EC 2017 - Questions to judges

Ian Forestal Ian can't play multi-discipline cards if he doesn't have at least one discipline Going anarch The cardless action is not subject to NRA. Erciyes Fragments You can't discard a political card on the Erciyes to gain a vote during a referendum. Scalpel Tongue It can't be played during a Blood Hunt. Shuffle uncontrolled region vs Brainwash EDIT: You CAN shuffle your uncontrolled region in order to make other players lose track of the vampires (for instance the one you've just drawn by spending 1 pool and 4 transfers). Do not replace clause The DNR clause is not applied when the card is cancelled (eg. Direct Intervention) Field Training It can be played on a anarch. Kholo Not playable by a non-acting vampire when another of your vampires is acting. (The acting vampire was not of the clan required by the Kholo). Abactor Can be used by an empty vampire when they do a mandatory hunt. Song of Pan Playing it at 1 pool by mistake is currently legal (was blocked by an Eagle Sight). Eagle Sight The prey can't try to block again with Eagle Sight after declining to block. Jake Washington If stolen, goes to its owner ash heap when burned. Yawp Court Can't be used after the terms have been declared (must be used after the resolution of the action (when it's not blocked), before starting the referendum (and declaring the terms)) Serpent's Numbing Kiss Psyche! at superior cancels the additional effects that would happen after the combat ends. Infernal Pursuit Can't be played by the reacting minion before the acting minion declares their "before range" effects at the start of a combat (unless the acting passes the impulse, of course). Kine Resources Contested You can assign more damage to players than they have pool Art Museum Can't be used twice a turn with House of Sorrow. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Nice list, and a good reminder / resource for everyone.

> Ankha wrote: > Shuffle uncontrolled region vs Brainwash > You can't shuffle your uncontrolled region in order to make other players lose track of the vampires (for instance the one you've just drawn by spending 1 pool and 4 transfers). > This is incorrect, or needs to be announced as a reversal. The uncontrolled region is unordered, and can be freely rearranged. (Which is one of the reasons Nosferatu Hosting is even worse than you think already.) In so far as the cards are indistinguishable because there's nothing distinguishing it from another card (counters, cards on it etc.), you can essentially shuffle them around. Of course, the card that already has the Brainwash on it will still have it on it - but in so far as someone is trying to track your empty Banished Arika or the card you just drew into your uncontrolled region, there's no way of doing that. (In the situation where you really do need to track a specific vampire who has particular effects applied to them - such as a Banished vampire who has some lingering nastiness, and you want to be sure whether a player is bringing out that one or a fresh duplicate, I recommend a small bit of paper under the sleeve, or similar.) [LSJ 20060605] > > LSJ wrote: > > 2) Is there any prohibition against rearranging the order of vampires in > > the uncontrolled region during play? I am not aware of one, but doing so > > would be detrimental to a player watching specific card in the uncontrolled > > region with the intention of playing a Brainwash. > > No. >

> Ankha wrote: > Song of Pan > Playing it at 1 pool by mistake is currently legal (was blocked by an Eagle Sight). > This is also incorrect or a reversal. In www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/57938-can-you-oust-yourself-by-accidentally-playing-a-card-with-a-pool-cost-that-would-kill-you?limit=10&start=30#58553, Pascal completely abandoned the idea of players making mistakes when it comes to self ousting. If a card would self oust you, its play is entirely forbidden by that ruling. (Edit: except where you've already won.) See also the discussion in this thread: www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/75087-hostile-takeover?limitstart=0 (I thought the ruling was wrong as it appeared to proceed from Pascal starting from a fundamentally wrong premise, and prevents players from making interesting or risky judgment calls. But that is the rule as it stands.)

My mistake, there is another ruling that states something that could seem contradictory: [LSJ 20030908] > The uncontrolled region is to > crypt cards what the hand is to library cards. But cards are tracked in > the uncontrolled region. They are only tracked because of Banishment > (and similar effects that followed the printing of Banishment). Banishment > requires that the cards on the uncontrolled vampire (retainers, equipment, > etc.) remain with the vampire. Therefore, the vampire must be tracked. > Since it is being tracked, other effects (Contract, Blood Bond, etc.) > are also able to track it. > To sum up how both rulings work together: Let's consider an uncontrolled region containing two Smudge, one of which was chosen for Divine Sign then later banished, and one that has never been in play. The tracking of which Smudge is which can be done using a piece of paper visible only when the card is face up. If both Smudge has the same amount of blood on them, or the same cards on them, they are indistinguishable. When one of them comes into play, players know which is which thanks to the piece of paper. Players are allowed to shuffle their uncontrolled region, the same way as they can shuffle their hand. Both uncontrolled region and hand has no order. This means you can draw a card from your crypt, then rearrange their order so that other players don't know which was the card drawn. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > Song of Pan > > Playing it at 1 pool by mistake is currently legal (was blocked by an Eagle Sight). > > > This is also incorrect or a reversal. > > In www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/57938-can-you-oust-yourself-by-accidentally-playing-a-card-with-a-pool-cost-that-would-kill-you?limit=10&start=30#58553, Pascal completely abandoned the idea of players making mistakes when it comes to self ousting. If a card would self oust you, its play is entirely forbidden by that ruling. (Edit: except where you've already won.) > > See also the discussion in this thread: www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/75087-hostile-takeover?limitstart=0 > > (I thought the ruling was wrong as it appeared to proceed from Pascal starting from a fundamentally wrong premise, and prevents players from making interesting or risky judgment calls. But that is the rule as it stands.) > This is still under discussion as part of a global reflection about self-ousting, so his ruling should be considered as "pending" until then. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

so let's say 2 Victor Pelletier are in the uncontrolled. or maybe 1, as it is confidential. One has been Prince of Paris previously. But I want to influence him to be an anarch with convert. How can I prove it was not the Prince if I can mix cards as I want? Should I show that I have 2 Pelletier to the judge? - it seems really awkward to me. IC Organized play coordinator Please contact me with any OP query using the mail in my profile

> TapeTaChatte wrote: > so let's say 2 Victor Pelletier are in the uncontrolled. > or maybe 1, as it is confidential. > One has been Prince of Paris previously. > But I want to influence him to be an anarch with convert. > How can I prove it was not the Prince if I can mix cards as I want? Should I show that I have 2 Pelletier to the judge? - it seems really awkward to me. > There is a very lengthy discussion about this case and many other more in the link provided by James, so I won't repeat it here. In your case, you need either to trust the player, or mark the Victor Pelletier that was Prince and later banished by inserting a piece of paper on the front of the card, or a piece of post-it so that when he comes back, you know it was the Victor Pelletier that was banished previously. If you want to bring out copy #2 that wasn't brought in play earlier, you can also prove it (incompletely) by showing two copies. It's incomplete because maybe you changed your mind if you influenced the vampire over more than one turn (nothing proves you didn't want to influence the Prince in the first place, then changed your mind later because someone played an Anarch Revolt in the meantime). In that case, the piece of paper is the best way to go. Most of the case, bringing copy #1 or #2 of the same vampire doesn't change anything, so you don't need to keep track. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

you can't put pieces of paper if you're allowed to mix your uncontrolled, it's two things that can't cohabit with each other IC Organized play coordinator Please contact me with any OP query using the mail in my profile

> TapeTaChatte wrote: > you can't put pieces of paper if you're allowed to mix your uncontrolled, it's two things that can't cohabit with each other > The cards in the uncontrolled region are handled the same way as cards in the hand: the cards are unknown to other players, and their order doesn't matter. That's why they have the same back (and if they don't because of the various editions, that's why we sleeved them with opaque sleeved). The piece of paper is put on the front of the card; this information is kept secret until the card is revealed. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> TapeTaChatte wrote: > you can't put pieces of paper if you're allowed to mix your uncontrolled, it's two things that can't cohabit with each other > Yes, you can. In that sort of situation, the point is that you have two vampires - one with a detriment, one without, or something similar where you care which is which (perhaps one has a positive lingering benefit, whatever). For practical convenience, a player can mark the card in a way that only that player (and the judge) can see, such as a piece of paper in the sleeve, a sticky dot, or whatever. This in no way prevents the player from shuffling their uncontrolled region so that *I* don't know which is which, because I can't see the dot or paper. In the exceedingly rare circumstance where I can see the vampire - such as with a card like Nosferatu Hosting - it may be appropriate to put any marker in the sleeve behind the card. Or to mark all the cards (e.g. a piece of paper saying A, one saying B etc.), with a hidden piece of paper proving which is which when the card is brought back into play. Or something similar. Again, that doesn't stop me shuffling them so that all the players who can't see the vampires don't know which is which. And that you with your Nosferatu Hosting might get to pick the same vampire again, because you can't distinguish them when face down. (Please, don't play Nosferatu Hosting.)

Yeah OK, paper in the sleeve, not paper out of the sleeve, now I see what you mean and that seems good to me, I never really imagined that, but that seems a good solution IC Organized play coordinator Please contact me with any OP query using the mail in my profile

So on self ousting: Is it still legal (regardless of accidental occurrences) To self oust if doing so is the optimal outcome concerning playing to win: I'm first seed at finals, 3players remain. If my prey gets my predator, they win by 1vp, if my predator gets me I win, since my predator must still play to maximize vps . Or am I crazy? I can legally play AI if Lutz bleeds me for 4 and I have 3 pool, no ready minions, and asked the table if anyone will eagle sight, as I can optimize my 0 vps as I see fit, as far as I know.

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > I'm first seed at finals, 3players remain. If my prey gets my predator, they win by 1vp, if my predator gets me I win, since my predator must still play to maximize vps . > > Or am I crazy? I can legally play AI if Lutz bleeds me for 4 and I have 3 pool, no ready minions, and asked the table if anyone will eagle sight, as I can optimize my 0 vps as I see fit, as far as I know. > Assuming that we're back in the situation where you can self-oust, and you're in the final round, the way the final is scored as of 2008 changes the considerations in the final round. There are two outcomes in the final: one, you win; two: you come joint second. There's no risk assessment of playing for second place over fifth place (and potentially different prizes) - it's just first, or joint second. Thus LSJ ruled that since everyone in the game has an infinitesimal theoretical chance of winning, and cannot worsen their outcome (because they come joint second), everyone in the final should try to come first at all times. [LSJ 20071204] > LSJ wrote: > > Basically: during a 2008 final, if a player reasonably tells he can't play > > for first place anymore, > > why that player should go on playing the final round ? > > No. Just the opposite. > > With no risk assessment to fall back on, any chance for first place, no matter > how slim, is better than self-ousting. > > That is, 0.001% * win + 99.999% * 2nd > 100% * 2nd, so PTW means you go for the > 0.001% shot. > [LSJ 20071204] (a different one in the same thread): > LSJ wrote: > > I think the change really propogates to go for the win instead of > > chickening for 2nd because of rating/prizes. I really like that. But as > > pointed out elsewhere there is now the problem of random kingmaking in > > case of a lost cause. > > No. As pointed out elsewhere, there is now none of that. Any player still in the > game has a chance at 1st vs. 2nd (and nothing else), so must try for 1st. > The difference in preliminary rounds is that you may be in a situation where your outcome is made worse by a particular action. There might be a theoretical one in a million chance that you could get a sweep if you drew exactly the right cards in exactly the right order, but if you get it wrong, you'll leave yourself tapped out and get ousted with 0VP. So you choose to play for a solid 2VP on the table instead - and 2VP is better in a preliminary round than 0VP. In the final, all outcomes that don't lead to you winning are treated exactly the same. If you come second with 1VP and I come second with 0VP, we're treated exactly the same - we both came second, with no tie breakers applied. If there are prizes, we should get exactly the same prizes because we both had exactly the same result - second. This rules change in 2008 (announced at the end of 2007, hence the rulings above) was to stop, stymie or reduce a number of the situations that occurred in finals to do with table-splitting deals, players playing for second (rather than fifth), king-making etc.

at the moment, yes, especially because somebody might play a Life boon, so even when playing AI, your game is not technically over IC Organized play coordinator Please contact me with any OP query using the mail in my profile

> TapeTaChatte wrote: > at moment, yes, > Except that that is exactly the opposite of LSJ's ruling on self-ousting in the finals that I just quotes. If you're intentionally self-ousting, meaning to leave the game while coming joint second, you are not playing to win. > TapeTaChatte wrote: > especially because somebody might play a Life boon, so even when playing AI, your game is not technically over > There may be an argument that if you reasonably believe that someone else will keep you in the game for some reason, self-ousting in the final might be legal in that situation. But if you are self-ousting to come joint second, you are not playing to win. Please, please, please read the two rulings from LSJ above, particularly the words: "any chance for first place, no matter how slim, is better than self-ousting". If you are aiming for joint second, you are not playing to win.

Yeah I have read both answers, and mine does not contradict with them. I think I have just proven you how sometimes ousting yourself can bring you a way of playing to win. What LSJ is saying in his ruling is that you must play to win, he is not giving you any indication of how you need to manage that. I have already won games, even in rounds, by being life booned. I have even made deals involving me being life booned at some point of the deal (also read - the stories of Uncle TTC - Tale #7, the life boon and the domain challenge ) Getting bled for 4 and playing AI at 3 pool might be playing to win in some situation (i.e you know you die either way, but hope you can be life booned and it's better if Lutz burns for you to play the remaining of the game) Getting bled for 4 and not playing AI at 3 pool might be playing to win in some situation (i.e you know you die either way, but hope you can be life booned and your only way to win the finals with 2 minuts left is to play anarch revolt with your master phase action so you can't play that Ai). Ultimately, if a play is arguable, it is the judge's responsibility to ensure that PTW is applied correctly, even in rounds. Example: In the 2017 EC final, I let myself die to my predator without resisting because I thought the best way for me to win was to hope for an eagle's sight at some point... even if that meant dying in the process. That's what PTW meant to me at that moment, even if it seemed like a crazy move. On the opposite, some players will tell you that in my position the best way was to defend myself. Maybe they are right. It's a choice. The important part is that there was a way to the win in both stories told. Example 2: On some tournaments in my career, some plays were so stupid they were cancelled by the judge, for example a player ousting himself with Anarchist Uprising. But if this player explains the judge that his goal is to have his ally play his delaying tactics so he can then call a neonate breach to kill his prey, and that accepting risk of death in the process is worth it... who are we to judge and prevent that? It's difficult to prevent people from playing their game if they find right reasons for their behavior. Of course, if they tell you "nah I just want to die and bring somebody with me" that's a different matter. So at the end, it's a judge call, but the judge should keep in mind what he has seen in the game previously when taking his decision (one people and another with very bad relations, out of game considerations, two people knowing each other, and so on) IC Organized play coordinator Please contact me with any OP query using the mail in my profile

> TapeTaChatte wrote: > Yeah I have read both answers, and mine does not contradict with them. > Except... it contradicts them. Revolver asks if he can self-oust in order to optimise his zero VPs in the way he sees fit. Not to pull off some risky strategy, not to try and pull off some clever card cancellation trick, but to get zero VPs. LSJ expressly days that you must play for first place, and playing in order to come second is exactly, completely the opposite of that - but is Revolver's stated intent. You say yes, you can do that. That is expressly, entirely, completely 100% the opposite of what LSJ said - in the final, you must play for first place and Revolver says he isn't doing that. You are wrong.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > TapeTaChatte wrote: > > Yeah I have read both answers, and mine does not contradict with them. > > > Except... it contradicts them. > > Revolver asks if he can self-oust in order to optimise his zero VPs in the way he sees fit. Not to pull off some risky strategy, not to try and pull off some clever card cancellation trick, but to get zero VPs. LSJ expressly days that you must play for first place, and playing in order to come second is exactly, completely the opposite of that - but is Revolver's stated intent. You say yes, you can do that. That is expressly, entirely, completely 100% the opposite of what LSJ said - in the final, you must play for first place and Revolver says he isn't doing that. > > You are wrong. > Actually, AFAICT, in Revolver's scenario he already has 2 VPs and is the top seed. So by self-ousting he prevents his prey from getting 3 VPs, and he could be maximizing his chances to win (if he were sure his prey would oust his predator on the final head-to-head). But in that scenario his prey could choose not to oust, given that his chances to win are then null, and therefore give the third player the GW.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > Revolver asks if he can self-oust in order to optimise his zero VPs in the way he sees fit. > Definitely not what I have read... And I have read it at least 10 Times now IC Organized play coordinator Please contact me with any OP query using the mail in my profile

> Ankha wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > > > Ankha wrote: > > > Song of Pan > > > Playing it at 1 pool by mistake is currently legal (was blocked by an Eagle Sight). > > > > > > > > This is also incorrect or a reversal. > > > > In www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/57938-can-you-oust-yourself-by-accidentally-playing-a-card-with-a-pool-cost-that-would-kill-you?limit=10&start=30#58553, Pascal completely abandoned the idea of players making mistakes when it comes to self ousting. If a card would self oust you, its play is entirely forbidden by that ruling. (Edit: except where you've already won.) > > > > See also the discussion in this thread: www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/75087-hostile-takeover?limitstart=0 > > > > (I thought the ruling was wrong as it appeared to proceed from Pascal starting from a fundamentally wrong premise, and prevents players from making interesting or risky judgment calls. But that is the rule as it stands.) > > > This is still under discussion as part of a global reflection about self-ousting, so his ruling should be considered as "pending" until then. > Is this still "pending" or it has been announced elsewhere? Keep walking...

> Zoroh wrote: > > > Ankha wrote: > > > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ankha wrote: > > > > Song of Pan > > > > Playing it at 1 pool by mistake is currently legal (was blocked by an Eagle Sight). > > > > > > > > > > > This is also incorrect or a reversal. > > > > > > In www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/57938-can-you-oust-yourself-by-accidentally-playing-a-card-with-a-pool-cost-that-would-kill-you?limit=10&start=30#58553, Pascal completely abandoned the idea of players making mistakes when it comes to self ousting. If a card would self oust you, its play is entirely forbidden by that ruling. (Edit: except where you've already won.) > > > > > > See also the discussion in this thread: www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/75087-hostile-takeover?limitstart=0 > > > > > > > > > (I thought the ruling was wrong as it appeared to proceed from Pascal starting from a fundamentally wrong premise, and prevents players from making interesting or risky judgment calls. But that is the rule as it stands.) > > > > > > > > This is still under discussion as part of a global reflection about self-ousting, so his ruling should be considered as "pending" until then. > > > Is this still "pending" or it has been announced elsewhere? > It's still pending. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

Thanks. Keep walking...