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

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.