Play to Win situation

acbishop wrote:

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

You wrote:

acbishop wrote:

But, I always think that a judge should judge and not force a player to play in a different way, cause judging is not playing the cards.

When you write that judges should ALWAYS refrain from altering a player's play, then people will think that you mean what you wrote. There are many circumstances in which a judge must correct a player's play, so what you wrote was wrong, which is why I disagreed with it.

acbishop wrote:

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.

Which is all a pointless sideshow, because you still haven't issued judges with psychic probes. Hence, it depends on the judge's judgment.

acbishop wrote:

You're stablishing for sure that it is not legal.

I pointed out that since the (apparent) judge had a judgment on the situation, it was apparently not legal. And since it wasn't legal, the judge was empowered to intervene, as a violation of play-to-win. That is, the judge thought the player had a reasonable chance at getting VPs - and it was pretty obvious to the player that it might happen. (Or it might not.)


This is the sort of situation where the possibility of getting VPs is sufficiently obvious that a judge might well believe that the player is doing something nefarious, and not just being dumb.

Either way, the judge's judgment might be wrong. But it's up to the judge's judgment. Until you hand out the psychic probes.

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.

Everything is a bit harsh word, don't you think? I don't agree with you.

I really don't see where rules state that these corrections include handling property that is not your own. And there are common laws that forbid that. And law is above game rule.
What I'm trying to say is - Judge cannot force someone to do anything in game of VtES. My point is that judge should try and solve problems verbally, not physically. Hence the famed "advice/order" term.

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?

Of course I don't mind other people touching my cards. I only say that this is a matter of politeness. In that polite manner, player or judge, asks owner of a card to handle it, and one is usually given permission.

EDIT: Judge's judgement should be derived from both: current situation on the table, and participating players' statements. If a player explains his actions, there is no reason to thwart his play, even if it is essentially bad...

Even in the situation Amenophobis described, judge should ask a selfousting player politely to explain his decision. Then, after explanation, judge should make a ruling if selfousting was a violation of a game rules. There is plenty of reasons for player D to exit the game. Some of them are bad play or misplay, and some of them are violation of play-to-win. If D failed to notice Dragonbound in play, it is his mistake, and judge should not rewind this bad play...

i completely agree with Megabaja.

Any attempt from the judges side to "play the game" instead of a player I would consider extremely bad. Judge has to be impartial, he has to listen to all sides (in private, if need be), and he alone can make a ruling,.

What he , i feel, must not do, is play the game instead of a player, in no way, shape or form...

So how does a judge enforce "play to win"?

If a judge says a game decision is not "play to win", at the least he is forbidding that decision. Forbidding a decision is a lot like playing for a player. If there is only one decision that the judge considers "play to win", then that is exactly like playing for the player.

I'm not sure where this issue of judges handling players' card came up. Players handle each others' cards all the time; it's basic cooperation. If someone is so touchy that they don't want anyone ever touching any of their cards, they probably will have a lot of problem with the stress of a tournament.

Pendargon wrote:

Any attempt from the judges side to "play the game" instead of a player I would consider extremely bad. Judge has to be impartial, he has to listen to all sides (in private, if need be), and he alone can make a ruling,.

The judge does not attempt to play the game for players.

The play to win rule is not about the judge playing the game for players. Nor is it about making the player play perfectly.

If the judge's judgment is that the player is violating the play-to-win rule, the judge has to prevent or correct the illegal play. That is all. If there are literally only two things a player can do, this will mean the player must do the other thing.


Please stop confusing "play to win" with "OH NOES TEH JUDGE IS GOING TO MAEK MEEEEE PLAEY TEH GAEMSZ HIZ WAAIIII!" It serves only to obfuscate the issue, because it is completely not what the play-to-win rule is about.

Megabaja wrote:

What I'm trying to say is - Judge cannot force someone to do anything in game of VtES. My point is that judge should try and solve problems verbally, not physically. Hence the famed "advice/order" term.

Either the player follows it, or the player gets removed from the game / disqualified for repeatedly failing to follow the judge's ruling. This is, how you say, forcing the player to do something.