EC 2017 - Questions to judges

jamesatzephyr wrote:

TapeTaChatte wrote: Yeah I have read both answers, and mine does not contradict with them.

Except... it contradicts them.

Revolver asks if he can self-oust in order to optimise his zero VPs in the way he sees fit. Not to pull off some risky strategy, not to try and pull off some clever card cancellation trick, but to get zero VPs. LSJ expressly days that you must play for first place, and playing in order to come second is exactly, completely the opposite of that - but is Revolver's stated intent. You say yes, you can do that. That is expressly, entirely, completely 100% the opposite of what LSJ said - in the final, you must play for first place and Revolver says he isn't doing that.

You are wrong.

Actually, AFAICT, in Revolver's scenario he already has 2 VPs and is the top seed. So by self-ousting he prevents his prey from getting 3 VPs, and he could be maximizing his chances to win (if he were sure his prey would oust his predator on the final head-to-head).

But in that scenario his prey could choose not to oust, given that his chances to win are then null, and therefore give the third player the GW.

jamesatzephyr wrote: Revolver asks if he can self-oust in order to optimise his zero VPs in the way he sees fit.

Definitely not what I have read... And I have read it at least 10 Times now

Ankha wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Ankha wrote: Song of Pan
Playing it at 1 pool by mistake is currently legal (was blocked by an Eagle Sight).

This is also incorrect or a reversal.

In www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/57938-can-you-oust-yourself-by-accidentally-playing-a-card-with-a-pool-cost-that-would-kill-you?limit=10&start=30#58553 , Pascal completely abandoned the idea of players making mistakes when it comes to self ousting. If a card would self oust you, its play is entirely forbidden by that ruling. (Edit: except where you've already won.)

See also the discussion in this thread: www.vekn.net/forum/rules-questions/75087-hostile-takeover?limitstart=0


(I thought the ruling was wrong as it appeared to proceed from Pascal starting from a fundamentally wrong premise, and prevents players from making interesting or risky judgment calls. But that is the rule as it stands.)

This is still under discussion as part of a global reflection about self-ousting, so his ruling should be considered as "pending" until then.

Is this still "pending" or it has been announced elsewhere?

Thanks.