Kennon said:

There's been a lot of talk on TV lately about the Germany vs. Austria game from 1982. Basically they knew the outcome of the other game from their group because it was played the day before. After Germany scored early in the game, the 2 teams basically kicked the ball around for the rest of the game to make sure they both got in. FIFA found this distatesful enough that they changed the schedule so that the final games of Round 1 in a group happen at the same time. Obivously this doesn't get rid of the whole problem (teams still draw in earlier games etc.), but it helps minimize it. Point is, the fans didn't like it, and FIFA didn't like it enough to do something about it.

I would love to get rid of ties altogether. I'd also love to get rid of the incentive to "King Make" in the early rounds of Melee (Something I am very guilty of doing in the past I'm sad to say).

~wait?!?!!? did something happen in th '82 world cup that is germane to this post?

Deathjester26 said:

Fair enough, I haven't been able to listen to the commentary to realize that they had been talking about it heavily lately. What the spirit of my post mean though is that I haven't heard much about teams where the event actually happened in the last 20 years.

So I just had a huge argument with Fatmouse about whether or not intentionally drawing is sportsmanly or not. And although we still disagree on some counts, we finally got the idea to look the the official tournament rules .

Here's what it's go to say about "Unsportsmanly conduct":

Unsportsmanlike Conduct
Players are expected to behave in a mature and
considerate manner, and to play within the rules and
not abuse them. This prohibits intentionally stalling
a game for time, abusing an infinite combo, inappropriate
behavior, treating an opponent with a lack
of courtesy or respect, etc. The TO, at his or her sole
discretion, may remove players from the tournament
for unsportsmanlike conduct.

I'd like to emphasize the following section:

"...and to play within the rules and not abuse them ."

Now this is where it gets tricky. We have to consider certain things. The firstmost thing (in my opinion) is the "spirit of the game". What is this fantastically nebulous concept? Well, it can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. However, I would define "the spirit of the game" as the following:

"A competitive mindset that revolves around striving to win through a combination of having the best possible deckbuilding skills and gameplay skills, while keeping oneself in line with the stylistic intent of the game/tournament designers."

Now, assuming that, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the AGoT tournament designers created the system of "2/1/0 points for a Win/Draw/Loss" with the intent of providing the biggest reward to someone who wins a game, but still giving a little something to people who could not finish their games due to insufficent time/gameplay stalemates. I am going to say that they did not create that points system to encourage players to collude, outside of the game, to alter their tournament standings.

Once again, I'll freely admit that I am assuming intent here. However, I think that the assumptions I just made as to the tournament designer's intent are completely valid, and if you have a good reason as to why they're not- please, share it.

Of course, the "Unsportsmanlike Conduct" clause is extremely subjective. One man's jerk may be another man's best friend. However, assuming the definition of "the spirit of the game" and FFG's tournament design intent (which I invite anyone to challenge if they have good reason), I would say that a TO judging sportsmanship by them would come to only one reasonable conclusion:

Intentionally agreeing to draw a game so that both players receive one point is an abuse of the rules, and therefore is unsportsmanlike conduct (and therefore against the rules).

Well if you want to go that route, the rules of the game and the tournament rules talk of playing the game and how to handle the results, there is no mention of not playing the game to achieve a result. I believe we can all agree that taking a draw is not covered in the rules and therefor is outside of the rules. That does not make it illegal, but it is clearly not part of any document that FFG has put out. Make of that what you will.

EDIT: Oh wow, I think I misread your post... I don't know. If I was a TO, and two people refused to play the game, I'd say that falls under "stalling"- after all, a round is done when the players are done playing their game.. if you don't play a game.. I don't know, I just can't imagine two players going to a TO and being like "We're not going to play! Nyahh!".

DOUBLE EDIT: Also, keep in mind the sportsmanship rules state that you "play within the rules". That means that if you're doing something not stated in the rules... it's probably not legal.

Now I fall in the middle. ID's do not bother me at all.

@hKlown

What you are doing though is bringing a subjective take to it. You are trying to define what is unsportsmanlike when others can and will have different definitions. It is not as clear cut as the anit-ID people think. If there was not ambiguity there would be no issue.

That's exactly correct- because as the rules are worded, everything comes down to what the TO decides is sportsmanlike- which is, unfortunately, subjective. However, even if you disagree with my definition of "spirit of the game", I find it pretty hard to believe that you could disagree with the analysis I gave of what I proposed is the intent behind awarding 1 point to someone who draws (or specifically, that it was not meant to be a reward for out-of-game collusion). I don't think it's that big of a stretch to see that as an abuse of the rules, which is a violation of them.

Stag Lord said:

Your to kind!

I'd like to thank Cersei Lannister for being such a W****. She really deserves all the "honor" here. Lots and LOTS of honor.

EDIT: @Kennon: Didn't the Red Viper say he slept with her? I was pretty sure I read that last night....

I could misremember, but I highly think he'd say he slept with anyone just to extend his reputation.

LOL fair enough. But I still think it would be the best way for her to go.

Actually, what the Red Viper said was that although Elaria wanted desperately to add Cersei to their bed, he would rather have a bed canopy full of scorpions fall upon him than sleep with her (paraprhasing of course; his actualy words may have been a bit too adult for this forum).

On the subject of watching other games, I have to side witht he group that allows it. In local metas, this happens frequently or at least it does locally. We watch other peoples games to see how they are playing, what play mistakes we can catch, and for the sheer joy of it. Yes, I can enjoy watching a game as much as playing it. When I go to a major event, I am going to see people playing that I have only "met on the forum. I don't know anything how they play the game , except by reputation.

When I was at hte LCG mega-regionals at FFG this April, Dobbler was there. I had met him once before when he came to my regionals in 07 (I believe). And I never got a chance to play a game against him. At the FFG regionals I lost my first match, and won my second pretty much guaranting that unless I made it to finals I again would nto get to play against him. Dobbler was playing out his second round match with a member of our local meta (FlewderFlam aka Seth) and a friend and I went over to watch because I wanted to see Dobbler play. I wanted to watch one of the best players in the game, and learn from him. I was likely not going to get the chance to play him, and I wanted to expereince his ability.

After a few minutes I found out how he felt about peopel watching his game when he asked us politely yet curtly to not watch his game, as some of us might "play me later on in the tournament." My friend thought it was rather rude, but I said, no, he does have a point. Dobbler wanted to protect the secrets of his deck. But I was deprived of my opportunity to watch his game, and to learn from him. And I never did get to play against him the entire tournament or the pick-up games afterwards. To some people this may not seem like a big deal, but on the subject of getting to watch the top talent play, watching other games in a tournament is the only way we'll ever get to see them play.

As for scouting, I understand many of the points that the people against it bring up. But I don't agree with their conclusions. In major sporting events, almost every game is televised. Teams can watch opponent's games, learn their strategies, and play against them. In some games like Magic the top tournament style decks are posted all over the internet. The top players can pratically determine what ever card in a specific deck is within the first two turns of any game, even if they have never met their opponent before. Watching other people play games even in the same event you are in doesn't convey that great of an advantage. You're running a Lanni hyper-kneel deck I already know most of your cards and combos. I'm running Stark kill, you can figure out what those cards are, too. Same with Bara Power Rush, or Greyjoy unopposed, or Martell Vengence or any number of top tier decks. So you''re running Valar big deal; I expect to see it in almost every deck I come across. Even if I know all 7 of your plots, that doesn't give me the greatest advantage. In fact, if we both know you are running Valar, you can it a turn early or later than I expect, and disrupt my plans.

If someone doesn't want me watching their game, I'll respect that. But also understand that watching a game isn't always about scouting a deck. It's about enhancing the game (and tournament) experience, and can even being about learning how to be a better player. I find I learn more when I lose a game than when I win, and I want to take every option available to me to make me a better player. And that includes watching people better than me play, to see what I can learn from them.

As a side note, knowing what your opponent has in their deck doesn't always help. In the final game at the Regional, Dobbler played King Blith (the two had played the third tound of swiss as well). Blith know Dobbler was running Threat from the North, yet still proceeded to marshall 2 or 3 1-str characters in setup instead of taking a mulligan. He still says that was his biggest mistake of the day, and might have made the diffrence in the game. I don't know I didn't watch the game.

I've been reading this thread with interest and giving some thought to what my opinions are on the topics and scouting and intentional draws. It took some time, and a lot of considering others' input, to decide where I fell.

With scouting, I honestly think there's only two approaches. The first is for the TO to not allow scouting and discourage everyone from talking about their matces between games. My suspicion is that most AGoT players would respect this. One problem is that those few that don't and who discuss what cards they saw in their games will have a real advantage. The other problem is, well, we LIKE talking about our matches! It's fun. We go to a tournament to play, live and breath AGoT. We want to talk about our successes and our failures and share our experiences. If you take that away, you take away something real and enjoyable from the experience. Since forbidding discussing matches is both unenforceable and just plain unfun, it's best to allow it. Given that, you might as well not forbid watching games. I agree with those who say it just gives those who have more friends at the tournament an unfair advantage. My assumption is that, after the very first game, my deck contents are "out there" and I just have to deal with it.

As an example, I won my very first match of the NYC regionals by flipping Winter Festival when I had 14 power. I certainly would never have asked my opponent not to discuss that match with anyone else. It was a fantastic game that left us both mentally drained, and that plot flip was an integral part of the drama. Why would I want to restrict him from sharing the experience with friends? I, of course, understood that in a future match someone may play differently knowing that I had that particular plot in my deck (such, for example, as NOT giving me the unopposed MIL challenge during the epic phase to bring me to 14 power ), but so what? It was such a great match that I was telling meta-mates about it. I'd hate to see tournaments turn into experiences where we all sit quietly between matches, afraid to say anything that might be construed as scouting. Your deck is going to be seen and discussed. Deal with it. Allowing people to watch games just levels the playing field. In contrast, allowing those with more friends access to information not available to others actually skews it.

Intentional draws? I have only one word for those - lame. I'm sorry, but they are. They ARE an example of collusion, they ARE against the spirit of the tournament, and they DO skew the results so that the best player does not necessarily win. We go to tournaments to test our skill in the game against others, not to test our basic addition skills to determine if a tie is to our advantage rather than risking a loss. If anyone makes it past the elimination rounds as a result of an intentional tie, that's just.... lame. Look, the only thing that's really at stake at an AGoT tournament is bragging rights and a nifty trophy that only your fellow AGoT players give a crap about. If you manage to make it into the top seed by colluding with your opponent for an intentional tie what, exactly, is it that you have to brag about, and what, exactly, does that trophy mean?

JerusalemJones said:

For the record, I have no problem with people watching my games when it is at a point in the tournament when scouting is irrelevant. For instance, last year at Gencon, during the single eliminations rounds, there was often a large group of people, who had been eliminated from the tournament, behind me watching. I not only did not have a problem with this, but in my game against Finite, I would even hold my hand up high (above my head) from time to time so that people in the back of that crowd could see what I had in hand. I understand the enjoyment of watching another game. I just prefer that the "watching of other games" happens once a player has been eliminated from a tournament.

dormouse said:

I see the point, but if I was a single player I would rather the playing field allow me to walk around and see the various decks and playstyles (and risk a large meta doing it to everyone) than not be able to and risk the larger metas knowing 50-75% of the decks/playstyles.

Anytime someone says there is a rule that you can't enforce, it really shouldn't be a rule.

A rule should be:

1. Something a high majority of players think is bad.

2. Something fairly easily enforceable. Otherwise it will just create bad feelings when some do it, and some don't.

In this discussion, I think scouting fails on both accounts, and intentional draws fail on the 1st point (I would say it is 50/50 if that). Commenting on required actions in games probably fails on the 1st point as well, and is iffy on the 2nd (who catches it/monitors it?).

Dobbler said:

FYI, I wasn't so much as calling you out (my words, not yours), but just using it as an example - in many ways for both sides of the argument. I respected your wishes, even if I felt disappointment at not getting to see you play. And when it came down to the finals, I could choose to watch, or play some games against Nate. Well, it's not like me to turn down a game, especially against Nate (and I think I beat him, with my tournament deck. I find it funny that in MN I went 1-2, at ChiCon 3 I went 0-5 (not counting the last round bye) and both times playing Nate afterwards with the same deck, I beat him).

I can understand that people want to protect the "secrets" of their decks. And that "scouting" can give an advantage to people who finish their games faster. But nothing so far has changed my mind about allowing people to watch other games. To put it more precisely, I support it because:

1. It is fun
2. It is part of the tournament (and gameplay) experience
3. The ability of people to learn someone's deck should always be mitigated by the skill level of the players
4. It can be an incredible teaching tool to watch other games, regardless of current tournament standings.

However, at the same time, I do believe that any player should have the right to ask people not to watch their games, and that other players should respect that request. Just because I had never actually seen a Lanni kneel deck in action doesn't automatically mean I can watch your game if you don't want me to. And who knows - someday I might be the guy who asks spectators to please step away from my game. But I would rather it be player's choice, and not a standard for all events.

JerusalemJones said:

This I agree with. Some people may just not play their best if they're being watched due to being distracted, self-conscious, etc. I would never harbor ill feelings toward a player asking me not to watch. It's their game, their call. Making it a tournament rule, however, would lead to the inequities previously mentioned.

I dunno, I think I'm with Dobbler here. While I'm entirely ok with other people talking about what they saw in their games (much like coachs, players, or fans talking in between soccer matches, or really anything else) I'm less than thrilled about players that are still in the tournament and able to be pared against me watching my game and seeing my deck- particularly my plots. To me it's the difference between the one football team watching footage of a another's game to get some pointers versus stealing their playbook so they know exactly what the other team is planning. One is relatively open information that is able to be witnessed, the other is closed. This gets somewhat more complicated in Thrones, but deck contents (particularly plots) is something that I could only best analogize that way.

Think of it this way, how many people would have played differently against me at our Regional if they knew that I was not running Valar Morghulis? Sure, it's a safe assumption that they have it when you're up against any opponent- and I talked to some that told me they kept expecting it from me. But how many would have felt much more secure with their characters and altered the tempo of their play if they had just watched my previous game and saw that I didn't even have it as an option to use?

Dobbler said:

Dobbler,

Collusion does not necessarily imply "cheating". The key is the secret agreement that denies another individual of his/her rights.

US Law "Collusion is an agreement, usually secretive, which occurs between two or more persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of legal rights"

. 1809 TOMLINS Law Dictionary: Collusion is a deceitful agreement or contract between two or more persons, for the one to bring an action against the other, to some evil purpose, as to defraud a third person of his right.

Now under the legal definition of collusion, a sound legal argument could easily be made that an Intentional Draw, that is an agreement (semi-secret sometimes) between two players to not play out a competitive match as per implied tournament conditions is precisely a contract between two persons to defraud a third (and possibly fourth) persons of their rights to compete legitimately in the tournament.

This is why none of finitesquarewell's "refutations" would hold any legal weight whatsoever. Intentional Draws are not "legal". They are simply not "not illegal" due to the perception of them being un-enforceable in collectible card games. Were the person left out due to an intentional draw to actually sue in US court they would have a case against the two parties that intentional drew for collusion. None of Finite's counter-examples would hold any legal weight whatsoever (in other words no meta-mate has any legal grounds to sue because there was not an intentional draw).

Personally I think FFG should just put something in tournament rules like "intentional draws are not in the spirit of healthy competition and sportsmanship and are up to the tournament organizers discretion to disallow". While the whole "watching players go through the motions" objection sounds good on paper, in reality at a tournament like GenCon it would be pretty obvious if Rings and Mathlete are playing out a bubble match on one table and Finite and his meta-buddy are "going through the motions" on another to create a fabricated draw.

For the record a thing being unenforceable is a pretty poor argument against making a rule against it. You can't force someone to play every passive effect, but the rules clearly state that players have no choice in it. Purposefully not resolving a passive effect, even if your opponent does not remember is cheating, there is a rule against. We depend on the players themselves to follow the rules to the best of their ability, to recognize that failing to do so is a violation of the rules and against the spirit of the game.

I like watching other players play Thrones, but in a tournament in which I am still participating, I simply have no right to do so. The rules tell us what is legal as much as they tell us what is illegal. If FFG were to explicitly make observing other players play out their tournament games while you were still in the tournament, how would that change your game play? Your gaming experience? Would anyone here feel they are now operating at a disadvantage they could not recover from? Would this rule reduce the amount of fun you were having at a tournament to the point where you would no longer play?

Relatedly, do you consider playing the game more or less fun than watching someone else playing the game? If Yes, why not try to squeeze another game in with your last opponent, or play a side game with (possibly with a different deck) against another player or one of your meta mates? If No, why are you playing in the tournament at all when you could be watching any number of talented players competing in the tournament.

I guess what I really don't understand is the base argument behind scouting. Do people feel they need this advantage in order to win? If Yes, then I submit that perhaps your deck building and piloting skills should be improved to the point where it is not. If No, then what exactly is the point of being against a general rule about watching other players games? Are you afraid the rule would be so draconian that glancing over at the nearby game would get you kicked out of the tournament? So unspecific that people would not realize when they were breaking it?

Since people are weighing in, I'll throw in my opinions (for whatever they're worth).

DISCUSSING GAMES

I think this should be allowed, primarily for the reasons that have been mentioned above. Namely, people like to discuss their games, it adds to the tournament experience, and a situation in which people feel muzzled in the name of competition just makes things less fun and skews the atmosphere toward the competitive gamer. (I'm a competitive gamer, but I am always happy to see plenty of new or more casual players show up to a tournament. First and foremost this game is about people; if it weren't, I'd stay home and play computer games.)

WATCHING GAMES

People should ask if they want to watch a swiss match up, and either player should have the right to say "no" and ask others to leave without offending them. That said, if everyone at the table is OK with it, letting people watch is obviously a no-brainer. (Also, if a couple of people are already watching, then others should be able to join without asking...it's either "Yes, everyone can watch" or "No, I don't want anyone watching." There's no in between.)

Once elimination rounds begin, if you've been eliminated, you should be able to watch the game without asking. This is part of the tournament experience.

INTENTIONAL DRAWS

Though these are less clear cut, I don't think IDs should be banned. Since everyone has the equal opportunity to intentionally draw, it's hard for me to buy the argument that "when you take an intentional draw, it hurts everyone else." Also, playing out a match doesn't necessarily determine the best player, and taking the intentional draw can often ensure that two good players make the cut to elimination rounds when one would have been eliminated.

The best argument I've heard against IDs is that it sets a tone that may turn off new/casual players from tournaments, since the drawing players actually avoid playing the game to maintain their standings. From one side, I can see how this would be the case...any act that *rewards* players for not playing the game can be a bit of a turn off for new people who haven't quite made their minds about competitive gameplay. Keep in mind though that IDs typically only happen in the final swiss match, and often when both players are likely to break anyway, so that they often wouldn't really change the outcome beyond the seeding of the top 8 or top 4.

It's also important to note that there ARE reasons why people draw intentionally beyond just maintaining their standings. Playing against a meta-mate can be stressful if the other person knows your deck card-for-card, and at times it is just plain boring. As much as I like Finite as a person, I really hate playing him in swiss rounds at tournaments...we get along great, but we always know which cards the other has in his deck, are familiar with each other's playstyle (so there are few surprises), and have a good idea of how the decks actually match up. In short, these games are not fun, and after several games of swiss, a *draw* is often more attractive than playing things out.

In the end, it should be up to the TO to decide how to handle IDs, but the rules should be clear BEFORE the tournament begins. If the TO doesn't say anything, I'll assume there's no rule against IDs and thus not fault others for taking them.

Maybe my interpretation is wrong, but it seems like there are a couple of different sets of assumptions that people are making when they discuss intentional draws here.

Some people are arguing for the merits of intentionally drawing within the confines of the tournament rules as they are usually laid out in AGoT tournaments. I think this is what Twn2dn above and finitesquarewell before have been arguing. I totally agree that within the structure of the rules as they are usually set up you *should* draw in the last round if that guarantees you a place in the elimination rounds where a loss would not. I don't think anyone should have to feel bad about acting within the rules of the tournament to give him/herself the best chance of winning.

Some people (myself included, but I believe also FATMOUSE, Dobbler, and others) are arguing that, in the abstract, intentional draws go against the spirit of the tournament as a competition to reward the best player(s). To understand this argument, you need to take a step back from the current tournament system and consider what effect intentional draws have overall on the ability of a tournament structure to achieve its goal (of rewarding the best player(s)). In general, the more rounds are played in a tournament the greater the chance that the best players will be on top of the standings. AGoT has a luck component and the best player does not always win (otherwise we could have just cut to top eight at the Kingsmoot after two rounds and taken the seven undefeated players, plus whoever won the tiebreaker lottery).

When two players draw to clinch top eight contention, they effectively play one less round of the tournament than everyone else. I'll try to give an example with some numbers to illustrate this in case it's not clear, but please don't pick apart the particulars too much - the only point of the example is to show how drawing reduces the importance of skill in determining the tournament outcome. Their skills are test one less time. Let's call these players A and B and say they're both 3-0 entering the last round. If they draw, they're both 3-0-1 and into the top four (let's say). Let's suppose that player A is way better than player B and in fact way better than everyone else in the tournament. What about player C that lost to player A last round? If he wins his last round, he will be 3-1, likely the cut-off for top four (some 3-1's will make it, some will not). If A and B had played, B would almost assuredly be 3-1 as well. Why is B assured a spot in the top four while C is not? Because B was *lucky* enough not to get paired with A until the last round of Swiss.

I feel like, if it were possible to totally eliminate all draws, doing so would be in the best of the tournament. That's not entirely practical though, so the question that some of us have been asking is "is the current system of handling draws the one that handles intentional draws in the manner most fitting with the goal of the tournament?" Personally, I feel like the tournament structure could do a little better.

Some people have also been arguing other points, like players should conduct themselves in a manner befitting certain standards of sportsmanship. I haven't made these points though so I can't do them justice.

I feel like I've posted enough on this thread, but the reason I wanted to post again is that I find it funny that people like Twn2dn and finitesquarewell are the biggest supporters of intentional draws when from my perspective players like them (ie above average) stand to benefit from the elimination of intentional draws (I think the problem is that they are *so* far above average that they are more often in the position of drawing into the elimination rounds than they are in the position of being on the bubble in the last round).

My current thinking, somewhat in response to Twn2dn's post.

I agree with permitting discussion of completed matches with other players. While I'm not a big fan of someone simply asking another player to tell you as many cards/plots they can remember another player having in their decks, I think talking about matches (including specific cards and specific play decisions when relevant) in the spirit of enjoying the game, taking an interest in how others approach deck building and in-game play, and sharing in another's highs and lows is a real part of what is enjoyable about multiple metas getting together for tournaments and so I would not want to stifle that.

As for watching matches, I'm still mulling the various views and I haven't yet settled on my own "final" stance, but I'm strongly leaning towards Twn2dn's view of not having a tournament wide absolute (either yes or no) rule and instead letting players in a game determine if they are fine with it and others should be willing to honor those players' preference Perhaps we should take a page from Brazilian steakhouses have a token/card with a green side and a red side at each table and if either player would rather not have their match watched, they flip it to the red side at the start. Other players will have a clear indication if they can watch and they don't have to disrupt the players by asking them if they can watch and the players might feel less "put on the spot" if they don't have to answer such question directly.

For IDs, I still think it's tough to say they are not allowed in a system that rewards ties more than losses since the TO can't easily rule whether a tie was deliberate if the two players agree to go through the motions. As for matches against meta-mates being boring, I've never had this problem, but I think that reflects a difference in metas as the NYers generally don't have as much intimate knowledge about each others decks heading into a tournament since our collective preparation efforts are generally limited to high level discussions about what to play/not play instead of deck list level discussions.

dormouse said:

On the first paragraph - again, how do you know a passive isn't missed on accident? I do that all the time. Who makes that decision? A TO that is just as infallible as I am, and could have ulterior motives? Has anyone ever been disqualified for intentionally missing passives? If not, is there a reason for the rule - i.e. if no one ever sped, would there be speeding ticket laws?

Unluckily with something like scouting, it would just create more hard feelings. Someone would say I was scouting if my eyes wandered over while waiting for an opponent action, probably without me even processing their game? How about if I was done with my game and didn't immediately run over to the 'safe zone' (or whatever place would be for people done with their games)?

I have seen games try to ban scouting, and it NEVER works out. Someone gets busted for it that didn't do it with any sort of intent, but someone else who knows the TO doesn't get punished. Show me a competative CCG/TCG/LCG game that has done it successfully, and I might change my tune. I know Wizards and Decipher decided against it (the two most successful OP's were Magic and LoTR, and I am pretty sure L5R - a long-time one - doesn't ban it either).

IMHO it is a rule that is unenforceble, and if everyone is allowed to watch games, then everyone has to be on the same playing field. Unluckily, with a lot of friends playing the game, I most likely know if you are playing Valar regardless. Putting a lot of rules like 'only after you have been eliminated' or 'only if both players have the gumption to ask you to stop' just makes more layers of difficulty to enforcing it equally across the board.

rings said:

Well, since you bring up comparisons to other games, I'll just mention that in M:tG it is against the rules to miss passives. It is hard to enforce (M:tG does it by keeping track of it occurring and only starts applying a penalty when a consistent pattern appears - World Champions have even been temporarily banned from competitive play for it in that game), but I don't think that means it should just be tacitly allowed. Otherwise, if I'm playing summer and you're playing winter, I can just keep drawing 2 cards a turn and taking an extra gold whenever I feel you're not paying attention.