judge/play/moral question/discussion

[ShadowCard]

NoPoke: So some of your opinion is trying to discourage player laziness. By bringing with them their own rulebooks, compendium entries, or interesting scenarios, to check during the game (in a timely mannor, open to the opponent), they are making an effort to make sure the game remains without error instead of relying on the judge as a memory aid. Do I have that correct?

Would you answer questions where the card text is clearly vague or under errata? Say, if a player asks if Banette can KO itself with Ghost Head.

 

[P_A]

Though that scenario is old at this point, and most players should know the answer to that by now, Personally I would still answer that. My opinion only of course. Perhaps if it was in a tier 2 situation I'd be more apt to consider the reason for the question in the first place. My feelings on the matter is that if you trust the players to be trustworthy, chances are that you will find them such. If you look at all situations with a paranoid eye, more often than not you will find less respect from players. Let's face it, most times, within a minute, you can get the feel of the situation and the particulars, and can gauge if your revealing the answer will make a difference in favor of one player or another. It's best just to go with your own gut feeling on this, and not be swayed by opinions of other judges - nor look down upon others here for their opinions. Use your best judgement. Being unbiased as best as possible is the best course, and if you have the best interest of the integrity of the event, then POP will back you on your judgements. However remember not to alienate the players or you may be right, but have no participation in future events. Just my 2¢.

 

[NoPoke]

NoPoke: So some of your opinion is trying to discourage player laziness. By bringing with them their own rulebooks, compendium entries, or interesting scenarios, to check during the game (in a timely mannor, open to the opponent), they are making an effort to make sure the game remains without error instead of relying on the judge as a memory aid. Do I have that correct?

Close My motivation is to avoid rewarding laziness much more than to discourage laziness. I don't mind if it has a side effect of discouraging laziness

Would you answer questions where the card text is clearly vague or under errata? Say, if a player asks if Banette can KO itself with Ghost Head.

Good edge question. I will tell any player errata text. I won't interpret it for them. personally I'd like cards with errata to be treated like foreign language and require an external reference with the correct text.

So this is what I'd say "Ghost head has an errata and should have the following text: Put as many damage counters as you like on Banette. (You can't Knock Out Banette.) Put that many damage counters on the Defending Pokémon."

 

[MrMeches]

I find it difficult to answer questions about the Cards in a player's hand. IMHO, game state is the Judges responsibility first then rulings. We can only rule on the things in play and are known factors, actual cards in hand is not a known factor to the game state, only the number of cards in hand, so ruling on something that is not yet "in-play" tends to lean towards coaching over judging. Once the card is down and there is a question about the effects of the card, as mundane as possible, explain the ruling determined in the compendium. ie. Unown G has been ruled to prevent ALL effects of attacks. In the Machamp scenario, it has now been explained what G does. If the player asks again is the KO part of Machamps attack an effect, then a Judge can answer Yes it is and be able to move on. Knowledge of the cards is the PLAYER's responsibility as well as the Judge.

I do like the idea of having everyone raise their hands during announcements.. good going Keith!

Just remember one thing, Judges are there to maintain Game State and be its voice. So we can only see what the Game sees and rule accordingly. Anything more becomes a slippery slope as to "well you gave Jo-Bob help, why can't you help me?!"

If a player has a card in hand and is unsure of what it does, during the tournament is not the time to learn it and where it would be nice to teach them, as judges a Tournament is not the time to teach them. To me Teaching falls back on the League Leaders an the days before the tournament. I announce to my peeps that if they are attending a Tourny this weekend, and have questions about something, come ask me before the League is over. During the Tournament I will not be able to assist you as I can here, so use my knowledge now before it is too late. Also, during deck checks, it is nice to have someone announce if they have questions or are uncertain of a card, to ask a Judge before the tournament begins. This has helped tremendously in minimizing issues!

GL and Happy Judging!!

Fish

 

[bulbasnore]

Notwithstanding the eloquence and good sense of MrMeches comments, which I appreciate very much, no player should deduce from them that the hand or deck is off limits to the judge in assessing the game state or making a ruling.

 

[pokeMATHter]

Can't I coach, just a little bit? Please?

CC. Round 3 of 4, Junior Division. Bottom table. Time is called. 4 prizes each. Both players are around 6 or 7 and neither is a strong reader. Player A has Pachurisu active, with one energy and no damage, with lots of other cute Pokemon on her bench, none of which can do much damage. Player B has Infernape active with no energy, a benched Typhlosion with one fighting and one fire energy. Player A attacks for 10. Player B draws a card, and levels up Infernape. He tries to read Invernape X's power, but after 20 seconds or so asks me. So I read it to him. He decides to use Burning Head draws three, keeping a fire energy that he attaches to Typhlosion and ends his turn without attacking. Player A draws and attacks for 10. Player B draws. Plays a potion, does another burning head and ends his turn.

Player A does her turn and attacks for 10. Player B does his turn, lays down a ChimChar, and ends his turn without attacking. A crowd gathers, since this is the only match at any of the 30+ tables. The judges try their best to keep the crowd away. 15 minutes pass, while player A attacks for 10. Player B draws a card, plays an occasional potion to heal Infernape, attaches energy and evolves his other benched pokemon and passes. Everyone in the room, from 30 feet away knows Player B just has to retreat (FOR FREE!) and attack and the game is his. But he doesn't see it.

Finally, after what seems to me like 4 days, player B goes "D'Oh! Point's to Infernape's retreat cost. "I didn't see that." Up comes Typhlosion and two attacks later, player B wins.

B's dad comes up to me later and whispers "Note to self: Teach retreating!"

 

[bulbasnore]

Great story... groan!