Play to Win situation

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Instead, the judge has to substitute their own reasoning, using their own judgment.

Then again, the spirit of the rule is not to hand penality to peoples that play less well than the judge.

In the precise case, we don't have enough details to see whether an attempt to gain the GW by D was an utter folly (let's say 3 empty vampires in torpor) or pretty doable (3 torpor vampires with 4-5 blood and an hand with enough maneuver and combat card to hope resist to A)

Ohlmann wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Instead, the judge has to substitute their own reasoning, using their own judgment.

Then again, the spirit of the rule is not to hand penality to peoples that play less well than the judge.

Judgment isn't about finding the very best course of action and forcing the player to take it. (Well, if there was exactly one course of action because the player had literally two choices, due to having no cards in hand, no cards in play etc. etc., maybe it would be. But that doesn't really ever happen.)

It's simply about judging what is reasonable in the circumstances.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

acbishop wrote:

If D really thinks that he does not have a reasonable chance of getting more VPs he is allowed to die in the way he wants.

Since judges are not issued with psychic probes, what D "really thinks" isn't something a judge can factor into his or her decision.

Instead, the judge has to substitute their own reasoning, using their own judgment.

In that case the judge should be "equals" in terms of playing VTES like the player, cause playing bad VTES is not illegal, so the judge can ask player D the reasons he thinks he is not able to get more VPs from D's point of wiev, and judge that. Cause judge playing VTES capacity is different than player D's one (better or worse, not important). And the judge should never "play" the table, only judging it.

D could reason like that: "I don't know id my ally would block the leave torpor action, and even if he claims he would do I can't be sure, so using my minions and my hand. Do I have any possibility of getting more VPs? I guess no, so I'll transfert out"

Cause player D can be sure only about his impact on the table (he and his cards in play/hand) and nothing else, cause the "maybe another player would do that or that or that" are only uncertain possibilities, and D is not force to consider them.

So, if D's point of view is that he can't get reasonabily another VP he's able to transfert out, by rules judge can't force any player to accept any kind of deal, so judge is not allowed to force D to ask B about the leaving torpor action etc...

I hope it's clear what I'm intending to say.

acbishop wrote:

In that case

Uh-oh. You mean you only just realised that judges don't have psychic probes?

acbishop wrote:

the judge should be "equals" in terms of playing VTES like the player, cause playing bad VTES is not illegal, so the judge can ask player D the reasons he thinks he is not able to get more VPs from D's point of wiev, and judge that. Cause judge playing VTES capacity is different than player D's one (better or worse, not important).

Err, how do you think the judge comes to a judgment? It's not rolling a Magic 8 ball and finding it says "Outlook unclear". Talking to people, looking at decks, looking at decklists, previous experience of the deck(s) (at this table, at other tables), and so on can all factor into it.


Sometimes, the judge's judgment will be wrong. Sometimes, the judge will have to force a player to do something, because the situation is so utterly bizarre the judge has a very different view of it from the player(s) involved.


It is simply a question of exercising reasonable judgment.


If your judge cannot exercise reasonable judgment, get a better one.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

...

Ok, I'm not a good judge, come here to judge the tournaments and enlight me with your judgement then.

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.

If the player explains knowing the public information of the table, and knowing his deck, hand, etc... to the judge the reasons he thinks he could be able to do that.

Anyway, judging playing to win situations is not anything that is BLACK or WHITE and easy to state, if you think you should judge forcing the player to do something it's OK. But if another judge in the same situation thinks D is allowed to do that is also OK cause the reasonable judgment could be different depending on the judge reasoning.