Play to Win situation

If the judge is only alerted to it later, they can make any of a variety of game state alterations/corrections (as they can for any other infraction). Obvious examples including adjusting pool totals (up or down), moving cards in and out of play, adjusting the blood or life on a minion, tapping or untapping a card, or whatever else.

James,
judge can advise, or order, to be precise, to adjust life, blood, pool, he can advise player to untap/tap a card, or to move card out of play. What he cannot do, or in fact, must not do, is to do those things himself. Because he is not proprietor of tokens and/or cards, and no game rule should allow him to do that.
He can disqualify a player who is not obedient to his commands, and take further punitive actions, but he cannot enforce rules - simply because his powers are judicial, not executive.
In that spirit, you can order player in question not to transfer himself out, and if he does not obey your decision, you can disqualify him. Either way, that player gets no VPs.
Since it is his untap phase, and every other situation has "what if" option, my rule would be that player can self oust.
Just my two eurocents...

Megabaja wrote:

James,
judge can advise, or order, to be precise, to adjust life, blood, pool, he can advise player to untap/tap a card, or to move card out of play. What he cannot do, or in fact, must not do, is to do those things himself. Because he is not proprietor of tokens and/or cards, and no game rule should allow him to do that.

Everything you have just said is incorrect.

Only the judge can make these corrections, and they are not advice. They are corrections made by the judge.

From the Judges' Guide:

Judges wrote:

200. Correction of Game State

This section generally deals with returning the game to a fair and playable state after certain types of infractions. Only the judge may make corrections to the game state. Correction of the game state is done in addition to and not instead of the application of the appropriate penalty for the infraction.

If you are, for some reason, trying to distinguish between the judge touching the glass bead and the player touching the glass bead, then are you going to crap yourself when another player taps the card for me because I have a drink in my hand?

It's a card game where - more or less - every card may be handled by another player at some point. Either they steal it, or they ask to read it. If people touching your cards is a problem for you, you may be playing the wrong game.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

acbishop wrote:

my first statement is that playing bad is not illegal, we can't be all of us Erik's clons and playing perfectly all the time.
So, for me the thing to check is if for the player is reasonably to think that he's not able to get more VP's. If it is reasonable on that player situation to think that he can't make more VP's then that player is not violating the play to win, he's simply playing bad. That's all.

No, that's not all.

If you decide the player is violating play-to-win, you must also intervene. If - per your previous statements - you refuse to intervene, you're doing it wrong.

For deciding if player is violating play-to-win or not I check if player reasonably thinks he can't get more VP's, and not If I were the player I'd thougth I'd have a chance for getting more VP's cause it's not me the player, in that case player is making a bad decision in the game but not an ilegal play, cause playing bad is not illegal(i'm sur you can find also LSJ saying that playing bad is not illegal). I think that the difference of reasoning is that you're stablishing the situation from the judge's point of view thinking if the judge were the player and not from the player's point of view, after a conversation with the player and checking the information of the table you can stablish if player is violating the play_to_win or if he's playing bad cause he doesn't realize how to interact with other players to get another VP, and all of this without telling the player the possibilities he has to get more VPs (asking wall deck to block the rescue from torpor action, etc...), cause is up to the player of realize about he can make another VPs even without vampires ready.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Dorrinal wrote:

We're off usenet now. A new judge has no way of finding the rulings

Using Google Groups to search for posts works just like it has for a number of years (and Deja News did before that).

This was often done by people using other forums - White Wolf's own, Presence, the Path of Blood, regional forums, the Yahoo rulings mailing list. They were off Usenet, but still managed it.

Have people's fingers suddenly fallen off?

Now that VEKN seemingly has its shit together, and has created a centralized repository of official rules and rulings, we should not expect the old ways to suffice.

acbishop wrote:

I think that the difference of reasoning is that you're stablishing the situation from the judge's point of view thinking if the judge were the player

This is nonsense. There is nothing about the judge exercising their judgment that requires them to impose how they'd play the situation on the other player.

For example, the judge may see an inexperienced player making silly tactical errors (legal play, but probably the wrong play) and not correct it. Even though they'd play differently.


You are approaching this whole situation fundamentally incorrectly. It is simply a judgment about what is reasonable, in the circumstances. The circumstances include the judge's assessment of player skill etc., and this can help determine whether the judge believes the player is making a mistake or is intentionally violating play-to-win.

acbishop wrote:

and not from the player's point of view, after a conversation with the player and checking the information of the table you can stablish if player is violating the play_to_win or if he's playing bad cause he doesn't realize how to interact with other players to get another VP, and all of this without telling the player the possibilities he has to get more VPs (asking wall deck to block the rescue from torpor action, etc...), cause is up to the player of realize about he can make another VPs even without vampires ready.

No, you are continually asserting 'bad play', and not addressing a violation of play-to-win.

Bad play is bad play is bad play. A player makes a mistake. A player misses an opportunity. A player miscounts the number of counters on an opponent's vampire. This is all bad play. This is not intended to be corrected. (Of course, mistakes may be made.) Does the player's behaviour seem reasonable in the circumstances? Sure. The fact that a not-at-all-obvious play might allow a VP? Not a violation of play-to-win if the judge's judgment is that it was reasonably missed.


Intentionally violating play-to-win is not the same as bad play. In its essentials, it is very different from bad play (although it might involve some bad play). For example:

- if I oust myself now, I screw my predator's game up, and I hate my predator and want to spite him. However, I can still reasonably get more VPs (and maybe the Game Win). This self-oust would be a violation of play-to-win. It would not be 'bad play'. It is me intentionally trying to oust myself.

- I can reasonably achieve the Game Win, but if I give the Game Win to my friend, we both get into the finals, so I do that instead. This is a violation of play-to-win.

- I am already in the finals, because I have 2 Game Wins from the previous 2 rounds and it's mathematically impossible for me not to be in the final. (Due to the particular size or arrangement of the tournament, this is easily possible.) Instead of attempting to get VPs here, I instead attempt to oust my grand-predator, and prevent her from getting any VPs. I figure her deck is the most dangerous to me in the finals, so I don't want it there. This is a violation of play-to-win.



These are not about bad play. These are violations of play-to-win, and require corrective action from the judge.


The judge - without the psychic probe - will need to assess whether they think borderline behaviour is bad play or violating play-to-win. They may make mistakes, but it's their job to assess this - and correct the infraction, as they perceive it.

none of those situations are the same that the situation asked on this post, on this post there is no finals consideration, friend consideration, etc...
all my posts on this thread are only refered for this specific situation and no others, so please, don't add any other situation that could arrange your reasoning. If player reasonably thinks he can't get more VP's he's making a bad choice in the game, but I can't see play-to-win violating, but if after the conversation with the player judges thinks that the player is telling him bullshit about his reasons about doing that, so judge will stablish that player is aware of all the situation on the table and won't allow to spend last pool on the transfert.

is it legal to do what player did?

If player reasonably thinks he can't make more VP's YES.
If player does not reasonable think he can't make more VP's not.

the judge will determine after conversation with the player if it is reasonably or not. But the answer is not as simple as you say it is.

You're stablishing for sure that it is not legal. But it could be depending on player reasoning, cause once again, making bad decissions is not ilegal.