Can you oust yourself by accidentally playing a card with a pool cost that would kill you?

Greets! The story was the following... 2 players left, A and B. A has 2 pool, B's pool is irrelevant. Player A forgets to utalize Vessel, and plays a master card that costs 2 pool. Realizing the mistake player A backs out almost immediately, but player B insists on the thesis, that you can kill yourself accidentally and that is what player A just did. Is player B's argument valid? NC of Hungary ///

If it was in casual play, then the takeback should have been allowed, and player B is a dick. If it was in a tournament, and the card play was fully announced, then technically player A has just ousted himself.

My take on this: In tournament play if A had any chance of gaining additional VPs ousting herself in this fashion would, I think, be illegal by the play to win rule. In tournament play if A mis-announced any card (e.g. by not announcing the cost or by announcing the incorrect cost) the play would have to be rewound (and a judge called over if anyone felt additional tweaks to the game state were needed to effect a fair rewind).

Im not sure on that. In a tournament, its not a legal move unless there is arguably, and to somw point provably, no chance of not dying or getting any vps. You MUST play to win. So, maybe its treated just as acxidentally playimg aire of elation with marcellous(which ive done, in a tournament, cought a turn later and had the ousted guy and the person whos turn it was backtrack. ) its a dead card, revery to things before it was played. Since it was attwmpted to be played, we can be dicks and decide the player was done with his untap, so no vessel for him, but hes alive. Also note that if you are tapped out/hav no ready minions/cant block or bounce, it IS legal to play a card to self oist, as you arw then playing to optimize your 0 vps however you so choose. So, tapped or torped out, no way to bounce, you ask the table if anyone has a boon for the bleed or an eagles sight, etc. No takers. Lutz or stanislava or whoever is bleeding you for 4, and you are at 4 pool with a famous vamp in torpor. You can play archn investigation and die to fame. Or, if you are bled for 4 and at 3 pool, say by queen ann and a onditioning, you can still archon investigation her, as you may optimize your 0 vps however you want.

> I'm not sure on that. In a tournament, its not a legal move unless there is arguably, and to somw point provably, no chance of not dying or getting any vps. You MUST play to win. > This raises an interesting discussion. In any reasonable interpretation of the play-to-win rule there must be room for mistakes. If you don't allow mistakes a judge would have to correct obvious mistakes. And what is obvious? How do you draw that line? We can't very well enforce a rule where everyone has to play perfectly. One line of reasoning would be to simply allow mistakes, and in that case the described play is legal. Adam Esbjörnsson, Prince of Örebro

Playing to win isn't contradictory with making mistakes. If player A plays accidentally a card that ousts him, it's a mistake, and there's no reason why it should be rollbacked. Rollback should only be applied to technical errors (a card that can't be played, a block that was considered successful erroneously...) Otherwise, consider the situation: player A is at 2 pool and in duel with B that has a vampire that bleeds for 2. A tap all his vampires, has no wake card in hand and forget to use his Metro Underground to untap one of his vampires. B bleed for 2 and ousts him (no cards played). Why not rollback this situation? You could continue rollbacking even further. What is the limit then? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

I was equating this with the "Bakija Gambit" (Happy birthday, Peter, btw!) wherein you have invested pool on the wrong uncontrolled minion, suddenly flip over an Anarch Convert with 10 pool on him, and lose it all. Oops! There's no rollback in that situation. Of course, in reality with VTES, even in a tournament there is an aire of casualness. If the table agrees it's OK to rollback, then it's probably OK. But when there are only 2 players left, a judge has to be called and make the decision.

> Xaddam wrote: > In any reasonable interpretation of the play-to-win rule there must be room for mistakes. If you don't allow mistakes a judge would have to correct obvious mistakes. And what is obvious? How do you draw that line? We can't very well enforce a rule where everyone has to play perfectly. > Which is why the play-to-win rules have never, ever required this, under any circumstances, ever. At all. At any point. For example, back in 2001, LSJ addressed the issue of a judge using judgement when enforcing the Sportsmanlike Conduct rule (from where Play-To-Win derives). In this instance, to distinguish between things such as: collusion; random and disruptive play; and poor logic on the part of a player. So the player who is roleplaying a Malkavian and making strange noises and rolling dice to determine what to do gets dealt with, and the player who is just making poor decisions gets left alone. Obviously, at some point, a judge may get a judgement call wrong, but in the absence of psychic probes, that's what we do - have a judge who exercises judgement, to the best of his or her ability. To short-circuit the next likely steps in the conversation: Q. How does a judge determine what is bad play vs what is play-to-lose? A. Judgement. Q. But players must be allowed to play for a really solid 2VP, rather than risking everything on a tiny chance of getting 3VP, surely?! A. Yes, they're allowed to do that. The Play-To-Win rule allows for players to do risk analysis. Q. But what level of risk is acceptable? I demand you provide a precise percentage, to seven decimal places. A. Since you can't calculate the exact percentage in a tournament, this is an irrelevant discussion. Q. But if you won't tell us a number, how do we determine this? A. The judge uses his or her judgement, taking all available information into account.

The playing to win means optimizing victory points in every table but tournament finals, which take into account other stuff. So, ive seen good players do things like rush other good players cross table, or in one case, i rcall Mergen telling i think Norm "i cant win with you here, get off my table" before aiming krc damage to him crosstable. If you percieve a baxkrush, kindred spirits bleex at yoir prey, etc, to be your best course of action, you are playing to win. Ive ks bled my predator at the LCQ for the nac, because my prey was walled up and my prey coulda got me without the poolgain. Mistakes of play, ie collecting for the edge or using metro undervround, or a homoculous, is not the same as self ousting by playing a hunting groumd. Pascal may neex to comment here. Delibertly gaining your 0 vps in yoir chosen manner, whether to salt up someone you feels needs it or prop up someone who helped you, is the players perogative, as they are certain of the maximum vps being none, and can prove it to some degree. However, accidentally, or allegedly qccidentally, self ousting is dicferwnt in my opinion. Transfwring out is like intentionally self ousting, the accidental kind should require judges approval if its fishy, imo Also, bad play cant be illegal in most cases, but the malk roleplaying example: players have jokimgly used the magic 8 ball i use as an edge to "make decisions" i doubt a judge will need consulted there. Id say: its the players perogative to maximize vps, the judges perogative to decide if that was fulfilled at least in spirit if there arises a situation. Neither deck composition, poor play, or illogical axtions can be called not playing to win, but anything that self ousts while theres real chance of gaining vps in part or whole feasibly where the play wasnt deliberate and based on 0 vp maximum could be questionable. This doesnt mean crosstable ousts, because its not a self oust, but could mean acxidentally playing a card and self ousting, since technically you cant if you areatill trying to play to win by stayimg in the game in theory, but you cant backtraxk things like poolgain and using cards if yoir window is passex. And its up to a judge.

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > The playing to win means optimizing victory points in every table but tournament finals, which take into account other stuff. > No, this is not how play-to-win works. On a normal table, you must play to win. That is, you must try to get the Game Win, if you reasonably can. If you get the Game Win, you do not have to get the most VPs you can. Clearly, that can benefit you (giving you a higher ranking later in the tournament, for example), but if you win, you can get 3/2 or 5/0 or 2-1-1-1-0 and the Play-To-Win rule does not care. If you cannot get the Game Win, you must attempt to maximize your VPs. This includes holding on for 0.5VP on a timeout. You're not allowed to play slowly to achieve that (as in, violating the Slow Play rules), but you can take steps that lead to you surviving longer. You're not required, for example, to make a kamikaze run at your prey for no reason. If you cannot reasonably get any more VPs - that is, you are in a truly lost position - you can oust yourself, or take any other action, and Play-To-Win will not care. Of course, if you hang around in the game, a miracle might occur, but the Play-To-Win rules do not care about miracles, just what's reasonable in, if there's a dispute, the judge's judgement.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > On a normal table, you must play to win. That is, you must try to get the Game Win, if you reasonably can. If you get the Game Win, you do not have to get the most VPs you can. Clearly, that can benefit you (giving you a higher ranking later in the tournament, for example), but if you win, you can get 3/2 or 5/0 or 2-1-1-1-0 and the Play-To-Win rule does not care. > And this is why I can offer 2vp to my predator if I get 3vp out from the deal. Still everytime I offer this deal, there is atleast one who says that I can't offer this kinda deal because they are in assumption that rules say that I have to try to maximize my vps even after I already have a gw. Marko, Prince of Helsinki

> Malachy wrote: > Greets! > > The story was the following... 2 players left, A and B. > > A has 2 pool, B's pool is irrelevant. > > Player A forgets to utalize Vessel, and plays a master card that costs 2 pool. Realizing the mistake player A backs out almost immediately, but player B insists on the thesis, that you can kill yourself accidentally and that is what player A just did. > > Is player B's argument valid? > LSJ covered a similar situation in this classic discussion: LSJ-2009-030-4 The relevant quote is under LSJ, " "legally played" is debatable", 3/4/09. In this case, someone ousted himself by playing Aaron's Feeding Razor while at 1 pool, apparently without realizing it would oust him. LSJ's answer to the question was that "the action announced was for a zero-cost equipping of Feeding Razor, when, in fact, the Razor costs 1 pool. So: card improperly played." LSJ's philosophy seemed to be that if a player made an egregious, seemingly inadvertent, and critically self-damaging error, the judge should find some reason from the rule book to let the player rewind. In this case, the rulebook definitely says that the cost of an actin must be declared (Section 6.2.1). In practice, no one announces the cost of an action unless the cost has a variable that must be specified or the cost has been altered by some effect. And LSJ said that players who made mistakes on purpose couldn't get a rewind. Another example of this philosophy was LSJ's attitude that people who forgot to take their transfers should get to go back because every phase had to occur and a forgotten phase hadn't occurred. LSJ-2002-06-02 Anyway, this doesn't really apply in the case of playing a master card, since the rulebook doesn not require you to announce the cost of a master card. Mr. Zephyr found an appropriately LSJ-esque response: self-outing in this case violates the Play to Win rules, and thus should be disallowed!

> a-e wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > On a normal table, you must play to win. That is, you must try to get the Game Win, if you reasonably can. If you get the Game Win, you do not have to get the most VPs you can. Clearly, that can benefit you (giving you a higher ranking later in the tournament, for example), but if you win, you can get 3/2 or 5/0 or 2-1-1-1-0 and the Play-To-Win rule does not care. > > > And this is why I can offer 2vp to my predator if I get 3vp out from the deal. Still everytime I offer this deal, there is atleast one who says that I can't offer this kinda deal because they are in assumption that rules say that I have to try to maximize my vps even after I already have a gw. > No, they are wrong in saying its not playimg to win. If monacle of clarity cannot make statements about the future binding, no deal will ever be enforced in vtes. So, you can always make the deal, and then play to win. John Mikkel once made a similar deal with me, and kept it, the rules rationale probably beimg my potence trumped his anarch no additional manuever 44 deck. Honoring a deal and fear of not getting all your vps due to being ousted are very grey areas for playing to win in most cases.

> a-e wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > On a normal table, you must play to win. That is, you must try to get the Game Win, if you reasonably can. If you get the Game Win, you do not have to get the most VPs you can. Clearly, that can benefit you (giving you a higher ranking later in the tournament, for example), but if you win, you can get 3/2 or 5/0 or 2-1-1-1-0 and the Play-To-Win rule does not care. > > > And this is why I can offer 2vp to my predator if I get 3vp out from the deal. Still everytime I offer this deal, there is atleast one who says that I can't offer this kinda deal because they are in assumption that rules say that I have to try to maximize my vps even after I already have a gw. > There is some confusion on this point, in part because of the way that deals can modify the Play-To-Win rule. And the way deals are handled has changed over the years. 1) If making a deal is reasonably Play-To-Win at the time it is struck, you can honour the deal, even if it wouldn't be Play-To-Win if struck at a later point when circumstances had changed... 2) ...Unless you're down to 2 players, at which point all deals are off. (4.8 of the tournament rules.) 3) ...But that doesn't apply if you already have the Game Win sewn up. You don't need a deal there to let you roll over, because all actions lead to you winning.

> AaronC wrote: > LSJ's philosophy seemed to be that if a player made an egregious, seemingly inadvertent, and critically self-damaging error, the judge should find some reason from the rule book to let the player rewind. > No, as described in that thread, if the player doesn't announce an effect, that's a misplay and you should rewind (if rewinding is possible) and announce it properly. [LSJ 20090304] > > LSJ wrote: > I'm saying that the action needs to be fully declared and properly declared. If > the player played the Razor with a zero cost, that's a misplay. > And misplays are corrected when detected. The purpose of this is not to protect the announcing player for him/herself. It's to make sure that effects get announced appropriately. > AaronC wrote: > Another example of this philosophy was LSJ's attitude that people who forgot to take their transfers should get to go back because every phase had to occur and a forgotten phase hadn't occurred. > No, in fact, if you read that thread, it's quite clear that some judgements will have to be made. For example, if a player has actually left their transfer phase and gone into their discard phase, they've left their transfer phase and gone into their discard phase. [LSJ 20020619] > > LSJ wrote: > >If taking an action appropriate to a later phase > > doesn't mean that the player considers herself to be in that > > (later) phase, what *would* mean that? Only an explicit > > declaration "I'm going to my master phase now"? > Making the explicit statement would certainly suffice. > In the absence of that, though, it falls to a judgment call. > You'll just have to decide if the player's actions are > intended to denote that she is leaving phase X or not. > If it's problematic in your group, reconsider your gaming > partners, or reconsider the notion of making explicit > statements. > There can be some confusion here because some phases have mandatory effects that you must handle in them. (Some decisions must be made in the untap phase, for example.) But the typical influence phase does not have any issues here, so a player might quite reasonably say "In my discard phase, I..." or "Hmm... that's me done, your go" or whatever else. > AaronC wrote: > Anyway, this doesn't really apply in the case of playing a master card, since the rulebook doesn not require you to announce the cost of a master card. > The Complete Rules Reference requires announcing every card appropriately: vekn.net/complete-rules-reference , II.B.1: > > CRR, wrote: > Fully announce the effect (as applicable: the minion playing/using it, targets, cost, and so on). If the effect is a card, play the card to the playing area. > > AaronC wrote: > self-outing in this case violates the Play to Win rules, and thus should be disallowed! > That's not how the Play-To-Win rule works. A player earnestly making a bad decision that causes them to oust themself is not violating the Play-To-Win rule. The judge should never correct play that is simply poor play, unless the play is violating some particular rule (collusion, play-to-win etc.). Clearly, the judge is not psychic, and some poor play may look like non-play-to-win play, and vice versa. But, in general, if the judge believes the player is playing with the intention of playing-to-win, even though they're doing something dumb, the judge should let the play proceed. The judge might not believe that and intervene because of other factors - knowledge of the table, knowledge of the player, knowledge of previous deal attempts made half an hour ago and this just conveniently mirrors one of them - and might disallow the play as violating Play-To-Win. But they might not. It depends on what the judge reasonably thinks has happened, taking all available information into account.

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > No, they are wrong in saying its not playimg to win. If monacle of clarity cannot make statements about the future binding, no deal will ever be enforced in vtes. > Monocle of Clarity has absolutely zero to do with deal-making or deal-breaking. Indeed, Monocle of Clarity was binding about the future, until it ended up on the banned list. (It was later rewritten.) This had nothing to do with whether deal-making was or wasn't desirable, and everything to do with the fact that the questions it enabled could be extremely troublesome. > ReverendRevolver wrote: > So, you can always make the deal, and then play to win. > Making a deal and play-to-win are not mutually exclusive things. If you make a legal deal (that is, the deal is play-to-win at the time), you can honour it. To that extent, the rules can in fact 'enforce' a deal - that is, you can keep your side of the deal, even if at a later point you can reasonably take some other action that would improve your position as of now, but which would require you to break the legally-made deal. However, you can also break the deal and backstab the player. > ReverendRevolver wrote: > Honoring a deal and fear of not getting all your vps due to being ousted are very grey areas for playing to win in most cases. > Q. Was the deal legal when it was made? A. Yes, then you can honour it. A. No, then it was just table talk, smoke and mirrors.

So, Pascal, can you ferry us to conclusion? NC of Hungary ///

> Ankha wrote: > If player A plays accidentally a card that ousts him, it's a mistake, and there's no reason why it should be rollbacked. > How can you determine if anything happened by accident or on purpose? It is certainly a matter of perspective and the Judge will most likely lack the most important perspective, i.e. witnessing the original play. Then again, plenty of people are VERY talented in faking from the beginning if need be... Finnish Politics!

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > AaronC wrote: > > LSJ's philosophy seemed to be that if a player made an egregious, seemingly inadvertent, and critically self-damaging error, the judge should find some reason from the rule book to let the player rewind. > > > No, as described in that thread, if the player doesn't announce an effect, that's a misplay and you should rewind (if rewinding is possible) and announce it properly. > > [LSJ 20090304] > > > > LSJ wrote: > > I'm saying that the action needs to be fully declared and properly declared. If > > the player played the Razor with a zero cost, that's a misplay. > > > And misplays are corrected when detected. > > The purpose of this is not to protect the announcing player for him/herself. It's to make sure that effects get announced appropriately. > I don't you who you are, but I do know from what you've preiously admitted that you don't play regularly. Hmm, I think I'll start a poll: how many players announce that their Govern the Unaligned costs 1 blood every time they play it? If I "forget" to announce the cost of my GtU, and then I see someone's going to block, do I get to rewind all the way back? I mean, the action was improperly announced, which goes against the rules. If I get to rewind my Aaron's Feeding Razor because I see it's going to oust me and I see that no one is going to block it, I should be able to rewind all my actions that I announce improperly. Lots of people in that thread righfully jumped on LSJ's case for making that pronouncement. Of course, he backtracked and said that if someone is just "forgetting" things to gain an advantage then they shouldn't get to do so. That's "gaming the system" and that shouldn't be rewarded, he said. It requires judgment on the part of the judge, but like Lonkka mentioned, it's not very clear when someone is forgetting or pretending to forget. I also wondered how often LSJ actually played games. Following the rules to the "T" is ponderous and no one that I know does so. It would be great to have clearer, more practical and official guidelines about what must be or not announced, but we don't. If we did, then some hapless players might be punished for making stupid mistakes, and that is just too unfriendly of an atmosphere.

> Lönkka wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > If player A plays accidentally a card that ousts him, it's a mistake, and there's no reason why it should be rollbacked. > > > How can you determine if anything happened by accident or on purpose? > > It is certainly a matter of perspective and the Judge will most likely lack the most important perspective, i.e. witnessing the original play. > > Then again, plenty of people are VERY talented in faking from the beginning if need be... > you can't know whether it was done on purpose or not. Ultimately, it's the judge's call. That's why it's hard to detect collusion for instance. The judge has to determine whether a player calling 3 damage on himself is an idiot, has made a bad choice, has à secret plan or is collusing with his predator. Only in the latter case must he intervene. If he wasn't there when the ´accident´ happened, he can rely on the testimony of each player taken separately and on his knowledge of the player's level. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> AaronC wrote: > I don't you who you are, > Sigh. You were told to stop with this. The thread was locked. Get over it. Personal boundaries. Learn you some. > AaronC wrote: > but I do know from what you've preiously admitted that you don't play regularly. > And this has precisely zip to do with anything. The ruling LSJ gave was the ruling LSJ gave, whether or not I play 3000 times a day, or whether I played once in 1994. If you don't like the ruling, appeal to Pascal to overturn it. Stop making creepy personal attacks on me because you don't like official rulings that were made by someone else, and which I happen to: a) know and b) quote. The ruling is the ruling, whether you like it or not, whether I like ir or not. > AaronC wrote: > If I "forget" to announce the cost of my GtU, and then I see someone's going to block, do I get to rewind all the way back? > No. Intentionally misannouncing an effect so that you can roll back with additional information would clearly be cheating. Please don't encourage cheating in V:TES.

> Malachy wrote: > So, Pascal, can you ferry us to conclusion? > Here's a very similar situation in a ruling from LSJ: [LSJ 20011024] > > LSJ wrote: > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > mere play errors: in fact there is no rule against making > > foolish decisions, even if they "give away" a VP to another > > Methuselah, right? (Though if you were actually doing it > > intentionally rather than foolishly, it'd violate the "playing > > to win" tournament rule.) > Right. > > > That does make sense. And the other players don't have the > > authority to waive penalties (or allow "takebacks") for > > either type of offense, right? > Right. > And if you look at the setup that Josh Duffin gives as context for his question (which LSJ slightly snipped): > > Josh wrote: > OK, I must have misremembered the previous discussion. I > thought you (or Chairman Goudie?) had said that a player who, > for example, announced the play of a Hunting Ground while not > realizing she was at 2 pool, should be allowed to take back > that play because it would oust her. As you said, though, > this seems to confuse being required to "play to win" with > mere play errors: in fact there is no rule against making > foolish decisions, even if they "give away" a VP to another > Methuselah, right? (Though if you were actually doing it > intentionally rather than foolishly, it'd violate the "playing > to win" tournament rule.) > Which is what LSJ replies to. So: Announce a legal card play that would oust you. - If it's bad play, leave it alone. - If it's violating play-to-win, correct it.

just do what i do: be very vague when announcing stuff so you can lawyer your way into backtracking anything just kidding, i don't really do that........ in tournaments

> AaronC wrote: > Hmm, I think I'll start a poll: how many players announce that their Govern the Unaligned costs 1 blood every time they play it? > I regularily place a counter from my vampire to the played card when I play a card that has a cost. Just to avoid the whether the cost was paid or not later on. And Aaron please, stop the silly axegrinding with James -the only thing it does is making you look like you're wearing an asshat... (and probably pissing off a VERY helpful and VERY knowledgeable guy who does a wonderfulful job of filling in for Pasqual in the Rules questions) Finnish Politics!

> AaronC wrote: > LSJ's philosophy seemed to be that if a player made an egregious, seemingly inadvertent, and critically self-damaging error, the judge should find some reason from the rule book to let the player rewind. In this case, the rulebook definitely says that the cost of an actin must be declared (Section 6.2.1). In practice, no one announces the cost of an action unless the cost has a variable that must be specified or the cost has been altered by some effect. And LSJ said that players who made mistakes on purpose couldn't get a rewind. > LSJ seemed to not be interested in protecting players from their own stupid actions. He wanted to protect the state of the table from incorrect actions. There is a famous moment amongst our playgroup when a player miscalculated his pool total, and dropped to 1 pool during his turn. He then looked at his hand at the start of his minion phase effectively telegraphed his upcoming VP (a la Babe Ruth pointing at the Bleachers) and took some actions. He then, mid turn, played a Patronage. His prey panicked knowing there were 'two more actions coming' and begged for saving. The cross-table (Predator of the acting Meth) made no deal and didn't block, watching his prey oust himself from a validly called but otherwise stupid action. LSJ I doubt would stop that sequence of play UNLESS there was an INCORRECT play, but would allow the player to oust themselves because of their own miscalculation. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Lönkka wrote: > And Aaron please, stop the silly axegrinding with James -the only thing it does is making you look like you're wearing an asshat... (and probably pissing off a VERY helpful and VERY knowledgeable guy who does a wonderfulful job of filling in for Pasqual in the Rules questions) > Yeah Aaron, it's my job to aggravate James and be a devil's advocate for all things LSJ. But in this one, and it does happen rarely, I completely agree with James. And thereby as an extension, agree with LSJ. Shocking. Please mark this day down in the calendar Pascal, Hugh, KJM and James. MARK IT DOWN. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > LSJ seemed to not be interested in protecting players from their own stupid actions. He wanted to protect the state of the table from incorrect actions. > That seems pretty much in line with his rulings. Further, there are numerous players who howl in anguish at the very thought that a judge could possibly intervene at any point and correct their play, for any reason whatsoever, viewing it as their sovereign right to do whatever the hell they want. Though - to the best of my knowledge - it has never been explicitly stated, I would guess that LSJ would not want judges feeling able to step in and correct shoddy play, which would be likely to cause multiple loud explosions from numerous playgroups.

In the specific hunting ground scenario. I would say pay what they can (the 1 pool) and master fizzles... they are weak and might appreciate a new card too. could change their whole outlook on this suicide is painless, mentality of give up give my pred vp and 1-12pool... (thats right political flux is underplayed)

> delangen wrote: > In the specific hunting ground scenario. I would say pay what they can (the 1 pool) and master fizzles... they are weak and might appreciate a new card too. could change their whole outlook on this suicide is painless, mentality of give up give my pred vp and 1-12pool... (thats right political flux is underplayed) > Except that that's not what any of the rulings allow you to do. - If it's a player violating play to win, prevent the play altogether. - If it's a player who is in a lost(*) position, they can lose however they want. This is just another form of self-ousting, which they're allowed to do. - If it's (in the judge's opinion) simply bad play, you allow it, per LSJ's earlier ruling. None of these options allow you to force the player to pay part of the cost and fizzle the card. You always pay as much as you can, per www.thelasombra.com/rules/RTR71101.htm (see the question starting "Speaking of Vast Wealth"). (*) - Note that "lost position" is much more than simply "poor position". A player who can reasonably (in the judge's opinion) hang on for 0.5 VP from a timeout, for example, is not in a "lost position", even if they are completely unable to oust their prey, for example.

in practice I think there's quite a bit of a difference between "bad play" and "blatant self-ousting" lowering myself to 1 pool to play a hunting ground or influence out a vampire? it is possibly poor play, or possibly great play, but no judge would intervene. lowering myself to 0 pool when it looks like i'm about to score a VP? well now it's totally arbitrary. transferring out leads to cries of collusion and not playing to win, but playing a hunting ground or patronage is perfectly acceptable! so the only rule that matters here is that the judge must use discretion or be a mind-reader. as always.

> Haze wrote: > in practice I think there's quite a bit of a difference between "bad play" and "blatant self-ousting" > > lowering myself to 1 pool to play a hunting ground or influence out a vampire? it is possibly poor play, or possibly great play, but no judge would intervene. > > lowering myself to 0 pool when it looks like i'm about to score a VP? well now it's totally arbitrary. transferring out leads to cries of collusion and not playing to win, but playing a hunting ground or patronage is perfectly acceptable! > To avoid confusion: in all of those situations, the same standards apply from the rules. If it would be violating play-to-win to transfer yourself out, it will very likely - in the same circumstances - be violating play-to-win by equipping a .44 Magnum to oust yourself or playing Direct Intervention when on one pool, or whatever. It is usually harder to accidentally oust yourself with transfers because, if for no other reason, you're often picking up the pool counters there and then. But you could badly screw up your influence phase in some fashion - say, accidental Bakija Gambit leading to you transferring out a second copy of Gratiano (self-contesting, and therefore nixed on entry) rather than the copy of Lucita that could possibly have saved you. Any difference in outcry from players is just that - a difference in outcry from players. While, obviously, some interventions are more or less likely, if a judge believes that you are violating play-to-win, they should intervene whatever part of the game it's in. And if they suspect shenanigans, players should call the judge, regardless of whether it's an action, a master card, transfers, forgetting that Tension in the Ranks is in play, or whatever else.

so playing patronage at 1 pool is just a miscalculation, a bad play. the player obviously failed to notice the complex and subtle variables in the game state such as "only has 1 pool" as well as "only has 1 pool" that would lead to an eventual demise that turn. unless you were colluding, in which case it obviously wasn't a miscalculation! we caught you! do not pass go do not collect $200! my point is that since it all depends on our mind-reading powers & discretion as players and/or judges, there's definitely a bias here. i mean, i can easily come up with several ways to "accidentally" self-oust with transfers too. using the bakija gambit as a precedent, 2 of them would be very hard to prove as intentional.

> Haze wrote: > so playing patronage at 1 pool is just a miscalculation, a bad play. > It might be. There is nothing that says it automatically is or automatically isn't. > Haze wrote: > the player obviously failed to notice the complex and subtle variables in the game state such as "only has 1 pool" as well as "only has 1 pool" that would lead to an eventual demise that turn. > Even good players make mistakes. I once saw an excellent player manage to accidentally burn his own vampire by forgetting he'd just played Millicent Smith a couple of minutes before. > Haze wrote: > unless you were colluding, in which case it obviously wasn't a miscalculation! we caught you! do not pass go do not collect $200! > No, this is a pretty clear misunderstanding on your part. Violating play-to-win does not require collusion. Collusion requires "Players agree to alter, predetermine, or otherwise illegally establish the results of a game." Yet there are many things I can do that violate play-to-win without requiring an agreement with any other players on the table. For example, in a given tournament, we're in the last preliminary round, and I know that I am mathematically in the final. So I play this round to exclude my toughest competition - say, by doing everything I can to get you off this table, or giving someone else the Game Win. I self-oust giving my predator a VP and some pool, at a point when I could pretty clearly have got at least a VP myself, in order to give myself a simpler final table composition. None of this is collusion - I haven't agreed anything with anyone. Similarly, a player who acts out of spite (say, to "punish" a player he just doesn't like for some reason) can be violating play-to-win without collusion. Similarly, a player who is roleplaying a heartbroken Toreador who must commit suicide can be violating play-to-win without collusion. > Haze wrote: > my point is that since it all depends on our mind-reading powers & discretion as players and/or judges, there's definitely a bias here. > No? If the judge believes you're violating play-to-win, the judge stops you doing what you're doing, irrespective of what it is. (And also applies whatever penalty would be appropriate.) > Haze wrote: > i mean, i can easily come up with several ways to "accidentally" self-oust with transfers too. using the bakija gambit as a precedent, 2 of them would be very hard to prove as intentional. > The judge doesn't have to "prove" them as intentional. This is not a court of law. The judge uses their judgement to determine what they reasonably believe has happened. A given judge might err on the side of reversing the play (and issuing a penalty that has no immediate impact, such as a Warning), such that if it was an accident, you benefit from a happy reversal, and a stern reminder to pay more attention, and if it was nefarious play, you get blocked and a judge who is going to watch you quite hard now. But that would depend on the judge's judgement. Something like a Warning is reasonable here, because you track those throughout the tournament, without actually doing anything bad right now. So if a player has a habit of doing shitty, nefarious things, a judge who is cautious about jumping straight to "Game Loss" or "Disqualification" can build up to it, if necessary. None of this requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, or anything of the sort. Just a judgement on what is, or isn't, reasonable in the circumstances.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > Haze wrote: > > unless you were colluding, in which case it obviously wasn't a miscalculation! we caught you! do not pass go do not collect $200! > > > No, this is a pretty clear misunderstanding on your part. > > Violating play-to-win does not require collusion. > Where does he say that violating play-to-win requires collusion? He's making the point that the same in-game decision (a player spending enough pool to lead to his inevitable ousting) can either be allowed or disallowed depending on how the judge categorizes the player's intentions. The move in question might be allowed if it is attributed to misplay (as you've noted, the "Bakija Gambit", virtual self-ousting by error, might be allowed), but it would not be allowed if the player is believed to be colluding. He seems to be criticizing the arbitrariness of judging, not conflating play-to-win with collusion. I don't think the "misunderstanding" is on the part of Mattias (Haze).

> AaronC wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > > > Haze wrote: > > > unless you were colluding, in which case it obviously wasn't a miscalculation! we caught you! do not pass go do not collect $200! > > > > > > > > No, this is a pretty clear misunderstanding on your part. > > > > Violating play-to-win does not require collusion. > > > Where does he say that violating play-to-win requires collusion? > He asserts that it's bad play "unless you were colluding", when there are a host of other things that could mean it wasn't simply bad play. If what Haze means is "This is one of a multitude of ways in which it might not be bad play", that's extremely unclear from what he's written, given that he uses this one example to (apparently) prove there is bias in the system. There are many ways in which any given play might be violating different rules. And a PTW-violating self-oust at this point would be (should be) treated exactly the same as PTW-violating play from transferring out. No bias. If players aren't calling a judge over to correct a play that looks suspicious because it's not a transfer-out self-oust, the only bias is the bias from those players. If a judge isn't acting to correct a play because it's from equipping a .44 Magnum rather than a self-ousting transfer, that judge is in error. (That is, if the judge systematically excludes the possibility, rather than coming to a reasoned judgement.) No bias in the system.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > Juggernaut1981 wrote: > > LSJ seemed to not be interested in protecting players from their own stupid actions. He wanted to protect the state of the table from incorrect actions. > > > That seems pretty much in line with his rulings. > > Further, there are numerous players who howl in anguish at the very thought that a judge could possibly intervene at any point and correct their play, for any reason whatsoever, viewing it as their sovereign right to do whatever the hell they want. Though - to the best of my knowledge - it has never been explicitly stated, I would guess that LSJ would not want judges feeling able to step in and correct shoddy play, which would be likely to cause multiple loud explosions from numerous playgroups. > I think people need to realise that the "Judge" in VTES is like a financial market regulator or a sports referee. They are supposed to know the rules (or at worst have handy access to them when needed) and they use their experience, opinion, observations and what facts can be known to then make a decision. Plus, the idea of a 'market regulator' also addresses the fact that a VTES judge is a fairly 'hands off' referee (unlike a sporting referee) that generally acts only when the laws have been violated. Rugby Union Referees are notorious for variations in the way they interpret the rules, particularly around the scrum, line-outs and 'releasing the ball' parts of the game. A VTES Judge generally only intervenes when the game-state has decayed to the point where serious intervention is needed (that may also just be me, players in Australia have had issues with spectators and some judges being accused of giving away confidential information by mistake during a game). 1) There are many ways to make a mistake. Players will often admit that it was a mistake and most judges know which of their players are likely to be likely through their teeth or are the 'powergamer netdecking super-perfect-combo-I-got-from-a-forum' sort of player who is likely to lie about it. 2) There are probably a large number of ways to not PTW. I must be blessed with a bunch of players who would prefer to break a deal and walk over the dead bodies to a victory rather than go soft. My own playgroup is regularly advocating for "go hard or go home" when it comes to social games... 3) Collusion is notoriously difficult to detect. Just ask Wall St. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

"Accidental play", "bad play", "oops-I-didn't-see-my-grand-prey-is-tapped-out play", etc... don't exist in the rules. They all fall under the general rules of the game. As I can see it, there are only two possibilities: a- Playing a card would oust the player. b- Playing a card would not oust the player. b- doesn't require a judge call (*). Sometimes, some people will call it "bad play" ("why did you play High Museum of Art when your predator has Parity Shifts and stealth to steal it?"); sometimes some people will call it "good play" ("Oh, I see, now you tapped Parthenon and you can use the pool from the Museum to bid for Niklaus on your Temptation of Greater Power... smart") Now, a- is somewhat trickier. There is only two situations where a player is allowed to self-oust. That's when that player has the won the game already, or when he can't get more VPs. In any other scenario, that play is invalid and should be fixed by the Judge (recommendation: rollback). (*) Though soemtimes it does. "Why are you spending 15 pool on ToGP to acquire Yorik, when noone else has more than 5 pool ?". Call the Judge. [Edit VR]: This ruling should be considered as "pending" until further notice.

> Pascal wrote: > "Accidental play", "bad play", "oops-I-didn't-see-my-grand-prey-is-tapped-out play", etc... don't exist in the rules. > They do exist in multiple rulings, however! > Pascal wrote: > As I can see it, there are only two possibilities: > Why are you ignoring the possibilities set forth by earlier rulings? > Pascal wrote: > b- doesn't require a judge call (*). > As noted in your footnote, this is wrong! A player can violate play-to-win without ousting themselves. Indeed, the obvious response to the occasional demand for a ban on self-ousting is that a player will simply reduce themself to one pool instead. > Pascal wrote: > Now, a- is somewhat trickier. > There is only two situations where a player is allowed to self-oust. That's when that player has the won the game already, or when he can't get more VPs. In any other scenario, that play is invalid and should be fixed by the Judge (recommendation: rollback). > Could you explicitly confirm that you are reversing earlier rulings on the subject? If so, can I express deep concern that we have a second instance of you introducing a false dichotomy that isn't present in the game, in order to overturn a ruling? www.vekn.net/forum/6-rules-questions/54318-blissful-agony?limit=10&start=10

Playimg to win according to one person can look alot like rushing crosstable for no good reason or kindred spirits bleeding baxkwards for no real reason to someone else. Maybe my prey isnt how i need them to be right now, but i know im about to be graverobbed after a baltimore purge goes off if i dont amaranth my grand preys star vamo. Maybe my grand predator is parity shifting like mad, and i neex to inferior ks bleed my prey to make him an invalid target to slow down a deck i have no answer for or possibly make my preys pool look stealable. As far as catching if its a ptw violation, its too situational to prove in many cases, but can be proven in others. Im not sure what lsj really beleived on the topoc since theres a vagueness to his related rulings, but Pascal has plainly waited to comment on this, so hes obviously given it alot of thought.

> Pascal wrote: > "Accidental play", "bad play", "oops-I-didn't-see-my-grand-prey-is-tapped-out play", etc... don't exist in the rules. They all fall under the general rules of the game. > > As I can see it, there are only two possibilities: > a- Playing a card would oust the player. > b- Playing a card would not oust the player. > > b- doesn't require a judge call (*). Sometimes, some people will call it "bad play" ("why did you play High Museum of Art when your predator has Parity Shifts and stealth to steal it?"); sometimes some people will call it "good play" ("Oh, I see, now you tapped Parthenon and you can use the pool from the Museum to bid for Niklaus on your Temptation of Greater Power... smart") > > Now, a- is somewhat trickier. > There is only two situations where a player is allowed to self-oust. That's when that player has the won the game already, or when he can't get more VPs. In any other scenario, that play is invalid and should be fixed by the Judge (recommendation: rollback). > > (*) Though soemtimes it does. "Why are you spending 15 pool on ToGP to acquire Yorik, when noone else has more than 5 pool ?". Call the Judge. > this is a great guideline because it is pretty darn clear. So clear that a judge is not usually needed, which I think should be the goal with rules and guidelines. However, James is correct. It goes against precedence. I was actually in a game in the EC 2010 FCQ for which you were the judge where you made a player roll back a Parity Shift because you judged it was against PTW even though he would not have harmed himself in any way (it would have helped his prey a lot and maybe led to his grand-prey's oust). Now I understand that judges have to make quick decisions when judging a huge tournament like that and that perspectives change over time. I know my vote doesn't count, but I would be in favor of formally repealing those old precedents to be replaced by the guideline you've discussed here. With talk of rewriting the Judges' Guidelines, it seems like a good time.

> AaronC wrote: > I was actually in a game in the EC 2010 FCQ for which you were the judge where you made a player roll back a Parity Shift because you judged it was against PTW even though he would not have harmed himself in any way (it would have helped his prey a lot and maybe led to his grand-prey's oust). > Was there any suspicion of collusion? Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

This seems like a good place to start judging revisions. Im normally behind LSJ rulings because he made most of the rules, id assume he is most qualified to decide on such things. Maybe he could even chime in again on this premise. He did join in with the idea behind Beast and stakes.

> Ankha wrote: > > > AaronC wrote: > > I was actually in a game in the EC 2010 FCQ for which you were the judge where you made a player roll back a Parity Shift because you judged it was against PTW even though he would not have harmed himself in any way (it would have helped his prey a lot and maybe led to his grand-prey's oust). > > > Was there any suspicion of collusion? > No. @ReverendRevolver: LSJ is no longer an authority for the game. VEKN is free to update guidelines and rulings as it sees fit. There's no going back, only going forward.

> AaronC wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > > > > AaronC wrote: > > > I was actually in a game in the EC 2010 FCQ for which you were the judge where you made a player roll back a Parity Shift because you judged it was against PTW even though he would not have harmed himself in any way (it would have helped his prey a lot and maybe led to his grand-prey's oust). > > > > > Was there any suspicion of collusion? > > > No. > > @ReverendRevolver: LSJ is no longer an authority for the game. VEKN is free to update guidelines and rulings as it sees fit. There's no going back, only going forward. > I agree, but the primary opposition to most common sense rulings that are invalid due to LSJ rulings are the hangers on to LSJ rulings being the definative backlog of rulings. Hes just a dude, not an infallable entity. Pascal saying me disguising out a flamethrower when im at 4 pool is illegal by way of play to win violation makes perfect sense to me. The rule should be such. But, there will be an invitable outcry, initially by folls who love the game and have vaguely real concerns, then (as freaking always) someone sayimg"vekn bad, me good, blah" and another 173 pages of forum before everyone gets over it and, even if they wont admit it, says Pascal is 176% right on making this decision. Just trying to ease the process. But, i agree with you, Aaron. And its Pascals right, or more accurately duty, to rule as he believes(and in this case, logic dictates) to be best.

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > This seems like a good place to start judging revisions. Im normally behind LSJ rulings because he made most of the rules, id assume he is most qualified to decide on such things. Maybe he could even chime in again on this premise. He did join in with the idea behind Beast and stakes. > PTW is supposed to basically ensure people go to meet the GAME objective of winning. Once the game is won or lost by a player, they can play as they wish. Before then, they are meant to try win. This is about judges and basically judges not interfering in the play-of-the-game. The judge is NOT there to protect people from their own bad decisions. The judges is there to protect the state of the game from players' self-interest going outside the rules of the game. Again for the financial market analogies. The Judge in VTES is there to prevent ENRON from occurring (not playing by the rules, illegal manipulation of game state, collusion, etc). The Judge in VTES is NOT there to prevent the collapse of Arthur Andersen when everyone hears their major audit client was cooking the books and they did nothing. (Arthur Andersen went from one of the Big 5 Accounting firms to swallowed up worldwide within a month or so by the other Big 4 when the overwhelming majority of their clients left them. They were stupid and their clients punished them for their bad decisions.) Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> Juggernaut1981 wrote: > This is about judges and basically judges not interfering in the play-of-the-game. The judge is NOT there to protect people from their own bad decisions. The judges is there to protect the state of the game from players' self-interest going outside the rules of the game. > As I mentioned in my example, I have seen PTW used to protect a player from ANOTHER player's ostensibly bad decision. In this thread people are talking specifically about self-ousting, but PTW can also be used by the judge to interfere with all kinds of cross-table actions. I feel that in VTES there is a reality that players use out-of-game considerations when making decisions. Some considerations I have seen are personal dislike, friendship, "roleplaying", and the reputation of another player's ability. Also, people make suboptimal decisions because they don't know better, because they guess wrong about hidden information, because they forget known information, because they are influenced by a fellow persuasive player, or because some gambits in this game require suboptimal maneuvers. Because it is so hard to judge people's intentions, I think that in general, judges shouldn't have to try. A move either violates a PTW, sportsmanship, or cheating rule, or it doesn't. However, admissions should be more important. If someone admits to not playing to win or to unsportsmanlike motivations, they should get nailed by the judge. Otherwise, there should be a presumption of correctly motivated play. That's why I like Pascal's guideline, because it is so cut-and-dried. I think that it should include a statement about using a player's statement that he is not playing to win as evidence that he is not playing to win.

> AaronC wrote: > As I mentioned in my example, I have seen PTW used to protect a player from ANOTHER player's ostensibly bad decision. In this thread people are talking specifically about self-ousting, but PTW can also be used by the judge to interfere with all kinds of cross-table actions. > Then for starters, I'd say the judge is too interventionist UNLESS there was a call for a judge. They should just back off. IF there was a call for a judge on the matter, then the PTW rule is about the Methuselah making the decisions. If they end up crippling someone else out of the game but are still PTW on their own actions, then it stands. PTW is not a 'table state' decision but a decision made in the best interests of the deciding Methuselah at the time it was decided. PTW can't protect you from OTHERS' stupidity. That's what Table-Talk is for. PTW can be used to force another person to explain their stupidity to a Judge who can then declare it to be "Illegal Stupidity" and breaching PTW but it should not be used to protect a 3rd party from the stupidity of the Methuselah under the PTW challenge. PTW is a self-interest test NOT a table-state test. That is: 1) If another player is making a bad decision that will ruin your chances of a win, it would be against PTW for YOU not to argue your ass off about why it's a bad decision. It is not for the judge to stop that action UNLESS it violates the PTW of the player taking the action. (e.g. Domain Challenge might oust someone cross table or may even cripple players who might then be ousted later, but if it doesn't break the PTW of the player playing it, then it should stand) 2) Player A feels that their only chance for success is to rush a minion of Player D, obliterate that minion and thereby effectively oust D so that C can be E's predator. If that logic holds from Player As perspective, then it is PTW regardless of how it may completely ruin Player Ds game. A is acting in the self-interest of A, therefore it is PTW. 3) It is also PTW to let a player make a bad decision, like your prey. If your prey makes a bad decision and you say nothing, you are acting in PTW. If they play illegally it is the responsibility of the group to change the game state since the rules have been violated. In the example I gave earlier in the thread, not blocking your prey taking a Patronage while on 1 pool represents a VP, 6 pool and no cost to yourself... insisting against that would almost make me tell you that you are breaking PTW UNLESS the action was illegal and not just stupid. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

On 3, do you EVER remind your prey to collect for the edge? I mean, even setting up a parity shift gives them thier whole turn to spend the pool, so id venture the standard answer is "hell no" But, the debate(i thought) Is if the patronage is illegal.

Can you play Patronage in a tournament when you are on 1 pool...? 1) Was the card played correctly? - Was it announced? - Was its cost clearly known? - Was its cost payable when played? 2) Was the action successful? - Was it not DI'd/ended somehow? - Was it not blocked? - Was its cost paid? If either of those steps says "No", then a Judge should rewind everything back to the point where the player said they were going to play Patronage and ask them to do it over. Now we get into the fuzzy PTW stuff. Most of this for me is whether the player is in a PTW-Exempted position. 3) Are you PTW exempted? (i.e. are you in a Win position or No-Win-Reasonable position?) - Yes: Play on. He's winning/losing so it's not a PTW problem. - No: Go to 4... 4) Was it a mistake? - Yes: Suck it up princess you ousted yourself. PTW shouldn't protect you from your stupidity. It is meant to protect the goal of the game that players should try win. In the same way PTW can't protect you/others if you play a Weenie Animalism Crypt with a Big-Cap-Vote Library... your stupidity is not countered by PTW, you must use your stupid deck building decisions to try win VPs. - No: Go to 5... 6) Can the judge see that this is not a simple mistake? (i.e. collusion, Ben Peal should see this is a dumb idea, even Hugh Angseesing should realise that this card play is not in his own interest...) - Yes: Rewind it, issue penalties, etc. Use your Judgement Judge. - No: Go to 7 7) Someone else thinks your move violates their PTW. They pose an argument from the information available to them. - Judge seems to think that their argument is solid... Rewind it. There is evidence to suggest you were not trying to preserve the goal of the game and win. - Insufficient evidence/argument... You are dead. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

I disagree with almost all of that. It's too much - too many steps, too many factors to consider. Checking to see if it was announced correctly? Come on! I'm not saying that what you've written is technically incorrect - if it's technically correct, it's good evidence that the rulings and guidelines are crazy complicated. The guideline Pascal noted in this thread was that if it ousts you and you are not in a position in which you are allowed to oust yourself, it is rolled back and disallowed. As I said, I think it's a great guideline. Under that guideline, you cannot declare Patronage on 1 pool unless you are allowed to self-oust. If you try it and are not in a position where you can legally self-oust, you are told by the other players or a judge you can't, and you have to take the Patronage back into your hand and the action is rolled back. It wouldn't matter if the action was or wasn't declared correctly, it wouldn't matter if the action was done with the intention to self-oust or not. No intentional or unintentional self-ousting without a GW or a "lost" position.

Juggernaut, you skipped a bracketed 5. And it seems your step 1.3 makes your rules fit what Pascal said. If you cant do it under PTW, its cost cannotcbe paid. Now, there are circumstances where even with what pascal has said, your own idiocy can oust you: Jephta Hester is my last ready minion. Shes famous, tension is out. I have 4 pool. My prey has 6 pool, and an untapped Murat (remember that guy?) With two blood. Jephta has 2 blood as well. I bleed with govern, dare the dawn at basic, and conditioning it. My grandprey at 3 pool watches nervously. My prey DIs the conditioning, draws a Lost in translation, and bounces. Sequence of events: Grandprey cant block, gets ousted, action concludes, Jephta pays a blood, takes first agg to torpor and burns a blood there. Since she didnt brun outright(which would hit me for just tension) i take one tension, 3 to fame, and probably get a dunce hat placed on my head. Im ousted, my grandprey is ousted, im a moron, and since i was attempting to maximize vps and failed due to other players having cards to screw me, oh well for me. This would even hold true in a 3 player. Not good move, but still attempt to win.

> AaronC wrote: > I disagree with almost all of that. It's too much - too many steps, too many factors to consider. Checking to see if it was announced correctly? Come on! I'm not saying that what you've written is technically incorrect - if it's technically correct, it's good evidence that the rulings and guidelines are crazy complicated. > That would be the steps I'd go through mentally as a judge. First steps are, was the card played properly... if that's all good then I start heading to the PTW. My concern is not to save/protect players but to protect the rules of the game from the players and other players from rules violations. > The guideline Pascal noted in this thread was that if it ousts you and you are not in a position in which you are allowed to oust yourself, it is rolled back and disallowed. As I said, I think it's a great guideline. > The assessments from LSJ do not match this. Pascal is counteracting poor decision-making. At that point, I'd suggest that the Judge is playing the game via proxy through the Player who has made the poor decision. I am not there to prevent players making poor decisions, otherwise I have to overview every decision because it might not be PTW and I play 25 decks simultaneously against myself with other people manipulating the cards... Yes I am invoking a slippery slope argument, but ruling it this way does open that door and I personally want it firmly shut. The JUDGE is not a PLAYER. > Under that guideline, you cannot declare Patronage on 1 pool unless you are allowed to self-oust. If you try it and are not in a position where you can legally self-oust, you are told by the other players or a judge you can't, and you have to take the Patronage back into your hand and the action is rolled back. It wouldn't matter if the action was or wasn't declared correctly, it wouldn't matter if the action was done with the intention to self-oust or not. No intentional or unintentional self-ousting without a GW or a "lost" position. > That's fine, under the way Pascal wants to judge he will reverse people's bad decisions and mistakes if he thinks it is a PTW violation. I won't. If you've made a BAD decision (i.e. haven't thought carefully, been observant and then done something stupid... like rushed Hektor while tensions is on the table without damage prevention) then I'm not going to rewind your stupidity. Rewinding it breaks the PTW of your predator while it preserves your PTW. I will tend to resolve conflicts of PTW against a bad decision. HOWEVER, if I think that there was some form of collusion or poor sportsmanship-like play then I will rewind, take action and continue. New players will get more leniency in their stupidity, especially if they are the ones who request the "Is this PTW?" (i.e. person declares card and then realises it is stupid and asks me if we can rewind the game state since they now realise it is against their own PTW). Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > Now, there are circumstances where even with what pascal has said, your own idiocy can oust you: > Jephta Hester is my last ready minion. Shes famous, tension is out. I have 4 pool. My prey has 6 pool, and an untapped Murat (remember that guy?) With two blood. Jephta has 2 blood as well. I bleed with govern, dare the dawn at basic, and conditioning it. My grandprey at 3 pool watches nervously. > My prey DIs the conditioning, draws a Lost in translation, and bounces. Sequence of events: > Grandprey cant block, gets ousted, action concludes, Jephta pays a blood, takes first agg to torpor and burns a blood there. Since she didnt brun outright(which would hit me for just tension) i take one tension, 3 to fame, and probably get a dunce hat placed on my head. > Im ousted, my grandprey is ousted, im a moron, and since i was attempting to maximize vps and failed due to other players having cards to screw me, oh well for me. This would even hold true in a 3 player. Not good move, but still attempt to win. > See I don't think that is idiocy, I'd suggest that the entire sequence shows innovative PTW on behalf of the Prey. I should not penalise the Prey's ability to PTW by rewinding that. The problem with the "Patronage on 1 pool" problem is "Whose PTW counts highest?" In my own opinion the 'lowest' PTW consideration is the person who seems to be making a mistake or a poor decision. As I have said MANY times: The Judge is not there to make players become Marionettes. The Judge should protect the state of the game from rules violations and the problem with PTW is that it immediately sets up conflicts where the judge must choose whose PTW is most important to preserve. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

In order to answer the OP's question I attempted to answer this related question: Is it legal to play a card whose cost reduces you to 0 pool? Yes. The rules do not forbid it. Normally, that would be sufficient, but here is a troublesome ruling (emphasis mine): > > http://www.vekn.net/general-rulings wrote: > You cannot play a card whose cost cannot be paid. If, between the time a action card is played (or an action is attempted) and the time the cost of the action is paid, you no longer can pay the cost, then you pay as much as you can and the card is burned without effect (or the action has no effect). [TOM 19960514] [RTR 20010710] > But what if the card costs your current pool total - can you play it? Two reasonable interpretations: You can pay the cost, but it ousts you. You cannot pay the cost because it would oust you; therefore, the play is not permitted. Most of you already know that 1 is the correct interpretation. However, that ruling is not found anywhere on site (google "Eternals of Sirius 4 pool"). I feel that the Eternals of Sirius ruling should be made clear on this site, or made part of the rule book. My judgement of the situation described by the OP: roll back to the player's master phase, and fuck you for not wanting to let them.

Thank you, my good Sir for answering my question w/o WOT! NC of Hungary ///

A judge should only step in when absolutely necessary. A player is fully allowed to play any card they can afford, even if the cost reduces them to 0. "I expected someone to play a Life Boon and keep me in the game." If the player did not realize they were going to be ousted, oh well you're a bad player and got yourself ousted. A judge doesn't stop a player from acting/blocking an incorrect action that leaves them open to being ousted, they shouldn't stop choice of what Master card to play.

> Pagan wrote: > "I expected someone to play a Life Boon and keep me in the game." > Aaah now, is this based on some deal? If so, you got suckered. If not, you're an idiot. Either way... you're dead. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418