Once again i think this thread is a good topic for disc. so we can get a good ruling on "it". I think "it" is to decide that local events are different than a PCQ or PQ. We all want the game to grow so when i play or host or judge local events, twice a week. I am mainly trying to grow the game by teaching noobs and trying to convert the M*g*c and Y*G* players *0. So being patient and lenient, w/ noobs is good. But w/ "The Pro Circuit" it should be that.

Example,

In baseball ect. They have Stats for teams and Ind. ERRORS.
Thats means games and seasons of PRO TEAMS might be won or lost on ERRORS.

Its seems in these events that many people travel to get to them. Those people are trying to get into or play in a Pro LVL EVENT where errors matter greatly to outcome.

once again i think that maybe UDE said it well by saying they will have a "Hobby League" and a "Pro Circuit"

imho

From a players perspective, it is important to know two things:
1) The rules. This is my responsibility.
2) How the rules are enforced.
While I am not opposed to giving someone a break, you have to understand that the rules have got to be consistently enforced.

You can say "It's only the Hobby League", but even the Hobby League has some worthwhile prizes. I don't know all the ins-and-outs of it, but they mention PS2's, X-Boxes, and Alienware computer systems. All of these are over $100, and the last may well be over $1000.

When I go to a tournament, and I'm playing the judges friend/sibling/significant other in the finals, how is it going to look if they get a break on a call? I'm not saying that the judge wouldn't have given the break to me, but the point is they gave it to them.
It's about imprpriety and the appearance thereof. If I told them that they could do something not quite within the rules (a do-over or whatever), that's one thing, but for the judge to do it, that's another.
If they say what happened at Origins is the way it should be, then fine, but it always has to be okay. Every call, or lack of a call, sets a precedent that has to be followed by everyone.
I think the bigger question was asked earlier... What if they didn't have a 4 drop, recruited a 3 drop, and then halfway through the combat phase realized that they didn't drop a resource? Is it okay for them to do so now? You may say no, but how would it effect the bigger picture? It wouldn't make much difference, but there are exceptions:
1) You are playing against Doom and the 4 drop is out. Putting that all important plot twist into the resource row is just what the doctor ordered.
2) It is a location, let's say the Danger Room. Now, all of a sudden, your back row defense just got better... Oops.
3) Your opponent is going to make you discard... Wait a minute, I didn't play a resource. Let me put this really nice card down here.
How is this different from the Origins scenario? How far back is too far? What is considered "reasonable" for re-setting the game state?

All in all, I think the judges handbook that Jeff mentioned will be a good thing, not just for judges, but players as well.

i have skimmed over many of the posts and comments found here, and have been a judge in other game systems and would like to offer a couple of words here if i might :

first: this is a game, and at all times during 'play' it remains so. however the object of almost every game is to be the eventual winner. and that is determined by following the pre set rules. following a series of rules ensures that all players are operating under the exact same set of parameters.

second : while it is an awful thing to make a mistake in a game and lose the game for it, it ultimately becomes the responsiblity of each player to maintain awareness during their own game. should an event arise where an illegal act was performed, it should fall to the opponent to decide whether or not they wish to be a good sport and allow the action to be withdrawn, or force the opponent to suffer the consequences. if a player 'forgets to play a resource and moves on to their recruit step, then they themselves are at fault, and the opponent should not be penalized by the other players lack of ability to function under stress.

third : this is not just fun play. we are talking about an organized event where ' the best player is being sought out. and the best player is determined by the player who make the least mistakes. everybody makes mistakes at sometime, and that is a large part of this kind of game. if you forget who's turn it is and tell your opponent it is their turn then you have made a horrible error, and need to learn to pay better attention. lack of preparation is how the lower skilled players are weeded out to get to the best players. you should not and cannot reward a player who has carelessly overlooked a situation by allowing them any unfair advantage over any other player.

fourth : deck lists are designed to prevent players from cheating, generally by way of adding new cards to their deck after gaining knowledge about their opponents plans, and that should hold true for situations where priority has been passed, and one player has then realizewd they were not as done as they could have been. there must be accountability to the players, and allowing any kind of a take back rule Will prove hazardous to the environment.

fifth: in the rare situation where an opponent tries to perform an illegal action, but it is then caught, before a new action has been moved on to, that action must not be allowed to continue. however, if you allow your opponent to continue on and do not stop the action by calling it to the opponents attenetion immediately/ or contact a judge to get further assistance, the action should be allowed. (it is each players responsibility to be aware of the game and if neither player catches an error until later in the turn then the action has been performed, and simply cannot be undone.

after loads of careful examination, i'm sure that there will be many out there that will say really angry things over my words, but the reality of the matter is that if each player was equally matched in a tournament no player would rise to the top, and that is just not what a tournament is about.

sportsmanship is one thing, but accountability is something totally different.

I think the most important aspect of this ruling that has been glossed over by most is that, as was pointed out once, both players agreed to the ruling.

As long as a judge (or commissioner in this case) makes a ruling that is not accepted under dures, where both players agree that it is a fair judgment and are willing to go with that judgment, then it should be accepted by those outside of the game as well.

Different scenarios call for different rulings - even if the ruling differs from case to case, judge to judge, game to game - this is not a case of changing the rules around or not following the rules to the letter, it is a case of (as Jeff out it) using common sense to help mould policy to practise.

There can be no universal rulebook that covers each and every situation and remains fair to every party inolved. Judges are there to interpret those rules and put them into practise based on the situation(s) at hand. Judges rulings will sometimes apear to go against the grain,
but I have no problem with that - even in a pro level tourney - as long as the ruling is made as objectively as possible, is made in order to help the match and not a player, and as long as the players involved in the match agree and adhere to that ruling.

Heck, it happens in pro sports all of the time - and at least at Origins there weren't dozens of questionable calls and awful mistakes like there are in your average football match (euro or north american)...

not sure if i agree on this one... i've fell into that trap before, and it is not correct. some players may just wish to stay on the judge's good side, and not say anything so they still look kindly on them. others will debate or question the ruling, but usually, and especially if its the Head Judge's ruling, it's going to stand no matter what the player's say.

the most important aspect of Alex's ruling at Origins is that it is the correct one. i do believe that you had to be there, and if the situation were to come up at another event, the ruling could be different (but it would have to be a real good reason for the change now that precedent has been set).

i've been talking with a number of people recently, and allowing a player to back up, then him receiving the warning was correct. if he forgets to drop later in the match, he lives with the mis-drop and cannot go back at that time.

since if he did, the warning would be upgraded to a Game Loss.

from what i've seen and heard, the creators of the game, and UDE believe that the game should be fair, consistent, and still have the aspect of a game no matter how much $$$$ is on the line. everyone keeps using sports as a reference, well, there are times when the refs just let the players play and don't call fouls, too.

overall, as a Head Judge in my area, i agree with Alex's ruling. note that, it took me a few days to get to that point, but it does make for a better overall game.

If it was about the point I made, to clarify, is that the players and the judge who is "actively watching" should be the only ones who can really argue any case. Spectators and anyone who "heard" about it, cannot. Anybody can say I heard this, and I heard that, or I know that guy, but unless you are there, playing, then there isn't much you can say on the matter.

Spectators are included in this group because you never know if there is a bias involved. At least a judge is SUPPOSED to be unbiased, but at least there is more of a requrement for that from a judge than there is a spectator.

Ben and Gary make some excellent points, and I agree with both of them, just clarifying the earlier point :)

well, i had to make this call at least 4 times in Pomona this weekend... each time the non-offending player looked at me funny with a "say WHAT" look...

but since this is a ruling handed down from UDE and noting that this is the way the game is supposed to be ruled on and played, and yes, i noted that in each and every ruling, the non-offending player thought about it, then continued playing.

note: not ONE of the offending players made the same offense in the same or any other game throughout the day.

one of the two biggest problems i'm seeing with this game at this time is that players are not understanding the chaining process: not allowing the opponent to respond, or not resolving effects one at a time... and yes, this is all grouped under "not understanding the chaining process"... :cheeky:

this happens more often than not, when one player Powers Up their character with a Lost City, pushes the effect through, the opponent activates Relocation to prevent the Replacement Effect, but the player has stated that it already resolved when they discarded.

the other is something that each player needs to clean up prior to the PC or a 10K. this being, when a player attacks, then exhausts their character(s), they lean over and ask if the opponent wishes to do something. well, technically, this means they have passed their priority to the opponent on an empty chain. if the opponent doesn't do anything, then they are in damage calculation. the attacking player tends to activate cards AFTER they have asked their question, which is NOT allowed since both players have passed on an empty chain.

Yep... and the defending player should always catch them on this, because this is usually a way for the attacker to discern if the defender has any Acros or Burn Rubbers and from that "tell' they decide whether or not to pump up their ATK.

To prevent this, a defending player should always ask the attacking player if they plan to do anything else after they have exhausted their proposed attackers so that they can be sure that priority was passed so they know if they pass, it's straight to attack outcome.