Right, which is why you take away the points for the corp and give them to the runner. Its less of a punishment than a full game loss.
There are basically two considerations to take into account
How do we fix the game state so they player who wasn’t at fault faces no disadvantages.
How do we punish false plays enough to discourage them from happening.
For 1), there are a couple of considerations to take into play. One, we obviously can’t let the corp score the point because he was only able to score the points because the runner didn’t think the agenda could have been an agenda. Two, the corps could have changed the runner’s play in such a way that the agenda could have been scored otherwise (the runner would have or DID run on the hand), which is why the runner should be given the points.
For 2), there are two kinds of illegal plays. Accidental illegal plays, and intentional illegal plays. Accidental illegal plays, the punishment should be as light as possible, because simply giving the player a minor disadvantage is sufficient to encourage them to play better. Intentional illegal plays are a different boat, and should have much harsher punishments (game loss or tournament DQ). This was clearly the former, so basically all we need to think about is principle 1.
I am unconvinced by arguments that a full game loss is needed in a case like this. (The RP instead of PE case is a clear game loss in my mind).
yeah, this is a thought that’s been nagging at me throughout this conversation…
In a strictly competitive sense, game loss makes sense for a gross violation like the one the OP is about. But given that this game isn’t MtG are there are no such thing as professional netrunner players, even relatively high level events are still rife with good or lucky casual players. I have a hard time seeing how these games wouldn’t be better served with extremely harsh judgements that fall short of the “game loss” line but still are clearly siding with the player that didn’t make this mistake.
In this instance, since a rewind is impossible but the mistake is only affecting the last turn or two of gamestate, I think simply giving the runner the agenda would a fair ruling (similarly, if a runner had abused his memory limit to steal an agenda and only been found out after the reveal, I think it would be fair to award the agenda to the corp). Obviously second offenses would mean immediate game loss (since they would imply either malicious cheating or total inability to play correctly)
The tough part is that there is no standardized way to make judgements like these (which would be healthier for the fun of an event, I believe) while maintaining the competetive nature of the game. so, Until FFG codifies a framework for TO decision making, game losses it needs to be.
“This game isn’t MtG” isn’t an excuse here. If you’re in a high level Netrunner tournament and you install an agenda into a server that contains an Eve Campaign then the misplay is so egregious that you should willingly accept the game loss. I’m not suggesting penalties for minor issues (too many clicks used when your last click was ‘credit’, etc) like Magic does but things like this that misrepresent game state/and or create a irreparable game state need to be acted upon to ensure the integrity of the game.
I don’t understand where that last bit comes from:
What about leaving it to the discretion of whoever’s running the tournament in question? That’s how all the official tournament support literature I’ve seen reads, with big TO fiat qualifiers at the start. I personally would do everything I could to avoid handing out game losses for honest accidents.
Can anyone share what the literature for their Nationals tournament kits actually says?
This was supposedly an accidental misplay, right? Corp player just got a little confused about what was still in the server, correct? There’s one little fact that’s been troubling me…
If the player had any doubt at all as to what card was still in the server, why didn’t he simply lift it up and look at it?
For that fact, he could have simply looked at Archives and seen the trashed Breaker Bay Grid faceup in Archives!
The Corp player has access to all the information on their side of the table. There is literally no reason that the Corp couldn’t have verified what card was still in the server. That’s why I’m inclined to say it was an intentional misplay, and not an accident.
If the Runner is expected to play the game without a certain amount of information, then it’s up to the Corp to make sure that the integrity of the game is maintained.
A game loss is an acceptable punishment for this type of infraction at a Premier-level event. I would be damn tempted to disqualify that player personally.
Had the same thing happen in Belgian Regional today. Game Loss, no other thing to do as you can’t restore gamestate. Player was cool with it, even though he did not meet the cut afterwards. Same happens for installing assets in central servers IMHO.
“What about it” is what happened to the OP; without clear guidelines (from FFG), subjective judge decisions like this one will lead to players winning even after egregious misplays (as was the clear-cut case here) or even outright cheating. We’d all like to believe that no TO would ever make such a garbage call, but the very realistic matter is that sometimes they will.
Oops, seems like you think that I’m the person the OP was playing! I’m not, and either way, that player “willingly accepting a game loss” is not at issue here since that was never given as an option, so I’m not sure what it has to do with anything.
I’m not talking about whether or not handing out a game loss is fair here- obviously it was. The game-state was irreparably damaged. What a few others have suggested (that I am tempted to agree with) is that in a game whose competetive seem is uttersuffused with friendly, casual, non-professional players, another option besides scorched-earth game losses for major but unintentional misplays exists: rather than “fixing” the game-state by reverting it to pre-error, you could simply shift the game in a major way in favor of the other player. If an error resulted in points being scored or stolen, all of those points are awarded to the other player.
TLDR; a ruling is only truly unfair if it is possible for the erring player to benefit from it (as the OP’s experience is a clear example of). Scorched-earth game losses are a decent way to ensure fair ruling, but not the only way, and they have their downsides especially amongst a friendly, non-professional player-base.
I’m not sure what they really can do here. They might be too scared of turning away casuals to implement anything harsh enough to justify not just leaving it up to TOs. New players are where most of their Netrunner money is going to come from since they’re not selling the “pros” several hundred bucks in new cards every few months.
FFG doesn’t exactly have a huge track record of overseeing organized competition. The vast majority of their products are targeted toward more casual gamers. I’m a little surprised it’s as good as it is now.
We had a situation like this in a GNK - I was playing against Quinns of Shut Up and Sit Down. I had run into his remote, seen a jackson and an Ash, trashed the Ash, and told him to keep the Jackson. Next turn he dropped a Vitruvius into the remote without overwriting the Jackson, so, assuming it was another upgrade, I fucked about elsewhere during my turn, and he then proceeded to socre out the Vitruivus. I told him it was absolutely not OK for him to do that, as I assumed he was dropping another upgrade into the server because the Jackson was still there.
We eventually ended up rewinding both our turns, and I was able to get in (again) and score the Vitruvius. I think this is appropriate at the GNK/SC level. At Regionals, I’d probably pass the agenda over. At Nationals, I don’t think a game loss would be harsh.
I might rule that the scored Agenda is instead removed from the game, ala Jackson Howard’s ability, and neither player scores it. The credits used to advance the card are gone, and the Eve is trashed. This does not give undue credit to the runner, who might have well run it or might have pursued an entirely different plan, nor does it benefit the corp who loses a sure score for an agenda, plus clicks and credits. Removing a single agenda from the game should not cause the game to be impossible to win for either side, either.
I don’t think it’s fair to award the agenda to the runner, since that would also result in an unfeasible game state - i.e. as runner I couldn’t have taken my full turn and scored the agenda. However, I’ve been mulling this over in the last 24-ish hours and I’ve come up with what I think is a resolution that gets as close as possible to a legitimate game state.
How about if the result is that the Eve is trashed, the Vitruvius is installed and advanced three times but not scored by the corp as it passes to the runner turn. This means that the runner now has the opportunity to steal what he knows is a guaranteed 2-pointer under the same conditions as if he had run it the turn before (i.e. through a naked Eli). The runner’s advantage, apart from the information, is that he’s effectively had an additional turn since when the opportunity should have arisen.
I think that would clearly solve this specific situation satisfactorily, but maybe there are some weird fringe cases which would make it inappropriate as a general principle to apply, such as:
Supposing the runner spends money in the “bonus” turn which means he can no longer access the server? Not a problem for the Eli in this case, but could be relevant in other analogous scenarios.
Similarly, there might be a countdown effect in play (such as a Parasite) which means that Atman can no longer affect the relevant ICE.
The Corp might have enough drip economy to materially affect the game state in a way that he could not have on the previous turn. For instance, something like having a Manhunt in play and enough credits to rez a Dedicated Response Team that he wouldn’t have had the previous turn.
They’re all a bit contrived but it could happen. I think any adjustments need to result in a game state that could have legally (or as close to as possible) been achieved. Transferring the agenda to the runner doesn’t make sense because it can’t happen; forfeiting the agenda potentially damages the runner because he has now lost an opportunity to score it (which in some situations could be to the Corp’s advantage) and isn’t a legal move for the Corp to have made; trashing the agenda couldn’t have legally been achieved either.
Maybe it should be a game loss at a Premier event, but if it’s not going to be a game loss at a GNK then you still need a framework on which to base a judgement - and it needs to be robust because the judge at a GNK will probably be less experienced than a judge at nationals.
IIRC, player had both IDs back-to-back in the same clear sleeve, for no fucking reason.
It’s like playing hidden info. board games like ‘Fury of Dracula’ and ‘Ninja’. The person with the knowledge has a responsibility to maintain proper game state. If they f up, it’s on them to own it, or what’s the point of playing? Advancing the wrong card when 2+ are stacked in a server is one thing, and not a huge deal usually. Two assets/Agendas is a game loss at Regionals up.
Yeah, that’s pretty reasonable. You can also add on the corp can’t install any cards in the server (basically, runner has an extra turn to steal the card under the exact conditions it was in).
I was saying the other one for simplicity and generalizability.
Seconding @tomdidiot 's point: this is not a good solution. Apart from essentially corping with an illegal number of points in your deck, what about changing the ratio of agendas in the game? More NAPDs anyone?
Also, your attitude seems to be that neither player should be disadvantaged - but, why? Why shouldn’t you lose for committing an error like this? I think that in isolation, it’s fine. But allowing these errors to pass without a sanction means they’re gonna happen more and I suspect more intentionally. After all, if the worst that happens is a light ticking-off, why not start doing shady stuff on purpose?
You really should have insisted on a more fair ruling, it’s a tournament, not casual play. No one should get mad at you for catching something at this level of play. It’s entirely fair to declare a game loss because the players should be able to understand the game at a high enough level to prevent this type of misplay.
On the one hand I agree, on the other I can understand the desire to not be That Guy in the middle of a big tournament and sour the experience for you/you opponent/the judge even if it’s legitimate to push harder.
Being that guy sucks, but being that guy because you were going to lose otherwise is pretty justifiable, but I agree, That Guy is generally a nuisance.
Particularly when it’s no longer one, but two people who are going to disagree with you, and one of them is in a position of authority, and you could very well generate negative feelings AND you might get a negative reputation for it in the local circle of ANR players.
Takes a lot of courage to do something like that, in any situation, and it may very well be for naught if you end up winning anyway. Of course, @Arkhon didn’t win in this instance, but it’s easy to understand why one might let it go, even if you feel an injustice was done.
