Upper Deck Entertainment Forums

There are a couple questions that I get asked a lot while judging and I was wondering if and where the answers may fall under giving advice.  They are:

If I play this card, will <insert some specific event or card interaction> happen?  (Given the current state of the board or the chain and assuming nothing else is added to the chain as everything resolves).

If I play this card, what will happen?  (Given the current state of the board or the chain and assuming nothing else is added to the chain as everything resolves).

It's dangerous for judges to do this, in my opinion, because you never know when you will have missed a detail or something happens that the player didn't plan on, and then the first player looks at you angrily and says "But you said XYZ would happen!  You gave me the wrong answer!"

Try not to predict the future like this.  It's ok to answer rulings questions, and it's ok to tell a player if something is or is not a legal play.  Judges can tell players the correct outcome of something that already happened, but I don't feel that they should be telling players what the outcome would be of something that hasn't happened yet or isn't guaranteed to happen.

That said, it's only my opinion and other more experienced judges or Alex himself should feel free to correct me.

---

Jeff Piroozshad
Marketing Events Specialist
Upper Deck

Next Yu-Gi-Oh! Shonen Jump Championship:
SJC DETROIT
December 5-6, 2008
www.yugiohchamps.com

I am going to have to whole heartidly agree with Jeff P. here. There are in my opinion not many things while giving a ruling that are more important than seeming unbiased. If you make the player make the said move before you tell them how the situation will resolve this will lessen confusion and the players will learn from their mistakes say if the play is actually illegal or does not go in their favor. This will also keep "biased judge" accusations to a minimum.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Garren

---

LvL 1 Yugioh Rules
LvL 1 Player Management
I work at Walts Cards in Dundalk, Maryland

I agree with Garren and Jeff P.  Just lending some support for what they have already written. 

Answering "Yes" or "No" questions are usually acceptable, as long as you are not influeincing decisions.  Explaining mechanics or how a card works is ok.

---

Franklin Debrito
Player Management Lv4 / Yu-Gi-Oh! Lv3
VS System Lv1 / Specialist Lv2
World of Warcraft Lv1 / Tournament Organizer Lv1
UD Forums Moderator

If someone asks you a question, and you're even a little unsure about whether you can answer it or not, just ask them "Can you rephrase that question?"  Making it a yes/no question is good too, and as already said, just giving them the relevant game mechanic in generic terms is always a good answer.

While we're on the subject, is there a recommended way to answer questions?  Can someone ask us a question and receive an answer totally out of earshot of the opponent, or is the opponent entitled to hear the exchange?  Usually players will point at the card in question and couch the question in very generic terminology, but occasionally someone will want to pull me aside and ask a question. 

If it's a question about a public game state or a face up card it gets a public answer, if it's a question about a f/d card or card in hand it gets a private answer. If the opponent has a problem with that tell them you'd be happy to answer any questions you can about the card for them when it's played.

So in short, what is public gets answered in public, what isn't public gets answered in private.

A couple of times I've had players say, "Well how do I know you're not coaching him?" My answer to that is, "You don't but you'll have to trust that it's my job to ensure the integrity of the tournament."

---

Yu-Gi-Oh! RK3
PM L3
TO L1
Specialist L1

We usually treat these kind of situations like Mr. Danker stated, and the answer we give to players who are asking if X will happen when Y occurs is that "I cannot give a ruling on a hypothetical situation" or "I cannot give a ruling on something that hasn't happened yet".

---

JD DeKeyzer
-YGO R&K LV2
-PM LV1
-TO LV1
-inventor of the world's first Duel System (Duel Terminal's a cheap knock-off of this, I swear)

I believe that whether or not you should answer a question will depend on the specifics of the question.  For example:

"Flame Trap is on the chain. can I use Mr. Fantastic to transfer Advanced Hardware to Thing, let that resolve, Activate Thing to burn my opponent, let that resolve, transfer Advanced Hardware back to Mr. Fantastic, then use Swift Escape on my Thing to prevent him from getting stunned by Flame Trap?"

Lots of complicated interactions there.  Acceptable answers in my mind would be:
"Those are all legal actions based on the current game state as I know it and, presuming there are no triggers and your opponent does not respond to any of those actions, it should resolve as you said."
"Is your question about the transferring of equipment?  Or do you just want to know if you can use Swift Escape to prevent your thing getting stunned?  Your question as it is is overly complicated and I am trying to find out what the specific rules question you're trying to ask."
"Everything you said sounded legal."

The answer I do not like is this:

"I can't answer a question about a play you haven't taken."

If a player comes up between rounds and asks about a specific card interaction, presuming you have time to, do you answer the question?  I know of few, if any, judges who would not answer a question presented like this.  Why would there be a difference if you are in the middle of a game?

As long as answers are given about game mechanics and specific card interactions, I believe a judge would be relatively safe to answer questions about an upcoming card play and interactions with the visible game state.

But that's just my opinion.  I could be wrong.

---

Dylan Northrup (aka Doc X)
Level 2 Vs Rules Knowledge, Player Management
Level 1 WoW Rules Knowledge, Tournament Organizer
Level 0 Time Management

I think the understanding is that you have to assume that if you answer a hypothetical question during gameplay, it will alter the outcome of the game, or something to that effect.

---

Yu-Gi-Oh Rules Lvl-1
Player Management Lvl-1
Tournament Organization Lvl-1
Bandai Naruto Meijin
Bandai DBZ meijin
Pokemon Tournament Organizer

To clarify my question a bit, I understand the pitfalls of predicting future events, my question is really about if and where this falls under giving advice.

Both of these questions involve private information (a card in hand) and since they haven't actually played it yet, my answers will clearly influence their decisions.  Additionally, the player knows that whatever he is contemplating is a legal play, but is unsure of the interaction with the game after the play is made.

I'll give a specific example (please forgive my WoW example, it's the only game I judge):

Deafening Shout, 7, Warrior (Betrayer-120R)
Ability—Fury Shout
Ongoing: Opposing allies have -3 ATK / -3 health.

Tatulla the Reclaimer, 4, Horde (Betrayer-181C)
Ally—Tauren Druid, 3 ATK (Nature), 3 Health
When Tatulla enters play, target player destroys an ability or equipment he controls.

The player's opponent has deafening shout in play and that is the only equipment or ability that he has in play.  The player wants to play Tatulla but is not sure if it will actually get rid of deafening shout since it will die pretty much instantly.  Playing the ally and targetting the opponent are clearly legal and not in question at all.

The player calls the judge over and asks "If I play this card (pointing to Tatulla), what will happen?"

For those of you that don't know WoW, the answer is that after Tatulla comes into play, the trigger will fire.  PPP will simultaneously destroy the ally and add the trigger to the chain before anyone gets priority where it will eventually resolve normally and the opponent will have to destroy an equipment or ability.

So, is answering this question coaching?

Is explaining the chain, PPP, and/or what happens to effects on the chain when their source is destroyed coaching?  (these are all explaining game mechanics without specifically answering his question.)

Even with yes / no questions you can get into situations such as:

Player: If I make a play (x) will it resolve to this effect (a)?

Judge: No.

Player: If I make a play (y) will it resolve to this effect (a)?

Judge: No.

Player: If I make a play (z) will it resolve to this effect (a)?

Judge: Yes.

Player: Fantastic!  I'll do that!

Judge: Dang.  I just got pwnt.

How do you keep yourself out of situations like this while judging?  I don't really believe in the "I will answer nothing until you make a play." mantra, but want to be aware of coaching boundaries.

My understanding of what we are allowed to do in that situation is state what the mechanics in question are and that is not considered coaching.

what I try to do is make sure that the answers I give are not specific to the cards in question but instead specific to the mechanics. So in your example I would say "Trigger effects that trigger off coming into play will trigger when the card comes into play even if it is immediately destroyed."

I try to keep the answers simple to understand. This provides quick answers for those that just want to keep playing yet allows me to explain further if the player still does not understand. So unless they ask for clarification or disagree, I usually don't bring up PPP.

---

WoW RK2
VS RK2
YGO RK2
PM LV2
Specialist LV2 (formerly demo team)
TO LV1

I agree with Spotsknight, here, although not a lot of players would be able to couch their question in such elaborate terminology. I have discouraged moving away from the game for any questions involving the game in play. Players should remain in their seats for the duration of the game, except for exceptional circumstances. This is to avoid even the appearance of suspicious activity. I answer that if the question cannot be phrased in a generic enough way to be asked in front of your opponent, I probably cannot answer it without "helping" anyway. If I can, I will guide them to a question I can answer...."Are you asking if that card targets?" But even with that you need be careful to be able to justify that that was what he was getting at, lest the opponent have excuse to cry foul.

As judges, our integrity should be able to stand the scrutiny of private questions, but it is best if we do not give reason to question it. Some questions are very direct and are listed in the FAQ..."If I target Spirit Reaper with this (Soul Exchange) can I use its effect before it is destroyed?"  Some are not, but of that same ilk..."What will happen if I prohibit the head of Exodia?" In any case, you can hardly go wrong by simply stating Game Mechanics or Rulings on a card. I say hardly, because it is possible to only quote the portion of the Rulings that would help them make a determination on how (whether or not) to play the card. So, whenever a question of negating a summon comes up, I have a quick run-through of Solemn/Royal/Horn (thanks to SKey) that I say (15 sec.). The answer is always in there somewhere. You can even do that with cards with long rulings like Necrovalley, LaDD, etc. if you take the time beforehand to compress the information into logical bites of common misconseptions.

The same can be said of running through a sequence for Game Mechanics. Rattling off a pre-memorized formula for Priority, Targeting, Battle Sub-steps, etc. can keep you from the more questionable questions. The shot gun approach (as I call it) is only advisable when the player cannot find the right question to ask. Otherwise, I encourage them to try to phrase the question in a way that does not have me tell him if it is a good (note, not legal) play. This can also help them to learn the kinds of questions and terminology we use in the game.   

As for hypotheticals, or even an action within the game whereby the player asks what happens in the following set up, I simply answer, "I'm sorry, but that is not in the FAQ or Mechainics section of UDE's Game Play. However, it is (not) a legal move." Worse comes to worse, they can always appeal a judge's ruling not to rule. 

---

I want to fix the game state.
I must fix the game state!

Please! Please! Let me fix the Game State!!!

I have a simple rule i stick by and expect any judge working my tournaments to follow. Don't answer hypothetical questions. This pretty much covers most situations that come up. If something hasnt happened you shouldnt be answering any questions on it. Of course specific game mechanics questions are permissible and "is this legal?" would be as well.

IMHO, any interaction a judge has with a player concerning a game in progress should be public. Obviously penalties and the like may require a private conversation but these do not concern the game in progress, or the penalties themselves may end the current game in progress.

---

Your Friendly Neighbourhood Canadian Judge!
YGO RK L3
VS RK L2
WoW RK L1
PM L2

1195410:

IMHO, any interaction a judge has with a player concerning a game in progress should be public. Obviously penalties and the like may require a private conversation but these do not concern the game in progress, or the penalties themselves may end the current game in progress.

Interesting thought pattern Jason and one I don't believe has specifically been brought up here in the PM forums. I see your point here, however, I also can see where answering a question publicly can give information to the opposing player previously unknown. 

If the players asks, "Can I activate this in response to my opponents Solemn Judgment?"....and you reply with, "Quick Play Spell cards are spell speed 2, a counter trap card is spell speed 3. A spell speed 3 effect cannot be chained to by a spell speed 2 effect." By publicly giving this game mechanic I've alerted the opponent to now know the f/d card type of his / her opponent and have given a player an advantage.

My other option would be to not give a public or private answer and to tell the player, "I'll rule on the situation when it occurs." In that case I've forced the player into either making an illegal activation and revealing his f/d card unnecessarily and recieving a Proceedural Error Warning, or out of fear of revealing his f/d card not playing it at all. This of course is "An" option but not the most player friendly.

This is my personal opinion and an opinon only....but there comes a time when players have to trust in the integrity of the judges of the tournament they are at to fairly speak with each player in private. We do this as judges during investigations and to sort out difficult situations, I see no reason why speaking in private to a player as a judge and giving a game mechanic would be any less permissable. If the opposing player wishes to know the conversation, inform them you'll do so when the card(s) in question have been revealed.

Alex? Your insights on this topic?

---

Yu-Gi-Oh! RK3
PM L3
TO L1
Specialist L1

I am okay with judge talking privately to players as needed or requested by the player. Make sure that if you do talk to a player in private, you actually stick around and observe the match. Otherwise a player may ask you one thing in private and misrepresent something entirely different to the opponent under the "I just talked to a judge and this is how it works" pretense.

Try to answer any type of questions that a player asks with quoting game mechanics. It's better customer service then saying "I won't answer any hypothetical questions." Of course you shouldn't be coaching anyone. Yes, it's a bit of a contradiction when I say try to answer questions without coaching. I am confident that judges will find a balance.

One of the first events that I judged, I remember being asked something by players and they weren't using correct terminology to ask it. I (incorrectly) didn't want to give them an answer. The players became frustrated and eventually figured out what to ask to get the answer that they wanted. At some point they even mentioned that, "...we didn't realize that you needed to say the secret code to get an answer..." It's not the best experience for a player to play 20 questions in form of "yes or no" to get what they want and it's a waste of everyone's time.

---

Alex Charsky
Judge Manager
Upper Deck