Judging the accidentally showing of a card

There was a discussion about a game at the EC at the conclave. I DONT want to discuss that game again, but i am interested on some comments about one aspect. So here is the abstract case. If the accidentally showing of a card gives the player a big advantage in the game or is a big disadvantage for another player in the game, can the "Correction of game state" include the discarding/reshuffling of the shown card. Thereby not correcting the game state of the cards in hand/on table, but the state, that the other players did not know about the card. Example: The showing of a Delaying tactics causes diffrenet terms on a Parity Shift. So the player who shows the card does not get 5 point damage, but gets 5 pool and another player loses the 5 pool. (I am assuming that it is a big difference if players bluff by saying, they have a DT, like my players always do, or that you really know, if somenone has a DT.) Frank Following are the tournament rules: 114. Procedural Error - Misrepresentation Definition: A player is considered to have committed this infraction when he or she unintentionally misplayed a card or a game rule. Philosophy: This penalty assumes an unintentional action on behalf of the player. If the judge believes the misrepresentation was intentional, see section 160 - Cheating. Penalty: Caution. 200. Correction of Game State It is important that the player committing the infraction receive no benefit in the game for doing so. If no significant game actions have taken place, play should be backed-up to the point of the error. The error should then be corrected and the game should proceed forward from that point. If significant game actions have taken place (such as moving to the next player's turn or knowledge of another player's cards), the judge may choose to leave the game undisturbed or may adjust the game state in some other way (for instance, altering pool or blood levels) since players have made play decisions based on the subsequent state of the game.

x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > There was a discussion about a game at the EC at the conclave. I DONT > want to discuss that game again, but i am interested on some comments > about one aspect. So here is the abstract case. > > If the accidentally showing of a card gives the player a big advantage > in the game or is a big disadvantage for another player in the game, > can the "Correction of game state" include the discarding/reshuffling > of the shown card. Thereby not correcting the game state of the cards > in hand/on table, but the state, that the other players did not know > about the card. This has been discussed in a more abstract state in our little casual play group. Is there, in fact, a rule that states that a methuselah is not permitted to reveal the contents of their hand to other players? i.e. Is it actually contary to any _specific_ rule to simply play with your hand revealed at all times? If so, which one? and is this a Game Rule (i.e. to be found in the rulebook in a starter) or a Tournement Rule? (i.e. may or may not apply to casual play, depending on the tastes of that play group) For example: barring another specific rule, I cannot see how showing the actual content of your hand is "misrepresentation"... We couldn't find such a rule, but then, the rulebook is sadly frequently out of synch with the supposed actual rules of this game. (KMW rulebook, btw) This came up in our group in the case of a defelection being (actually accidentally) dropped from a players hand, changing the predator's bleeding decisions. The discussion was, would it be within the rules to simply hold up your deflection for your predator to see at the beginning of the turn. (you tend to get the benefit of no big bleed until its gone or much later in the flow of the game, which can delay bleed pressure considerably) It'd be nice to actually have an answer for this question, when next it is asked.

rdco...@gmail.com wrote: > Is there, in fact, a rule that states that a methuselah is not > permitted to reveal the contents of their hand to other players? > > i.e. Is it actually contary to any _specific_ rule to simply play with > your hand revealed at all times? If so, which one? and is this a Game > Rule (i.e. to be found in the rulebook in a starter) or a Tournement > Rule? (i.e. may or may not apply to casual play, depending on the > tastes of that play group) > > For example: barring another specific rule, I cannot see how showing > the actual content of your hand is "misrepresentation"... Is there, in fact, a rule that states that a methusealh is not permitted to look at another player's hand any time, even if that player does not want her to? (... _specific_ rule ... If so, which... etc.) Or a rule that states a methuselah may not grab an extra handful of counters and move them to her pool during her discard phase? etc. > We couldn't find such a rule, but then, the rulebook is sadly > frequently out of synch with the supposed actual rules of this game. It is not out of synch currently. The rulebook tells you what you can do. If it listed everything you cannot do, it would be unusable. The concept of "hand" in a card game includes the idea of a "closed hand" by default. You may look at the cards in your hand. [2.3] No allowance is made for other players to do the same, so your hand is closed to them, per the general concept of "hand". -- That is my story, be it bitter or be it sweet. Keep a little and let a little come back to me. LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > If the accidentally showing of a card gives the player a big advantage > in the game or is a big disadvantage for another player in the game, > can the "Correction of game state" include the discarding/reshuffling > of the shown card. Thereby not correcting the game state of the cards > in hand/on table, but the state, that the other players did not know > about the card. > > Example: The showing of a Delaying tactics causes diffrenet terms on a > Parity Shift. So the player who shows the card does not get 5 point > damage, but gets 5 pool and another player loses the 5 pool. (I am > assuming that it is a big difference if players bluff by saying, they > have a DT, like my players always do, or that you really know, if > somenone has a DT.) In this case, the show likely did not represent a big advantage over the (legal) threat of having a DT. Now, if the player intentionally showed the card, that's a different story. In the accidental case, I'd have a hard time ever finding any reason to shuffle the drawn card back. In the intentional case, that would probably be the solution in most cases (in addition to whatever "cheating" penalty is applied). [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > The concept of "hand" in a card game includes the idea of > a "closed hand" by default. This is an assumption: its obviously reasonable to you, but that doesn't make it any less an assumption. > > You may look at the cards in your hand. [2.3] > That was a very short actual answer to my question, for the amount of condecension involved in the post. "Yes: [2.3]: 'You may look at the cards in your hand.' is intended to imply this." would have sufficed, and been more civil. > No allowance is made for other players to do the same, > so your hand is closed to them, per the general concept > of "hand". Based on your pre-existing assumption.

rdco...@gmail.com wrote: > Is there, in fact, a rule that states that a methuselah is not > permitted to reveal the contents of their hand to other players? Tournament rule 4.4. Card Elevation and Disposition Players must keep their cards above the level of the playing surface. Revealing cards in your hand or uncontrolled area to an opponent is not allowed.

rdco...@gmail.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: >>The concept of "hand" in a card game includes the idea of >>a "closed hand" by default. > > This is an assumption: its obviously reasonable to you, but that > doesn't make it any less an assumption. No, it's a simple fact. >>You may look at the cards in your hand. [2.3] > > That was a very short actual answer to my question, for the amount of > condecension involved in the post. No condescension. Just parallel examples to help answer the inquiries. > "Yes: [2.3]: 'You may look at the cards in your hand.' is intended to > imply this." > > would have sufficed, and been more civil. As you like. >>No allowance is made for other players to do the same, >>so your hand is closed to them, per the general concept >>of "hand". > > Based on your pre-existing assumption. Based on the facts. See also the so-called assumption about not being able to grab handfuls of pool. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > >> If the accidentally showing of a card gives the player a big advantage >> in the game or is a big disadvantage for another player in the game, >> can the "Correction of game state" include the discarding/reshuffling >> of the shown card. Thereby not correcting the game state of the cards >> in hand/on table, but the state, that the other players did not know >> about the card. >> >> Example: The showing of a Delaying tactics causes diffrenet terms on a >> Parity Shift. So the player who shows the card does not get 5 point >> damage, but gets 5 pool and another player loses the 5 pool. (I am >> assuming that it is a big difference if players bluff by saying, they >> have a DT, like my players always do, or that you really know, if >> somenone has a DT.) > > > In this case, the show likely did not represent a big advantage over > the (legal) threat of having a DT. > > Now, if the player intentionally showed the card, that's a different > story. > > In the accidental case, I'd have a hard time ever finding any reason > to shuffle the drawn card back. > > In the intentional case, that would probably be the solution in most > cases (in addition to whatever "cheating" penalty is applied). The problem is when you shuffle the DT back it probably rocks the situation in the other direction because the acting player can be sure that the player how showed the DT has no DT (or at least one less) in his hand. Esp. when it comes to votes he can be more confident about setting the terms having one less threat to face. One could argument that that is a penalty for the player who showed the card intentionally and therefore fitting his mistake. But esp. in the case of votes the real effect might tangle other players who didn´t have any part in the showing of the card. In short: Usually I am very against shuffling cards from hand to deck (he might even draw a D.I/Confusion of the Eye ... instead of the DT which could be much better), better find a solution where you prohibit the change of terms in result to the showing of the card. -- johannes walch

<rdco...@gmail.com> wrote > > This has been discussed in a more abstract state in our little casual > play group. <snippers> > We couldn't find such a rule, but then, the rulebook is sadly > frequently out of synch with the supposed actual rules of this game. > (KMW rulebook, btw) I think that your confusion may exist because the rules for casual play, ie the rulebook are not 100% the same as the VEKN rules for tournaments. Although, as LSJ says, the rulebook sort of implies the don't show your hand thing, there's nothing stopping you from playing with open hands, as there are no judges. We often teach new players that way. See also: proxies. In a sanctioned VEKN tournament, the rules are more explicit. These rules can be referenced from the White Wolf website, somewhere. It explicitly mentions that you cannot show your hand to other players. However, please note that showing the cards in your hand is very different from saying what is in your hand, which is perfectly legal in a tournament, and a great way to bluff. Cheers, WES

LSJ wrote: > x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > > Example: The showing of a Delaying tactics causes diffrenet terms on a > > Parity Shift. So the player who shows the card does not get 5 point > > damage, but gets 5 pool and another player loses the 5 pool. (I am > > assuming that it is a big difference if players bluff by saying, they > > have a DT, like my players always do, or that you really know, if > > somenone has a DT.) > > In this case, the show likely did not represent a big advantage over > the (legal) threat of having a DT. Really? Two players want to influence my decision of the terms of a vote. Both players tell me they have a DT. The one showing the DT will have a big advantage in the dealing of the terms. In the playgroups i know it becomes more and more usual that player will try to bluff in those situations, stating they have a DT or something. So i usually ignore those comments. I would ignore it, if i really know there is a DT. > Now, if the player intentionally showed the card, that's a different > story. Absolutely. I am talking about the more comlicated case of accidentally showing.

The sentence should be: I would NOT ignore it, if i really knew there is a DT.

If its truly accidental, whats the big deal? Fix the game state/accident (return DT to hand, return drawn card to library and shuffle library) and continue play. G

<x5m...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:1132329256.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > LSJ wrote: >> x5m...@gmx.de wrote: >> > Example: The showing of a Delaying tactics causes diffrenet terms on a >> > Parity Shift. So the player who shows the card does not get 5 point >> > damage, but gets 5 pool and another player loses the 5 pool. (I am >> > assuming that it is a big difference if players bluff by saying, they >> > have a DT, like my players always do, or that you really know, if >> > somenone has a DT.) >> >> In this case, the show likely did not represent a big advantage over >> the (legal) threat of having a DT. > > Really? Two players want to influence my decision of the terms of a > vote. Both players tell me they have a DT. The one showing the DT will > have a big advantage in the dealing of the terms. That may be a slight advantage but it's not an important enough advantage to go throwing away a useful card drawn at a time it's useful, which is a significant penalty. Part of the problem here (and I know this because I've seen his statements about this on the Prince's Conclave and in private E-mail) is that you insist on looking at forcing a player to discard a card and redraw as some sort of a "neutral" thing. In truth, forcing a discard of a card a player has been fortunate enough to draw at a critical moment which is useful is not a neutral thing! He has paid for the possession of that card by the fact that he risks drawing it when it isn't useful and now is his payoff. And especially the fact that you're not just randomly forcing him to discard any card makes the action a significant punishment. You're forcing him to discard a card that you know about *only* because it was useful at that moment. He may have been holding onto that card for six turns waiting for the situation to come up so he could play the card. From the perspective of other players who don't know what a non- revealed card is, it may seem neutral to force a player to discard and draw another unseen card. But from the perspective of the player who built the deck and is constantly dealing with his draws and arranging to make plays and do discards so that he can have in his hand what he wants to have at any given moment, forcing a discard is a positive punishment. And as such, it should be reserved for situations when that player seems to have revealed the card as a deliberate act to gain significant advantage. >> Now, if the player intentionally showed the card, that's a different >> story. > > Absolutely. I am talking about the more comlicated case of accidentally > showing. And therefore, it is unclear why the player deserves to be punished for it. Fred

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Johannes Walch wrote: > The problem is when you shuffle the DT back it probably rocks the situation > in the other direction because the acting player can be sure that the player > how showed the DT has no DT (or at least one less) in his hand. > I don't think "not knowing if I have a DT in my hand" is going to make me a likelier target for a Parity Shift. -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

> But from the perspective of the player > who built the deck and is constantly dealing with his draws and > arranging to make plays and do discards so that he can have in his > hand what he wants to have at any given moment, forcing a discard is > a positive punishment. And as such, it should be reserved for > situations when that player seems to have revealed the card as a > deliberate act to gain significant advantage. I agree with Fred regarding the severity of forcing a player to reshuffle a significant card (DT.) If I were judging and someone accidentally revealed the DT (which seems unlikely), I would perhaps do the following: Take the player aside, and let them know I'm going to tell the table that he can't play that DT this vote. But, I will actually allow him to play it if he wants. Then go back to the table and tell them he can't play the DT, but if he has a second one in his hand, he can play that one. After the vote is resolved, tell the table the truth. Thoughts for a better solution? Ira

<ira...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1132366998.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] What would you do the second time it happened? Fred never saw either Joe Millionaire series

[ quoted text not captured ] Good point. Variations on a theme should work for a while. It's not like this situation should come up very frequently, though. Then again, I think a better solution (which is entirely repeatable) is to call on the good sportsmanship of the player calling the vote. Just ask him to set the terms of the vote as if he didn't *know* that the player had a DT. Ask him if he believed the offending player had a DT in his hand or not, and just set terms appropriately. I think almost all of the players in my playgroup would respond positively to that. Ira

[ quoted text not captured ] Perhaps the thing to do in this case is ask the player who revealed the card for that card and the bottom card of his library (unrevealed). Mix the two up, and have the player select one of them to return to his hand. The other card goes back to the bottom of the library. Perhaps the game state is changed, perhaps not. Only the 'punished' player knows for sure. In our hypothetical, the acting player KNOWS there's a 50/50 chance the card could be played, which is still more info than he had before the reveal.

"Tom Duncan" <veknp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1132374985.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Perhaps the thing to do in this case is ask the player who revealed the > card for that card and the bottom card of his library (unrevealed). Mix > the two up, and have the player select one of them to return to his > hand. The other card goes back to the bottom of the library. Perhaps > the game state is changed, perhaps not. Only the 'punished' player > knows for sure. I'm sorry, I'm not seeing how there being only 50% chance of the wrong thing happening makes it all right. You shouldn't be messing with the guy's hand. That's wrong. I think under most all circumstances, you just hand the card back to the player who had it and go on - _with_ the knowledge that he's got it. And just accept that it will change how things played out. It's an unfortunate occurrence but if it wasn't on purpose then live with it. It's not that big a deal. I don't see why people are racking their brains trying to figure out a way to undo this sort of a thing, which can't ever really be undone anyway. Fred

In message <F9Bff.551$1x.297@fed1read06>, Fred Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: >I'm sorry, I'm not seeing how there being only 50% chance of the wrong >thing happening makes it all right. You shouldn't be messing with the >guy's hand. That's wrong. In this specific instance, it may be. However, more generally, a judge has to do what he sees as being right at the time to restore the Game State. 200 in the judging guidelines covers a few examples. In the examples, there are some quite wide-ranging corrections shown. The point is that the judge will usually have to think of something on the hoof, and this may not be easy. (Of course, in the instance of common infractions, it might be possible to extend the examples to give more guidance.) In the instance of someone calling a significant political action and being threatened with DT (or Vox Domini etc.), the game state is such that all the cards are where they are (obviously) but also that the acting Methuselah is unsure of whether a person really has a DT. Are they bluffing? Should I negotiate with them before I set the terms? Do they have a history of vote cancellation tactics? Restoring the obvious game state in this instance is trivial (move things the DT-threatening player accidentally dropped back to his hand), but a conscientious judge may also wish to attempt to restore the uncertainty. This assumes that the acting Methuselah hadn't seen the DT earlier - say, with a Revelations etc. - which hadn't later been discarded. Even if accidentally done, if the acting Methuselah *knows* I have a DT, I have a potential negotiating edge over when I just threaten that I have one. Even unintentional fractions shouldn't - where possible - lead to an advantage of that sort. Of course, when looking at the examples of state correction, there is no attempt to allow the restored vampire (for example) to do anything other than hunt over the two turns it was burned, because this would be significant and difficult to simulate. (One might also view this as a good reason for players to be more familiar with the rules, so that they don't find themselves on the sharp end of this.) However, when the infraction has happened *right now*, it may be possible to intervene more ably. Is fiddling with their hand going to cause more trouble than it's worth? Possibly, possibly not. An alternative to hand fiddling might be to take the player to one side, toss a coin (or roll a die etc.) and, depending on the outcome, let them play it or not. They can *threaten* all they want, regardless of the outcome of the random factor, but their hand is left exactly as it was before the accident. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:jlHLvSUX...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <F9Bff.551$1x.297@fed1read06>, Fred Scott > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> writes: ... > more generally, a judge has to do what he sees as being right > at the time to restore the Game State. ... > In the instance of someone calling a significant political action and > being threatened with DT (or Vox Domini etc.), the game state is such > that all the cards are where they are (obviously) but also that the > acting Methuselah is unsure of whether a person really has a DT. Are > they bluffing? Should I negotiate with them before I set the terms? Do > they have a history of vote cancellation tactics? Sure. I agree. With a card revealed, the game state is unquestionably different. > Restoring the obvious game state in this instance is trivial (move > things the DT-threatening player accidentally dropped back to his hand), > but a conscientious judge may also wish to attempt to restore the > uncertainty. Right. What Ira proposed was complex but it was pretty clear in its intent. > Is fiddling with their hand going to cause more trouble than it's worth? > Possibly, possibly not. I guess what I'm saying is that in most cases, it shouldn't be done. It isn't a question of how much trouble it's worth, not being sure what you mean by "trouble". (They never pay a judge enough for his troubles, anyway.) I mean that altering the player's hand is almost always far more unfair than just letting the lack of the usual uncertainty stand. I would make exceptions, of course, when the player who revealed the card seemed to have done so deliberately (understanding that it's sometimes a trick to read his mind). Then I wouldn't be so opposed to replacing the card. I think that people are getting so caught up in how to solve the problem of reinserting uncertainty into the situation that they're forgetting that most of the solutions are worse than the original problem. Fred

ira...@gmail.com wrote: > If I were judging and someone accidentally revealed the DT (which seems > unlikely), I would perhaps do the following: > > Take the player aside, and let them know I'm going to tell the table > that he can't play that DT this vote. But, I will actually allow him > to play it if he wants. Then go back to the table and tell them he > can't play the DT, but if he has a second one in his hand, he can play > that one. After the vote is resolved, tell the table the truth. > So you're going to lie to all other players at the table. That is just a really bad choice as a judge imo. I know I'd be pissed off if you did that at an event I attended. G

[ quoted text not captured ] ...so the decision's entertaining as well as clever. Cool.

Many thanks to all your answers. It made the different positions much clearer to me. I especially like the answers of Ira and Tom how to get the uncertainty back into the game without forcing the player to discard his card.

What if one was to read aloud the entire text of a card, including its quote, artist, and copyright date? They could perhaps have memorized such text, and could be making it up, which still leaves ambiguity and bluffing room :) I would say it's a longer statement to say " I have a card called Delaying Tactics in my hand which reads "Only usable during a referendum The referendum is canceled. Untap the acting vampire. The controller of the acting vampire takes the political card (if any) back into his or her hand (and discards down to his or her hand size), and his or her vampires cannot take the same political action this turn." " -MathiasTCK

MathiasTCK wrote: > What if one was to read aloud the entire text of a card, including its > quote, artist, and copyright date? They could perhaps have memorized > such text, and could be making it up, which still leaves ambiguity and > bluffing room :) Right, he could be bluffing. Who can control it? And isnt it stalling. He is doing something he should not do and wasting time.

I can see how stalling might be a reason to frown on such activity. Would it be less of an offense if done quickly, or if only a certain amount of the card text was read aloud? Would this fall under of the category of something not specifically against any rule but commonly agreed as something one should not do? -MathiasTCK

"MathiasTCK" <Mathias...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1132684659....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... (There is no context given but from chasing down thread orders, one might assume this is in reference to the suggestion that if a player reads exact card text, copyright dates, name of author and so forth in order to prove that he is actually holding the card in question without committing the illegal act of physically showing the card, that it could be ruled to be "stalling".) >I can see how stalling might be a reason to frown on such activity. > Would it be less of an offense if done quickly, or if only a certain > amount of the card text was read aloud? It's not stalling, per se, no. Stalling is a ruling that should only be used when a player is truly attempting to stall, not just because he's done something the judge disapproves of but is not actually illegal. (And I get the distinct impression that this is the only reason Frank suggested it be considered stalling.) A player will typically stall when he feels his position will be better off if it the games ends with less development than it could reach under normal circumstances. The usual scenario is that the player attempting to stall is himself at risk of being ousted but might survive to the time limit if the game proceeds more slowly. This is not the only possible reason, however. Alternatively, stalling is sometimes ruled for other reasons such as players habitually engaging in activity which has no point to it in terms of the game, like endlessly negotiating deals that don't seem likely to get made and/or accomplish little if they are made. In this case, the point of the ruling is to get the players to play in a manner in line with the intent of the game rather than regulate unfair behavior. This is also not indicated by the scenario suggested unless the player was habitually reading unimportant card text from *every* card that he drew. But that wasn't what you were talking about when you originally proposed it. > Would this fall under of the category of something not specifically > against any rule but commonly agreed as something one should not do? No. It's totally fine. Fred

Fred Scott wrote: > It's not stalling, per se, no. Stalling is a ruling that should only > be used when a player is truly attempting to stall, not just because > he's done something the judge disapproves of but is not actually > illegal. (And I get the distinct impression that this is the only > reason Frank suggested it be considered stalling.) ... Ok., you got me. It is not stalling. > > Would this fall under of the category of something not specifically > > against any rule but commonly agreed as something one should not do? > > No. It's totally fine. I dont agree. If a player is able to give true informations about his hand, that there can be no doubt, he is "revealing" his hand IMO. Revealing in the sense of the rule is not limited to actually showing the cards. If it is possible, that he is bluffing - no problem. Frank

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > I dont agree. If a player is able to give true informations about his > hand, that there can be no doubt, he is "revealing" his hand IMO. > Revealing in the sense of the rule is not limited to actually showing > the cards. If it is possible, that he is bluffing - no problem. > The kind of player who'd sit there and read the card to everyone is probably the same kind of player who'd memorize the text so that they could pretend to read the card to everyone. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <ethe...@sidehack.gweep.net> wrote in message news:2005112305...@sidehack.gweep.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Or any player could just bluff these things. After all, who would know unless they were also holding the same layout/art version of the card in question or had memorized it themselves? Or unless the person doing the bluffing was very bad at it. ("No, I do NOT believe Leonardo De Vinci did the art for Death of my Conscience, sorry!" :-) ) Fred