What is the official word on the following kinds of procedural errors?
1)Player A controlling Egotha(read) untaps and proceeds with his
minion phase. After several actions he realizeds he didnt ask his
prey to burn a card for Egotha's special abilty. His prey complains
it is too late, Player A maintains that it is a required effect.
2)Player B's minion is tapped out and cannot untap to various effects
(mind numb, mind rape, etc) . He untaps his minion and takes actions
with the minion he would not be able to take, the table doesnt notice
until his turn is over.
In both cases the argument could be that A-its too late to go back, or
B-there was a required effect that should have taken place but the
players forgot.
In a disagreement, is there an official rule, VEKN or otherwise, that
covers this?
<Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3cd88587.197892006@news...
>
> What is the official word on the following kinds of procedural errors?
>
> 1)Player A controlling Egotha(read) untaps and proceeds with his
> minion phase. After several actions he realizeds he didnt ask his
> prey to burn a card for Egotha's special abilty. His prey complains
> it is too late, Player A maintains that it is a required effect.
Whenever possible the turn should be rewound to the point where the error was
made. The mandatory effect is taken care of and then play proceeds as normal.
Unless something significant has taken place that prevents rewinding, that is
how to proceed.
> 2)Player B's minion is tapped out and cannot untap to various effects
> (mind numb, mind rape, etc) . He untaps his minion and takes actions
> with the minion he would not be able to take, the table doesnt notice
> until his turn is over.
Once the table notices, the first thing to try to do would be to rewind the game
back to the point of the error. If that isn't possible, the judge should impose
some other remedy to square the situation.
> In both cases the argument could be that A-its too late to go back,> B-there was a required effect that should have taken place but the
> players forgot.
>
> In a disagreement, is there an official rule, VEKN or otherwise, that
> covers this?
If I understand correctly, it is handled the following way:
1. Rewind to point of error (if possible)
2. Skip back to point of error and pop forward if rewinding isn't possible.
3. Judge imposes another remedy to keep things fair.
The way to handle this is officially how to remedy the situation (unless I've
bungled it in which case LSJ will correct this with the real official answer).
Something to this effect should see print in the next update of the tournament
rules.
-Robert
Robert Goudie
Chairman, V:EKN
rob...@vtesinla.org
"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<b13C8.2396$pc6.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
<snip>
> If I understand correctly, it is handled the following way:
>
> 1. Rewind to point of error (if possible)
> 2. Skip back to point of error and pop forward if rewinding isn't possible.
> 3. Judge imposes another remedy to keep things fair.
>
> The way to handle this is officially how to remedy the situation (unless I've
> bungled it in which case LSJ will correct this with the real official answer).
> Something to this effect should see print in the next update of the tournament
> rules.
related Q:
What if someone plays a card, and then someone on the table notices
that he cannot do this.
The card has been played, so taking in it back in your hand would be
against the rules of showing your hand to the other players.
OTOH making the player reshuffle it in his deck can lead to abuse
(easy cycling when you pretend to play a card you can't.)
And what happens with the card the player drew when he replaced the
misplayed card.
Jeroen
Jeroen wrote:
>
> "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<b13C8.2396$pc6.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> <snip>
> > If I understand correctly, it is handled the following way:
> >
> > 1. Rewind to point of error (if possible)
> > 2. Skip back to point of error and pop forward if rewinding isn't possible.
> > 3. Judge imposes another remedy to keep things fair.
> >
> > The way to handle this is officially how to remedy the situation (unless I've
> > bungled it in which case LSJ will correct this with the real official answer).
> > Something to this effect should see print in the next update of the tournament
> > rules.
>
> related Q:
> What if someone plays a card, and then someone on the table notices
> that he cannot do this.
> The card has been played, so taking in it back in your hand would be
> against the rules of showing your hand to the other players.
Playing the card is against the rules, so the card has not been played.
Rewind to the point of error (issue warnings or other penalties as
necessary) and continue from that (non-error) point, if possible.
If any significant activity has occurred since the error (e.g., someone
played a Wake to block the action which was illegal), then the judge
should make whatever arrangements are necessary to preserve the
integrity of the game (making sure that no player gets any benefit from
the error, esp. the player committing the error).
> OTOH making the player reshuffle it in his deck can lead to abuse
> (easy cycling when you pretend to play a card you can't.)
This would almost never be appropriate.
> And what happens with the card the player drew when he replaced the
> misplayed card.
Shuffled back into the library (unless some other player had reason to
know the identity of that card, in which case some other appropriate
arrangement should be made by the judge).
--
LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
On Wed, 08 May 2002 05:51:03 GMT, "Robert Goudie"
<rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
><Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3cd88587.197892006@news...>>
>> What is the official word on the following kinds of procedural errors?
>>
>> 1)Player A controlling Egotha(read) untaps and proceeds with his
>> minion phase. After several actions he realizeds he didnt ask his
>> prey to burn a card for Egotha's special abilty. His prey complains
>> it is too late, Player A maintains that it is a required effect.>
>Whenever possible the turn should be rewound to the point where the error was
>made. The mandatory effect is taken care of and then play proceeds as normal.
>Unless something significant has taken place that prevents rewinding, that is
>how to proceed.
Ok assume his prey has played and thus drawn cards already in reaction
to Egotha's controllers minion phase. How would you rule?
Have him burn the current top card of his library (which wouldnt have
been the one burnt) or continue play as is?
>>> 2)Player B's minion is tapped out and cannot untap to various effects
>> (mind numb, mind rape, etc) . He untaps his minion and takes actions
>> with the minion he would not be able to take, the table doesnt notice
>> until his turn is over.>
>Once the table notices, the first thing to try to do would be to rewind the game
>back to the point of the error. If that isn't possible, the judge should impose
>some other remedy to square the situation.
>
Assume this person has taken multiple actions and/or his turn is over.
I would think it impossible to go back at this point. Would you void
the effect of the minions action that could not have been taken? Or
would you allow multiple actions to be 'voided' as the controller
might have based his choices on the incorrect situation?
Or neither, and let the situation stand?
>> In both cases the argument could be that A-its too late to go back,
>> B-there was a required effect that should have taken place but the
>> players forgot.
>>
>> In a disagreement, is there an official rule, VEKN or otherwise, that
>> covers this?>
>If I understand correctly, it is handled the following way:
>
>1. Rewind to point of error (if possible)
>2. Skip back to point of error and pop forward if rewinding isn't possible.
>3. Judge imposes another remedy to keep things fair.
>
>The way to handle this is officially how to remedy the situation (unless I've
>bungled it in which case LSJ will correct this with the real official answer).
>Something to this effect should see print in the next update of the tournament
>rules.
>
>-Robert
>
>Robert Goudie
>Chairman, V:EKN
>rob...@vtesinla.org
>
>
I assume those are VEKN rules then? And that the judge is the final
arbiter on wheither rewinds are possible, etc.?
Are partial rewinds allowed?
T
On Wed, 08 May 2002 05:51:03 GMT, "Robert Goudie"
<rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>If I understand correctly, it is handled the following way:
>
>1. Rewind to point of error (if possible)
I guess one of the most relevant question is how do you detemine 'if
possible'?
If either player has played more than 1 card each and/or acted/blocked
with more than 1 minion, its likely not possible. Do you agree? Is
that a useful guideline? Or would you rather leave it to the judges
discretion?
[ quoted text not captured ]
Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote in message news:<3cd9c855.280542856@news>...
> On Wed, 08 May 2002 05:51:03 GMT, "Robert Goudie"
> <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >If I understand correctly, it is handled the following way:
> >
> >1. Rewind to point of error (if possible)
>
> I guess one of the most relevant question is how do you detemine 'if
> possible'?
>
> If either player has played more than 1 card each and/or acted/blocked
> with more than 1 minion, its likely not possible. Do you agree? Is
> that a useful guideline? Or would you rather leave it to the judges
> discretion?
>
In general, this sort of thing is what judges do. They judge things.
They try to keep it fair. Me, I'd love to leave it to the judge.
Lactamaeon
Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote:
> "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> ><Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3cd88587.197892006@news...
> >>
> >> What is the official word on the following kinds of procedural errors?
> >>
> >> 1)Player A controlling Egotha(read) untaps and proceeds with his
> >> minion phase. After several actions he realizeds he didnt ask his
> >> prey to burn a card for Egotha's special abilty. His prey complains
> >> it is too late, Player A maintains that it is a required effect.
> >
> >Whenever possible the turn should be rewound to the point where the error was
> >made. The mandatory effect is taken care of and then play proceeds as normal.
> >Unless something significant has taken place that prevents rewinding, that is
> >how to proceed.
>
> Ok assume his prey has played and thus drawn cards already in reaction
> to Egotha's controllers minion phase. How would you rule?
>
> Have him burn the current top card of his library (which wouldnt have
> been the one burnt) or continue play as is?
That would depend on the (complete) state of the game.
It is the judge's place to rule.
In many situations, simply burning the (current) top card instead
of rewinding would be satifactory, since the library order is random.
The judge would have to factor in variables like whether other
players had knowledge of the order of the top card(s) of the
victim's library.
> >> 2)Player B's minion is tapped out and cannot untap to various effects
> >> (mind numb, mind rape, etc) . He untaps his minion and takes actions
> >> with the minion he would not be able to take, the table doesnt notice
> >> until his turn is over.
> >
> >Once the table notices, the first thing to try to do would be to rewind the game
> >back to the point of the error. If that isn't possible, the judge should impose
> >some other remedy to square the situation.
> >
>
> Assume this person has taken multiple actions and/or his turn is over.
> I would think it impossible to go back at this point. Would you void
Many judges would agree. But again, it is a decision for the judge
to make after examining the evidence of the specific game in question.
> the effect of the minions action that could not have been taken? Or
> would you allow multiple actions to be 'voided' as the controller
> might have based his choices on the incorrect situation?
>
> Or neither, and let the situation stand?
Letting stand would be possible if no one gained a benefit from
letting it stand. Otherwise, other arrangements (untapping
minions, adding/removing blood pool, moving cards between
library hand and ash heap, imposing limits on near-future
activity, etc.) would have to be made to make the situation
as fair as possible.
> >> In both cases the argument could be that A-its too late to go back,
> >> B-there was a required effect that should have taken place but the
> >> players forgot.
> >>
> >> In a disagreement, is there an official rule, VEKN or otherwise, that
> >> covers this?
> >
> >If I understand correctly, it is handled the following way:
> >
> >1. Rewind to point of error (if possible)
> >2. Skip back to point of error and pop forward if rewinding isn't possible.
> >3. Judge imposes another remedy to keep things fair.
> >
> >The way to handle this is officially how to remedy the situation (unless I've
> >bungled it in which case LSJ will correct this with the real official answer).
> >Something to this effect should see print in the next update of the tournament
> >rules.
> >
> >-Robert
> >
> >Robert Goudie
> >Chairman, V:EKN
> >rob...@vtesinla.org
> >
> >
>
> I assume those are VEKN rules then? And that the judge is the final
> arbiter on wheither rewinds are possible, etc.?
Judge is final arbiter on everything.
> Are partial rewinds allowed?
You (the judge, that is) could rewind to a point after the error instead
of rewinding all the way back to the error, if that would be better, sure.
[ quoted text not captured ]
<Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cdac06e.278518990@news...
> On Wed, 08 May 2002 05:51:03 GMT, "Robert Goudie"
> <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> ><Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cd88587.197892006@news...
> >>
> >> What is the official word on the following kinds of procedural errors?
> >>
> >> 1)Player A controlling Egotha(read) untaps and proceeds with his
> >> minion phase. After several actions he realizeds he didnt ask his
> >> prey to burn a card for Egotha's special abilty. His prey complains
> >> it is too late, Player A maintains that it is a required effect.
> >
> >Whenever possible the turn should be rewound to the point where the error
was
> >made. The mandatory effect is taken care of and then play proceeds as
normal.
> >Unless something significant has taken place that prevents rewinding,
that is
> >how to proceed.
>
> Ok assume his prey has played and thus drawn cards already in reaction
> to Egotha's controllers minion phase. How would you rule?
>
> Have him burn the current top card of his library (which wouldnt have
> been the one burnt) or continue play as is?
As you posted elsewhere in this thread, I would (as a judge)
say that in general you can't "rewind" if anything significant
has happened in the game since the error. As a judge, I
don't want to step in and have players pick up multiple cards,
untap their vampires, etc. It's too messy and unlikely to
produce correct results. ("correct" meaning "what would have
happened if everyone had played correctly in the first place".)
In this case, I'd probably rule that Egothha's prey burns the
top card of her library now (not the same one, right) but
Egothha doesn't gain blood if it's a master card (no one
should benefit from the error). Egothha's controller certainly
gets a warning; if you want to instill the idea that everyone
in a game is responsible for making sure the rules are followed,
everyone at the table could get a warning (or caution).
> >> 2)Player B's minion is tapped out and cannot untap to various effects
> >> (mind numb, mind rape, etc) . He untaps his minion and takes actions
> >> with the minion he would not be able to take, the table doesnt notice
> >> until his turn is over.
>> Assume this person has taken multiple actions and/or his turn is over.
> I would think it impossible to go back at this point. Would you void
> the effect of the minions action that could not have been taken? Or
> would you allow multiple actions to be 'voided' as the controller
> might have based his choices on the incorrect situation?
>
> Or neither, and let the situation stand?
I would void the effects of the illegally-untapped minion's
action. No cards get picked up etc. The illegal untapper
gets a warning. You might again want to caution all the other
players at the table for not preventing the illegal action
from taking place.
These kinds of decisions are pretty much entirely up to the
judge. You're right that the VEKN tournament rules don't
give a whole lot of guidance as to exactly what is appropriate;
it's basically just judge's discretion as to how to fix things.
It would be nice if there were more examples and suggestions
about what's appropriate in what kinds of situations in the
VEKN tournament rules (guidelines for judges), and I think the
VEKN is planning to put more in when they get a chance.
> >If I understand correctly, it is handled the following way:
> >
> >1. Rewind to point of error (if possible)
> >2. Skip back to point of error and pop forward if rewinding isn't
possible.
> >3. Judge imposes another remedy to keep things fair.> I assume those are VEKN rules then? And that the judge is the final> arbiter on wheither rewinds are possible, etc.?
>
> Are partial rewinds allowed?
Anything the judge thinks is appropriate is allowed. :-) In
my judging experience, #2 seems to be the most frequently
appropriate solution, since when a judge is called over it's
rare that nothing has happened and it's possible to rewind
and correct the error (#1).
Josh
the honorable judge roughneck presiding
Joshua Duffin wrote:
> <Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message> > Ok assume his prey has played and thus drawn cards already in reaction
> > to Egotha's controllers minion phase. How would you rule?
> >
> > Have him burn the current top card of his library (which wouldnt have
> > been the one burnt) or continue play as is?
>
> As you posted elsewhere in this thread, I would (as a judge)
> say that in general you can't "rewind" if anything significant
> has happened in the game since the error. As a judge, I
> don't want to step in and have players pick up multiple cards,
> untap their vampires, etc. It's too messy and unlikely to
> produce correct results. ("correct" meaning "what would have
> happened if everyone had played correctly in the first place".)
>
> In this case, I'd probably rule that Egothha's prey burns the
> top card of her library now (not the same one, right) but
> Egothha doesn't gain blood if it's a master card (no one
> should benefit from the error).
? How is that a benefit of the error and not merely a benefit of
Egothha's card text? It seems that by not giving him the blood
(if it's a master card), the prey is gaining a benefit from
the error.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3CDA760A...@white-wolf.com...
> Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > <Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > Ok assume his prey has played and thus drawn cards already in reaction
> > > to Egotha's controllers minion phase. How would you rule?
> > >
> > > Have him burn the current top card of his library (which wouldnt have
> > > been the one burnt) or continue play as is?> > In this case, I'd probably rule that Egothha's prey burns the> > top card of her library now (not the same one, right) but
> > Egothha doesn't gain blood if it's a master card (no one
> > should benefit from the error).
>
> ? How is that a benefit of the error and not merely a benefit of
> Egothha's card text? It seems that by not giving him the blood
> (if it's a master card), the prey is gaining a benefit from
> the error.
If Egothha gains a blood, that's good for Egothha's controller.
It's therefore bad for everyone else at the table (not just
prey). We don't know if the error "caused" Egothha to gain
a blood or not because we don't know if Egothha would have
gained a blood if his ability were played correctly.
You're right that I didn't state it properly, though. If
the card that should have been burned and the card that
actually is burned don't match on "is a master card,"
someone has to gain from the error. It's either going to
be "Egothha's controller" or "everyone else depending on
table situation". (In some cases, other players at the
table will also want Egothha to have more blood, but
usually both Egothha's prey and predator won't.) I'd
generally think that it's more important that Egothha's
controller doesn't gain from the error than that others
don't, since it's (first) Egothha's controller's
responsibility to play his ability correctly. But this is
why I might caution/warn *everyone* at the table when this
happens, and not just Egothha's controller. :-)
Josh
error-prone
Joshua Duffin wrote:
>
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
> news:3CDA760A...@white-wolf.com...
> > Joshua Duffin wrote:
> > > <Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > Ok assume his prey has played and thus drawn cards already in reaction
> > > > to Egotha's controllers minion phase. How would you rule?
> > > >
> > > > Have him burn the current top card of his library (which wouldnt have
> > > > been the one burnt) or continue play as is?
>
> > > In this case, I'd probably rule that Egothha's prey burns the
> > > top card of her library now (not the same one, right) but
> > > Egothha doesn't gain blood if it's a master card (no one
> > > should benefit from the error).
> >
> > ? How is that a benefit of the error and not merely a benefit of
> > Egothha's card text? It seems that by not giving him the blood
> > (if it's a master card), the prey is gaining a benefit from
> > the error.
>
> If Egothha gains a blood, that's good for Egothha's controller.
> It's therefore bad for everyone else at the table (not just
> prey). We don't know if the error "caused" Egothha to gain
> a blood or not because we don't know if Egothha would have
> gained a blood if his ability were played correctly.
The error has no effect there (assuming the library is random).
> You're right that I didn't state it properly, though. If
> the card that should have been burned and the card that
> actually is burned don't match on "is a master card,"
> someone has to gain from the error. It's either going to
> be "Egothha's controller" or "everyone else depending on
> table situation". (In some cases, other players at the
Which is the same result as if the error had not occured -
he gains or not (basically) randomly.
Consider a different ability: during your untap phase, flip
a coin. If it's heads, Egothha gains a blood. If it's tails,
no effect.
Now, if you forget this effect, then later catch the error
(but too late to rewind), a "solution" is not to merely
flip a coin, but to flip a coin and apply the effect.
Egothha's controller is not gaining a benefit from the error
- the error hasn't changed anything there. Similarly, Egothha's
actual ability.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message
news:3CDA7D69...@white-wolf.com...
> Joshua Duffin wrote:> > If Egothha gains a blood, that's good for Egothha's controller.
> > It's therefore bad for everyone else at the table (not just
> > prey). We don't know if the error "caused" Egothha to gain
> > a blood or not because we don't know if Egothha would have
> > gained a blood if his ability were played correctly.
>
> The error has no effect there (assuming the library is random).
There's a difference between no effect and an unknown
effect. But not one you can use in practice, no. :-)
> > You're right that I didn't state it properly, though. If
> > the card that should have been burned and the card that
> > actually is burned don't match on "is a master card,"
> > someone has to gain from the error. It's either going to
> > be "Egothha's controller" or "everyone else depending on
> > table situation". (In some cases, other players at the
>
> Which is the same result as if the error had not occured -
> he gains or not (basically) randomly.
>
> Consider a different ability: during your untap phase, flip
> a coin. If it's heads, Egothha gains a blood. If it's tails,
> no effect.
>
> Now, if you forget this effect, then later catch the error
> (but too late to rewind), a "solution" is not to merely
> flip a coin, but to flip a coin and apply the effect.
The difference is, there *is* a correct result for Egothha's
effect. There *was* a correct card to burn and its status
(master card or not) isn't random, it's already known (except
that we don't know which card it was).
Suppose we *do* know which card it was, because we can "count
back" to which card would have been burned at the correct
time. Should we then have Egothha gain blood or not based
on what that card actually is? Or should we just figure that
"the ability is random" and therefore have him gain blood or
not based on the card we actually (incorrectly, to correct for
the error) burn?
> Egothha's controller is not gaining a benefit from the error
> - the error hasn't changed anything there. Similarly, Egothha's
> actual ability.
It's hard to say exactly what is or isn't appropriate. I
guess you're right that prohibiting Egothha from gaining a
blood when later burning a card to correct having missed
the ability is really a "punishment" and not just a
"correction". Still, I might be more comfortable doing it
that way because it *is* a benefit to Egothha's controller
for him to gain a blood, whether random or not.
Josh
exampling
newq...@rose-hulman.edu (lactamaeon) wrote in message news:<786c1f73.02050...@posting.google.com>...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Correct.
A hard and fast number of actions, card plays, or blocks wouldn't be a
useful guideline.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Thu, 09 May 2002 08:57:34 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
wrote:
>>
>> Assume this person has taken multiple actions and/or his turn is over.
>> I would think it impossible to go back at this point. Would you void>
>Many judges would agree. But again, it is a decision for the judge
>to make after examining the evidence of the specific game in question.
>
A specefic example then;
Player A has 5 minions. One has been mindraped so should not untap
this turn. Everyone forgets this and he untaps all minions. He then
bleeds with all minions, 2 of which used a GTU. Player B blocks the
GTU, using a wake in one case, and takes 3 pool loss agains the other
bleeds.
Player B takes his turn, bleeding, rescuing, using the mindraped
minion to bleed and destroy himself with force of will, freak driving,
mindraping....whereapon reading the mindrape card says 'hey....you
could not have bled me with that minion last turn.
I would have ruled that the simplest solution would be the return of
one pool to player B, and that the game had evolved far too much to
return to the point of mistake, partially or fully.
Your opinion on that?
T
Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 09 May 2002 08:57:34 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>> >Many judges would agree. But again, it is a decision for the judge
> >to make after examining the evidence of the specific game in question.
>
> A specefic example then;
No such thing.
You can only give some rough outline of the example.
I can pick this "specific example" apart for you if you like, to
illustrate. LMK.
> Player A has 5 minions. One has been mindraped so should not untap
> this turn. Everyone forgets this and he untaps all minions. He then
> bleeds with all minions, 2 of which used a GTU. Player B blocks the
> GTU, using a wake in one case, and takes 3 pool loss agains the other
> bleeds.
>
> Player B takes his turn, bleeding, rescuing, using the mindraped
> minion to bleed and destroy himself with force of will, freak driving,
> mindraping....whereapon reading the mindrape card says 'hey....you
> could not have bled me with that minion last turn.
>
> I would have ruled that the simplest solution would be the return of
> one pool to player B, and that the game had evolved far too much to
> return to the point of mistake, partially or fully.
>
> Your opinion on that?
My opinion: leave it to the judge.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Thu, 09 May 2002 15:56:39 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
wrote:
>Talo...@nospam.hotmail.com wrote:>> On Thu, 09 May 2002 08:57:34 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com>
>> >Many judges would agree. But again, it is a decision for the judge
>> >to make after examining the evidence of the specific game in question.
>>
>> A specefic example then;>
>No such thing.
>You can only give some rough outline of the example.
>I can pick this "specific example" apart for you if you like, to
>illustrate. LMK.
>>> Player A has 5 minions. One has been mindraped so should not untap
>> this turn. Everyone forgets this and he untaps all minions. He then
>> bleeds with all minions, 2 of which used a GTU. Player B blocks the
>> GTU, using a wake in one case, and takes 3 pool loss agains the other
>> bleeds.
>>
>> Player B takes his turn, bleeding, rescuing, using the mindraped
>> minion to bleed and destroy himself with force of will, freak driving,
>> mindraping....whereapon reading the mindrape card says 'hey....you
>> could not have bled me with that minion last turn.
>>
>> I would have ruled that the simplest solution would be the return of
>> one pool to player B, and that the game had evolved far too much to
>> return to the point of mistake, partially or fully.
>>
>> Your opinion on that?>
>My opinion: leave it to the judge.
>
Well as a judge, Im looking for a little advice on how to rule that
and how other judges would rule that. Please.
T
>The error has no effect there (assuming the library is random).
But then what happens if Egothha's prey knew what he had on top of his library
(i.e. Tusk is ready). And though the top card of his library wasn't a master
card then (or so he claims), it is now?
>Now, if you forget this effect, then later catch the error
>(but too late to rewind), a "solution" is not to merely
>flip a coin, but to flip a coin and apply the effect.
>
>Egothha's controller is not gaining a benefit from the error
>- the error hasn't changed anything there. Similarly, Egothha's
>actual ability.
In addition, things get hazy if people had acted on the assumption that Egothha
hadn't received blood. If I wasted my combat cards (i.e. Lucky Blow) dealing
with Agaitas because I assumed that Crows for 2 and a 1 agg poke would be
enough to deal with an Egothha with 1 blood, then it Egothha's controller would
definitely be getting a benefit from this error (Egothha not being burned). Are
we supposed to rewind through Agaitas' action so I can take the Lucky Blow
back? Or...?
Halcyan 2
Halcyan 2 wrote:
>
> >The error has no effect there (assuming the library is random).
>
> But then what happens if Egothha's prey knew what he had on top of his library
> (i.e. Tusk is ready). And though the top card of his library wasn't a master
> card then (or so he claims), it is now?
Exactly, as I said in previous posts - the whole game state and history
must be considered.
[ quoted text not captured ]