Time to call the Judge?

This post has been rattling around in my head for a few days and I've finally decided to throw it out on the forum and let people respond as they will. V:TES is a great game. Its a complicated game. Its also a game of subtly and BS table talk and sometimes at tournaments, its a tense game even for some of the nicest people one could meet. I've met very few V:TES players that weren't simply good people. Having said that, there is a time and place to call in the judge and ask for a ruling regarding another person's play. Three separate instances happened during Origins that, had it been me sitting at the table, I would have called Kevin immediately. Keep in mind I make no claim to be a great V:TES player and I'm not going to name names in this post. I only wish to lay out the situations so that when these types of situations come up in the future, players will call in a judge for a decision. We're always trying to get new players involved in our area and I'd like them to understand that the judge is an impartial ally to all players. Situation #1: "I have to backoust you. Its the only way I can win." Backousting sucks, but we've all done it from time to time because our predator is too aggressive and they cannot stay in the game if we're to have any chance. Hell, in our Flint metagame, Merlin is a master of recognizing when the backoust (or even a cross table oust) gives him the table. The problem comes when a player never takes a forward action and instead only goes backward. At Origins, I watched this occur. Player X felt his predator (Player Y) was a terrible threat and proceeded to backrush his star vampire until said vampire was torpored. This star vampire was then stolen by Player Y's predator (Player Z). At this point, Player Y brings up a back-up actor and is almost completely helpless, yet Player X continues to backrush, torporing that minion as well. To my knowledge, Player X never took and forward action and Player Z won the table (at one point, ousting Player X with the star vampire he'd stolen from Player Y). Player X was NOT playing to win. It almost seemed oddly grudge-like. V:TES players are required to play to win. Sure, in a no win situation, players can choose how to lose, but a "no win" situation needs to be brutally clear cut. Player Y (or someone else at the table) should have called a judge once Player Y was helpless and Player X continued to move only backward. A reminder from a judge may have at least caused Player X to start moving forward and allowed the table to rebalance and given someone other than Player Z a chance at the table. Situation #2: "I'm not sure, what do you suggest I do?" Table talk is a part of the game. A HUGE part of the game and sometimes its the deciding factor in the game. Its also true that outside coaching is not allowed, but making suggestions to another individual at the table you're playing at is allowed. For that matter, its almost required! Having said that, when one person is, in essence, playing two decks, its time to call the judge. Player X is coaching their grand-prey Player Z, whom they know very well. Again, this occurred at Origins. It was bad enough that one of the players at the table later would tell Player Y (the prey) that they had no chance because Player X was playing both decks. I will be the first to admit there is nothing more upsetting than watching a table fall a particular way because a newer player may have made some bad decisions and gotten run over. We've all been that new player or watched it happen. Still, table talk is not table coaching and again, a reminder from the judge might have reset the table balance so that it was not so dramatically in favor of the coach. Situation #3: "I already have X VPs, so I'm transferring out." Once again, V:TES players are required to play to win and once again, if they cannot win, they may choose how and when to lose, including transferring out. If the game is still very much in question, however, this is against the "play to win" rule. There is no question in the matter. Again in a game at Origins, Player X probably has the most dangerous deck left at the table. His minions have been backrushed and beat up to slow him down and he's taken heavy, cross-table pool damage because his deck is such a threat. Nevertheless, his predator takes very few forward actions and it *appears* there is every chance that he could spend a few turns rebuilding and be right back in the mix. Instead, recognizing that he has two VPs and believing the table will very likely fall to a 2VP-2VP-1VP tie, he transfers out, knowing that in the case of such a tie, he will win by default as the highest ranked player coming into that game. The self oust gives his pred (Player Z) 6 pool and actually sets up Player Z for a 3VP win, which some might call appropriate justice. Still, IMHO, a judge should have been called. Player Y might have been cheated out of a chance for the 3VP win and a decision from the judge would have at least made everyone feel better about the outcome, even if it turned out the same. For the record, IMHO, transferring out is almost always a bad precedent unless the outcome is so completely assured that it is merely saving time. So, have said all that, I want to congratulate all the winners at the Con and say thanks to my fellow players and especially Kevin (and the Ohio crew) for running such a grand event. Same as last year, I had a blast getting my ass kicked repeatedly, I learned a lot and I look forward to next year. Someday, I may even manage a win. ;-) Take care all, Robert Dudock (Prince of Flint, Michigan)

Robert Dudock wrote: [specific situations snipped] > Still, IMHO, a judge should have been called. Rob, I will say that in AT LEAST four cases which were discussed with me afterwards by the table participants themselves, they all chose to allow the possibly-non-PTW behavior rather than call a judge to make a decision for the table regarding the behavior. The reasons for this varied, but since it didn't make any difference to them at the time it happened, or afterward, it didn't bother me. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please bid on my auctions! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

On 5 Juli, 04:09, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Robert Dudock wrote: > > [specific situations snipped] > > > Still, IMHO, a judge should have been called. > > Rob, > I will say that in AT LEAST four cases which were discussed with me > afterwards by the table participants themselves, they all chose > to allow the possibly-non-PTW behavior rather than call a judge > to make a decision for the table regarding the behavior. > > The reasons for this varied, but since it didn't make any difference > to them at the time it happened, or afterward, it didn't bother me. > Kevin M, I don´t understand your answer. What is it you are saying - that you´re not bothered with people not following the rules? I say a judge should be called forth every time rules are broken, or suspected to be broken (ie, all three cases).

On 5 jul, 09:19, "as...@hotmail.com" <henrik.klippst...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Thing is though, that a judge should be called by one of the players playing the game at a certain table. If none of the players think it is necessary to call for a judge, i.e. all of them are fine by the way the game is played, there is no situation that needs a judge. If folks decide to let the game play itself, and thus not being influenced by a decision from a judge (which will likely have some impact on the game), then so be it. I'm sure it's not a matter of Kevin being not bothered by if folks play by the rules, but more so a matter of players being fine with the situation and thus not bother Kevin with ruling questions.

[ quoted text not captured ] Situation #1 "Player X was NOT playing to win" Seems more like player X has badly played, not seing that overkilling his predator would help his grand-predator to win the table. Unless you suspect collusion, I don't see why a judge should be called. Situation #2 "I'm not sure, what do you suggest I do?" If player X is more convincing than others to tell Z what to do, it's part of the game. Convincing new players you don't know is difficult, but not impossible if you give him pieces of advice that are clearly in his favor and explaining him what the consequences of his actions will be. Unless you suspect collusion (since X and Z know each other very well). Situation #3: "I already have X VPs, so I'm transferring out." Unless the player has the GW, this is indeed a violation of the PTW rule.

Mark wrote: > On 5 jul, 09:19, "as...@hotmail.com" <henrik.klippst...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On 5 Juli, 04:09, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote:> Robert >> Dudock wrote: >> >> > [specific situations snipped] >> >> > > Still, IMHO, a judge should have been called. >> >> > Rob, >> > I will say that in AT LEAST four cases which were discussed with me >> > afterwards by the table participants themselves, they all chose >> > to allow the possibly-non-PTW behavior rather than call a judge >> > to make a decision for the table regarding the behavior. >> >> > The reasons for this varied, but since it didn't make any difference >> > to them at the time it happened, or afterward, it didn't bother me. >> >> Kevin M, I don´t understand your answer. What is it you are saying - >> that you´re not bothered with people not following the rules? >> >> I say a judge should be called forth every time rules are broken, or >> suspected to be broken (ie, all three cases). > > Thing is though, that a judge should be called by one of the players > playing the game at a certain table. If none of the players think it > is necessary to call for a judge, i.e. all of them are fine by the way > the game is played, there is no situation that needs a judge. Unless a rule is being broken. In addition to the players, spectators are allowed to call a judge over if they suspect this may be the case. Tournament rule 2.4. "Spectators who believe that they have observed rules violations should inform a judge, but they must not interfere with the game." > If folks decide to let the game play itself, and thus not being > influenced by a decision from a judge (which will likely have some > impact on the game), then so be it. > > I'm sure it's not a matter of Kevin being not bothered by if folks > play by the rules, but more so a matter of players being fine with the > situation and thus not bother Kevin with ruling questions. players are not allowed to let other players get away with breaking the rules, even if they themselves don't really mind. Tournament rules 2.3 makes this explicit, even though it really shouldn't need to be stated: "Players are not permitted to waive penalties on behalf of their opponents. The judge must ensure that the appropriate penalty, if any, is imposed." http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknRules -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)

On Jul 5, 11:55 am, Vincent <v.rip...@gmail.com> wrote: > Situation #1 > "Player X was NOT playing to win" > Seems more like player X has badly played, not seing that overkilling > his predator would help his grand-predator to win the table. > Unless you suspect collusion, I don't see why a judge should be > called. I'd say player X is struggling for survival before attempting to get some VPs. Depending on details that weren't given (pool amount, type of deck predator played, ...) his moves might have been the right ones to do. Playing straightforward or straightbackwards is a way to play the game. I wouldn't be harsh on people because their deck can't handle a weenie bleeder as predator and a swarm vote (or combat) deck as prey. > Situation #2 > "I'm not sure, what do you suggest I do?" > If player X is more convincing than others to tell Z what to do, it's > part of the game. Convincing new players you don't know is difficult, > but not impossible if you give him pieces of advice that are clearly > in his favor and explaining him what the consequences of his actions > will be. > Unless you suspect collusion (since X and Z know each other very > well). Agreed. Also: all players are free to talk. If you notice that someone is getting mind numbed by another player, you might want to tell him what's happening. If the player is lucid, then he'll understand something's wrong about bleeding the prey of the combat deck with Kindred Spirits, and leaving his prey free of move. > > Situation #3: "I already have X VPs, so I'm transferring out." > Unless the player has the GW, this is indeed a violation of the PTW > rule. I disagree. If the player can't get more than the current amount of VPs, he/she's free of choosing the way he/she's ousted. I remember a final in Paris where a player got 2 VPs (it was with a Vignes deck) pretty early. His new prey was playing weenie animalism, and his set up was perfect - there was no way Vignes could oust the animalism guy. On the other side of the table, Vigne's predator was obviously a slow deck, with little pool recuperation, that was bled regularly by the animalism deck. Vignes was first seed. It was obvious the slow deck would die to animalism's bleeds. And that, in the duel, Vignes couldn't oust the animalism deck more than what he could do without predator. The game would end in a 3(animalism)-2(vignes). So, the guy playing Vignes transferred out. It was pretty clear the slow deck couldn't get through the animalism deck, and Vignes won the table without playing anymore. Of course, a judge was present at the table - since this was the final round. In non-final rounds, this would've been a violation of the PTW rule, unless there was no way X could get more VPs (in which case, self- ousting is authorized).

On 5 heinä, 15:41, floppyzedolfin <floppyzedol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So, the guy playing Vignes transferred out. It was pretty clear the > slow deck couldn't get through the animalism deck, and Vignes won the > table without playing anymore. Sounds like Vignes won the tournament, not the table. > Of course, a judge was present at the table - since this was the final > round. > In non-final rounds, this would've been a violation of the PTW rule, > unless there was no way X could get more VPs (in which case, self- > ousting is authorized). AFAIK the PTW rule applies to individual games, not whole tournaments. If playing to win the game conflicts with playing to win the tournament then, as far as rules are concerned, you should still be playing to win the game.

On Jul 5, 8:41 am, floppyzedolfin <floppyzedol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 5, 11:55 am, Vincent <v.rip...@gmail.com> wrote:> Situation #1 > > Situation #3: "I already have X VPs, so I'm transferring out." > > Unless the player has the GW, this is indeed a violation of the PTW > > rule. > > I disagree. Correct. > If the player can't get more than the current amount of > VPs, he/she's free of choosing the way he/she's ousted. True, but non-sequitur. The OP described a situation in which it seemed the player could get more VPs. However, the OP also described a situation which seemed to be a finals: Robert Dudock wrote: > recognizing that he has two VPs and believing the table will > very likely fall to a 2VP-2VP-1VP tie, he transfers out, knowing that > in the case of such a tie, he will win by default as the highest > ranked player coming into that game. If it is a final, then the correct response after "I disagree" is "it's a final." In the finals players are assumed to be playing to win, since they have no competing enticements. > I remember a final in Paris where a player got 2 VPs (it was with a > Vignes deck) pretty early. And your example is also a finals, so the players there are also assumed to be playing to win.

[ quoted text not captured ] The two are the same in a finals, since the tournament rules specify a tie breaker for that final game. If you come in first in the final (after tie-breakers), then you win the tournament. If not, you come in second. Playing to win the final round game is playing to win the tournament. Moreover, with no competing goals, players can be assumed to be playing to win in a finals round (barring other ilegal activity like collusion, bribery, threats, &c).

[ quoted text not captured ] See salems answer, but also: It might be more a case of players not knowing/understanding the rules, then players "being fine".

[ quoted text not captured ] Although I agree with your sentiment here there were also special circumstances why the player transferred out (planes!) and i'm sure they wouldn't have done under normal circumstances. I see your point about player Y being denined an opportunity for GW - but them as LSJ has repeatedly stated once your in the finals barring any cheating/collusion/bribery/madness you're considered to being PTW - that can include getting 2 vps and transferring out in order to win be seeding. It's not great fun to be player Y in this case but hopefully the divine (wizardly) justice meted out on player X makes up for it? :) good to see you and Merlin again Rob - and of course Devin

[ quoted text not captured ] > - Show quoted text - Siutation 1 - missed this but think I got it in a photo...? It happens as this game isn't just numerics it's people and sometimes you can't see the best way out so you drop back to instinctive. It's not (wasn't) illegal play just poor play and not helpful towards the playing with fun attitude every VTES player should aim for. Situation 2 - was a very unpleasant type of situation tbh and I can see why it'd make players very uncomfortable. I'm not sure from my nagle if a judge could have done anything about it as I don't believe there was any collusion more a total understanding of how the deck should be played and what was in it.

On Jul 4, 7:57 pm, Robert Dudock <robba_y...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Again in a game at Origins, Player X probably has the most dangerous > deck left at the table. I'm Player X! I'm going to ship most of the synopsis for brevity's sake. > Instead, recognizing that he has two VPs and believing the table will > very likely fall to a 2VP-2VP-1VP tie, he transfers out, knowing that > in the case of such a tie, he will win by default as the highest > ranked player coming into that game. The self oust gives his pred > (Player Z) 6 pool and actually sets up Player Z for a 3VP win, which > some might call appropriate justice. This is a great example of why I hate the PTW arguments. I was, in fact, playing to win by attempting a strategic self-oust. Since I was sucking horribly during that entire game, I screwed up the self-oust by not taking as many actions against Smiling Jack as possible. This wasn't an example of not PTW. It was an example of why we shouldn't try to legislate (my) bad play. Did I play badly? Absolutely. Had someone called over a judge, and had I explained my strategy in private, the judge wouldn't have been able to explain to me why I was playing badly without inadvertently coaching me, but I really don't think he would have forbidden from self-ousting, either. John Eno

> Did I play badly? Absolutely. Had someone called over a judge, and had > I explained my strategy in private, the judge wouldn't have been able > to explain to me why I was playing badly without inadvertently > coaching me, but I really don't think he would have forbidden from > self-ousting, either. > > John Eno I didn't play to win that final either. Thanks Pentex. Could all this be solved by just adding to tournament rules that in a Final Round, Play to Win also includes doing what is necessary(in game) to win the Final? I've always seen it enforced or discussed like this, but don't see anything in the Tournament Rules that says a Final Round is any different than a prelim for Play to Win.

On 5 heinä, 21:31, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 4, 7:57 pm, Robert Dudock <robba_y...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Again in a game at Origins, Player X probably has the most dangerous > > deck left at the table. > > I'm Player X! > > I'm going to ship most of the synopsis for brevity's sake. > > > Instead, recognizing that he has two VPs and believing the table will > > very likely fall to a 2VP-2VP-1VP tie, he transfers out, knowing that > > in the case of such a tie, he will win by default as the highest > > ranked player coming into that game. The self oust gives his pred > > (Player Z) 6 pool and actually sets up Player Z for a 3VP win, which > > some might call appropriate justice. > > This is a great example of why I hate the PTW arguments. I was, in > fact, playing to win by attempting a strategic self-oust. Since I was > sucking horribly during that entire game, I screwed up the self-oust > by not taking as many actions against Smiling Jack as possible. This > wasn't an example of not PTW. It was an example of why we shouldn't > try to legislate (my) bad play. I don't think the PTW rule is about legislating bad play. It's more about informing players that they shouldn't give up in the middle of the game (outside lost positions) or start pursuing some other goals because that would make the game too unstable to be any fun. The "rule" isn't very enforceable but people usually get the point and follow it voluntarily. This is all that can realistically be accomplished by a PTW rule and while it isn't perfect, it's better than nothing. [ quoted text not captured ]

as...@hotmail.com wrote: > "Kevin M." wrote: >> Robert Dudock wrote: >> [specific situations snipped] >> >>> Still, IMHO, a judge should have been called. >> >> Rob, >> I will say that in AT LEAST four cases which were discussed with >> me afterwards by the table participants themselves, they all chose >> to allow the possibly-non-PTW behavior rather than call a judge >> to make a decision for the table regarding the behavior. >> >> The reasons for this varied, but since it didn't make any >> difference to them at the time it happened, or afterward, >> it didn't bother me. >> > Kevin M, I don´t understand your answer. What is it you are saying - > that you´re not bothered with people not following the rules? I'm saying that I'm not bothered when I hear players choosing amongst themselves one alternative over another, and that they end up satisfied with their own decision without asking for a judge. > I say a judge should be called forth every time rules are broken, > or suspected to be broken (ie, all three cases). If you were at that table and called a judge, that'd have been fine. The players at the tables in my examples dealt with it themselves, and were happy to do so. Why should that bother me? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010, Kushiel wrote: > This is a great example of why I hate the PTW arguments. I was, in > fact, playing to win by attempting a strategic self-oust. Since I was > sucking horribly during that entire game, I screwed up the self-oust > by not taking as many actions against Smiling Jack as possible. This > wasn't an example of not PTW. It was an example of why we shouldn't > try to legislate (my) bad play. > > Did I play badly? Absolutely. Had someone called over a judge, and had > I explained my strategy in private, the judge wouldn't have been able > to explain to me why I was playing badly without inadvertently > coaching me, but I really don't think he would have forbidden from > self-ousting, either. I can confirm that since I was the judge (Kevin appointed me, since he had to run some errands). I understood perfectly what was going on and agree you might have played a bit differently to a possibly better solution. But really. You had two ready minions left with a predator who could block everything forever and your prey just made a move to get you off the table. The self-oust to victory was pretty much the right play. There's no way that I, as judge, would've even spared 2 seconds telling you you can't do that. If somebody had objected, I would have pointed out that I'd been watching the entire game and ruled that there was no illegal play. In a case where a judge wasn't present and the stage had to be set, yeah, you'd probably wind up with some kind of coaching or at least realize that if you really wanted Merlin to win the duel, you should try to mess with Matt a little. Maybe Pentex Cesewayo for Merlin to rough up Matt, then transfer out. Tough to time and Matt could recover, but was probably your best shot at the win and 100% legal. Anyone who doesn't see that is simply failing to grasp PTW.

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010, Obtenebration wrote: > Could all this be solved by just adding to tournament rules that in a > Final Round, Play to Win also includes doing what is necessary(in > game) to win the Final? I've always seen it enforced or discussed > like this, but don't see anything in the Tournament Rules that says a > Final Round is any different than a prelim for Play to Win. This is already the case. It doesn't need to be explicitly stated because clearly the goal of the final game is to win the tournament. It doesn't matter if you win with .5 VPs or 5 VPs.

On 5 Juli, 23:28, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > The players at the tables in my examples dealt with it themselves, > and were happy to do so. Why should that bother me? Because rules were broken, or suspected to be broken.

[ quoted text not captured ] Assuming rules were indeed broken, what do you expect Kevin to do? Making a ruling after the results have been announced/determined would throw the entire tournament into disarray. In addition, what then would the time limit be to report a suspected infringement before it is considered "too late" for a judge to take action. If a spectator/player thinks something wrong is going on during a game, he/she should call for a judge while the game state is still present to be judged. My 0.02 of whichever currency tickles your fancy. - YY

On Jul 6, 5:50 am, YY <the1andonl...@yahoo.com.sg> wrote: > On Jul 6, 4:26 pm, Ashur <ashur.ashur...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 5 Juli, 23:28, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > > > The players at the tables in my examples dealt with it themselves, > > > and were happy to do so. Why should that bother me? > > > Because rules were broken, or suspected to be broken. > > Assuming rules were indeed broken, what do you expect Kevin to do? Expect Kevin to have done? Nothing, of course. There was nothing he could have done. Do now? Be bothered that the players didn't follow the VEKN rules. He invests a lot of time and effort to make Origins VTES a top-notch VTES experience.

[ quoted text not captured ] I fully support John's play in this game. If I was a better vtes player it would all be moot. If someone could remind me of the poor play I made in yet another thread that would be great. Rob, thanks for saying you aren't naming names and then mentioning me in the next goddamn paragraph. Bastard. Backousting can be viable if it's done right. I reserve the right to give shit to any guy who backousts me without winning themselves, or at least making a good show of it. Situation A seems dubious in that regard. -Merlin