Shrecklich made this comment in the Kingsmoot thread:

"Oh, also, just curious what the general community feeling is on this - after I finished my game in round 1, I started watching the game next to me. The players finished round 7 and were starting round 8. One of the players had picked up all 7 of his plots during the plot phase. I pointed out that he had to leave his last plot in the used pile, and his opponent told me that outside comments were not allowed. Is it a common consensus to let rules errors stand if neither player in the game notices them?"

I thought it would be appropriate to make a separate thread about what you can/should do in a tournament if a rules conflict comes up.

For Screcklich's example, I think he was right to correct the error. I actually feel is would have been wrong to not correct the error. For things that are suppose to happen in a game (i.e. Passives) I feel it's alright to point them out if not realized. However, I feel it's inappropriate to point out that certain effects can be triggered. In my eyes, it's up to the players playing the game to recognize/trigger whatever effects they control.

For example in a game between Pete and Erick, Pete won a power challenge with Fat Bob. He had Banner for the Storm out as a character. Erick had Flame-Pitched Tower which was going to burn Fat Bob when it's was time for Erick's challenges. Paul and I both realized that Pete should activate the Banner's ability to give Fat Bob an attachment so he wouldn't die from Flame-Picthed Tower. We however felt it wasn't appropriate to point it out and kept quiet.

I'm also interested in people's opinion on in-game etiquette:

For example, in a game I played at the Kingsmoot I had the Stark Epic Battle where the winner of each military challenge can kill a character without a military icon. I won a challenge as the attacker and my opponent had already fulfilled claim and I claimed power for my House. Because I won the challenge I decided to use the passive effect of the plot to kill a character with two Venomous Blades on it. My opponent wanted to return them to Shadows, but I said that's a Response and the Passive effect of the kill comes first. Since the character is now moribund, the Blades, which are attachments, wouldn't be able to return to Shadows. My opponnent then wanted to play Rumors of War on the character to give it a military icon, but I said the last action window to do so was before claim was fulfilled. I was willing to have someone else review the situation, but my opponent decided to just go along with it. My opponent seemed slightly upset over the situation (completely understandable) despite claiming to not be. After the match I explained that in casual play I'm completely cool with take-backs and what not, but in a tourney I pretty much go straight by the rules and that it was not by any means personal. My opponent said it was ok, but I was unconvinced and still felt like a big jerk. Leaving the table after the match was rather awkward and unsettling.

Even if I'm wrong how the actions were suppose to resolve (I hope I'm not ) did I do anything wrong? Could I have handled the situatuon better? I really tried to be as nice as I possibly could be about it. I understand my opponent would have played Rumors of War earlier if he realized the character with Blades on them would be killed, but it's not's my resposibilty to make sure my opponent reads everything and plays optimally, right? I like Thrones because there is virtually zero NPE caused by players (~maybe except for Erick's ego), but my situation didn't seem to resonate with this statement.

So what do people think? What's the right and wrong way to behave at an official tournament?

EDIT:

Staton made this comment in the Kingsmoot thread in response to Shrecklich's comment:

" I don't know about everyone, but I would certainly want someone to comment on our game if a major rules violation was occurring in my game! I'm pretty sure I've done that more than once on someone else's game too."

Also, on a sort of related note, what is the official way to deal with passives that shoulh have taked place but didn't. For example, if you control Guard at Riverrun and you're opponent doesn't win any military challenges against you, what do you if you forget to draw a card. This happened to Dan in the final game at the Kingsmoot a couple of times. During a phase or two later he would realize that he was suppose to draw a card at the end of the Challenges phase. Because it's a passive effect should he have drawn a card once he immediately realized it, or is the opportunity lost? Would it be improper etiquette for his opponent to not point out that he was suppose to draw a card if the opponent recognized the passive effect at the end of the challenges phase? It is a passive after all. It's technically HAS to happen. What if someone has Power of Blood out and kills a noble character for military claim? Is it ever too late to fix the error? Can you fix it during the next challenge, the next phase, or the next round?

What is the proper way to resolve errors made that relate to passive and/or constant effects? Is it appropriate for outside observers to point them out? What if you're actually playing the game?

Well... this gets a little strange. Generally speaking watching other peoples games when you may still face them is considered a bit rude since it can lead to scouting. That said if you see a rule being broken purposefully or accidentally calling it up is the proper thing to do. Your opponent not being aware of a rule or ruling and thereby playing his cards sub-optimally is not your fault nor your concern... especially when it could change the balance of the game so strongly. Not letting someone go back and fix a player error is not something that should make that person upset with you, but upset with themself for making the error... sometimes that emotion plays out exactly the same.

I'd just like to clarify my response and point out that I agree you shouldn't be commenting on something like responses or anything where there is a choice. I think comments should only be made on something that HAS to happen. Like the plot example from the original post. During mutliplayer games though I think that anything goes. You should be able to tell player A that he should trigger an effect to stop player B from winning.

This might sound harsh, but I definitely echo what Dormouse said, if you have not been eliminated from a tournament, you should not be watching another game. I know that this isn't the question you are asking, but I feel fairly strongly about this. Even if you are not intentionally scouting, you can still unintentionally gather information that could help you in a future game. At the Missouri regional we asked that all people who had finished their games please go to another area.

Now, onto the question you asked...I honestly feel that the only person that should "step in" on a game and enforce passives/rules would be the TO. I believe it is the players' responsibility to properly manage the game, which includes the resolution of passives and game conditions. Outside players have the potential to let their personal feelings influence which passives they "point out" (honestly this happens with TOs too). If I am watching a game, and one of the players is my best friend, aren't I more likely to point out game conditions which have been missed that will help my friend? It may not even be a conscious thing.

"Scouting" - intentionally or not - is certainly one of the issues here. If the people playing the game don't want you watching, especially during the early rounds of a tournament, you shouldn't. Polite etiquette in a tournament situation would be to ask "do you mind if I watch" when looking in on another game.

On the question of "take backs," I don't ask for them. For example, in the last round of the Kingsmoot, after revealing plots in the 4th round of Swiss, I looked up and commented "oh crap, I forgot about my Forever Burning." Dan, my opponent, said "it's OK with me if you take it back." I answered, "No, I forgot. And if I had remembered, I would have cleared your board (he had 2 3-STR characters, I had Threat from the North and 4 standing influence sources." It would have changed the game completely - to the point where I might even have won. If you forget, or you don't appreciate the situation when it's happening, there's not a lot anyone can do - or should expect someone to do. By the same token, I don't feel the need to remind my opponent to use his Responses (for example, forgetting to draw a card after winning a military challenge with the new Blackfish out). However, if they forget to stand during the Standing Phase, draw cards during the Draw phase, etc., declare Stealth, claim Renown, I will remind them. To me, proper etiquette is to remind them of game mechanics, but not their own card effects. (For example, I feel no compulsion to remind you to use your own Kings of Winter Agenda). And as a TO, I feel the same way when I happen to be watching a game. I'll remind you of game mechanics, but not card effects. Now, I had said "OK, start of Standing Phase; anything to bring out of Shadows? Oh, WAIT, in Dominance, I still want to...," (ie, nothing in the game had actually happened or progressed yet), I would have expected my opponent to jump back the 20 seconds. In my opinion, you don't go back to correct mistakes or to "remember to do stuff" unless nothing significant to that action has happened yet. (Thus, different things have different tolerances; collecting unopposed or Renown could happen before the end of the Challenge phase, but Responses cannot happen after the end of the action window, that sort of thing.)

That said, I feel the same way about spectators. People watching the game, in my opinion, should not correct the use of card effects during a game, but reminding them about game mechanics (and yes, I include Stealth and Renown in there because they have specific timing points in the flow charts) is OK. I remember the final game of ChiCON III where everyone watching saw that Jonathan, who was killing specific characters left and right, just had to kill the one Doomed character on Adam's side to win, but he didn't. I don't think there was anything wrong with Adam not saying "just kill Nymeria Sand and you win," and I think it was the right call of everyone watching, including the TO, not to say anything either.

As a TO, my motto is to help people play the game correctly, but it is up to them to play their cards correctly. I think that is proper player etiquette during an event.

Wow, scouting never crossed my mind, believe it or not. I've never watched other games in a tournament to get an "edge." I did it to kill time and because watching two players duke it out is pretty fun. That is a very good point though, and I think I'll have to bring it up to Jason next time NYC holds an event.

@Dobbler:

Are you saying that you wouldn't point out a missed passive effect because it would hurt your friend, or that you would be more likely to look out for passive effects that affect your friend (consciously or not)? I'm suspecting it's the latter, which is a good point, but is it a good enough reason to not point out a missed passive effect. I feel like passive effects are like the laws of nature: you can't turn them on and off as you please. They are always in effect and must always happen. Then again, it's not my game.

@ktom:

I like your suggestion on asking others if they can watch the game (if it's appropriate to watch at all. Scouting really does make me question if non-eliminated players should be allowed to watch games and discuss details of his/her game or other games with other non-eliminated players).

I agree with your stance on "take backs." I like the idea of having a "until the end of phase" for things like claiming renown and power for unopposed. Although, it would be really nice to have some official ruling on this. I'm a bit uncertain as to what you would consider to qualify as a game mechanic. Are passives game mechanics? In the final match between Steve and Dan, Dan forgot to claim a power for unopposed and I pointed it out. However, I didn't point out the Guard of Riverrun's passive ability of drawing a card. It's a passive which means it MUST happen, but at the same time I didn't know if it was appropriate for me to point it out. If Steve had realized it (I'm certain he didn't), should he had pointed it out because it HAS to happen, and he's in the game?

I'd like to hear what other have to say on the issue, but maybe I should send Nate an e-mail to suggest creating some official ruling/stance.

FATMOUSE said:

To my opinion, passives are not game mechanics. They are card effects. At one time, as both a TO and a player, I would point out passive effects that people missed because, as you say, "they have to happen." However, after more thought, I concluded that as the TO, it wasn't my place to remind people to resolve the effects that they themselves put into play. If you forget to draw your card for Guard at Riverrun, then it's not up to me, as TO, to remind you that you put a card into play that will benefit you, but you aren't resolving it. It is certainly not the place for a spectator to point out the passives, I think.

Now, there is definitely a gray area in sportsmanship here. I could "conveniently forget" that I have put a card into play that could hurt me, too. For example, that copy of Hear Me Roar I just revealed lowers the STR of my characters without intrigue icons, too. But when I attack with a Mil/Pow Army with 6 printed STR and call an attack at 6STR instead of 5, am I making an honest mistake, or hoping that my opponent isn't paying attention? Of course if someone never forgets the passives that affect his opponent badly, never forgets the passives that affect him positively, but always forgets the ones that affect him negatively, that becomes very noticeable.

Mostly, I draw the line at anything that isn't written as a framework event. As a TO watching a game, it isn't my place to keep track of anyone's cards for them (or their opponent). Honest mistakes on passives happen, but I do keep an eye out for the patterns that indicate which side of the line between "honest mistake" and "gaming the system" someone tends to fall on.

As a player I try and remind myself and my opponent of passives, they are supposed to resolve without player choice. I consider this good sportsmanship... but it isn't my job, if I forget i don't sweat it, if they forget too, that is how it works sometimes. If they remember before we have moved on to a new player or framework action then I say it is generally too late.

Regarding the plot cycling, that to me is a framework event and needs to be corrected.

Yeah, Fatmouse - scouting has long been an issue in the community and this has come up numeorus times before. I've always been with the majority here: not cool and kind of rude to stand and watch another early round game. Forget about teh obvious issue that this is a card agme and you can see combos and tricks out of a deck that you really, really shouldn't know about. You also get to see Plot decks, play style, threat cards - its just not kosher. I'm perfectly fine with meta mates discussing waht they have actually faced in early rounds, kind of like : "X is playing this, so you had better be prepared to do this..." but that creeps some people out as well. Outright watching though - while you are still a player? Not cool and something i never do.

At a tournament a don't expect or give "take backs" unless its like a 20 second thing like Ktom's dominance into standing example above. In prep and warm-up I expect take backs all the tiem - you are trying to optimize your card effects and get a sense for the best approach - but day of? No way.

And i come down on the side of calling out passives and game mechanics played incorrectly if you are observing a late round game. It doesn't have to be teh TO - if my opponent or I blew a passive - i wnat to know about it form anyone watching. this was a really big issues with those stupid kingdom locatiosn with the micro font passive effects keying off traited plots. But still - even in this new environment, I wnat to knwo if we are palying incorrectly. Missing a response isn't a granular error OTOH, so no one should ever point that out during play.

Good thread and this will probably need a bump the week or so before GenCon.

I always try to be very aware of what I'm doing with my cards in hand. I try to keep my hands above the table, and if I do put them in my lap, I make sure my cards stay above the table. Also, I try very hard to keep my Shadows cards away from any place I might set down my hand. It's too easy to accidentally pick up a Shadows card with the rest of your hand, and that just creates an awkward situation.

In practice, I'll usually don't mind if my opponent wants to go back and do something, but I try to avoid doing this myself. It helps me become a better player when I am punished for forgetting things. I agree with ktom's post durring tourney play.

As far as watching games, I would never say anything to anyone watching one of my games (unless they were completely distracting me with talking etc.). However, whether they are just watching or talking, I still get distracted. I accept that people will want to watch games durring the finals, but it still affects me when I play. Either way, I don't like people talking, especially if it is something that envolves the game. I see a game between myself and my opponent as "ours to deal with" unless we need the help of the TO to resolve something.

I guess I am on the opposite side of things.

Scouting is basically impossible to stop, and really IMHO shouldn't be. People come to these tourneys to play aGoT, live aGoT, talk about aGoT, etc. Between games are you really going to run out of the place?

Then it gets to be a case as well of 'who has the most friends?'. If you are not directly watching games, then if you have a lot of friends playing you will know what people are playing regardless. Isn't that a negative to the person who came from some remote place like...Wayne, Nebraska...? ~Luckily I have too many **** friends...

Yes, that sucks if you are playing some sort of cool combo deck. But, as Ktom said on another thread - that is the playing field, deal with it (I shortened it, hopefully that was the jist). Hopefully your deck is good enough (and you are a player) to win regardless. Or make a deck that is consistent and can win even when they know it is coming.

On the correcting of mistakes I agree (with what sounds like the majority) is that if it is required (like the plot deck thing), then it is okay. I also try not to talk to people that are playing.

ktom said:

What if the Tournament Organizer is ALSO playing in the tournament?

Can players request the Tournament Organizer to not watch the game due to scouting?

I ask this because it seems that in every single regional reported on the forums (except the FFG official one) the TO *is* another player.

If people believe that other players should not watch during other matches, then shouldn't the player/TO also be banned from watching any matches?

Doesn't this argument beg the question that every single TO should *never* be a player as well?

Because if the TO is a player and the TO is always present during matches when other players must leave then that inevitably grants the TO an inherent advantage.

^I am only raising this point as the argument against scouting does not seem like a sound argument at all.

Also, while I respect that people do not want people watching them play over their shoulder, I do not see how anyone can argue that players must *leave the area* when the Tournament Organizer is also a player and never has to leave the area.

Stag Lord said:

Why is it "cool" for meta mates to share vast amounts of information about other players but a player (with no local friends at a tournament) is stuck with no way to access information about other player's decks?

I grok that to some extent but like Rings points out, this attitude highly favors those with many friends in the game (or the players with the most friends that attended GenCon).

If people think it is "not cool" for people to merely observe games as they are played, then those people should also think it is "not cool" for Meta mates to share vast amounts of information about opponent's decks.

For me, I personally think looking at people's hands before they play cards is *very different* than simply watching the game board for what is being played.

I can understand why people do not want people watching over their shoulder and looking at the cards they haven't played yet but I think never allowing people to watch the game board itself is a bit silly since like I mentioned in previous post, the TO is most likely another player anyway.

Cause - how are you EVER going to stop that? If soemone sees something in a Round 1 game - how are you goign to stop them discussing thsi with team mates at the lunch break? What are we - jurors to be sequestered?

I made peace with folks doing that long ago - just because you can't really stop it. I will sya soemhting to someone watching my game if its Round 1 and the watcher finsihed before me.

I personally don't want the TO standing over the table watching our every move either. If there's an issue that requires the TO, then my opponent and I can call them over. Both of us playing are the first ones responsible for the flow of the game, knowing the rules, and knowing what the cards on the table do. When we have a difference of oppinion on how to resolve something, we can call the TO over to help us resolve it. I guess the TO should watch out for people taking advantage of newer players (pretty horrible, but possible), but that doesn't require them to sit there and watch the whole game.

Again, this isn't so much about scouting for me, as it is about feeling comfortable when I'm playing. I personally get all kooky when I feel like people are processing every decision I'm making, but that's my own problem. I know I feel this way, so I try not to watch other games too much, or for too long (just in case someone feels the same way). That's just what I try to do because that's what I like, but I certainly don't expect everyone to do the same.

I could care less about scouting, or even some boarderline shady stuff. It's not worth ruining the fun to enforce such things IMHO. I would never ask anyone to leave the area unless they were really disrupting the game. I play first and foremost to have fun, and being nice and respectful towards others contributes to having fun. I'll always try to accomodate any request a player makes within reason, and within the rules of the game itself.

Stag Lord said:

Stag Lord said:

Good points. But certainly you see the inconsistency here and the problems with it.

Talking with Meta-Mates *is* scouting. It is exactly the same functional results as watching another game.

Let's say a player from an isolated meta shows up at GenCon using some off the wall combo that people that post on the boards are not expecting.

Let's say the official rules do not allow players to ever observe other games once they are finished.

This solo player goes to the bathroom after the first round and everyone in the local meta asks the person who played the Isolated Player what he was playing, what combos were used and which other cards he played.

The isolated player comes back from the bathroom and sits down across from a player who just heard exactly what strategy will be used but the isolated player has absolutely no way to equally the information advantage since the rules do not allow observing games.

The local player with friends with have a very clear and obvious advantage in this situation.

So, if you believe that Information Sharing cannot be stopped then I believe that to be fair to ALL players, you must also accept that players should be allowed to watch the game board as cards are played (I agree that looking over shoulders at unplayed cards is not really "cool").

If players with many friends can easily access information about opponents decks then I believe you must allow the Isolated Solo Player somewhat similar access to information by letting the game board be observed from a neutral angle.

NEW TOPIC on Tournament Etiquette: Intentional Draws

What do people think about two players at the end of a Round Robin Swiss taking two intentional draws when they know that both will advance to Top 8 if they take intentional draws?

Deathjester26 said:

~Just don't win then! As someone who has been on every side of the table, you get way more watchers when you are up near the top...

LaughingTree said:

Grrr...meant to put this in the last post, no edit function FTL!

Again, not something I would do, but you can't stop it really (I have seen TO's try). Better to just accept that some players will do this. Sucks to be on the lower end of it, but long story short win your games and you will be fine *shrug*

Again, most of this I wouldn't do personally - although I can't say I have never looked at the matches next to me after being done with mine due to enjoying the game more than the tourney - but if you can't stop it, you have to just deal with it (sort of like legalizing pot...something I don't smoke but whatever).

rings said:

Yeah, tell me about it. I had to put my big boy pants on and cope with it playing tzumainn in that playoff game the year I went to Gencon. Since it was to see who made the final slot in the top 8, and everyone was still around, we had quite the crowd.

LaughingTree said:

In the early rounds of an event, the TO usually has enough to do that they are not casually watching games if they are also playing. My comments about watching games are almost exclusive to events where I was NOT playing in addition to organizing.

But yeah, whether the TO is playing or not, I think that if having someone looking over your shoulder is unnerving, you can ask anyone, including the TO, not to hover over your game. The TO doesn't need to watch a game - only have the current situation explained in order to make a requested ruling.

That said, "scouting" is impossible to stop entirely. My earlier comments were more about respecting the wishes of the people playing when it came to "please don't hover over me while I'm playing."

LaughingTree said:

As a player, I think it's stupid. You came here to play, right? So play, for cryin' out loud.

As a TO, it bugs me a little because it potentially screws up the strength of schedule for everyone the two of you have faced. So it does affect more than just the 2 of you. That said, there is no rule against intentional draws at any time during the event, so you deal with it. It just doesn't make much sense to me in that I didn't come to the event not play.

ktom said:

I hear you on this ktom; it especially bugs me that this kind of situation often comes up with meta-mates (Hey look at me using slang I just learned!) who, by such an agreement, knock out someone else who's been scratching out every match. The problem is someone always loses out; like in professional sports when a team eliminated from playoff contention rolls over for a team in a playoff race. Does sportsmanship demand you always give your fiercest effort?

That said, back in my MtG days, I often admired people who would, for example, concede to an opponent when they knew that they were themselves out of contention, so that the opponent could finish in position to win product or something along those lines.

<sigh> Such is the Game of Thrones...there are winners and there are losers.

ktom said:

As a player, I enjoy playing too much and get too few opportunities to play to want to pass up on a game (not that I've had a chance to take an intentional bye to make a cut).

As a TO, I don't love it, but if players decide to do it, so be it -I see no point in saying players can't, then have them go through the motions until time is called. To mitigate the temptation, I do use FFG's scoring system (3/1/0), so a tie is less than half of a win, and I don't announce standings, scores, or SoS of players during the Swiss rounds to keep players somewhat in the dark (although that only goes so far, since people are chatting and generally understand the "winners play winners" nature of the Swiss pairing).

This whole thread has me wondering what, if anything, I should change for any future tournaments I may run. I think I misread the situation on watching games -I thought the consensus was it was ok with players to have their games watched at an event of sort we have in NYC (where mostly bragging rights are at stake, but nothing of real substance as far as official FFG "goodness" goes), but it seems like there are a healthy number of people in both camps.

LaughingTree said:

Yeah - listen i hear you. Scouting is scouting in the abstract. Its going to happen no matter what you do - so i guess the outright watching just irritates me becuase its so obvious. I can deal with meta mates discussing what htey palyed and how to ahndle what's in the field - becuase I just accept that there is no way you can ever preevnt it in a competitve setting. It does suck for the kid from Wayne who shows up all on his own - like Dunk at the tournament.

I guess all he can do his try his best, and, in a perfect world, maybe a Baelor or a Laughing Storm will take him under his wing.

Intentionnal draws suck. i've been offered them and have always flatly rejected them. Some of my closest friends are guilty of this nad I have heaped scorn on them for months afterward.

I agree that I HATE intentional draws, and look differently on anyone who goes that direction.

In 2006 GenCon I had to play John Bruno for the right to get in the final 8. We would have both made it in if we took the draw (how he figured it, and he is the Mathlete). We didn't think about it twice (other than joking about it) even though we were very good friends that helped each other with decks and strategy constantly. I ended up barely winning (he lost on his own Wildfire, which allowed me to win 15-13), and that was the year Ghost of HH was born. Just think how things would have changed if we took the ties...?