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

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.

"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.