I have a question about something that came up in my last game in the
First chance qualifier this sunday at the NAC. I was trying to look
for it in the tournament rules and game rules on white-wolf.com but
couldnt find any reference.
The term is something along "misunderstanding the Game State" or
similar to that (sorry, I cant remember the actual wording), and means
that you can request to retract a play if you had misunderstood how a
certain card works.
Situation:
Erol - Me - Aaron - Ben
Erol plays high cap Ventrues with mindrapes and votes+bleed, I play
Brutal influence with a lot of Orun in play.
I am at 13 pool, Aaron is at 8. I have Homa (6 cap) in play with 4
Oruns on him, and Erol plays reigns of power which will effectively
oust my prey for me due to the cap increase from the Oruns.
Now, none of us realised this at first. I noticed it during the action
after Erol had voted for the vote (and also played Freak Drive, which
was a bit premature :) ) but I didnt mention it. Earlier when I
played the Oruns I stated all the effects it had, and a couple of
turns before had mentioned it again, when Erol had tried to mind rape
Homa.
Aaron asked the judge if the play could be taken back and David said
that technically it could, if there is a clear misunderstanding about
cards or effects in play. In the end Erol decided not to take it back
because as he said "I screwed up". We concluded the action and played
on.
If the example was someone stating "Bleeding for 1" with a vampire
that has +1 bleed and therefore bleeds for two, I would never object
to taking the action back, as decisions were based on wrongly given
information.
But when the example is that someone (well, in this case all of us at
first) miss a detail about a card, then I dont think it justifies
taking back the play. When players make a mistake in analysing the
information at hand, but no misinformation was given, then I
personally think it should just be written of as a mistake.
I know that it doesnt make the game very user friendly, but to me part
of the challenge of the game is to not make mistakes. To always know
what the cards do, and to check them if I am in doubt. If my prey has
8 copies of a card in play, I will make damn sure I read what it does.
Now, if there is a rule that means I dont have to focus as much on
that, then maybe I should try to focus on something else. :)
Fortunately it did not mean a lot in the current game as both the
people that lost from it, still ended up in the final, but I disagree
with the rule on a basic level, so I just wanted to run it by everyone
here.
Nikolaj "Lord of the Betrayers" Wendt wrote:
> Erol - Me - Aaron - Ben
> Erol plays high cap Ventrues with mindrapes and votes+bleed, I play
> Brutal influence with a lot of Orun in play.
> I am at 13 pool, Aaron is at 8. I have Homa (6 cap) in play with 4
> Oruns on him, and Erol plays reigns of power which will effectively
> oust my prey for me due to the cap increase from the Oruns.
>
> Now, none of us realised this at first. I noticed it during the action
> after Erol had voted for the vote (and also played Freak Drive, which
> was a bit premature :) ) but I didnt mention it. Earlier when I
> played the Oruns I stated all the effects it had, and a couple of
> turns before had mentioned it again, when Erol had tried to mind rape
> Homa.
>
> Aaron asked the judge if the play could be taken back and David said
> that technically it could, if there is a clear misunderstanding about
> cards or effects in play. In the end Erol decided not to take it back
> because as he said "I screwed up". We concluded the action and played
> on.
Correct.
If you announced each Orun fully as you played it (and had Erol's attention when
you did), and the physical layout of game state (the Orun cards) did not obscure
the presence of the Orun cards on Homa, then there is no violation.
Erol's play was not misannounced or otherwise misplayed, so it stands.
> If the example was someone stating "Bleeding for 1" with a vampire
> that has +1 bleed and therefore bleeds for two, I would never object
> to taking the action back, as decisions were based on wrongly given
> information.
And that's a misplay (by being misannounced). Distinct from your set-up, as you
note.
> But when the example is that someone (well, in this case all of us at
> first) miss a detail about a card, then I dont think it justifies
> taking back the play. When players make a mistake in analysing the
> information at hand, but no misinformation was given, then I
> personally think it should just be written of as a mistake.
Correct.
Nikolaj wrote:
> I have a question about something that came up in my last game in the
> First chance qualifier this sunday at the NAC. I was trying to look
> for it in the tournament rules and game rules on white-wolf.com but
> couldnt find any reference.
>
> The term is something along "misunderstanding the Game State" or
> similar to that (sorry, I cant remember the actual wording), and means
> that you can request to retract a play if you had misunderstood how a
> certain card works.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no such provision, either in the
game rules nor the tournament rules. As long as the game state is
clearly represtented, so that there is nothing hidden or in the wrong
place, it is the players' responsiblity to know what's going on.
--snip description of the situation--
> Now, none of us realised this at first. I noticed it during the action
> after Erol had voted for the vote (and also played Freak Drive, which
> was a bit premature :) ) but I didnt mention it. Earlier when I
> played the Oruns I stated all the effects it had, and a couple of
> turns before had mentioned it again, when Erol had tried to mind rape
> Homa.
It sounds like you did everything you needed to in terms of declaring
the effects of your cards, and that it had clearly already come up.
Any misplays based on a misunderstanding or ignorance of that effect
can only be chalked up to player error, and there is no need for a
rule to protect us from that.
> Aaron asked the judge if the play could be taken back and David said
> that technically it could, if there is a clear misunderstanding about
> cards or effects in play. In the end Erol decided not to take it back
> because as he said "I screwed up". We concluded the action and played
> on.
It sounds to me like David ruled incorrectly, especially since
additional effects had been declared since the mistake was made
(though the play of the Freak Drive doesn't count here, since it was
played illegally).
> If the example was someone stating "Bleeding for 1" with a vampire
> that has +1 bleed and therefore bleeds for two, I would never object
> to taking the action back, as decisions were based on wrongly given
> information.
The difference there is that the acting player declared an illegal
action. Vampires with +1 bleed generally can not legally bleed for 1,
so any declaration that one is doing so doesn't count for anything.
It's not a question of whether or not the acting player is allowed to
take back the bleed; he or she never correctly declared any action to
begin with.
> But when the example is that someone (well, in this case all of us at
> first) miss a detail about a card, then I dont think it justifies
> taking back the play. When players make a mistake in analysing the
> information at hand, but no misinformation was given, then I
> personally think it should just be written of as a mistake.
I agree, and I'm fairly sure the rules do as well.
Jesse
On Oct 7, 8:34 am, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt"
[ quoted text not captured ]
I have heard this phrase used as well, but not during tournaments.
Often times it has come up when someone has left the table (gone to
the bathroom or something) and the other players continue instead of
stopping the clock. When the player returns and asks "What happened?"
all players say He did this, She did that, This was brought out, etc.
with a collective "Got it? OK?" If there are no questions everyone
continues. Then later in the game the player who left the table
earlier plays something and one of the cards put in play while he/she
were away affects his play negatively. Then it starts: GAME STATE!
GAME STATE! I guess I am adding to the question, If a player leaves
the table and play is not stopped for whatever reason (I know this
could be another topic) is everyone "filling in" the player upon his/
her return enough, especially when they say, "OK, no more questions."
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, LSJ wrote:
> Erol's play was not misannounced or otherwise misplayed, so it stands.
I totally agree here, but I'm wondering if sometimes a more complete
action declaration might change things.
Example: it's my turn. An Anarch Revolt is in play. My prey and
grandprey don't control ready anarchs. Each of them has 5 pool and 4
vampires. I have the edge. I want to call an Anarchist Uprising, hoping
to get 2 quick VPs. Unfortunately, I have forgotten about my grandprey's
Jake Washington, so really I'm just giving my prey a VP. Could I do like:
"Walter Nash calls Anarchist Uprising. If this referendum is successful,
my prey and grandprey will each be reduced to 1 pool"? Would a
declaration like that let me take back the vote when my mistake is
realized?
Matt Morgan
[ quoted text not captured ]
I would instead ask how many minions and pool each player had.
Assuming anyone gave an inaccurate response, that would fall under
obfuscated gamestate and you should be allowed to rewind the play and
choose something else based on the accurate gamestate.
If you just mis-added, then there's no reason to allow the rewind.
-witness1
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, witness1 wrote:
> I would instead ask how many minions and pool each player had.
> Assuming anyone gave an inaccurate response, that would fall under
> obfuscated gamestate and you should be allowed to rewind the play and
> choose something else based on the accurate gamestate.
>
> If you just mis-added, then there's no reason to allow the rewind.
Yeah, I'm not really big on rewarding carelessness, myself. I would just
like to have it from the horse's mouth. I can think of two funny stories
where a player (Josh Duffin, to be specific) was punished for bad
counting. In one case, he wanted to Parity Shift his prey, but it turned
out he had the same amount of pool as his prey and he had to Parity Shift
someone else, which of course totally screwed the table up. In another
case, he and my predator were trying to get me ousted with an Anarchist
Uprising and both failed to notice he had an Arms Dealer and the vote was
killing him. Funny stuff.
I observed a game at the NAC (friendly game, I think) in which somebody
tried to Neonate Breach someone for 4, but that player's only small
vampire was in torpor and NB looks for ready, so it wound up being for 1.
"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> writes:
> Yeah, I'm not really big on rewarding carelessness, myself. I would
> just like to have it from the horse's mouth. I can think of two funny
> stories where a player (Josh Duffin, to be specific) was punished for
> bad counting. In one case, he wanted to Parity Shift his prey, but it
> turned out he had the same amount of pool as his prey and he had to
> Parity Shift someone else, which of course totally screwed the table
> up.
That game was wonderful. I was his prey, and made it to day 2 by
winning that game. Poor Josh...
--
Bob Joseph jos...@cse.ohio-state.edu
http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~joseph
[ quoted text not captured ]
I saw someone (cough) at the WoN/NAC use Minion Tap or Villein to, and I quote,
"move this much to my pool" (scooping all but two or three counters from the
target to the card as an indication, rather than risking a miscount).
That's fine, as the amount is part of the declaration and the method employed to
announce the amount was clear.
What you're describing is not part of the declaration of the effect. The effect
to be declared is "lose 1 for each minion".
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, LSJ wrote:
> I saw someone (cough) at the WoN/NAC use Minion Tap or Villein to, and I
> quote, "move this much to my pool" (scooping all but two or three counters
> from the target to the card as an indication, rather than risking a
> miscount).
I'm sure that player had a very good reason for doing that. Maybe the
judge distracted him with the suggestion that he should allow travelling
vtes players to crash at his house only if they throw the NAC championship
to him.
> What you're describing is not part of the declaration of the effect. The
> effect to be declared is "lose 1 for each minion".
Great. That's what I was hoping for.
Matt Morgan
Matthew T. Morgan wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, witness1 wrote:
>>> I would instead ask how many minions and pool each player had.
>> Assuming anyone gave an inaccurate response, that would fall under
>> obfuscated gamestate and you should be allowed to rewind the play and
>> choose something else based on the accurate gamestate.
>>
>> If you just mis-added, then there's no reason to allow the rewind.>
> Yeah, I'm not really big on rewarding carelessness, myself. I would
> just like to have it from the horse's mouth.
When I become a billionaire, I'm going to buy a horse and name him
Luscious Johnson.
best -
chris