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

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)

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.

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.

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.

AaronC wrote:

Malachy wrote:

Greets!


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!

Err, actually, it would apply to this. Playing a master card is an action. It is a master phase action. Just look at Parthenon or Cybelle if you're not sure.

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.