Alot of the questions I see here are a direct result of rules not being followed. Once we start trying to rule based on "player intent" and "potential advantage versus game integrity," then we put judges and players into situations where they don't know what to expect. To me there is a large difference between optional and required steps. Drawing your cards in required, playing a resource or character is not. In the original case, the only thing that I see that was illegal was trying to play a 4cc character with only 3 resources. I think it's a very good question as to why you back the game up to the resource step rather than the beginning of the recruit step.

To me, upper level events are about tight play. That really is the point of going to such an event. To allow for sloppy play really doesn't seem in the best interest of calling it a "Pro Circuit."

Ok, you can justify this any way you want but as soon as you start allowing players to back up the game in order to do an optional action that they forgot to do, it opens up a huge can of worms. Now I can make an argument that I should be able to back up and do ANY optional action that I forgot. "Oh, I really meant to team attack Onslaught instead of attacking him with just Sabretooth". "Oops, I forgot to recover a guy last turn, can I go back and do it?". "I forgot to exhaust someone with Magneto at the beginning of the step, do you mind if I do that now?". I'm sure you see where I'm going with this and that there are a million more examples I could make. If judges are allowed to make "judgement calls" on which rules to enforce and which optional actions to take back, this is going to lead to a lot of trouble. There is NO WAY that judges can or should guess at a player's intent. People are going to argue "this is an optional action just like that one and you let him take that back, why can't I take mine back?" Now you are in a world of crap where rules mean nothing and all that matters is which ones the judges decide to enforce today. How about, we enforce all of the rules all of the time. If people get screwed over by forgetting to do things, so be it, they will learn from their mistakes and not do it again. At least it will be fair to everybody.


-Eric

One of the things we'll do for judges (and for players) is to create a clear, comprehesive guide for enforcing penalties.

This is something we never did at WOTC, but we should have done it and we'll do it here at UDE.

Frankly, the best tool you have is common sense - we'll try to codify that appropriately.

- Jeff

I want everyone to stop for a moment and realize what is happening here.

The designers and "bigshots" are actually here among us, talking to us as we form the environment of this incredible new game. They really care about making this the best game in the world.

Unbelievable.

Thank you, Jeff and all the rest.

I've got to agree with Stubarnes on this one. How often do you see that with any other game? Usually the bigshots drop out of the sky with press releases, and then disappear for weeks. But I've seen Jeff on here multiple times in the last few days, I think.

Tostito/Eric (nice name by the way) --

I agree with most of your points. Some of your examples, however, are definitely illegal and intent, like you said, cannot be determined therefore you shouldn't allow those things to happen.

In the case of the $10k final... intent was obvious and if anyone doubts that... then that's when we are in a "world of crap". I think some people are arguing that the rules weren't followed when in fact they were... you cannot recruit until you choose to play a resource. Bill had not made that choice therefore his attempt to recruit was illegal... or at least that's how I am reading how Alex and Jeff are responding to this.

My opinion is the right call was made. Both players agreed to the call and that's that. Based on the number of posts and views on this subject and by Jeff's response, we will see an official UDE response on this and similar situations through more extensive judging docs.

And part of that process is receiving feedback from the players, both good and bad. The debate here is certainly not getting out of line, but I think is something appropriate for discussion. The fact that this particular ruling has caused some controversy should send a message to UDE that this needs to be addressed, one way or another. Since members from UDE are here it tells me they are very much interested in making this an outstanding game, and getting good feedback from players is a great way to insure that. They certainly are to be applauded for that.

incredibly, this debate shows the maturity level of the players more than anything. we WANT a good game, this IS a good game, but its new. this hasn't devolved into a gripe thread, but is a discussion on a very important series of rules and penalty topics in the game.

there are bound to be little bumps in the road, and as we Head Judge the PCQs need to KNOW what the intent of the rules are by those that are writing them and creating the game.

it appears that the HJ needs to take control of the situation, and little errors in play are to be evaluated on a case by case basis. this puts an incredible responsibility on the shoulders of the Head Judge for the event, but the precedent has now been set by a creator of the game, and backed up basically by his boss. if players feel this is wrong, they always can voice their opinion. if the players leave the game, then its their choice also. there's really only one group that really is going to take the hit or miss on this one... UDE.

is seems that the Head Judge needs to set the tempo for the game.. not the players. the players need to look for the judge to be consistent and fair in the game, and possibly not a rules lawyer. as i noted earlier, the opponent looked to Alex for a ruling on a bad play. Alex ruled one way, and as long as it seemed fair from a particular point of view, then it indicates how other Head Judges need to respond to similar situations.

if the players wanted a 'by the rules' kind of game, then the Head Judge needs to step in and lower the bar so the game doesn't spiral out of control. note: i know this personally, as it has recently happened in one of my events, and therefore i have a huge stake in the outcome of these proceedings and discussions.

in the same light, if the players want to be too relaxed, and are allowing each other to get away with all sorts of things, the Head Judge (or another judge) needs to raise the bar and make the ENTIRE event consistent and not rule each pairing differently due to the players request.

in the end, this is going to make my efforts a little more difficult with the subjectiveness that this interjects in the game. i am used to playing with a very high bar, but must rule with a bar level lower than that, or at least modified in some way.

we'll see how all of this works itself out....

The best thing I can say is that players will to to the level you expect them to be at.

I was longer winded on the main page thread about this and lack the desire to repost it here.

I don't like the idea of allowing "rewards" for mistakes.

It promotes laziness in your players.

Keep the bar high and the players wil learn to play at that level or not make it. That in the end is what we are all looking for here. Consistent and tight rules that allows for little wiggle room in the lawyering aspect of games.

Let the game come down to skill and focus. Not intent based off of more focused and practiced spectators. That is what I have heard this game wants. Less about luck. More about skill.

Keep that in mind moving forward with this kind of ruling.

I do not want to sound unappreciative for the desire to create a "fun" environment. I just believe, like others have said above, that belongs in the local events and not the circuit.

Exactly. In my opinion rulings should be as strict and as tight as possible in 10K and PC events, and even smaller PCQ's too. If there is a rule (like playing a resource before you recruit a character) people shouldn't be allowed to break it under any circumstances in these high level events. Perceived intent is irrelevant. I just really would rather there not be a situation where somebody was screwed out of thousands of dollars because their opponent was allowed to effectively cheat.


-Eric

As I said before, I completely agree with Eric here. I understand UDE's stance on this. They are trying their best to enforce the rules, yet let people have a cushion in the infancy of the game. I just disagree with doing this in a pro tournament. You can't put the burden of percieved intent on any judge. Every judge should be told to follow the letter of the law exactly as it is written in the comprehensive rules. While I appreciate Jeff's version of how he feels a judge should be able to rule in these situations, I as a player want them only to rule according to the comprehensive rules that I play by.

As a judge and tournament organizer I will be as lenient as I can at my local tournaments in order to grow the game. But I would expect judges at pcqs and higher level events to rule based on the comprehensive rule guidelines. Nowhere in it does it say judges are to interpret what a player intended to do unless we are talking about cheating. Forgeting to play a resource is not cheating. It's a simple mistake. To allow a player to go back and do so at this level is rediculous. We are playing for lots of money here.


Dave
________
HERBAL VAPORIZERS

While I think if you forget to play a resource then try to recruit that puts you in the Recruit step, if UDE wants it ruled like they did in the 10K at Origins then they need to change the wording of the rule.

See my proposed rewording here

http://www.vsrealms.com/forum/showth...6195#post46195

I assume you are talking about the Tournament Policy Guidelines and the Penalty Guidelines, not the Comprehensive Rules. These must be followed as well as the Comprehensive Rules and from what I can tell, they were. The players in question seem to think so too.

my head hurts now...

The UDE reps are stating that you can not enter your recruit step without finishing your resource step. And they are stating that you have not finished your resource step if you attempt to recruit a character illegally because you did not play an optional resource. However, if you forget to play a resource and then make a legal play, you are not allowed to back up because the back up only triggers off an illegal action.

I do not understand how voluntarly entering your recruit step is not a conscious decision to leave the resource step. If you play the game, you know the recruit step is after the resource step. So entering the recruit step by playing a character should be as definitive as actually saying that you are entering your recruit step.

Just because you made a mistake by not laying a resource does not mean you should be able to back up.