Call for judgement

I've had an interesting situation this weekend what got me thinking. So simplified a bit, here is the example - question is, what would You rule if You were called over? 5-player game. Methuselahs pray eachother as A -> B -> C -> D -> E. A bleeds B successfully and gains the edge. B then bleeds C successfully (but the players forget to move the edge marker to represent the correct possessor of the Edge). Neither C, D nor E bleeds successfully (or does any other action that would warrant them getting the edge). During A's untap he adds a pool for having the Edge marker. He passes the round. During B's master phase (after playing a Master card) another player realizes that the Edge marker was not moved during the previous round, and a Judge is called to correct the situation. On one hand, player A added a pool when he shouldn't have, on the other, player B didn't add a pool when he had the option to do so (because due to an earlier mistake he wasn't even aware of the option). What would You rule? Let's assume now that the game state is such that 1 pool doesn't seem to decide the game in any way (e.g. no change would occur in either player's turn other than the modified pool total - e.g. all players having a comfortable pool level and player A not wanting to take any actions this turn anyway due to Millicent, for example), so the judgement should be on principle, and there would be no pressing reason to actually rewind the game state. -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > I've had an interesting situation this weekend what got me thinking. > So simplified a bit, here is the example - question is, what would > You rule if You were called over? > > 5-player game. Methuselahs pray eachother as A -> B -> C -> D -> E. > > A bleeds B successfully and gains the edge. B then bleeds C > successfully (but the players forget to move the edge marker to > represent the correct possessor of the Edge). Neither C, D nor E > bleeds successfully (or does any other action that would warrant > them getting the edge). > > During A's untap he adds a pool for having the Edge marker. He > passes the round. During B's master phase (after playing a Master > card) another player realizes that the Edge marker was not moved > during the previous round, and a Judge is called to correct the > situation. > > On one hand, player A added a pool when he shouldn't have, on the > other, player B didn't add a pool when he had the option to do so > (because due to an earlier mistake he wasn't even aware of the > option). > > What would You rule? A gives back the pool (it was something they would not be able to get). B doesn't get the chance to get one (they failed to gain one for the edge during their untap phase, an optional effect, despite the fact that the edge wasn't in it's true place). *All* players get a verbal caution for not accurately representing the game state, A and B get extra finger-waggling because they were the players most responsible. -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

Daneel wrote: > I've had an interesting situation this weekend what got me thinking. > So simplified a bit, here is the example - question is, what would > You rule if You were called over? > > 5-player game. Methuselahs pray eachother as A -> B -> C -> D -> E. > > A bleeds B successfully and gains the edge. B then bleeds C > successfully (but the players forget to move the edge marker to > represent the correct possessor of the Edge). Neither C, D nor E > bleeds successfully (or does any other action that would warrant > them getting the edge). > > During A's untap he adds a pool for having the Edge marker. He > passes the round. During B's master phase (after playing a Master > card) another player realizes that the Edge marker was not moved > during the previous round, and a Judge is called to correct the > situation. [...] > What would You rule? [...] I would tell player A to move the 1 pool he gained from the Edge back to the blood bank, and I would tell player B that he or she cannot gain 1 pool from the Edge, since it was not optional for him to take the Edge marker when he sucessfully bled, so he actually forgot to gain 1 pool from the Edge, which is optional. I would also issue 1 Caution to the "offenders": Players A and B :-) -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/

Salem wrote: > > A gives back the pool (it was something they would not be able to get). i agree. If the judge was present at the time of the whole incident and has significant reasons to believe that A did this intentionaly (trying to gain 1 pool when he knew that he didn't have the edge) i would give him a "warning". If there is reasonable doubt that A did this on purpose, then a "caution". > B doesn't get the chance to get one (they failed to gain one for the > edge during their untap phase, an optional effect, despite the fact that > the edge wasn't in it's true place). > i agree, gaining 1 pool is optional and is possible only durning the untap phase. > *All* players get a verbal caution for not accurately representing the > game state, A and B get extra finger-waggling because they were the > players most responsible. > agreed on verbal caution. In my opinion this is due to the fact that they let A illegaly gain 1 pool from the edge and not due to the misplaced marker. In my opinion, the players of a table are not obliged by the rules to remind any player that he should have the marker, as long as they know at all times who has the edge. i am not sure if i am correct on this, as it never came up and never had to look it, it is just my personal opinion. I try to explain better what i am trying to say with the following example. e.g. B bleeds and doesn't get the marker, A,C and D say nothing. The marker is misplaced in front of A. When A's turn comes, he doesn't take 1 pool as he knows that he really doesnot have the edge. I don't think that he is obliged to remind to his prey (B) that he has the edge. Why on earth would you want to do such a thing... Maybe, C and D doesn't like either B gaining from the edge, so they don't say anything Forgetting to do things that are optional and give you an advantage is part of the game.

Daneel wrote: > I've had an interesting situation this weekend what got me thinking. > So simplified a bit, here is the example - question is, what would > You rule if You were called over? > > 5-player game. Methuselahs pray eachother as A -> B -> C -> D -> E. > > A bleeds B successfully and gains the edge. B then bleeds C > successfully (but the players forget to move the edge marker to > represent the correct possessor of the Edge). Call this "Time T0" > Neither C, D nor E > bleeds successfully (or does any other action that would warrant > them getting the edge). > > During A's untap he adds a pool for having the Edge marker. He > passes the round. During B's master phase (after playing a Master > card) another player realizes that the Edge marker was not moved > during the previous round, and a Judge is called to correct the > situation. Call this Time T1. That is, at T1, the players note that there was a mistake made back at T0. > On one hand, player A added a pool when he shouldn't have, on the > other, player B didn't add a pool when he had the option to do so > (because due to an earlier mistake he wasn't even aware of the > option). > > What would You rule? Let's assume now that the game state is such > that 1 pool doesn't seem to decide the game in any way (e.g. no > change would occur in either player's turn other than the modified > pool total - e.g. all players having a comfortable pool level and > player A not wanting to take any actions this turn anyway due to > Millicent, for example), so the judgement should be on principle, > and there would be no pressing reason to actually rewind the game > state. If possible, rewind to T0, correct the mistake, then play on from that point (T0). >From the description, that isn't really an option (since several turns have been taken in the meantime). If it seems reasonable, as you state, that all of the activity between T0 and T1 would have been done the same way (i.e., was done independently of the position of the Edge -- would have been done the same way if the Edge had been moved properly), except for A's gaining and B's omission, then just fix those two situations -- A returns the pool he gained and B takes the pool he would have gained.

LSJ wrote: > If it seems reasonable, as you state, that all of the activity between > T0 and T1 would have been done the same way (i.e., was done > independently of the position of the Edge -- would have been done the > same way if the Edge had been moved properly), except for A's gaining > and B's omission, then just fix those two situations -- A returns the > pool he gained and B takes the pool he would have gained. Sorry, i dont agree. B is responsible for not getting the edge. So if he forgets to take a pool for the edge, it is his fault. So I would not allow him to get the pool later.

x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > If it seems reasonable, as you state, that all of the activity between > > T0 and T1 would have been done the same way (i.e., was done > > independently of the position of the Edge -- would have been done the > > same way if the Edge had been moved properly), except for A's gaining > > and B's omission, then just fix those two situations -- A returns the > > pool he gained and B takes the pool he would have gained. > > Sorry, i dont agree. B is responsible for not getting the edge. Every player is responsible for ensuring that the game state is properly maintained. > So if > he forgets to take a pool for the edge, it is his fault. Only if he has the Edge. In this case, the Edge still rested in A's controlled region. Improperly. > So I would not > allow him to get the pool later. Not later, no. Rewinding to the point of the error means that he'll get his chance to get the pool before, not after, though.

tzimisce_dragon wrote: > Salem wrote: > agreed on verbal caution. In my opinion this is due to the fact that > they let A illegaly gain 1 pool from the edge and not due to the > misplaced marker. In my opinion, the players of a table are not obliged > by the rules to remind any player that he should have the marker, as > long as they know at all times who has the edge. i am not sure if i am > correct on this, as it never came up and never had to look it, it is > just my personal opinion. I try to explain better what i am trying to > say with the following example. > > e.g. B bleeds and doesn't get the marker, A,C and D say nothing. The > marker is misplaced in front of A. When A's turn comes, he doesn't take > 1 pool as he knows that he really doesnot have the edge. I don't think > that he is obliged to remind to his prey (B) that he has the edge. Why > on earth would you want to do such a thing... I disagree. Would you let someone leave a minion untapped when it is really tapped, if 'everyone' knew it was really tapped? Misrepresenting the state of play isn't allowed. Noticing a misrepresentation, and not attempting to correct it, should be punished (by a caution the first time, unless they were using it to try and gain a game advantage on purpose, at which point it'd be 'cheating', which bags you a whole heap of trouble). [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Thanks for the quick and thorough reply, LSJ! -- Regards, Daneel

LSJ wrote: > Every player is responsible for ensuring that the game state is > properly maintained. > i agree, but only when something is obligatory. Moving the edge marker is obligatory ? from your answer i guess that it is. Though i believe that it shouldn't be, forgetting things is part of the game. additionaly, a question: A bleeds B and gets the edge, but forgets to put the marker in front of him. So, the marker remains in front of B, B plays. C, plays, D, plays, A, plays (forgetting to get 1 from the edge), though the marker is not infront of him. So, B plays again and anounces that he is going to gain one pool from the edge (mistakenly), immediately C says "you don't have the edge, A has it and the marker is mistakenly in front of you". So, in this case, do you think that a rewind is in order to the point where A forgot to get the marker and put it in front of him ? I definetely believe that the answer is no.

LSJ wrote: > Every player is responsible for ensuring that the game state is > properly maintained. That sounds nice in theory. The practice IMO is different. Example: Lets assume all players forget to notice that the Arrika of Player A has burned all locations of player B. 1st case. Rewinding the game state will not punish players equal. Lets assume it would mostly punish player C (there are enough possibilities why that can happen). It would be absolutely impractical to do that, if all players had forgotten the special of Arrika. 2nd case. You are not able to rewind the game state absolutely. So you have different opportunities how to correct the game. IMO you dont have to choose the oppportunity that is the best for player A because he at first has to remember Arrikas special. In general i would say players are never equal responsible for the game state. The player that played a card or made an action that changed the game state in his own interest is the most responsible. It can not be the case that it is better for him to forget something than to remember. (Forgetting to take the edge, not talking the pool and remembering later would be better than taking the edge and forgetting to take the pool.) Frank

x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Every player is responsible for ensuring that the game state is > > properly maintained. > > That sounds nice in theory. The practice IMO is different. > > Example: Lets assume all players forget to notice that the Arrika of > Player A has burned all locations of player B. > 1st case. Rewinding the game state will not punish players equal. Lets > assume it would mostly punish player C (there are enough possibilities > why that can happen). It would be absolutely impractical to do that, if > all players had forgotten the special of Arrika. > 2nd case. You are not able to rewind the game state absolutely. So you > have different opportunities how to correct the game. IMO you dont have > to choose the oppportunity that is the best for player A because he at > first has to remember Arrikas special. > > In general i would say players are never equal responsible for the game > state. LSJ never said they were equally resonsible, just that they were all responsible. If I play Arika or Leandro, it's my job to make sure that their effects are handled. But it's everyone's job to make sure they get handled correctly. LSJ has also said, time and again, that if rewinding is not possible, the Judge should resolve the error using his best judgement. > The player that played a card or made an action that changed the > game state in his own interest is the most responsible. It can not be > the case that it is better for him to forget something than to > remember. (Forgetting to take the edge, not talking the pool and > remembering later would be better than taking the edge and forgetting > to take the pool.) So, if I play a Last Stand, the card being in play is my responsibility, but the pool loss is not? The pool loss, after all, is not in my own interest. It is in *everyone*'s interest that the game state be represented correctly, therefore it is *everyone*'s responsibility. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

tzimisce_dragon wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Every player is responsible for ensuring that the game state is > > properly maintained. > > i agree, but only when something is obligatory. Moving the edge marker > is > obligatory ? from your answer i guess that it is. Though i believe that > it shouldn't be, > forgetting things is part of the game. Of course it's obligatory. Form or Corruption, for one, would be useless if it were optional. > additionaly, a question: A bleeds B and gets the edge, but forgets to > put the > marker in front of him. So, the marker remains in front of B, B plays. > C, plays, D, plays, A, plays (forgetting to get 1 from the edge), > though the marker is not infront of him. You're treating "He has the Edge" and "the Edge is in his controlled region" as if they are distinct. They are not. A player has the Edge if and only if the Edge is in his controlled region. > So, B plays again and anounces that he is going to gain one pool from > the edge (mistakenly), immediately C says "you don't have the edge, A > has it and the marker is mistakenly in front of you". So, in this case, > do you think that a rewind is in order to the point where A forgot to > get the marker and put it in front of him ? I definetely believe that > the answer is no. Any error is to be corrected, yes. I definitely believe the answer to "illegal play should be corrected?" is yes. The correction should come in the form of a rewind to the point the error was made when practical, and should otherwise maintain the same sort of balance when rewinding is not practical.

x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Every player is responsible for ensuring that the game state is > > properly maintained. > > That sounds nice in theory. The practice IMO is different. The statement of responsibility makes no leins on logistics or other matters that are subject to "practicality" considerations. The statement on responsibility is simply an observation of the absolute truth. > Example: Lets assume all players forget to notice that the Arrika of > Player A has burned all locations of player B. You mean: player B choses to burn all of his locations (choosing not to pay to keep any of them) and somehow forgets to move the burned locations to his ash heap, and no one notices the oversight/cheat? That seems unlikely to be a case of forgetting that the locations have been burned, but more like a case of forgetting to handle Arika's special at all -- forgetting to make the choice. > 1st case. Rewinding the game state will not punish players equal. Lets > assume it would mostly punish player C (there are enough possibilities > why that can happen). It would be absolutely impractical to do that, if > all players had forgotten the special of Arrika. OK. Rewinging isn't mandated by the observation that it is everyone's responsibilty to make sure the game state is properly maintained. > 2nd case. You are not able to rewind the game state absolutely. So you > have different opportunities how to correct the game. IMO you dont have > to choose the oppportunity that is the best for player A because he at > first has to remember Arrikas special. > In general i would say players are never equal responsible for the game > state. In general, they are. The specific cases where they are not equally responsible are cases of cheating and intentional misrepresentation. > The player that played a card or made an action that changed the > game state in his own interest is the most responsible. It can not be > the case that it is better for him to forget something than to > remember. (Forgetting to take the edge, not talking the pool and > remembering later would be better than taking the edge and forgetting > to take the pool.) It is not legal to forget to take the edge, just as it is not legal to forget to give the edge when you are bled. Get in the habit of saying "edge moves" when anyone at your table successfully bleeds.