Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (More info?)
TOURNAMENT CASE STUDY
You are the head judge in a local tournament (2 rounds + Final) where
one player played an illegal deck by bringing a crypt with group 1, 2,
and 3 vampires. In the first round of the tournament, only group 2 and
3 vampires were influenced out, so nothing was noticed.
In the second round, the player influenced out several group 2 and 3
vampires, and then influenced out a group 1 vampire. You're not sure
if the table noticed immediately, or after the group 1 vampire had
taken some actions.
You did not require that the players provide a decklist.
For reference, the VEKN Judge's Guide, section 103,
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknJudgesGuide.html suggests a penalty
of a Game Loss for an illegal deck, and states that, "If the penaly
occurs in the middle of a game, the judge should award pool and/or
Victory Points to the player's Predator, or making other arrangements
to preserve game balance for the remaining players, as warranted
(possibly awarding partial VPs)."
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1) Do you agree with the recommended penality from the Judge's Guide?
If yes, describe what approach you would use to "preserve game balance
for the remaining players." If no, what penality would you enforce?
2) Does the player's experience level matter in determining the
penality? Elaborate.
3) Does the number of actions the group 1 vampire took make a
difference? If so, how does that change the penality you would
enforce?
4) If this situation arose in the first round, or if the player made
the finals, how would you adjust (or have the player adjust) the
illegal deck to continue playing?
MY THOUGHTS
I didn't request decklists. I don't like to require them, because it
creates a hurdle for tournament entry. Nonetheless, I should at least
make them optional.
Before the tournament, I said, "Everyone has legal decks, right?" and
everyone kinda nodded approval. I didn't state clearly what defines a
"legal deck" and I should have.
At the time of the ruling, I didn't ask how much the group 1 vampire
did before the table noticed the problem. I vaguely recall that it was
untapped with full blood when I was called over, but still I should
have asked. At the time, I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the
problem was noticed immediately. I wonder about that now, as I'm
writing this up.
I ruled that the vampire was immediately removed from play. The player
was good natured about it, and apologetic. The table seemed to think
it was a fair penality. He is a very experienced player and should
have known better, so I felt confident in punishing him severely (at
least it seemed severe to me.) I considered disqualifying him, but
even in that case, I wouldn't have removed him from the game. In my
opinion, removing someone from the game in the middle is one of the
most disruptive things that can happen (short of spilling a bunch of
liquid on the table.)
I think that the Judge's Guide suggested penality is both too harsh and
too disruptive. I understand that we wouldn't want the penality too
lax lest players begin to intentionally abuse it. Nonetheless,
actually removing someone mid-game lacks elegance. In this case, I was
confident that it was an unintentional mistake, and not cheating.
Fortunately from a judging perspective, the player didn't make the
final, so it wasn't an issue what would happen with his deck. Had the
problem arose in the first round, I'm not sure what I would have done
for the second round. I believe I would have found a similar capacity
vampire that was legal for that crypt, perhaps duplicating an existing
vampire in the crypt.
If the player made the final, I would have been tempted to prevent him
from playing in the final, though it's hard to say. Whatever ruling I
made, I would have attempted to nullify any benefit the player received
from bringing an illegal crypt.
Also, it was fortunate that 11 cards were group 2-3, and only one was
group 1. If there had been more group 1s, the problem would have been
more difficult to correct, and the infraction more severe (in my
opinion.) I'm not sure how it would have changed my ruling; I probably
still would have replaced all the group 1s with similar cap vampires.
I welcome the insight of everyone else who has tournament judging
experience. I'm sure a similar situation has come up at many different
tournaments.
Ira
TOURNAMENT CASE STUDY
You are the head judge in a local tournament (2 rounds + Final) where
one player played an illegal deck by bringing a crypt with group 1, 2,
and 3 vampires. In the first round of the tournament, only group 2 and
3 vampires were influenced out, so nothing was noticed.
In the second round, the player influenced out several group 2 and 3
vampires, and then influenced out a group 1 vampire. You're not sure
if the table noticed immediately, or after the group 1 vampire had
taken some actions.
You did not require that the players provide a decklist.
For reference, the VEKN Judge's Guide, section 103,
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/veknJudgesGuide.html suggests a penalty
of a Game Loss for an illegal deck, and states that, "If the penaly
occurs in the middle of a game, the judge should award pool and/or
Victory Points to the player's Predator, or making other arrangements
to preserve game balance for the remaining players, as warranted
(possibly awarding partial VPs)."
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1) Do you agree with the recommended penality from the Judge's Guide?
If yes, describe what approach you would use to "preserve game balance
for the remaining players." If no, what penality would you enforce?
2) Does the player's experience level matter in determining the
penality? Elaborate.
3) Does the number of actions the group 1 vampire took make a
difference? If so, how does that change the penality you would
enforce?
4) If this situation arose in the first round, or if the player made
the finals, how would you adjust (or have the player adjust) the
illegal deck to continue playing?
MY THOUGHTS
I didn't request decklists. I don't like to require them, because it
creates a hurdle for tournament entry. Nonetheless, I should at least
make them optional.
Before the tournament, I said, "Everyone has legal decks, right?" and
everyone kinda nodded approval. I didn't state clearly what defines a
"legal deck" and I should have.
At the time of the ruling, I didn't ask how much the group 1 vampire
did before the table noticed the problem. I vaguely recall that it was
untapped with full blood when I was called over, but still I should
have asked. At the time, I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the
problem was noticed immediately. I wonder about that now, as I'm
writing this up.
I ruled that the vampire was immediately removed from play. The player
was good natured about it, and apologetic. The table seemed to think
it was a fair penality. He is a very experienced player and should
have known better, so I felt confident in punishing him severely (at
least it seemed severe to me.) I considered disqualifying him, but
even in that case, I wouldn't have removed him from the game. In my
opinion, removing someone from the game in the middle is one of the
most disruptive things that can happen (short of spilling a bunch of
liquid on the table.)
I think that the Judge's Guide suggested penality is both too harsh and
too disruptive. I understand that we wouldn't want the penality too
lax lest players begin to intentionally abuse it. Nonetheless,
actually removing someone mid-game lacks elegance. In this case, I was
confident that it was an unintentional mistake, and not cheating.
Fortunately from a judging perspective, the player didn't make the
final, so it wasn't an issue what would happen with his deck. Had the
problem arose in the first round, I'm not sure what I would have done
for the second round. I believe I would have found a similar capacity
vampire that was legal for that crypt, perhaps duplicating an existing
vampire in the crypt.
If the player made the final, I would have been tempted to prevent him
from playing in the final, though it's hard to say. Whatever ruling I
made, I would have attempted to nullify any benefit the player received
from bringing an illegal crypt.
Also, it was fortunate that 11 cards were group 2-3, and only one was
group 1. If there had been more group 1s, the problem would have been
more difficult to correct, and the infraction more severe (in my
opinion.) I'm not sure how it would have changed my ruling; I probably
still would have replaced all the group 1s with similar cap vampires.
I welcome the insight of everyone else who has tournament judging
experience. I'm sure a similar situation has come up at many different
tournaments.
Ira
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram