So, we have the new tournament rules. Awesome, because it means FFG is taking care of the game and they keep it update. I appreciate that. I really like where the game is going, I like the new cards, I like the interactions. I don't complaint at all about some cards that might be overpowered (Kopesh, Stygian). I think that unless a single card alone can win a game by itself, the game has in it a counter measure for everything that can be proposed by the opponent.

That said, what the hell does it mean the followin rule:

The tournament rules now clearly identify intentional scouting as unsportsmanlike behavior and allow tournament organizer’s the option to deduct points as punishment for players’ unsportsmanlike conduct.

Seriously??? Please, explain me, how do you identify "intentional scouting"? If I walk around the room, am I doing scouting? if I watch a game, am I doing scouting? If I watch a game for 5 seconds is scouting? for 10? maybe 30? or should I count the number of rounds I watch? 1is no scouting, 2 is scouting? what should I do, sit at my place without looking the other tables, to make sure I'm not disqualified because the TO think I'm scouting? If I ask a friend of mine against which deck he played the last round, am I doing scouting?

I'm sorry for this rant, I don't like rants usually, but when I read the rule the only thing I could think of was: "how stupid is this rule?"

Now, I am perfectly aware that the community is small, and basically all the people I've met at tournament is nice people and everything has always been great with no troubles. And honestly, I don't expect any trouble in the next regional I'm going to play (luckily people is smarter than the rules).

But I would really like to understand the _motivation_ behind a rule that I've never seen in ANY tournament of ANY game, simply because the rule itself is INAPPLICABLE by definition.

Scouting is just part of any tournament that involves some customizable deck and try to eliminate it by rule will lead (notice: it's not _might_, I'm SURE it will lead) to problems. It seems to be just the perfect way to create problems.

My 2 cents

Konx

To be fair, the rules don't say "intentional scouting" - that was a poster's interpretation. The rules now read:

Granted, this is still too vague to interpret, but at least "intentional" is not in there.

I agree with you in principle. Until we know the formal FFG definition of 'scouting', we can't enforce this rule.

TheProfessor said:

The word intentional is present in the article where I took the sentence from (I copied-paste the sentence, so you can be sure it's there ). It might be not present in the new rules, but honestly…intentional or not, it's still hilarious ^^

Konx

Look, the TO gets to make the decisions. They have ALWAYS made the decision. I don't get why people are getting up in arms about this. You don't like it and you are a TO don't enforce it. If you are a player try not to be a ******. How hard is it to get that? Does there need to be a rule? Yes. BEcause it wouldn't have been a topic here for a couple of weeks, or something they enacted unless there was real concern or it was happening somewhere.

Hey Manus, tell us about that touch of controversy at Gencon a few years ago… that was you in the questionable game wasn't it? What did the opponent do? We have rules on stalling/slow play, we have rules on all sorts of things that are difficult to prove and impossible to enforce prior to the infraction… does that mean we should just throw them all out, or is by writing them down, does it encourage us to all be non-douchey to each other?

As a TO, I will be expected to make a decision about infringements. One of the things I have to enforce is the prohibition of "scouting". It is required in the official Tournament Rules, not a decision by me.

I do my best to adhere to FFG's requests and requirements, not invent my own, or bend the rules because I think that would be better.

I'm not up in arms here - I'm confused. FFG has not defined "scouting", but they want me to ensure nobody does it. It is indirectly implied through other writings and, for example, GenCon tournaments which I've attended in the past, that it is OK to watch other people's games, or even glance at the games to the left and right. If that is OK, then what is prohibited? What constitutes scouting?

If a player asks me what behavior would be perceived as "scouting", what should I tell them?

These are the questions I cannot answer right now.

I have a very friendly group of players, and have never had any problems with any of them regarding this game or others. I'm not really concerned about our tournament this weekend, but I am concerned that we have official tournament rules that I don't understand.

So a player comes to you and say that there opponent is doing slow play… what do you do? How do you determine whether or not it qualifies as slow play? IWhat happens if you and the accusing player disagree? What happens if you and the accused player disagrees?

Can't we just use the dictiopnary definition and as TO's our best estimation when it is being done?

Scouting
scout·ing   [skou-ting]
noun
1.
an act or instance of reconnoitering; reconnaissance.

Reconnoiter
re·con·noi·ter   [ree-kuh-noi-ter, rek-uh-]
verb (used with object)
1.
to inspect, observe, or survey (the enemy, the enemy's strength or position, a region, etc.) in order to gain information for military purposes.

Reconnaissance
re·con·nais·sance   [ri-kon-uh-suhns, -zuhns]
noun
1.
the act of reconnoitering.

Penfold said:

Troll much?

In any case. Scouting is officially against the rules now. Scouting doesn't have a set general definition. So… I see no problem with people for asking where the line is.

As for your questions directed at me. No, that wasn't me in the controversial game(s). Yes, I was in the video of the champsionhip game which I've stated time and time again that I lost fair and square. However, as I've stated before, the 'event' happened in the first/second round.

Scott and his friend were stacking their deck by using a technique nick named "mana-weaving."

Rules are good. However, vague rules open to a very wide array of intreptration is bad. So again, I see no problem asking where the line is. Especially TOs and Judges.

But really, I expect common sense to win the day on this one. As honestly, I think this whole thing has gotten way out of hand. With a couple of exceptions, people who play this game in my experience have/should have earned the reputation of the most genuine, kind, honest, and good people who bother to play a game. I'm honored and humbled to be apart of a community of such awesome people. So I imagine this whole scouting thing will end up being either removed or defined as such that it won't affect how we currently play (likely the latter).

Magnus Arcanis said:

I agree. The entire contingency of scouting is a minimal worry normally not worth remarking on and surpsing it has become such a hot topic in the face of absolutely no offense other than a certain poster making mountains of molehills.

The idea of the rule as it stands, while ambiguous, is still steeped in common sense. Yet I agree that the inclusion was far from warranted.

I still think this touches on the huge bug bear I have with such games though and that is decklist secrecy. But that will take this too far off topic to really remark on other than either make deck list secrecy a thing of the past, or become draconian and enforce scouting in whatever way that has yet to be defined.

I believe doing away with decklist secrecy a far more easier route.

That or just ignoring the entire non-issue of scouting…

Penfold said:

Honestly, you were the one who brought the topic up originally not so long ago.

While I see others involving themselves in the conversation, you seem to be the only person I have seen really consider this an issue of any notable merit or a 'real concern'.

Now I have seen scouting take place in some MTG tourneys a decade ago. So I agree and am completely empathetic to your disdain of this 'tactic'. It is nearly impossible to police without looking like an ******* due to difficulty in proving such an infraction. In MTG being an ******* is nearly second nature and sportsmanship is not a consideration for that game normally.

But in CoC sportsmanship is an inherent trait of competitive players, thankfully. That's not to say it will or will not happen, but the chances of it actually happening in this game are historically improbable.

Legislating scouting is a move steeped in paranoia. Ultimately folly since defining what is or isn't scouting will result in more headache than it is or ever will be worth. Scratch that last sentence. It isnt defining it that will cause problems, it is the act of effectively policing it that is folly. I have been a 3rd level judge for MTG for quite awhile and after chatting with many TO's about the topic, I have never heard of an effective approach to policing it. It is always possible there is a great way to put the screws to it, but I have seen any discussion about it here that has convinced me.

You obviously feel different with all the lobbying you have done. But I am straining to find anyone who agrees with you enough to beleive it was a warranted or even a worthwhile inclusion to tourney rules.

Penfold said:

It's a rule, so if as a TO you are not enforcing it, you are doing it wrong.

Does there need to be a rule? No. I'm sorry I didn't see the topic where you guys were discussing the issue, otherwise I would have stated my opinion well before.

Do you know where scouting is happening? EVERYWHERE there is a card tournament.

Penfold said:

Stalling and slow play is much more "controllable" than scouting. You can draw a clear line somewhere: for example, you might be allowed to think 2 minutes about your next move, but then when you start moving into your round you should take decision quickly, because you already thought about your next moves (have a look at the MtG guidelines, just to have an idea of how well you can define slow play/stalling).

Instead scouting is by definition IMPOSSIBLE to determine, and for a very simple reason. It happens OUTSIDE the game. Just to copy the argument made by Marius in another place (private mails):

the game is a thinking sport. If you can scout 20 decks and remember all of them, kudos. You clearly deserve the edge. This rule is like banning chess players from memorizing all the games and setups - which is what chess is.

Then, as I said in the mailing list of my upcoming tournament, I will play the tournament and I will not ask anyone what deck they are playing and I will not ask anyone what deck they were playing against the round before. On the other hand, I will not allow anyone to watch my match (if the rule stays this one) just so that you can understand HOW STUPID THIS RULE IS

And BTW, if watching a game of CoC during a tournament is "douchey" then I am happy to say that I am the most douchey person around because watching a game of CoC is FIRST OF ALL the best way to stay into the game with friends, because you have to talk with them after the game about why they made some particular decision. This is what the game is about and this is the only way to improve your playing skill: discussion.

That said, guys, if you really have a problem with scouting, please never go to a big tournament with more than 20 players. You might have an heart attack at some point

Konx

PS: just a question. Suppose I go to a tournament with a friend and we discussed the deck we faced after each round. This is purely intentional scouting. So, for this reason, I am supposed to be kicked out of a tournament. right? well, if this is true: epic bull.

I am not as bummed out by this ruling as other players, but I feel it is rather odd. My personal take would be this ruling should be mostly ignored due to the fuzzy wording, the undecisiveness of the penalty (at his sole discretion the TO may remove players or deduct points -how many?-) which would be disproportionate to the damage done. In the end, it feels rather uncalled for that the TO has to hawk over players taking a smoke break in case they are buddies and share knowledge of the opponent's deck.

Konx said:

I see two ways to handle this if I would be a TO. The most efficient way to enforce this new official ruling would be saying that watching games or speaking to each other between games is seen as unsportsmanlike conduct. Other way is just inform every time that your tournament is not official CoC tournament and don't follow any official tournament rules. Then you are free to not include any rules about no scouting or minimum deck size for example.

I still don't understand this new ruling and it is one of the stupidest rulings I have seen but this won't change the official status so I guess it is better just accept it. I guess the developers felt that CoC tournaments really needs to be first game I know to include this ruling and scouting is a massive problem in CoC (but not in AGoT for example).

Magnus Arcanis said:

I don't troll much. I am honestly surprised that people seem unable or unwilling to use common sense and common definitions and follow the number one guideline that FFG has always had on tournaments, it is at the TO's discretion.

And to be clear, I wasn't accusing you of having cheated, I just heard you were somehow involved in the incident in a non-perp sort of way. I assumed it was done by an opponent to you.

I don't expect it to be defined much at all, if at all. The rules don't define shuffling, or deck, or hand, etc, or any other dozen or two words with a definition general or specific enough that it gets the concept across.

>> I don't troll much. I am honestly surprised that people seem unable or unwilling to use common sense and common definitions and follow the number one guideline that FFG has always had on tournaments, it is at the TO's discretion.

The fact that any TO might make do with an incorrect or boring or unappliable guideline (in this case "scouting is unsportmanlike") doesn't make the ruling any more acceptable.

But I'd be willing to understand such a ruling if it created a better tourney environment, however I fail to see how a tourney gets improved by a TO which denies the chance for you to:

1) Look at your buddies games after your done with yours;

2) Discuss with them on their performance in past matches;

3) Chat with the audience about the tourney;

Carioz said:

Very much this.

Depending on how overzealous the TO is or even what mood he might be in, the friendliness factor of games just became significantly less with this paranoid rule.

Betting on the worst in people does not yield positive results.

you put rules like this in place so you have a preinstalled way to deal with any problems should they arise…

it doesn't mean that everyone needs to run around in a panic about their actions and behaviors in play settings.

i'd say continue doing what you would normally do. i imagine this ruling is in place to deal with organized cheating or malicious actions on the part of a player or players who are trying to "game" the system for their own benefit.

since decklists are finalized prior to play, there's not much damage that comes from knowing who's playing what on the day. at that point you're pretty well set on a specific course of play… and honestly, knowing the meta means you already know MOST of the info you could even get by watching opponents play or discussing games before/after with friends or other players.

i agree mtg is full of douchebags, but even within their massive meta, you probably have a pretty good idea of who's playing what at most events. or once a card or three hit the table you know what you're up against, barring any slight tweaks they've made.

mountain out of a molehill, indeed.

It's a silly rule that was added to solve a non-existing problem.

Though I enjoy playing decks with a surprising twist it never bothered me if other players watched me play. Sure, I'm not going to surprise them any more, but hey, if getting to surprise my opponent is the only way my deck works, then it's probably not a very good deck, right?

I hope the rule gets removed in the next iteration of the tournament rules (or at least significantly revised).

jhaelen said:

bingo.

As a continuation of discussion about the 2012 FFG EC regionals , one more notable thing about the tourney is when experienced players discussed their games.

I am afraid the new paranoid "scouting" rule had a fairly large negative impact on what is normally an otherwise positive atmosphere. Though I can only speak for myself in that regard.

The FFG employees that were discussing their games were extremely delicate to say nothing about the game while discussing the game, as was any other experienced player. I understand not divulging every last aspect of the game, as not only is that just utterly boring to listen to, but could be considered scouting. Discussions between games were so dry and sterile, people were so afraid of breaking the rule that they may as well have just been locked away in a sensory deprivation tank between games, myself included.

I was so paranoid of being accused of scouting prior to the game that when people were making decklists I was facing away from any and all players.

It's ridiculous to have to feel that way. To feel like a robot in a sanitary environment.

The players at this tournament were so extreme in their paranoia, that it perfectly illustrated what banking on the worst in people in a positive environment does to that very environment. It wilts like lettuce in the sun.

Sorry to those who think this rule is a good idea. But this is a horrid, despicable rule.

Hellfury said:

Well, I could write a post that says exactly the same things that Hellfury is saying up here, so I limit myself to a "I completely agree".

The rule is potentially destructive of the tournament environment that right now is relaxed and friendly. What you need, is just ONE player that wants to enforce the rule to make the tournament a bad experience for everyone.

bye

Konx

That's unfortunate to hear, Hellfury.

I'm debating on how to approach this situation for our event. First and foremost, I want it to be a fun experience for everyone involved, and that usually means talking about your great victories (and defeats) over a beer (half of our venue is a bar). We have a lot of new players so I don't expect scouting to be a problem, but as the T.O. I have to be prepared regardless.

My initial reaction is to allow players to chat about their games between rounds as much as they want, but to keep people away from games in progress (mainly so players can be a bit more relaxed during their matches). For the semifinals and beyond I would let people watch the action, though anyone who doesn't make the cut will be playing a big multi-player battle, so that might not be an issue either.

I don't like this either. A lot of the fun is hobnobbing with the other players, swapping stories of your games, and so forth. This rule creates an atmosphere where you're afraid to do that beforehand or between rounds because you might be ejected.

My default stance on any such issue is that it's not a problem until it's a problem and taking oppressive action when it's not a problem yet just ruins the atmosphere. It's like saying even though none of you have ever done anything wrong, we're going to treat you like criminals anyway.

I think I mentioned before, we had something similar happen here for a Malifaux tournament. The guys running it were so paranoid about people stacking decks or cheating on their shuffling (this is a minis game that uses a standard deck of cards instead of dice as a randomizer) that they posted a long list of rules about deck handling. You could only shuffle using the method they said. You had to turn in your deck of cards before the tournament and between every round so they could check them. All sorts of crap like that, despite the fact that nobody had ever tried cheating, or though anyone else was cheating. It just wasn't an issue until they made it into one. And this was just for a local "for fun" tournament (their national championships had no special card deck rules).

Well, the consequences were that everyone got fed up with it and the tournament never happened due to lack of interest. People wanted to have fun playing games, and the rules made it not-fun enough that it wasn't worth it anymore.

Hypothetically, someone at FFG who is not Damon may have issues with posting correspondence from Damon on the board. Hypothetically, private correspondence (despite the use of the official rules link) is 'prohibited' from being posted. If such a thing happened and someone decided to censor a post, completely deleting it, and then sent the poster an email defined in the email as "personal correspondence" so one could not even discuss the fact that they had been told not to post personal correspondence on the forums, how would you react?

Me, hypothetically speaking, would not post at all for fear of getting banned. Then I would review the terms I agreed to when I registered here as well as the forums guidelines stickied at the top of every forum. Then if there was no violation by word or spirit I would say that this hypothetical situation is BS. And I'd post within the guidelines written, but under no circumstances would I agree to follow some byzantine policy that apparently only applies to one person. Then I might consider ending with a rude statement bordering on a personal insult… but that would be in violation and my mother would not approve so I would wisely refrain.

Of course no such correspondence was sent.

The gist of the post that was deleted is Damon specifically said I was not the cause. I did not originate the thread. I was not the first person to have an issue with scouting, and I never even asked him about it until ridiculous statements were made about this being because of me.

Meanwhile, if you play A Game of Thrones you can freely scout and take intentional draws and losses. Seriously, the focus on unenforceable rules the new faq brings leaves me rather puzzled. I seriously hope those two get amended as soon as possible.