Jump to content

Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Accidental (or intentional) Deep Strike of a non-deep strike card


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1
kwarrend

kwarrend

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 299 posts

If you discover your opponent put a card into reserve without the Deep Strike keyword, is it an auto-loss? 

 

I assume yes, just wanted to make sure.

 



#2
Khudzlin

Khudzlin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1052 posts

The same situation in AGoT 1st edition (with a similar mechanic) resulted in a game loss for the offending player (even if the player discovered it themselves). So I would guess the same.



#3
Kaloo

Kaloo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 942 posts

Yes, it's an auto loss due to cheating (irrespective of whether or not it was intentional)



#4
Asklepios

Asklepios

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 5433 posts

I disagree. Game loss is a likely outcome, but its not automatic.

 

Instead, we should follow the procedure for "illegal game state" as per p3 of the tournament rules.

 

https://images-cdn.f...ament_Rules.pdf

 

So basically, discuss among the players and see if a reasonable compromise can be reached.

 

If it were my opponent who had did this, and I could honestly say the deep strike had not affected my deployment between the time of deep striking and its revelation, I would say "just remove that card from the game, ok?". This might occur if at the end of a turn a player checks his Deep Strikes and says "oops, I made a blunder". If an opponent didn't agree to this, I'd call the Judge over and ask for a ruling but without any suggestion of what I think should happen.

 

If my deployments had been affected, I might say that I'd been put at an unfair disadvantage, and say that there's too many decisions gone past to say what the outcomes might have been. I'd call a Judge over, ask for a ruling, and press for an auto-loss. A decision against me on that would be whined about, probably, but I'd accept it, as per the Tournament rules.

 

As a judge, I'd take into account what has happened between the illegal game state being established and discovered, and I'd also weigh in who revealed the illegal game state, being much more inclined to be merciful towards a player who spots and highlights an illegal game state that they themselves created.

 

Regardless, I think a situation like this should be carefully approached and discussed in terms of illegal game state, not in terms of intentional or unintentional cheating. Its not like we're talking about deliberately drawing an extra card in the HQ phase...


  • alpha5099, kwarrend, thevlert and 4 others like this

#5
Khudzlin

Khudzlin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1052 posts

I am thinking in terms of illegal game state. There is no such thing as unintentional cheating, because cheating requires intent. A player revealing their own mistake can be given the benefit of the doubt about intent, so their only violation is creating an illegal game state (which does call for a less severe sanction than cheating - that last calls for DQ, so just about any other sanction would be less severe). And for this particular violation, only one player can be held responsible, because only one player has access to the relevant information at the time.

 

Now you make a good point about how much has happened between putting the card in reserve and the illegal game state being revealed. If the command struggles have been resolved, then it's too late (unless neither player drew a single card or showed a previously hidden card). If the deployment phase is not over, but the other player has already passed, the solution is easy: return the problem card to the player's hand and return the spent resource. If both players are still taking turns deploying (or the card is revealed by a Seer Adept - note that reactions to the beginning of the command phase are resolved before choosing where to commit), it's more complex. If the warlords (and synapses) have already committed, it's even more problematic.



#6
ktom

ktom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1463 posts

As a judge, I'd take into account what has happened between the illegal game state being established and discovered, and I'd also weigh in who revealed the illegal game state, being much more inclined to be merciful towards a player who spots and highlights an illegal game state that they themselves created.

 

Regardless, I think a situation like this should be carefully approached and discussed in terms of illegal game state, not in terms of intentional or unintentional cheating. Its not like we're talking about deliberately drawing an extra card in the HQ phase...

 

When you make this determination, though, you have to remember that part of the point of the mechanic is to create a "bluff" that the other player has to deal with. As such, I think the hard-line stance of an auto-loss if the error is discovered at the end of the game when all reserve cards are revealed is not s stretch at all. Similarly, if someone places a card in reserve at Planet 4, then outs themselves as having placed the wrong card just before the battle at Planet 1 four rounds later, an auto-loss there is not too harsh, either, because there's no telling how the presence of that reserve card affected deployment, moves, routs, etc. over the last 3 rounds.

 

That said, if you put a card into reserve at Planet 1 during deployment, then realize that you put the wrong card down when you go to Deep Strike it that same round, there's probably more room for "fixing" the game state. If you put down the wrong card and it has Deep Strike, I think you're stuck with it. If you put down the wrong card and it is not Deep Strike, I think you could probably swap with the correct card, provided that you reveal all the cards. But all of this depends, of course, on whether or not I get the sense that the opponent actually did this intentionally in order to influence commitment during the command phase.

 

Similarly, if you catch that you put the wrong card into reserve and simply don't Deep Strike it, I don't think you can actually say, "No harm, no foul, right?" when the battle is over at Plaent 1 and the card is revealed on its way to the discard pile. Again, that "bluff" nature of the mechanic doesn't let you say that your penalty for the mistake was a dead card in reserve.

 

So yeah, if the players can agree to a method of repairing the game state, that's what happens. But given the "bluff" nature of the mechanic, I think the method of repair is going to end up being rather harsher on the person who made the mistake (intentional or not). And because of the "bluff" aspect, I think judges are going to have a very low threshold for "can't repair the game state; auto-loss" solutions. 

 

Bottom line: Play the mechanic sloppily at your own peril.


  • jalf and Kaloo like this

#7
kwarrend

kwarrend

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 299 posts

Yeah, I can't see this being the case in more than maybe ever a few games.  But I also think if there isn't a clear answer, you're allowing people the *chance* at getting away with something - depending on how good of an actor they may be or how sympathetic the judge is.



#8
steinerp

steinerp

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 833 posts

The lack of floor rules for Conquest prevent a clear answer until then all we can base the answer on is the vague illegal state rules and similar situations in other games (like the referenced AGOT).  One game that does have floor rules is netrunner, which does cover illegal facedown cards.  The netrunner rules allow some limited rewinding but state the penalty as a Game Loss.  My personal take is that this is appropriate to Conquest (and similar to what has been said above)  (Note: As there is no true answer for this, this thread will not be getting an "Answered" marker anytime soon)

Illegally Installing Facedown Cards—Game Loss*
Definition
A player installs a card facedown illegally.

Examples
1. The Corporation installs a card within a remote server. The next turn, the Runner makes a run on that server. When the Runner accesses the card it is discovered that the card is an operation.
2. The Corporation installs a card protecting HQ. Many turns later, the Runner makes a run on HQ. When the Corporation attempts to rez the card, he realizes that it is an asset and he installed the incorrect card.
3. The Corporation installs a card in the root of R&D. On her next turn, she looks at the card and realizes that she installed a piece of ice instead of an upgrade.

Resolution
If the game state has not changed significantly and it is still the turn in which the card was installed illegally, the head judge rewinds the game to immediately before the error, undoing each action in reverse order. The offending player receives a warning and the game then resumes from immediately before the error. For example, if the Corporation installs a piece of ice within a remote server for the first click, takes 2 credits for his other two clicks, and then realizes his mistake before the Runner takes action, have the Corporation remove 2 credits from his credit pool, put that card back into HQ, and rewind the game to right before the Corporation’s first click. If it is a different turn or the game state has changed significantly, the offending player receives a game loss for the current game.

Philosophy
Players sometimes make mistakes, but representing incorrect information or encouraging an opponent to spend resources to reveal an illegally installed card can have serious consequences. If play has moved to another player’s turn, this infraction can cause a game to take an entirely different course than it otherwise would have gone. When a game’s integrity is compromised due to an illegally installed card, there is no fixing the game state and the only course of action is a game loss for the offending player. A player may ask a judge to confirm the legality of his or her opponent’s facedown cards at any time during a game or immediately after a game concludes. This right should not be abused.


  • Gosgosh likes this

#9
Khudzlin

Khudzlin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1052 posts

If the game state has not changed significantly

 

Here is the rub. In NetRunner, players take fully separate turns, only the Corp is allowed to install facedown cards and the  Runner cannot do anything during the Corp's turn. That means there is a window in which only the Corp has acted and the game state can be easily rewound. In Conquest, both players are allowed to deploy facedown cards and actions alternate, so rewinding is much harder.



#10
Jaranu

Jaranu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts

The rule insert for jungles of nectavus specifically says that units with deep strike text may be played into reserve, and also mentions that at the end of the game, all reserve cards are turned up so both players can see what they were.

 

I imagine this means if it turns out a unit was played into reserve that cannot legally be done so would be an automatic forfeit of the game, as that is breaking the rule that only deep strike cards can be played into reserve.



#11
steinerp

steinerp

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 833 posts

It is an illegal play, no doubt about that.  The question is what the appropriate response is an FFG has always remained purposefully vague on this.  Barring extraordinary circumstances I would expect a game loss to be issued at anything about casual level play but it is up to the players (and judge if need be).



#12
Jaranu

Jaranu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts

It is an illegal play, no doubt about that.  The question is what the appropriate response is an FFG has always remained purposefully vague on this.  Barring extraordinary circumstances I would expect a game loss to be issued at anything about casual level play but it is up to the players (and judge if need be).

 

Fair enough. Casual play I imagine it would be a game by game basis, depending on how much it effected things. Tournament play, unless the mistake was immediately caught, I imagine it being revealed 1 or 2 turns later or at the end of the game would typically be an instant loss, as going back to the point that card was played would be very complicated.


  • steinerp likes this

#13
Khudzlin

Khudzlin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1052 posts

Speaking as a potential judge (I expect to be a judge at the French Championship), I would issue a game loss for sure if the command struggles in the same turn have already been resolved, because that's a huge change of game state. I would make the players rewind for sure if the card was put in reserve after the opponent passed in the Deploy phase (except in the previous case). In between, I would need more details from both players.



#14
TheNick

TheNick

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 75 posts

Agreed with a lot of the above.

 

There is a difference between an illegal play and outright cheating.

 

There should be some method for going back and fixing things in a gentlemanly manner, with the proviso that some mistakes may require penalization (disqualification being the most severe, forfeiture is certainly the next most severe and often-times appropriate, but these may not be required; again, "it depends.")