Last post from Mitchell

First, let me say, I'm only asking these questions because I want to fully understand and make sure I am being a quality judge for the players. The rules I know, but I want to make sure I fairly apply them and administer the game in a way UDE wants.

I want to go over a few things, cause I would like some more examples of where we draw the line.

I don't see this as being the same as laying a resource. Drawing cards is not an optional event, you must do it. Laying down a resource is an optional event.

Lets assume I have 3 resources in play and I try to recruit a 4 cost character and no one notices. At what point is it to late to back up, and if it is, what is the propper recourse. What do you do if it is realized...

During the opponants recruit step

During the combat phase, but before any attacks

After all attacks have been resolved

The recruit step of the next turn

2 turns latter

For a different example lets look at Rhino

At the start of your recruit step, pay 4 endurance or KO Rhino.

If I have Rhino in play going into the recruit step, this effect is placed on the chain. Lets assume I forget about it and recruit another character. I mean 99% of the time I obvisouly would want to keep my character, does Rhino automatically KO or do I get to back up and make the choice?

As another example Muir Island

Activate, discard two cards or one X-Men character card from your hand >>> Recover target stunned character you control with a recruit cost of 4 or less. Use this power only during the recovery phase.

Lets assume I reach for one of my characters and say, I choose to recover Cyclops, and then I realize I forgot to use Muir Island, can I go back and use Muir Island, because a character getting KOed is a huge disadvantage in VS System?

If no, how is this different then forgeting to lay a resource?

Also, concerning the laying down a resource, I would like to make some comparrsions to MTG.

Lets assume I play some creature in my first main phase, I then declare him as an attacker. My opponant then points out he doesn't have haste. Do I get to back up to my main phase and cast Reckless Charge, becuase if I tried to attack with an unhasted creature, I obviously wanted to play Reckless Charge first.

If yes, what if I had two creatures in play one of which I had since last turn and the newly recruited one. I try to declare both as attackers, am I forced to just attack with the one, or do I get to back up to my first main phase and cast Reckless Charge.

What if I have a a 4/4 creature in play, and my oppoant has a 5/5. I declare an attack and my opponat blocks. I go to cast Might of Oaks and realize I am 1 mana short because I forgot to play a land, do I get to back up and play the land, becuase that is what I should have done. I knew my opponant would try to block and I fully intended on playing the land first.

Until Jeff Donais says otherwise, I will allow people to back-up and play a resource according to his guidlines, but I would like some more examples of when we let people back up a game for an optional event they forgot about, or would the laying a resource be the only exception?

Um... How is this similar to drawing cards again? Drawing cards is a mandatory game action. Playing a resource during the resource step of your build phase is completely optional. So what happens if I forget to exhaust a character at the beginning of my attack step with Magneto? Sure, I may have intended to do it but it was optional and I didn't. If you are taking the stance that you described on laying a resource and recruiting, people should be able to argue the same thing for any optional effect in the game, including the example with Magneto. And yes there is an advantage gained in both situations. You are rewarding players for making mistakes and punishing players who spend the time to know the rules and obey them in a game. I don't want to get in a huge argument here but I just think that this is a really dangerous path to be taking. What happens when UDE all of the sudden decides to be much stricter at the PC? Ok, so now you are going to be enforcing rules? Now there are going to be players whining that these rules weren't enforced before so why are they enforced now? Why are certain rules even printed if players don't have to obey them? This is a really bad situation to be in. I can already see the massive arguments taking place at future tournaments. I know that if my opponent in a big event failed to complete an optional action, I sure wouldn't let them take it back. Sure, it might seem like I am being a dick but what happens if I later make a similar mistake and my opponent refuses to let me take it back? I just gave them a big advantage. He was allowed to break the rules and I wasn't. If any judge tried to let my opponent go back because they forgot to complete an optional step, I know for sure that they would receive a large piece of my mind. Players should be responsible for knowing the rules and they should be responsible for taking responsibilty when they break the rules. When you make a mistake like that you just have to bite the bullet and take it. When it costs you a game you definitely won't do it again. Ok, that's enough ranting for now.

Summary: Not enforcing some rules is a HORRIBLE idea because it will lead to confusion about what rules are enforced and which ones aren't. ALL rules should be enforced ALL of the time. This will give players no means to argue or try to weasle their way out of a mistake because "You guys didn't enforce that rule last time..."


-Eric

Well i think this case is best solved by taking it step by step.
if an ill gal move happens it must be taken back. Penaltys then might be given. As of this sit. i think the char would be required to go back to the hand, not enuff resouce to play it. So since it back in hand they should still be in the resouce step since they havnt done anything that would have taken them outa it yet and should be able to play said resource.

Now i think i Magic or Yugi if an oppn. is all of a sudden facing a char- monster that is to strong and shouldnt be on the field just yet They normally say something, Quickly *).

but if they start thinking that they can let they Oppn. play the card then call a judge to get them to 1 less resource and force them to play rest o game w/ that ERROR.

WELL THAT WOULD BE A PRO CIRC. imho *)

hobby legue at yr local store might by dif story, but if it a PCQ or a PC event then all there should be preped for the rules and their decks and its play.

i would say you are pretty much dead on...

the precedent set, and the fact that Alex set it, and Jeff is backing him up, is going to cascade down to all the PCQs.

i don't like HJing an event (and i've done 2 PCQs already with one coming up soon) where in cases like this where it appears to be clear cut, a subjective ruling is now in force, and i have to second guess myself.

i also notice that the player did come back and win overall.

the 'illegal play makes you back up' doesnt' fit well either. if you back up, just how far do you back up? i would say you back up to before you made the illegal move, which would be before you attempted to Recruit the card. so the player is still in the Recruit Step.

i demo the game this way, i play the game this way, i judge the game this way. if i screw up in the game, i don't ask for favors, i mentally beat myself for a moment, then deal with it.

btw, i have learned not to make mistakes (i don't like the mental torture)... :devious:

I would have to say, if you are still in your recruit step, there really is no difference between KO'ing Rhino or paying the endurance. It's not like the opponent or game state has changed in any way to alter your decision on keeping Rhino or not. Therefore you should get a minor procedural error for forgetting, and make your choice. Of course, if it's your opponent's build phase or later, then such a decision would have been altered, and a possible harsher penalty may be in order, but USUALLY, your opponent will remind you of the fact that you forgot so that they know what would be their most advantageous building.

I would have to ask who's primary. Since the primary player chooses first, and it's you, then you have to do this before the opponent chooses theirs. If it's them, it might be too late to use MI. Either way, if it is rewinded, then the opponent MUST be given the opportunity to rechoose their characters as well. Again, the difference in strategy is minimal, unless the game has progressed to a state where the choice affects strategy greatly. (drawing cards)

In that specific situation, it was obvious that the player wanted to play a 4-drop. This was an illegal play. Therefore it was reversed to the point before, which wasn't necessarily the recruit step. Every situation is different and I am curious as to what the ruling would be if they did recruit a legal character, but forgot to lay a resource. I don't think it will be answered online because there are so many different variables that could come into play. I would think for the majority of reasons, the player has entered his recruit step.

In the MTG Reckless Charge example, you must declare all attackers at once, if those attackers are illegal, then I would say you haven't declared attackers. In the Oaks example, I would say it's too late.

The problem is (and USUALLY is) is that players skip saying "I pass priority" and "...... phase, ......step". While I have no problem with this practice, I DO have a problem with those who practice this and then try to enforce a rule on forgotten mistakes. If you want to play so cavalierly, then I think that type of player must allow for little mistakes. It does not mean you are any less competitive. It probably means you are more professional. (Do you see Tiger Woods, or Mike Weir whining like babies?)

If you "pass priority" and state "....phase, ....step" then you are giving your opponent the professional courtesy to remember their actions. If they miss it, then you have given them their chance. This is how I see Magic pros playing all the time, and it makes sense.

The UDE T.O. guidelines are pretty straight forward, and although there are few examples, it's pretty good. I would assume there aren't examples, because there are so many different factors that show up while judging. I've judged for 6 years + and it takes a lot of experience and taking a lot of flak.

how about another one...

i, having initiative, lose track and tell the opponent its their Build.

the player places a Resource, Recruits and then begins their Regroup... then i notice that it is MY initiative and i have effectively passed over my Build. can i back up the opponent and Build?

what if the judge is sitting there keeping track, and i get ahead of myself (making a mental mistake), and tell the opponent its his Build, then the judge tells me, after the opponent is in their Regroup, that i just passed over my Build and cannot go back?

mind you, this has happened... not to me, but this did happen. what would you rule?

I was wondering when Gary was going to chime in.

I think the first question the JUDGE has to ask themselves, is "Is the game in such a state that reversing the illegal move would greatly affect things that have been done since the illegal move?" If not, then reverse it. If so, then that's where the problem comes in, and the judge has to get to work.

And tell your opponent its there build... And you let them play stuff i say you should not get your build... Like your opponent has already showed you information that you didnt know before hand.. So like if a judge ruled that you could go back i would be very upset...

Gary, that's funny, it kind of happened to me, lol (notice the level 5 in sleep deprivation)

I would say that you would have lost your build, but it is your initiative to attack in the attack phase. This is because you have now seen the opponents "possible" build and would have an advantage if it was rewound to your build phase.

If you are in the practice of stating phases, then you should be in the practice of stating "initiative goes to me", but then again, I'd have to be sitting there.

ok... how about when the players have been calling each other on every little error and nuance of the game?

do you abide by their play and call everything? or go against them and be subjective?

when does the game, players and judging move up to a level defined by the $$$ that they are playing for?

do you still just say "its just a game"... even when the prize is $2500 vs. $1000? or $10,000 vs. $20,000?

when does it stop being a game? or does it ever stop being a game?

then, when do the judges move up to that level also? or should they?

Hey, no fair, you can't ask all the questions and not give your own answers too, I know you judge as well, so what would be your answers? ;)

Considering the different levels of judges for VS. are level 1, then levels Alex Charsky, Jeff Donais and everyone UDE (those last three are not necessarily in that order) I think the questions are better suited to them than my lowly self.

However, a judge should abide by the rules, not the players, The judges chosen by the T.O. should be applicable to that level of event (that is, the best judges available at that time), and competitiveness is not exclusive from something being a "game" (hockey, basketball, football, soccer).

Perhaps the Pro Circuit was rushed in favour of an abundance of experienced judges, as Alex and Jeff seem to be the only ones (sorry if I missed any) but that was probably a business decision instead of a sportsmanship one.

and with that, the creators of the game need to define how they wish the game to be judges and organized...

in one way, it will not sit well with a group of players, the other way will alienate others. we are beginning to see that by the responses on the board.

its UDE's game to do with as they please and they need to indicate to us lower individuals how we present the game to the masses.

as long as they're consistent, as long as it appears to be fair, and as long as the players understand that its all coming from UDE, then we can make decisions that are unilateral along all facets of the game.

i would like to think that i will be enforcing rulings the way Alex would be if he were in my position at the same event.

however at this time i take my cues from the players. if the players give me the impression they want to have fun and be forgiving, i can work with that. if they want me to set the pace of the game, that works too. if they want everything called and infer that they wish a 'by the rules' game, i can do that too. but when the spectators walk into the middle of a 'by the rules' game and begin to give the judge grief because they don't understand what has been happening for the past 30 minutes, then it begins to be tough. the spectators need to see the degree of discipline that the players want to play at from the beginning.

sometimes the final round players want this. others want it to be more free flowing. is the judge's job one that he forces the players to play at a different level? that's one for the UDE boys to answer.

i believe in the 10K Origins event, when the player looked to the judge, he was waiting for the judge to make a ruling. if he contested that ruling and stated that the player had no right to back up, then he's asking that the bar to the game be raised, and is going to hold himself to that same standard if he makes a mistake also.

the judge needs to make a decision if he wants to let the players play that way or reduce the level to where HE wants it to be. at Origins the players allowed the judge to set the tone for the game. in the end, UDE will need to tell us how we should judge their game.

did they at Origins? was it an isolated incident? i'm sure the boards will be humming with this in the next few days until the situation is resolved.

i know how i would have ruled the situation, and that is something Alex and i will be discussing later this week.

In the very first post on this thread Mitchell was responding to the following question..

"Jeff, I have a follow-up question, what if it was turn five and a player recruited a 3 drop character, and then tried to recruit a 2 drop character and then realized he never played a resource, in that situation, you have a legal play, followed by an illegal play. Do you still back up to the resource step?"

So according to Mitchell, he would still back up the game.

And a follow up question, if a player specificly anounces he is in his recruit step, tries to play a 4 drop with 3 resources in play, does he get to back up to his resource step?

Well, its always been my understanding that UDE's position on judging in general has been "what the judge says goes". I don't think we can compare this to Magic, as we are dealing with a different company with different policies.

Even in YuGiOh gary, it is quite possible for a Judge to go against an official ruling (for that specific event) based on the open ended policy UDE hands down. It looks to me to be no different in the case. In real life Judges have a hand in not only enforcing law, but creating it as well. You are being given the ability to somewhat do that here. Even in sports, how one Ref judges a game can be VERY different from another, and in some cases he/she can overule a law or rule (at the specific moment), or refuse to call something.

It seems (to me, but what do i know anyway) that you as the Judge are being given the task to make judgement calls, and dictate the pace and structure of how you want the rules to be reinforced, not simply just enforcing them.

As you said this might not sit well with some players, and alienate others, but if you want to create a sense of consistancy at this point, you must do it on a personal level. You judge your event (or even individual games) in the orderly fashion of your choosing.

For instance to say that a player may only back-up to no more than the beginning of the current Phase or Step, any more than that is illegal. Make cut-off points, like saying that once you enter the Combat Phase you can no longer go back to Draw.

It really is a matter of preference here... do you wish UDE to outline this? or do you like having control over how its done? There is a bit of rope to work with here, and i'm sure support for both sides of the fence will be split right down the middle.

When does it stop being just a card game? Well the fact that its called the "Pro Circuit" indicates, that at the level, its no longer "just a card game" but business.

After much thought... this is how I see it.

1. On the Mitchell post: There is no 'back up to the resource step' because he entered the recruit step illegaly. So in essence, the game state is still in the resource step.

2. On the follow up question: This is different, the player announced he is in the recruit step, therefore forgoing his recruit step. By announcing this, he has opted not to drop a resource. This could be up to interpretation as well as it could be argued that he can't announce his recruit step until he has announced the end of his resource step. This is a 'judge'ment call.

This is why when I play, if I don't drop a resource I specifically say that I am not playing one... this way it is known that I have opted out of my resource step.