So is playing Embrace with a vampire with only 1 blood.
So is playing Embrace as a 1-blood-costing action with a vampire with 2 blood.
So is playing Razor as a 0-cost action.
None of these illegal plays is allowed. The card drop (illegally played) does
not force the illegal action to be swapped for "Govern bleed at +2 bleed" or to
"Embrace as a 2-blood-costing action" or to "Razor as a 1-pool costing action".
> not
> automatically incorrect play merely because he would oust himself.
No one is claiming it is "automatically" incorrect (meaning illegal) play.
Look for words like arguable and plausible and conjecture and judgment.
> My analogy to Vast Wealth is similar.
Except for the main: that the Vast Wealth example includes no illegal play, not
even arguably illegal play.
> The player with Vast Wealth is
> aware of their pool, the workings of the Vast Wealth card and
> presumably of the equipment remaining within their library. If they
> forget that all of those cards cost enough pool to oust them, they are
> ousted because Vast Wealth was used successfully and they are
> mandatorily required to equip the item and pay its cost or as much of
> it as they have pool to pay and are then ousted if they end up on 0
> pool after making that pool payment.
Yes. And irrelevant to the topic.
> So, how can a player with more information available to them (the
> actual item of equipment there in their hand to see and read as
> opposed to the Vast Wealth scenario) be given some mysterious benefit
> of the doubt and their foolish action treated as an illegal play
> instead of a stupid play.
By illegally playing it.
> I would hope that most judges would take the position that the player
> who had all information they required to make the decision and chose
> to take the action to equip Aaron's Feeding Razor made a stupid play
> and not an illegal one.
I would hope that most judges take the time to find out (or rather, to judge) if
the play was actually illegal rather than turning the illegal play into a
different-but-legal one (both in this case and in the case of playing superior
Govern with a one-level-of-Dominate vampire).
> Or does that lead to another situation where stupid decisions can be
> undone by a Judge because their stupidity has violated PtW?
Strawmen. It isn't about "stupid" or "PTW".
If a vampire with superior Dominate plays superior Govern and the Govern is a
stupid play (and directly and obviously leads immediately to the player being
ousted -- it isn't hard to manufacture an example) and the player would clearly
win if he just bled for +2), the judge shouldn't step in and convert the bad
play to a good one involving the same card.
And if the vampire has only one level of Dominate and announces superior Govern
(leading to self-ousting), the judge again should not step in and convert the
action to the legal +2 bleed. THe judge should step in and bar the illegal play
(backing up to the point of announcement, since that was the illegal play).
And if the situation reversed and the bleed for +2 is the self-ousting play and
the "good" play is superior Govern, and the vampire with one level of Dominate
plays superior Govern, the judge should step in, but not to swap the illegal
play with a legal one, but rather to bar the illegal play (backing up to the
point of announcement).
This is not because of some appeal to "because the +2 bleed would be a stupid
play" nor because of some appeal to "because the +2 bleed would not be PTW"
(both may be true, but are not the reason for the judge to step in), but rather
because of the direct appeal to "because the action announced was illegal".
Same with a Razor action announced as a zero-pool-cost action.
Juggernaut1981
[snipped stuff]
You are making as bold an assumption just as I am.
The under-declared action did not include cost. So your conjecture
that it was announced at "zero-cost" is as valid as any conjecture it
was announced at "one-pool-cost". The simple fact that it is printed
on the card and is in the players hand leads to a conclusion where the
player had more chances to be "aware of the effects" than not.
> If a vampire with superior Dominate plays superior Govern and the Govern is a
> stupid play (and directly and obviously leads immediately to the player being
> ousted -- it isn't hard to manufacture an example) and the player would clearly
> win if he just bled for +2), the judge shouldn't step in and convert the bad
> play to a good one involving the same card.
>
> And if the vampire has only one level of Dominate and announces superior Govern
> (leading to self-ousting), the judge again should not step in and convert the
> action to the legal +2 bleed. THe judge should step in and bar the illegal play
> (backing up to the point of announcement, since that was the illegal play).
>
> And if the situation reversed and the bleed for +2 is the self-ousting play and
> the "good" play is superior Govern, and the vampire with one level of Dominate
> plays superior Govern, the judge should step in, but not to swap the illegal
> play with a legal one, but rather to bar the illegal play (backing up to the
> point of announcement).
>
> This is not because of some appeal to "because the +2 bleed would be a stupid
> play" nor because of some appeal to "because the +2 bleed would not be PTW"
> (both may be true, but are not the reason for the judge to step in), but rather
> because of the direct appeal to "because the action announced was illegal".
We are not talking of a situation where there is an undenyable illegal
play (using Sonar with a vampire who has no [pro], using Psyche! at
[CEL] when the vampire does not have [CEL], untapping after Majesty
when the vampire does not have [PRE]) as in the examples you gave
where the vampire is clearly incapable of performing the action as
declared.
In under-announcing the card, they have created a situation where we
(not having the player to question) must make assumptions about what
they knew or thought. We all agree that the player would have used
the inherent stealth on equip actions, tapped an eligible vampire and
played the card from their hand.
> Same with a Razor action announced as a zero-pool-cost action.
Your conjecture is based upon an assumption of their players thoughts
and thinking (assuming the card was intended to be announced at zero-
cost). Mine is based on the physical elements (the card has a one-
pool cost icon on the left-hand side) and not what I think they were
thinking, since I can't ask them.
> It is well known that sometimes players forget or overlook some aspect of a card
> or the game environment in front of them. For example, overlooking that the
> vampire playing superior Govern has only one level of Dominate is a frequent
> occurrence.
Isn't this the core of bad play? Forgetting, overlooking, assuming
and presuming things?
LSJ
> On Mar 9, 10:20 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>
> [snipped stuff]
>
> You are making as bold an assumption just as I am.
No. I'm not. I'm identifying the various possibilities and saying what do to in
each case.
Case 1: Action illegally announced. Action: rewind.
Case 2: Action legally announced (and no intentional violation of PTW). Action:
none; play on.
> The under-declared action did not include cost. So your conjecture
> that it was announced at "zero-cost" is as valid as any conjecture it
> was announced at "one-pool-cost".
Yes. That's what I've said.
Well, without the assertions that the conjectures are equally likely. Just that
they are options.
> The simple fact that it is printed
> on the card and is in the players hand leads to a conclusion where the
> player had more chances to be "aware of the effects" than not.
Either he was unaware of the cost or he was unaware that he had only one pool.
Why is it only possible that it was the latter and impossible to be the former?
> We are not talking of a situation where there is an undenyable illegal
> play
Right. See also repeated use of "conjecture", "plausible" and "judgment".
> In under-announcing the card, they have created a situation where we
> (not having the player to question) must make assumptions about what
> they knew or thought. We all agree that the player would have used
> the inherent stealth on equip actions, tapped an eligible vampire and
> played the card from their hand.
Exactly. And by not announcing the cost, he either announced a zero-cost action
(illegal action) or an under-announced 1-pool-cost action (under announcing a
legal action).
Which one, exactly, occurred in that particular instance is up to the judge.
As I've said.
>> Same with a Razor action announced as a zero-pool-cost action.
>
> Your conjecture is based upon an assumption of their players thoughts
> and thinking (assuming the card was intended to be announced at zero-
> cost). Mine is based on the physical elements (the card has a one-
> pool cost icon on the left-hand side) and not what I think they were
> thinking, since I can't ask them.
Then you would have no choice but to declare the action illegal, since it
declared no cost (and any cost would have to have been declared, per the rules).
The physical elements (including actual declaration of the action) show no cost
declared.
I allow that players sometimes assume/intend (getting into the player's head)
for some parts of the declaration to be understood (that player attempting to
get into other players' heads).
And, indeed, I also allow that the judge can ask them.
>> It is well known that sometimes players forget or overlook some aspect of a card
>> or the game environment in front of them. For example, overlooking that the
>> vampire playing superior Govern has only one level of Dominate is a frequent
>> occurrence.
>
> Isn't this the core of bad play? Forgetting, overlooking, assuming
> and presuming things?
Yes.
And beyond that, sometimes it also leads to illegal play, whether playing
Embrace as a 1-blood-cost action or Razor as a 0-cost action. The play is still
illegal, even when caused by a player's oversight.