Card Game DB
Sign In
Create Account
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!
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!
1
What to Do When Something Goes Wrong- AGOT version
Feb 09 2016 03:00 PM |
steinerp
in Game of Thrones
The Disclaimers:The great and almighty ktom has spoken to this topic recently in the Conquest Rules forum. Here is his answer and I believe it applies to AGOT just as well:
There is no "official stance" on what to do if players break the rules, accidentally or on purpose. The rule is simply that the ability cannot have been initiated in the first place.
Now, that answer is kind of trite and takes the unrealistic approach that mistakes never happen. However, there is no official stance on what is the "correct" or "fair" thing to do if a mistake is made - largely because every situation is unique. How big of a mistake? Was it discovered right away, or after other actions have been taken? Was it really a "mistake" or was one player trying to take advantage of the other through misdirection or exploitation of a lack of experience? FFG has pretty much opted not to try to make a general rule to cover every situation and all the possible variables.
What FFG has said, and thus made the "official stance," is that the quality of the game state is the responsibility of all players. This means that it is incumbent upon the players to try their best not to make mistakes, and to work together to "repair" the game state and come up with their own solution if mistakes are made.
Essentially, if mistakes are made and the players agree to take it back, that's the right thing to do. If mistakes are made and the players agree to proceed with the effect of the ability being unsuccessful (but all costs paid), that's also the right thing to do. If the players can't agree in a tournament and call a judge over, it is left entirely to the judge's discretion - and the players have to abide by the decision (which, obviously, encourages people to settle things for themselves).
Nothing written below is intended to contradict this. The second disclaimer is that nothing here should be taken as an official stance. The official stance is above. Finally, this article is not intended to shift how people play, if it takes seven steps to play a card or trigger an ability games would be extremely long and dull.
Things go wrong?
So now that the disclaimers are out of the way, why am I writing this? Because sometimes things do go wrong and as Store Championships are going on and Regionals are approaching it is a good discussion to have to help the players and judges decide what the “right†course of action is. I’m not going to attempt to talk about what to do with missed Forced triggers or actions that were completed only to be found to be illegal a phase later, nor am I looking at intentional cheating. You have to figure that out on your own. This is just looking at situations that are mistakes resulting in illegal actions such as using Put to the Torch and the only location in play is a Pleasure Barge.
The Principals
1. It is the responsibility of all players to ensure the game state is legal.
2. The “punishment†should fit the crime.
3. We should attempt to create a new game state as close as possible to the current game state but resolving the illegal game state.
The Rules
The RRG does talk about how to initiate an action or ability. Page X states the following as the order of operations:
1. Check play restrictions: can the card be marshaled or played, or the ability initiated, at this time?
2. Determine the cost (or costs, if multiple costs are required) to marshal/play the card or initiate the ability. If it is established that the cost (taking modifiers into account) can be paid, proceed with the remaining steps of this sequence.
3. Apply any modifiers to the cost(s).
4. Pay the cost(s).
5. Choose target(s), if applicable.
6. The card is marshaled/played, or the effects of the ability attempt to initiate. An interrupt ability that cancels this initiation may be used at this time.
7. The effects of the ability (if not canceled in step 6) complete their initiation, and resolve.
Have you ever used this checklist? I haven’t. I may have done the steps in order but it just as likely that when I want to play a card sometimes I put the card into play (step 6), pay the cost (step 4), and then declare the target (step 5). Or sometimes I play the card, declare the target, resolve the effect, then pay the cost. Or sometimes I pay the cost, declare the action, play the card, then choose targets. It is absolutely normal to treat these seven steps as one and just “play the card.â€
So what happens when my opponent plays an event that can’t change the game state and has already paid the cost and discarded the card?
Short answer- You have created an illegal game state. Both players are responsible (see principle 1). So you both get a game loss. (If a judge actually does this go find a new place to play.)
A better answer- Figure out where in the condensed steps the illegal game state occurred and stop the action there. Although this too may result in an illegal state (revealing cards from hand is illegal in some games) this is usually the least harm solution. The rest of the steps occurred in reality. According to the game they could not have occurred and therefore didn’t. So what does this mean in practice? Let’s look at a couple of scenarios.
Scenario 1: Player A has 2 gold and wins a military challenge by 5 and plays Put to the Torch on the opposing player’s only location, a Small Council Chamber (immune to events). Step 1 says this action is a failure as it will not result in a game state change. So Player A never makes it to step 4 (pay costs) or step 6 (place event card in discard pile-technically this is right after step 6 but close enough). The player should then return the card to hand and the resources to his pool. Since he didn’t take a reaction to winning the battle, he then uses one of the gold he “got back†to play Put to the Sword and play continues as normal.
Scenario 2: Same as above except Player B has a Roseroad in play well. In this scenario Step 1 will not trigger a failure as the Roseroad would be a legal target and game state would change if it were targeted. When he gets to Step 5, he would be forced to target the Roseroad even though this was not the intention. The action is completed and resources and card are spent. Player A now has 1 gold and cannot play the Put to the Sword.
Scenario 3: The Hound is in play and wins a challenge. The forced reaction is not activated. The owner (player A) declares intent to play an action and Player B says. “You missed the trigger so the Hound returns to your hand.†At this point you really have to call over a judge unless you can mutually agree on a solution. Keeping in mind that it is the responsibility of both players to enforce the game state, it is not the right call to immediately return the Hound. Player B is just as responsible for the missed trigger as Player A is, if not more since they were apparently waiting on the missed trigger to force the “negative†effect. Player A should be given the opportunity to decide to pay or not. (Note: If Player A is missing the trigger on purpose, the judge may feel the need to take other actions and it is not Player B’s sole responsibility to force the trigger either.)
Scenario 4: The Hound is not paid and no one notices until late in the dominance phase. This is where the FFG position of no set rule really shines. Can the player decide now? Would it have affected other challenges/lack there of? Should you reset the game to Hound’s challenge win or is the information gained by knowing the opponent’s hand too great? Is it even really a choice (Hound player had no cards in hand)? When trying to figure out what to do, remember the principles above and don’t be afraid to ask a judge for help if there isn’t a clean solution. That is what the judges get paid the big bucks for.
Bonus Hypothetical Scenario: Theon Greyjoy is attacking alone and Ser Jorah Mormont is defending. If Ser Jorah wins, the Targaryen player wins the game with renown claim. The Targarygen player plays Dracarys! kneeling Drogon and paying 1 gold. At this point a hypothetical card is played by the Greyjoy player “Reaction: After costs are paid, sacrifice a unit.†The player sacrifices Theon and the Targaryen player is forced to target the only remaining target, Ser Jorah Mormont.
Super bonus Scenario: What happens if the Theon was the only participating unit in the challenge?
Summary:
FFG has purposely made the rules vague on what to do and that is a good thing. That being said the vagueness shouldn’t be used to gain an advantage for either side. Both players are responsible for ensuring game play is smooth and as close to the rules as possible, while being enjoyable (see: not doing a 6 step checklist for every action). These shortcuts will result in problems sometimes, and they all need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. The above scenarios are suggested actions from one player and assume the issues are found quickly and there is no intent to cheat the game or the system.
Note 1: There is nothing special about the Roseroad in this scenario 2. Any location that could be affected would allow the action to proceed.
Note 2: This is absolutely 100% personal opinion with no basis in the rules at all. But unless you feel like the opponent was attempting to cheat and target a unit he knew he couldn’t in Scenarios 2 and 4, consider allowing them to take back the entire action. But as a judge, this is NOT an option.
7 Comments
Bonus scenario: I sincerely hope FFG will never create such a stupid card. Interrupting targeting to change targets, maybe...
Super bonus scenario: nothing special, the challenge would continue to its resolution (in 1st ed it would stop immediately without resolution, but not in 2nd ed). Provided no characters are added as participants, there would be no winner (since both sides would be at 0 STR).
I think he meant "what happens to Dracarys!" rather than "what happens to the challenge". I'll refrain from answering, as he ran this by me before print
.
As for the Bonus scenario, while I certainly hope they don't design a card specifically designed to mess post-cost ability initiation, you could imagine this slipping through "unintentionally".
Example; Reaction: After a lord of lady leaves play, sacrifice (this character) to gain 3 power", "Challenges Action: Sacrifice a lord/lady to choose a participating character and remove if from the challenge".
The challenges action has, as a cost, the leave-play of a lord or lady. The opponent could then react by sacrificing their only participating character, forcing a scenario like "Bonus" or "Super Bonus" to happen.
At no point would either card have been "designed" to interfere specifically with cost initiation, but the end result is the same.
True, I posted too fast, then couldn't modify it from my phone. The super bonus scenario is the reason FFG should take extra care not to let one slip. No player made a mistake, but the game state has still become illegal (a post-cost reaction invalidated the check step).
Note that the game state isn't actually illegal under the super bonus. Unlike some games, the game only checks to see if the potential action is legal at Step 1(Magic for example checks at least 3 times). Once the game is past step 1, the ability to change game state doesn't really matter any more. There is going back Steps.
Although I wasn't able to come up with a 2.0 example so I deleted the scenarios if there is a Fireball printed (X cost: Do X damage to a unit) If there is a 1 Str character and a 7 Str. character in play and player decides to do a 7 point fireball only to find out that the 7 Str. character is immune to events, He wouldn't get to go back and changed the cost of the fireball to 1, rather he would hit the now VERY dead 1 Str character for 1. The game doesn't allow for going back to change the cost, nor does it require going back to ensure that Step 1 is always valid should something happen later down the line.
IMO, in super bonus, Dracrys! is fizzled and played without doing anything. It was legal to play when initiated, so there was no illegal play made - it just can't/doesn't resolve.
Zigur- Not quite. The card is actually never played, however costs are paid. When you get to step 5, you are unable to find a target so the action stops. Since the card isn't put in the discard pile until step 6/7 are completed. So the card remains in hand. This is actually very similar to is the cost could not be paid.
RRG: If any part of a cost payment is prevented, once all costs that can be paid are paid, the process of initiating the ability or marshaling/playing the card immediately ends without further resolution. (The card remains unplayed in its owner's hand.)
Khudzlin: Also I wanted to get this confirmed as there are ways of interpreting Step 1. But any card that has an effect of "Sac this/a unit to do X to a unit" Would cause this breakdown so long as the unit being sacrificed was a legal target to begin with it. Once the costs are paid, it is no longer a legal target. I am confident we will see abilities like this at some point.
So I've heard about article "what to do when illigal game state occurs" and I although I usually don't read or listen any aGoT content I was really interested. And I read 1st half restating what FFG told us to do, and you writing about punishment fitting crime... And then I got dissapoined
I really expected ideas what to do when you realize that Aemon got illegally milked. Or I did 3 challanges and have 14 power and just realised that I forgot uo bonus from 1st challange. Or Hound won challange and didn't trigger (with nobody noticing untill dominance phase). Or I put Seal of the Hand in setup with no Lord/Lady. Or we forgot about resolve Filthy accusations untill after 1st challange.
That's the article I'd love to read.
Bonus: Never heard of paid judges for Thrones...