That doesn't make any sense at all. You are saying that a player that made a mistake is smarter and a better player than a player who didn't make a mistake and was smart enough to recognize that their opponent did and call a judge? So does that mean occasionally drawing, say, an extra card or two just because I was thinking ahead is ok? Of course it isn't. You are breaking the rules of the game. Both players should be held to the same rules all of the time. It is unfair to everyone when one player who made a mistake is allowed to effectively cheat and back up to fix their mistake.


-Eric

For the record:

Eric, I think you're being a little overly harsh by using the word 'cheat'. I think that we have to gauge intent when looking at each individual situation. Someone who doesn't realize that they have forgotten to play a resource and tries to recruit a characer to a curve they cannot meet was obviously INTENDING to play that resource.That player is not, in my books, a cheater, because they are not trying to circumvent the rules to win the game. They are someone who has simply screwed up.

Now, on to the question of whether or not they should be allowed to back up the game situation. I acually agree with the UDE ruling that if a player has not successfully reecruited a character then they should be able to back it up and lay down a resource, and here are my reasons:

1) They were obviously intending to lay down that resource. So while laying a resource down is optional, there is no doubt what their option was.

2) Since neither player has taken any actions in the interim (between the resource and reruit), the game has not progressed beyond the issue at hand. It does not effect the game one way or the other to allow the player to lay that resource down.

There is talk about giving an unfair advantage to the player, and cheating, and breaking the rules. If you were to follow the rules to the exact letter with a magnifying glass, then you could make a technical argument that, ye, this kind of player would be braking the rules.

BUT the rules are set out to keep the game healthy and to show HOW the game is SUPPOSED to be played. The game is SUPPOSED to be played by playing a resource every turn (unless you SPECIFICALLY wish to avoid doing so) and playing a character or characters based on your resource total.

If a player refuses to allow their opponent to lay down that resource, then they are the ones taking advantage - taking advantage of a rules technicality and of a momentary lapse in concentration. This does not promote the healthiness or wellbeing of the game or the game community. Which is why I believe, UDE rules to allow as long as nothing further had progressed.

IF any sort of rules technicality pops up AFTER other steps/actions/effects jave been taken or played, then that's an entirely different story, and should be handled differently...

magician noir:

Judging intent in this situation is a bad, bad idea. We already have, and undoubtedly will soon have more cards that manipulate recruit costs or provide extra resource points. You can't assume that a player intended to play a 5th resource in order to drop their 5 cost character. It may be true most of the time, but not all of the time. In my opinion no judge should ever try and judge player intent unless it was suspected that they were intentionally cheating. This example is one of the reasons I'd like to see this strictly enforced now. New cards and effects are going to mean that players won't be able to take stuff like this back anymore because effects may trigger at the start of most phases and steps.


-Eric

Kerg:

Ok, they may not have intentionally cheated in the normal sense, but the result is them gaining an advantage by breaking the rules of the game that I try very hard to follow.

Read my above post in regards to intent.

There has been an action taken, both players passed during the resource step whether they audibly said so or not. Like I said in my first post on this thread, if you let them back up to the resource step in this example, then if I try to recover a character during recovery and realize I can't because 7 drop Magneto is in play, I should be able to back up past the recovery phase priority point into the combat phase and generate effects. When someone backs up and drops a resource they skip over the resource step priority point in the same way.

The game is SUPPOSED to be played by me trying to win by getting you to zero endurance. What if I forget to activate my pyro to do 3 damage to you? I was just trying to play the game how it was supposed to be played, can I take that back? No. Forgetting to play a resource is the same thing. Like I said in my previous post, you really can't assume that a player "forgot" to play a 5th resource to drop their 5 drop. You also can't assume that I intended to activate my pyro to do 3 damage. You can't assume anything.

A player not letting their opponent take this back is not taking adavantage of a "technicality". The rules are crystal clear, the explanation that UDE is using to justify these lenient rulings are the ones ridden with technicalities. I are looking out for my best interest by ensuring that the game is played as the rules are written. If I let them take it back and then they don't let me take the same thing back in the next game there is nothing I can do. It is completely my fault for letting them break the rules.

-Eric

TostitoBandito:

I understand your point but disagree. "Intent" is sometimes quite clear and helps determine the level of penalty.

For example, you referenced the issue of drawing extra cards. If someone draws an extra card do you give that person a game loss or DQ them? I assure you that I would never intentionally draw an extra card, but I have accidentally done so. Worthy of a game loss -- sure, since it irrevocably changes game state. As a judge (in another game), have I seen a player intentionally sneak an extra card -- yep, which cost them the privilege of playing in that tournament or any other.

Intent really does matter. Judging intent is certainly objective, but does get you to the most fair outcome 99% of the time.

In the specific situation being discussed, if someone plays Signal Flare, searches for Thing Heavy Hitter and "recruits" it on turn 5 but failed to build a fifth resource, is there any doubt that the player intended to build a resource? Worthy of a penalty -- sure. Worthy of a de facto game loss -- not in my opinion.

What if Alicia Masters was in play? Is it so clear then? How about if he is teaming up FF and BHood and there are face down TNB(s) in his resource row that you don't see? WHat if they are just playing straight TNB? I'm sure people will always disagree with me, but making assumptions on what a player intended or intends to do is a very bad idea since with every new set into the card pool it gets twice as hard to "assume" that you know what they intended to do.

How about we just hold all players to the same standard of playing by the rules. If you screw up and forget to play a resource, it sucks. You won't do it again, like any mistake you learn from. This approach is exponentially simpler than letting people take certain things back (but not others???) and then only in certain circumstances with certain perceived intent.

This isn't about anything that I am personally bitter about. It is about having an environment where a player can read the rules and know that those rules will be enforced as they are written. It is about all players being treated equally instead of players being allowed to break certain rules if it was deemed that their intent was correct.


-Eric

Eric is correct. you can not be lax in a tournament scene when the stakes are high. Take backs and Redo's are for the Kitchen Table, not in the finals of a PCQ.

im still trying to figure out how you would be taking back anything? they are swaying that as long as you dont actually recruit a character you can still lay down a resource. if you didntrecruit a character theri is nothing you can take back. you tried an illigal play weather intentinal or not is still an illigal play and the proper rules state that you should back up the game if possible to the point where the play was made and then continue issuing the offending player a warning. you play a 5 drop, but only have 4 rescources out. its an illigal play. you call a judge over to issue the warning the play goes back to the point where the character was not recruited and continue legaly from their.

To attempt to recuit a character, one MUST be in the RECRUIT STEP. Therefore, by default, they have OPTED to NOT play a resource.

They have clearly shown INTENT to NOT play a resource by MOVING to the RECRUIT STEP.

this is a problem that has always plagued me in tournaments. my opponent makes a mistake, a judge is called and he says that it was clear what my opponents intent was. obviously my opponents intent was to play correctly, but he made a mistake. games are won on your opponents mistakes.

it seems to me that a precedent is being set in place that give the weaker player a better chance against the better players. this in its self cannot happen. why would i play a competive game where my opponents can be made to play better by the judges.

i seriously hope that a solution can be found for this soon.

This problem is actually what I did not like about the game when I first started. Unlike in Magic, where you have to actually tap your lands to remind youself how much mana you are generating to summon a creature, there is no such reminder in Vs.

If it is not my initiative, I routinely decide who I am going to recruit, and am eager to lay the character down before a resource. I figure, it's that turn, I know how big a guy I can bring out (note that I haven't missed a resource since my early days of playing however).

While comparing to Magic (the only other TCG I have really played), every high level tourny I have played in is not so strict as to not let you untap your lands if you tap an extra one while summoning. If you tap 5 islands and only needed 4, and realize it when you play the card, no one has said "Well, you've got an extra blue mana left over." Unless of course, the game has gone too far, or you want to change what lands you tapped (hope I haven't lost anyone).

Of course, anyone following the rules forum will see in the Clocktower posts that I almost always argue on the side of "intent".

Anyway, I have to say that after much consideration, I disagree with Tosty's arguement. Is a rules rewrite or addition in order? Probably, even if it is just a ruling compilation added to the CRD. Though you might say (some of you rather rudely) that this means if you make a mistake at other times, you should be allowed to go back, I believe that in the case where you recruit someone equal to the turn level, without enough resources, then going back does not interfere with gameplay.

This arguement does not work for me, unless both players went through the process of passing on an empty chain.

In fact, in addition to my last post, here is my reasoning for disagreeing with you:

IF the opponent is going to be strict enough to say "You missed playing a resource and cannot back up" then they MUST be strict enough to say "You did not say you were passing on an empty chain." You cannot say that he or she implied they were passing, as the CRD clearly states both players must pass to move to the next step. If you are going to point out the resource mistake, you must point out the pass mistake.

I'm agreeing with eric, if I forget to lay down plague counters 2 turns in a row and it becomes apparent to me on my third turn my opponent should have less characters in play, should I be allowed to place three this turn? Go back and undo the last two turns? NO.

Have i done this yeah i have, have I had some games be alot closer than neccesary because of this yeah, have my oppnents suffered the same fate from time to time yeah, are we better players because we didn't go back and played through yeah.

If you loose a match based on one move only somethings not right, it takes more than one slip up to loose, and more than doing one thing right to win.

Sadly people don't believe in enforcing rules all the time, nor laws for that matter it's sad. Again whatever happened to Personal Responsibility. Intent is dagerous to guess unless your Charles Xavier.

They would not allow you to go back in this case.

The only way Upper Deck has ruled is that the game backs up to the last legal action. If you have tried to play a character wihtout laying a resource, the last legal action is either drawing two cards, or having passed after the resource step.

So far, Upper Deck has set the last legal action as the "draw two cards" action.

If you wanted to play a 2 drop and a 3 drop on turn 5, and played the 2 drop and realized you did not play a 5th resource, and could not play the 3 drop, the last legal action was recruiting the 2 drop.

This happened to me in Fort lauderdale 20ish of July, 2nd round my opponent and I both forgot in a game, and we backed up, knowing that whatever we decided to do when the other made the mistake probably ended the game, we both allowed each other to go back the step. Now forward to Top4, I was playing this younger guy, not that I'm older than 22...but someone most likely still in highschool(his father ended up being there as well) and first game he misses his 4th resource, he doesn't ask me, drops his four drop and I state you don't have enough resources, I go on to win a game which I would of lost with ease, that extra turn prevented that, next two games he smashes my face, got my half a box and I was happy, just moved to Florida from Ohio, I don't even know if I would of considered to make the trip to Indy, had I won.

But I like what the Judge said, early in the tournament, allow it to happen, when it matters for real(meaning to make a Top8 spot, or win product/cash) it should not be allowed, as you have progressed far enough into the tournament to not be allowed to make casual errors.

A basic weekly tournament, you can basically take back a drop for all I care, as you go to relax, have some compeition and win some store credit, nothing super big on the line.

Now my opponent has a cell phone on and he answers it and talks for more than 30seconds, I'm calling a judge for stalling. Why? Its a tournament, and I've lost a match because of cell phone being on and person talking for more than a minute and time being called.