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

On 3, do you EVER remind your prey to collect for the edge? I mean, even setting up a parity shift gives them thier whole turn to spend the pool, so id venture the standard answer is "hell no"
But, the debate(i thought)
Is if the patronage is illegal.

Can you play Patronage in a tournament when you are on 1 pool...?

1) Was the card played correctly?
- Was it announced?
- Was its cost clearly known?
- Was its cost payable when played?

2) Was the action successful?
- Was it not DI'd/ended somehow?
- Was it not blocked?
- Was its cost paid?

If either of those steps says "No", then a Judge should rewind everything back to the point where the player said they were going to play Patronage and ask them to do it over.

Now we get into the fuzzy PTW stuff. Most of this for me is whether the player is in a PTW-Exempted position.

3) Are you PTW exempted? (i.e. are you in a Win position or No-Win-Reasonable position?)
- Yes: Play on. He's winning/losing so it's not a PTW problem.
- No: Go to 4...

4) Was it a mistake?
- Yes: Suck it up princess you ousted yourself. PTW shouldn't protect you from your stupidity. It is meant to protect the goal of the game that players should try win. In the same way PTW can't protect you/others if you play a Weenie Animalism Crypt with a Big-Cap-Vote Library... your stupidity is not countered by PTW, you must use your stupid deck building decisions to try win VPs.
- No: Go to 5...

6) Can the judge see that this is not a simple mistake? (i.e. collusion, Ben Peal should see this is a dumb idea, even Hugh Angseesing should realise that this card play is not in his own interest...)
- Yes: Rewind it, issue penalties, etc. Use your Judgement Judge.
- No: Go to 7

7) Someone else thinks your move violates their PTW. They pose an argument from the information available to them.
- Judge seems to think that their argument is solid... Rewind it. There is evidence to suggest you were not trying to preserve the goal of the game and win.
- Insufficient evidence/argument... You are dead.

I disagree with almost all of that. It's too much - too many steps, too many factors to consider. Checking to see if it was announced correctly? Come on! I'm not saying that what you've written is technically incorrect - if it's technically correct, it's good evidence that the rulings and guidelines are crazy complicated.

The guideline Pascal noted in this thread was that if it ousts you and you are not in a position in which you are allowed to oust yourself, it is rolled back and disallowed. As I said, I think it's a great guideline.

Under that guideline, you cannot declare Patronage on 1 pool unless you are allowed to self-oust. If you try it and are not in a position where you can legally self-oust, you are told by the other players or a judge you can't, and you have to take the Patronage back into your hand and the action is rolled back. It wouldn't matter if the action was or wasn't declared correctly, it wouldn't matter if the action was done with the intention to self-oust or not. No intentional or unintentional self-ousting without a GW or a "lost" position.

Juggernaut, you skipped a bracketed 5.

And it seems your step 1.3 makes your rules fit what Pascal said. If you cant do it under PTW, its cost cannotcbe paid.

Now, there are circumstances where even with what pascal has said, your own idiocy can oust you:
Jephta Hester is my last ready minion. Shes famous, tension is out. I have 4 pool. My prey has 6 pool, and an untapped Murat (remember that guy?) With two blood. Jephta has 2 blood as well. I bleed with govern, dare the dawn at basic, and conditioning it. My grandprey at 3 pool watches nervously.
My prey DIs the conditioning, draws a Lost in translation, and bounces. Sequence of events:
Grandprey cant block, gets ousted, action concludes, Jephta pays a blood, takes first agg to torpor and burns a blood there. Since she didnt brun outright(which would hit me for just tension) i take one tension, 3 to fame, and probably get a dunce hat placed on my head.
Im ousted, my grandprey is ousted, im a moron, and since i was attempting to maximize vps and failed due to other players having cards to screw me, oh well for me. This would even hold true in a 3 player. Not good move, but still attempt to win.

AaronC wrote:

I disagree with almost all of that. It's too much - too many steps, too many factors to consider. Checking to see if it was announced correctly? Come on! I'm not saying that what you've written is technically incorrect - if it's technically correct, it's good evidence that the rulings and guidelines are crazy complicated.

That would be the steps I'd go through mentally as a judge. First steps are, was the card played properly... if that's all good then I start heading to the PTW. My concern is not to save/protect players but to protect the rules of the game from the players and other players from rules violations.

The guideline Pascal noted in this thread was that if it ousts you and you are not in a position in which you are allowed to oust yourself, it is rolled back and disallowed. As I said, I think it's a great guideline.

The assessments from LSJ do not match this. Pascal is counteracting poor decision-making. At that point, I'd suggest that the Judge is playing the game via proxy through the Player who has made the poor decision. I am not there to prevent players making poor decisions, otherwise I have to overview every decision because it might not be PTW and I play 25 decks simultaneously against myself with other people manipulating the cards... Yes I am invoking a slippery slope argument, but ruling it this way does open that door and I personally want it firmly shut. The JUDGE is not a PLAYER.

Under that guideline, you cannot declare Patronage on 1 pool unless you are allowed to self-oust. If you try it and are not in a position where you can legally self-oust, you are told by the other players or a judge you can't, and you have to take the Patronage back into your hand and the action is rolled back. It wouldn't matter if the action was or wasn't declared correctly, it wouldn't matter if the action was done with the intention to self-oust or not. No intentional or unintentional self-ousting without a GW or a "lost" position.

That's fine, under the way Pascal wants to judge he will reverse people's bad decisions and mistakes if he thinks it is a PTW violation. I won't. If you've made a BAD decision (i.e. haven't thought carefully, been observant and then done something stupid... like rushed Hektor while tensions is on the table without damage prevention) then I'm not going to rewind your stupidity. Rewinding it breaks the PTW of your predator while it preserves your PTW. I will tend to resolve conflicts of PTW against a bad decision. HOWEVER, if I think that there was some form of collusion or poor sportsmanship-like play then I will rewind, take action and continue. New players will get more leniency in their stupidity, especially if they are the ones who request the "Is this PTW?" (i.e. person declares card and then realises it is stupid and asks me if we can rewind the game state since they now realise it is against their own PTW).

ReverendRevolver wrote:

Now, there are circumstances where even with what pascal has said, your own idiocy can oust you:
Jephta Hester is my last ready minion. Shes famous, tension is out. I have 4 pool. My prey has 6 pool, and an untapped Murat (remember that guy?) With two blood. Jephta has 2 blood as well. I bleed with govern, dare the dawn at basic, and conditioning it. My grandprey at 3 pool watches nervously.
My prey DIs the conditioning, draws a Lost in translation, and bounces. Sequence of events:
Grandprey cant block, gets ousted, action concludes, Jephta pays a blood, takes first agg to torpor and burns a blood there. Since she didnt brun outright(which would hit me for just tension) i take one tension, 3 to fame, and probably get a dunce hat placed on my head.
Im ousted, my grandprey is ousted, im a moron, and since i was attempting to maximize vps and failed due to other players having cards to screw me, oh well for me. This would even hold true in a 3 player. Not good move, but still attempt to win.

See I don't think that is idiocy, I'd suggest that the entire sequence shows innovative PTW on behalf of the Prey. I should not penalise the Prey's ability to PTW by rewinding that.

The problem with the "Patronage on 1 pool" problem is "Whose PTW counts highest?" In my own opinion the 'lowest' PTW consideration is the person who seems to be making a mistake or a poor decision.



As I have said MANY times: The Judge is not there to make players become Marionettes. The Judge should protect the state of the game from rules violations and the problem with PTW is that it immediately sets up conflicts where the judge must choose whose PTW is most important to preserve.