And it's about that time to start a "Rules Enforcement" thread for zany discussions. A couple of IRL discussions last week and rules board issues made me think about "take backs" in games and how they would/should be ruled on if they came up in a tourney game.

-My apologies for not annotating these cards with links, I'm on a hotel computer that doesn't allow multiple windows, let alone tabs.

For example, if someone played Bandit Lord (Crown of Suns), and their opponent had nothing but Limited or Immune locations, they would be forced to destroy one of their own, if they existed, as it's passive. (Much like brining Varys out of shadows and he's the only Ally in play. Now if the same player played Roving Pillagers (Winter Edition), whose ability is a Response:, they could simply choose not to trigger it, when they went to go choose a target.

Now, say someone plays Arys Oakheart and triggers his response not remembering the target character of their opponent had lost it's Ally trait earlier in the phase, and they happen to have the only allies in play do you force the player to choose? Or have the effect fizzle? I guess I feel like it's the difference between declaration of challenge type and attacker, a fine line, but one that exists in the timing structure.

(I realize I'm in the realm of "jerk moves" but in tournament play this seems like a hair that needs to be split)

Similarly, think about playing an event card, one without a legal target (due to a misreading/misremembering), do you require them to choose a new target (possibly of negative impact to them) or just pick the card back up and "unpay" any gold or influence... suffering the loss of a surprise as their penalty?

I'm sure I'll think of something else obnoxious, it's slipping my mind now.

Thin ice, very thin ice. The issue of "take backs" is a tricky one, because on the one hand it is technical rule breaking (in most instances) but on the other there is a general consensus, as Maester_Luke expressed, that to disallow them in your games is kind of a "jerk store" move. I get it. Now having said that, in the interest of congenial play, which is often more important to me than super-competitive play, I will allow my opponent to "take back" as long as no other actions have been initiated since the "misplay." I just don't think it is worth the battle over situations like the one Luke gave, ie, Aerys discarding himself.

Now, myself, I believe in the "card layed is a card played" in terms of tournament play. In casual, of course not, mistakes are no worry. But in tournaments, even though I allow "take backs" of the minor sort, I don't myself commit them. If I play a card, and it turns out a mistake, I pay the consequences by seeing the action through. Lesson learned.

The problems of the "take back" is that in game playing, it is normal. In competition, it is unheard of. So what happens when you have competitive gaming?

Maester_LUke said:

So in that situation, there isn't really a "take back" problem because you have not initiated anything that "needs" to be undone.

The situation would change drastically if you choose an Ally, then remember, three actions later, that its Ally trait had been removed. That's a more serious "take-back" question, I think.

Maester_LUke said:

Maester_LUke said: