Hidden information

[Ire 1]

I came across some rules topics today when I saw talk about Manning the city walls and melee. The situation was that the player who revealed manning the city walls was chosen so that his new army would be killed to one of the players Valar.

Now I started to think about this issue. Is the player allowed to not put an army character into play even if he has one? By the current rulings it would be considered a form of cheating/unsportsmanship play much like the at the gates and not finding a maester when I have one in the deck. Why I find this situation very strange is that it is dealing with information that my opponent has no knowledge of so the situation needs a judge to validate my hand/deck to make sure I am not cheating. This can create an awkward situation if you truly don't have an army, but still have to call a judge to make sure you are not cheating.  In other card games hidden information is well hidden and things like this are well within the rules as your opponent has no way to know and well the game has no way to know either.

Then a continuation thought about dealing with hidden information. Lets say I have Val in play and there is also a seal of the crown, I activate Val and now draw a card that has a same title that a card in my hand already has. Now my hand has 2 cards with same title that aren't identical thanks to Val's effect? Ok then I discard one of those cards to the seal of the crown because I didn't want to play it as my next action, but… I still have one card in my hand with the same title that Val picked and there isn't any distinction between the two cards, am I forced to play the second card as a Val action? would I need a judge to verify that I indeed had two of those in my hand? or should I specify that I threw the Val one away?

For me it just seems strange to have these kind of hidden information rules where you are forced to do things, but there is no way for your opponent to verify that your play is indeed legal by the game rules.

Should there be a more clear ruling of this since we are getting more cards where hidden information can matter in gameplay?

[ktom 598]

Ire said:

Should there be a more clear ruling of this since we are getting more cards where hidden information can matter in gameplay?

What kind of ruling are you looking for? 

[J_Roel 7]

Ire said:

The situation was that the player who revealed manning the city walls was chosen so that his new army would be killed to one of the players Valar.

Now I started to think about this issue. Is the player allowed to not put an army character into play even if he has one?

Then a continuation thought about dealing with hidden information. Lets say I have Val in play and there is also a seal of the crown, I activate Val and now draw a card that has a same title that a card in my hand already has. Now my hand has 2 cards with same title that aren't identical thanks to Val's effect? Ok then I discard one of those cards to the seal of the crown because I didn't want to play it as my next action, but… I still have one card in my hand with the same title that Val picked and there isn't any distinction between the two cards, am I forced to play the second card as a Val action? would I need a judge to verify that I indeed had two of those in my hand? or should I specify that I threw the Val one away?

 

When you say the player was chosen so that his new army would be killed to Valar, what do you mean? No matter which order the players went, with the new version of the faq, the army would be killed to Valar regardless. Or, if you meant that the player was chosen to satisfy Valar's effect, all players must kill all characters that they cannot save.

As to the second question, the player must put an army into play if he has one, as it isn't an optional response. What would be the benefit of lying about it? If you played it later, the opponent would probably ask when you drew it, remembering that you didn't pull one earlier.

About Val and Seal of the Crown, if you just discard the card you drew with Val to Seal of the Crown's effect, then say so and, unless the opponent has reason to mistrust you, I don't see why there should be an issue. Having multiple copies of the card you're discarding makes no difference, you only have to discard the one you drew if you're discarding it to Seal's effect to get around having to discard a second card.

[J_Roel 7]

J_Roel said:

If you played it later, the opponent would probably ask when you drew it, remembering that you didn't pull one earlier.

My mistake, I thought it was the same as At the Gates, where you put one into play from your deck, not your hand. I guess it would be easy enough to believe that you had simply drawn it after that turn, though it's still dishonest.

[Underworld40k 51]

J_Roel said:

When you say the player was chosen so that his new army would be killed to Valar, what do you mean? No matter which order the players went, with the new version of the faq, the army would be killed to Valar regardless. Or, if you meant that the player was chosen to satisfy Valar's effect, all players must kill all characters that they cannot save.

 

Is this how the faq is actually interpreted? My timing understanding may be a little skewed at this point but i was not reading it that it would affect cards played via at the gates/manning the walls etc as valar will be 'resolved' in the order chosen by the FP

Ie, valar and at the gates are flipped, valar resolves first, all characters are moribund dead unless saved, if a response to this would bring a character into play (blookdrider being played to cancel a save/darkstar being discarded for starfall healer) then they are around when valar resolves and the final moribund destination is assigned, and as such eligable to be killed. Valar is now 'resolved' and at the gates may be 'resolved'.

 

[Bomb 66]

That is definitely not the correct interpretation of the 3.39 in the FAQ.

If the character enters play at some point while Valar is initiating, being saved/canceled, or resolving, that character becomes eligible to be killed by Valar.

If At the Gates or Manning the City Walls resolves AFTER Valar has completely resolved, those characters that entered play are not going to be killed.  If they are resolved BEFORE Valar has come into effect, they are going to be affected because they will be in play.

Darkstar being discarded with Maester of the Sun is an example where it is possible for a character to enter play after Valar initiates and before it resolves and it is now in the FAQ as an official ruling stating that Darkstar will be killed by Valar.

[Underworld40k 51]

Bomb said:

That is definitely not the correct interpretation of the 3.39 in the FAQ.

If the character enters play at some point while Valar is initiating, being saved/canceled, or resolving, that character becomes eligible to be killed by Valar.

If At the Gates or Manning the City Walls resolves AFTER Valar has completely resolved, those characters that entered play are not going to be killed.  If they are resolved BEFORE Valar has come into effect, they are going to be affected because they will be in play.

Darkstar being discarded with Maester of the Sun is an example where it is possible for a character to enter play after Valar initiates and before it resolves and it is now in the FAQ as an official ruling stating that Darkstar will be killed by Valar.

Thank the old gods, thought that i was going mad after i read that. Self doubt is a terrible thing!

[ktom 598]

Bomb has the right of it.

FAQ section 3.39 only applies to things that enter play during the save/cancel step of a general effect (like Valar, Balerion the Black, Westeros Bleeds, etc.).

Since Manning puts the Army into play during its own resolution step, not during the save/cancel step of Valar, the entry doesn't apply to the situation, or indeed, to resolving separate "when revealed" effects in general.

[J_Roel 7]

 I'm actually really glad to hear that, I thought it extended to all cards played during plot, as the "when revealed" passives are all occurring simultaneously. Thanks for the clarification.

[ktom 598]

J_Roel said:

I'm actually really glad to hear that, I thought it extended to all cards played during plot, as the "when revealed" passives are all occurring simultaneously. Thanks for the clarification.

That's a very easy mistake to make. You are correct that all "when revealed" passives technically take place at the same time in the timing structure. Practically speaking, though, they cannot. So the first player chooses the order - the upshot of which is that they wind up happening separately instead of simultaneously.

It's a subtle thing that isn't spelled out explicitly in the rules (the way that "all passives happen simultaneously" is).

[Bomb 66]

Say the whole aforementioned Darkstar scenario happens during Valar.  Can a 2nd copy of Maester of the Sun(standing) in play be used to save Darkstar once he enters play as a result of the first copy saving a Martell character?  Or perhaps discarding an Iron Mines to save him?

It's difficult for me to see that he cannot be saved by any means just because he was not in play when the "mass kill" was initiated.

[ktom 598]

Bomb said:

Say the whole aforementioned Darkstar scenario happens during Valar.  Can a 2nd copy of Maester of the Sun(standing) in play be used to save Darkstar once he enters play as a result of the first copy saving a Martell character?  Or perhaps discarding an Iron Mines to save him?

It's difficult for me to see that he cannot be saved by any means just because he was not in play when the "mass kill" was initiated.

You can't have one without the other. Either he's going to be killed (and therefore can be saved), or he's not going to be killed (and wouldn't need to be saved). Since we know he's going to be killed, you can attempt to save.

The key thing to remember is that saves happen sequentially, even when we are talking about a single kill effect. So coming into play after the start of the sequence doesn't mean he won't get his turn to be saved.

[Bomb 66]

Thank you for that confirmation.  That's what I had though but I just wanted to be sure.

[Ire 1]

ktom said:

Ire said:

Should there be a more clear ruling of this since we are getting more cards where hidden information can matter in gameplay?

What kind of ruling are you looking for? 

 

Specifically a ruling that clears how these situations should currently be handled, like do I really need to call a judge every time I'm doing something with hidden information in tournaments. Since there will be situations where someone will not have the army in hand for the manning the city walls, but ends up drawing one or doesn't have a maester in deck, but has one already in hand when he at the gates which can seem a bit suspicious for your opponent under current rules.

Also how do rules handle that Val situation I had in the starting post? My hand has two identical cards that aren't indistinguishable?

Or there could be rules change to be something like you don't have to fulfill an effect if there is no way for your opponent to verify your play.  

[WWDrakey 5]

I guess one (not very good) option would be to have a player reveal the hidden zone in these kinds of situations, so the opponent could verify the situation. That would make playing cards like Manning the Walls a bit painful however, since you might be forced to reveal your hand if you don't have an army. And having to reveal your deck with At the Gates when you have no Maesters…? 

Like I said, not good.

[Khudzlin 734]

Or you go the other way and add "may" in the text of such effects so the legality is unquestioned.

[Ratatoskr 34]

Khudzlin said:

Or you go the other way and add "may" in the text of such effects so the legality is unquestioned.

This is the way to go. IMO, the current situation, where one players may not always be able to verify the legality of their opponent's move, is highly unsatisfactory. My proposal would be to

I) issue a blanket ruling that, while search may be mandatory, finding in entities with limited information (deck) is always optional. AFAIK, such a rule has been present in the game before. Can anybody confirm?

II) Errata "Manning the City Walls" to "you may put…" and make sure similar effects are also worded that way in the future.

[Slothgodfather 270]

How about just play honestly?   Is that to much to ask?  

[Bomb 66]

Slothgodfather said:

How about just play honestly?   Is that to much to ask?  

+1

I do get that there are some jerks out there that willingly cheat however.

[KristoffStark 1]

Slothgodfather said:

How about just play honestly?   Is that to much to ask?  

I think the question here is how do you ensure your opponent is playing honestly?

[Slothgodfather 270]

I understand that's the question.  The answer is for everyone to play honestly.  Then you don't need the question.     Granted, that's not going to happen because A) there are cheaters and B) there isn't always any trust.

 

So, I think the best way to deal with it is if you think you are playing a shaddy opponent, then just call the TO or ask someone not involved in the game to verify they don't have the card the would be required to play.  Then move on.  

[Khudzlin 734]

Ratatoskr said:

issue a blanket ruling that, while search may be mandatory, finding in entities with limited information (deck) is always optional. AFAIK, such a rule has been present in the game before. Can anybody confirm?

I don't know about AGoT, but this is the current rule in L5R (once upon a time, you lost the game if you failed to find a card for a search effect - I wouldn't recommend that, though).

[mdc273 29]

You can't rely on honesty. When it comes to winning and losing, if you won't get caught cheating there's no incentive to not cheat. That's not to say I would do so. I actually do reveal my hidden area when I don't find an event with Luwin. I also make the argument that any cards like this that create a rules ambiguity should be banned for the sake of simplifying the game, but that's just me.

Might want to move this to the general forum, too. This isn't a rules question, but an etiquitte question. Probably more people will see it.

[Bomb 66]

mdc273 said:

You can't rely on honesty. When it comes to winning and losing, if you won't get caught cheating there's no incentive to not cheat. That's not to say I would do so. I actually do reveal my hidden area when I don't find an event with Luwin. I also make the argument that any cards like this that create a rules ambiguity should be banned for the sake of simplifying the game, but that's just me.

In tournament play, you will be labeled as a cheater and respect will be lost for you.  Not sure if they have imposed penalties for such(do they for collusion?). 

In a friendly game people won't want to play with you.  It's just a game, but who wants to play with a cheater?

mdc273 said:

Might want to move this to the general forum, too. This isn't a rules question, but an etiquitte question. Probably more people will see it.

It's a tournament rules question that I gathered from the OP and I wouldn't be surprised if more people browse the Rules forum more than the General forum.