Rules Team Rulings - 02-DEC-2014

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Pascal wrote:

3.1.1. Round Time Limits
Each round in the tournament has a time limit. The minimum time limit used in V:TES rounds is two hours. The time limit must be announced before play begins. The final round may last longer than the preliminary rounds, at the judge's option.
When the round is over, the judge will notify all players. The game will end with the current minion action - if any -, or at the end of the current phase, if the notification didn't happen during the minion phase.

So, since this reintroduces the problem that the previous version of the rule had solved, how should the following be handled?

Three (or more) players are on the table. Prior to the time limit expiring, player A starts a political action, such as Kine Resources Contested, Reckless Agitation, or Revolutionary Council (any vote where there is significant discretion about allocating pool damage would be fine). Prior to the terms being set, the time limit expires. The game is finely balanced, such that several players could be ousted, depending on the terms set. One way might give one player a game win; one way might a player another VP but leave them tied on VPs total (but that might still be better than having the vote fail); on a table with five players remaining, the acting Methuselah might try to get two VP by ousting his prey and grand-prey simultaneously but someone else threatens a Delaying Tactics if a point isn't given to a different Methuselah (so the acting Methuselah gets 1 VP and that other Methuselah gets 1VP). Negotiations ensue. Player B and Player C (and Player D etc. if necessary) make a number of promises, threats, and other negotiating stances. There is a lengthy period of threats; counter-threats; claims that someone is bluffing; counter-claims that no, I saw him play that card in round one, so I know he has at least one in his deck; I can pitch the Edge and this copy of Alastor to help you pass it if you set the terms this way, and so on. No-one plays slowly, but no-one has any incentive to give in - bluffing and manipulation are in no way poor play in V:TES.

This is not idle speculation - I've been witness to such things happening under the WotC tournament rules, when they didn't require immediate termination of the game .

Back then, game would end at the end of the turn, which makes promises at time limit a lot more valid than per the current change ("If you kill my prey with your first KRC, I will vote in favour of killing your prey on your second KRC" - there will be no next "KRC now").

jamesatzephyr wrote:

1) As a judge, is there any way I can intervene? As far as I can tell, no - no-one is playing illegally.

Correct - and unrelated to the current change of rules. Just like in mid-game discussions, if the judge realises the discussion is going in circles, giving a gentle push to the players to get things moving usually helps.
Currently, the sequencing rule doesn't apply to casting votes or ballots. If the current handling of casting appears to be too costly (see below), I might consider involving sequencing in there.

Anyways: always check if PTW rule is respected when setting the terms (this can sometimes remove choices). Check if PTW is respected when casting votes / ballots.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

2) As a tournament organiser, how do I tell people when the next round will start? As a tournament organizer, how much time should I allot between rounds when announcing the tournament, so people know if they have time to play the whole thing, and I know the venue won't be trying to shut in the middle of the final?

The test data collected in Finland amounted to 3min 31 sec of extra game out of 144 played games (bias: Finnish politics usually last till one of the combatants is sent to torpor or burned)
French tests didn't show overextended game durations.
It seems safe to assume that the (usual?) 10-15min break will cover this.

BenPeal wrote:

Yes, you can intervene. You're the judge.

Incorrect. As the judge, I can't intervene, as Pascal has confirmed.

Pascal wrote:

Back then, game would end at the end of the turn, which makes promises at time limit a lot more valid than per the current change ("If you kill my prey with your first KRC, I will vote in favour of killing your prey on your second KRC" - there will be no next "KRC now").

There doesn't need to be a next KRC. The terms of a single referendum can knock out several players at once.

Pascal wrote:

Just like in mid-game discussions, if the judge realises the discussion is going in circles, giving a gentle push to the players to get things moving usually helps.

As I say, I'm not talking about breaching unintentional slow play rules (or intentional stalling rules), just when negotiations take a very, very long time indeed because absolutely no-one has an incentive to back down.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

BenPeal wrote:

Yes, you can intervene. You're the judge.

Incorrect. As the judge, I can't intervene, as Pascal has confirmed.

And Pascal is incorrect. If the next round of games can't be started properly, then intervention is necessary.

BenPeal wrote:

And Pascal is incorrect. If the next round of games can't be started properly, then intervention is necessary.

Then surely the correct intervention here is to fix the rules. The rules were changed to the pre-this-ruling form to avoid this class of problem.

A fairly simple fix that preserves the apparent intent of the rules change is to provide a backstop. The time limit kicks in at 2 hours as in the rules change. If by 2 hours 5 minutes things haven't been concluded, play terminates.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

BenPeal wrote:

And Pascal is incorrect. If the next round of games can't be started properly, then intervention is necessary.

Then surely the correct intervention here is to fix the rules.

Yeah, I said that already:

I wrote:

Perhaps this is a contingency that should be covered with a rule. Until there is such a rule, do your job as the judge and end the game so the next round can start.

You wrote:

A fairly simple fix that preserves the apparent intent of the rules change is to provide a backstop. The time limit kicks in at 2 hours as in the rules change. If by 2 hours 5 minutes things haven't been concluded, play terminates.

Sure, or "The judge may end the current game so the next one can start."