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

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?

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...