Author Topic: What is the official rule on Table Talk in multi player (Read 7213 times)

Redoubter · « **Reply #25 on:** April 22, 2012, 01:13:41 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on April 22, 2012, 12:28:53 PM

You're still telling your opponent how to play

Precisely, and even if it doesn't directly affect the other player Chris, it affects the game outcome. That will affect them, no matter how you slice it.

Quote from: Wings of Music on April 22, 2012, 12:52:49 PM

Of course ills tough to judge exactly what's intended by various comments, so perhaps guidelines are necessary.

Completely agree. Without guidelines ahead of time, how can we tell a player not to do it? It should be set up in advance and known by all so that everyone knows what a violation is.

Chris · « **Reply #26 on:** April 22, 2012, 02:10:06 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on April 22, 2012, 01:13:41 PM

Precisely, and even if it doesn't directly affect the other player Chris, it affects the game outcome. That will affect them, no matter how you slice it.

That's why I specifically noted "at the present moment." I agree that it affects them, however, there's a huge difference between someone trying to talk the person they just made a rescue attempt out of blocking and someone who is neither the rescuer or the blocker chiming in. In my opinion, I don't believe that the former should be considered "table talk" for gameplay purposes. This is going to come down to an "agree to disagree," but do you at least see my side of it?

Master KChief · « **Reply #27 on:** April 22, 2012, 02:43:08 PM »

I believe the rule for table talk in Multi is as Redoubter pointed out earlier. You cannot lead another player towards a course of action, but you may verbally reflect upon anything in the current gamestate.

Chris · « **Reply #28 on:** April 22, 2012, 02:51:15 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on April 22, 2012, 02:43:08 PM

I believe the rule for table talk in Multi is as Redoubter pointed out earlier. You cannot lead another player towards a course of action, but you may verbally reflect upon anything in the current gamestate.

The problem is this is open to interpretation. I would add the stipulation that if it is not a player's turn, and they are not currently being attacked, they can't say anything about the game at all.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #29 on:** April 22, 2012, 04:01:51 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on April 22, 2012, 11:34:07 AM

Stating of fact or correction of game rule is not table talk...“I am about to surrender a soul”

Suggesting action, implying tactics, or deceiving players is table talk...“I am about to surrender a soul unless someone plays a dominant”

What is the distinction here? Saying that "I am about to surrender a LS" is a statement of fact. But saying "that the only thing that could stop the rescue at this point is playing a dominant" is also a statement of fact (assuming there are no Unholy Writs, etc. active).

Redoubter · « **Reply #30 on:** April 22, 2012, 04:13:30 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on April 22, 2012, 04:01:51 PM

Quote from: Redoubter on April 22, 2012, 11:34:07 AM
Stating of fact or correction of game rule is not table talk...“I am about to surrender a soul”

Suggesting action, implying tactics, or deceiving players is table talk...“I am about to surrender a soul unless someone plays a dominant”
What is the distinction here? Saying that "I am about to surrender a LS" is a statement of fact. But saying "that the only thing that could stop the rescue at this point is playing a dominant" is also a statement of fact (assuming there are no Unholy Writs, etc. active).

The former is a statement of fact, but the latter actually goes further. It suggests how someone else should respond, with Grapes or CM or something else. That's the difference.

If I tell say to you "I have two souls, you have 3, and both of you of 4" when I make a rescue attempt, that is very different from, "Okay, I only have 2 souls. You have one in your territory, and both of them have 4. Just let me have it."

By suggesting a course of action, or what specifically should be used, you would be table talking. There is a difference, but I agree that there should be specific guidelines.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #31 on:** April 22, 2012, 04:31:11 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on April 22, 2012, 04:13:30 PM

By suggesting a course of action, or what specifically should be used, you would be table talking.

I find these kind of statements helpful during a mutiplayer game with newer players. Sometimes they simply don't realize what they can do in certain situations.

With that said, I still think there should be written guidelines, since friends/brothers (or other similar groupings) who team up against specific players is not fair and undermines the fun and fellowship of the game.

I am Knot a Blonde! · « **Reply #32 on:** April 22, 2012, 04:36:37 PM »

maybe before each game the players choose whether or not it should be allowed depending on which players are at the table? (new, seasoned, etc.)

Chris · « **Reply #33 on:** April 22, 2012, 04:42:25 PM »

Redoubter, I think you're going down the middle of the road, which is exactly we're trying not to do. I think we can all agree that third parties should keep their mouths closed during a battle challenge or rescue attempt, so the question becomes how much can be said by the rescuing and blocking players, and I think this should be an "all-or-none" situation. I think that either I can say whatever I want to during a block, "If you use your Unholy Writ, I have Christian Martyr and we can stop him," or we have to let third parties use their own judgement on when to play things. At the bigger tournaments, there's not going to be a difference between "I'm about to discard my evil character and surrender a soul" and "I'm about to discard my evil character and surrender a soul, unless someone plays Grapes of Wrath or Christian Martyr" except in those cases where an inexperienced player is playing, at which point, some measure of table talk is to be expected, if only for clarifying rules. With that in mind, your suggestion is essentially allowing the former option (all), just placing unnecessary stipulations on it.

Redoubter · « **Reply #34 on:** April 22, 2012, 04:58:53 PM »

So you went from "let's agree to disagree" to "your position is exactly what we're trying to avoid"?

All kidding aside, I still completely disagree with you that there is no difference. If I don't say "I'm about to surrender a soul," then what can I say to the person who is upset because they had no opportunity to play a dom between the time I stopped playing cards and a soul is rescued?

This actually happened at the last tournament in a T2 multi game. I was being attacked, gave up playing cards and then tossed the soul to the rescuing player. The uninvolved party was upset, because he was planning to CM when I was done playing blocks.

If you don't allow people to say something like "I'm about to surrender a soul," then you can't give the time or opportunity for other players to respond with their own actions. That's to be avoided as much as table talk.

The crux of table talk is that it involves either suggestions or information otherwise not available.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #35 on:** April 22, 2012, 05:10:37 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on April 22, 2012, 04:58:53 PM

The crux of table talk is that it involves either suggestions or information otherwise not available.

This is where we have to be careful about having a written definition, since we would be saying that veteran players cannot give suggestions to a newer player who would not otherwise know what to do. I do not agree with forbidding the assistance new players require.

Korunks · « **Reply #36 on:** April 22, 2012, 05:26:26 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on April 22, 2012, 05:10:37 PM

I do not agree with forbidding the assistance new players require.

I do have a problem when the experienced players can possibly manipulate inexperienced players to take actions that can win them the game. No suggestions, is better than having table manipulation. Lets not be naive and assume players only have the best intention in regards to helping. I have seen veteran players "help" one RLK at the expense of another, or to their own advantage. That is exactly the problem with allowing any table talk. I can't guarantee that each RLK will get equal help from a veteran, so I should allow the favorites, and underhanded veterans to win? Absolutely not!

Chris · « **Reply #37 on:** April 22, 2012, 05:40:45 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on April 22, 2012, 04:58:53 PM

So you went from "let's agree to disagree" to "your position is exactly what we're trying to avoid"?

All kidding aside, I still completely disagree with you that there is no difference. If I don't say "I'm about to surrender a soul," then what can I say to the person who is upset because they had no opportunity to play a dom between the time I stopped playing cards and a soul is rescued?

But that's still table talk. By saying that, anyone with some multi experience will know exactly what that means and the implications of it. I would either rather allow a defender to strategize with other people at the table to stop a rescue or just stop the table talk entirely. Your viewpoint leaves way too much up to interpretation of what's okay and what isn't, and it's going to give players the flexibility to see what they can or cannot get away with. I don't believe your answer is an answer at all.

Quote

If you don't allow people to say something like "I'm about to surrender a soul," then you can't give the time or opportunity for other players to respond with their own actions. That's to be avoided as much as table talk.

You can give them both the time and opportunity to do it. I really don't think that forcing a third party to take a risk when playing a CM to avoid a successful rescue is really a bad thing.

Quote

The crux of table talk is that it involves either suggestions or information otherwise not available.

I disagree, depending on exactly what you mean by "crux". "I'm about to surrender a soul" is giving information that would otherwise not be available. It's also suggesting, albeit not explicitly, that someone do something about it. It is table talk, and if you're going to allow that, I see no reason not to allow it more extensively since it doesn't make much of a difference beyond coordination anyway. Allow some but not all table talk, as I said before, doesn't solve anything, because it's possible to establish what is and isn't allowed except by host discretion, unless we establish a list of things that are okay to say, which is cumbersome and a bad answer.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #38 on:** April 22, 2012, 06:31:19 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on April 22, 2012, 05:26:26 PM

I do have a problem when the experienced players can possibly manipulate inexperienced players to take actions that can win them the game.

The same goes both ways, though. By not being able to say anything, a newer player may not realize that they could have just stopped the veteran from winning even though they were not in the battle. I would think that the other veteran players would interject if the dishonest veteran was giving bad advice.

The problem here is creating a written rule that would not allow the honest players to give suggestions to novice players during a tournament. You are forcing them to remain silent or knowingly break the rules.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #39 on:** April 22, 2012, 06:37:05 PM »

As a general rule I agree with Redoubter - But I can also see Chris' points quite well.

My feeling on the matter is that explicit table talk is not allowed - However, common courtesy in the form of waiting to hand a soul, and or stating what you are about to do is allowable, and in fact encouraged. Nothing bugs me more than a player just tossing a soul to the opponent with 3 while I'm holding Burial or Son of God in my hand....

In response to YMT - I can see your point about newer players, and at a local and even a district level I will be much more open and will frequently break the unwritten rules of table talking to assist newer players, even in 2Player events. However, at a Regional or National level I feel it should be understood that table talking will be highly frowned upon.

lp670sv · « **Reply #40 on:** April 22, 2012, 06:56:01 PM »

If you are a new player you should not be entering in a high level tournament and expect to win. We should not give new players advice during tournament games because human error is supposed to be part of the game, ignorance of the possible ways a card can be played is not an excuse to break this. If they explicity break a rule or play a card in a way that cannot be played that is one thing, but to tell them how to best use their own cards in game changes the outcome of the game to favor the person giving them the advice as 9/10 they are only taking issue with the way someone is playing because it does not help them win, or directly hurts their chances. The player at the table most likely to speak up when an RLK is blocking someone they shouldn't block is the person who is hinging on that player instead blocking someone else or the person being blocked who is not in the lead and wants the lost soul (thus telling them NO NO you don't want to block me because he's winning and you'll use up all your cards blocking me and have nothing against him). Casual games are were you teach a player to play, not tournament games. There is too much on the line to risk abuse of the table talk system of "oh well he's new so I'm just telling him he shouldn't block this guy but instead take the lost soul off the board". Such a statement has likely never been made by the guy with 4 souls and has the next turn, but is more than likely made by the guy with 3-4 who goes after him and is hoping to get more turns by denying the winning player the easy walk in win. So long as you allow "unqualified" players to play in tournament games with REPs newbies making bad plays will always cost SOMEONE a win, but that is fine as long as the person who lost didnt do so because of manipulation of the RLK/Newbie.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #41 on:** April 22, 2012, 07:33:31 PM »

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on April 22, 2012, 06:37:05 PM

In response to YMT - I can see your point about newer players, and at a local and even a district level I will be much more open and will frequently break the unwritten rules of table talking to assist newer players, even in 2Player events.

We are suggesting making these written rules, however. So now you would be knowingly breaking written rules during a tournament that awards RNRS points.

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on April 22, 2012, 06:37:05 PM

However, at a Regional or National level I feel it should be understood that table talking will be highly frowned upon.

I have no problem with having different written rules for the highest level tournaments.

Redoubter · « **Reply #42 on:** April 22, 2012, 09:10:41 PM »

Chris, while I do understand what you're saying...

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on April 22, 2012, 06:37:05 PM

My feeling on the matter is that explicit table talk is not allowed - However, common courtesy in the form of waiting to hand a soul, and or stating what you are about to do is allowable, and in fact encouraged. Nothing bugs me more than a player just tossing a soul to the opponent with 3 while I'm holding Burial or Son of God in my hand....

This. By saying what you are doing, you give other players the opportunity to play cards. It's the same as in a 2P where you ask if you have initiative on defense, you give your opponent a chance to play his dominants, you don't just start throwing enhancements down. It's bad form, frowned upon, and just plain rude

It makes perfect sense to allow statements of fact like that the soul is about to be surrendered in order to allow a response from all players, so that no one can complain that they had no opportunity.

And while I agree about the RLK-teaching, it should NOT be during a match where RNRS points are at stake. I actually had a situation this weekend where someone blocked me (at 2) and used up his last EC blocking me when the next player (at 4) could just walk in for any of the other 5 souls in the territory. Could he have beaten the leader? Doubtful. But it was still frustrating and took all of my patience to not explode and table talk.

After the round, however, I told him what the situation was and how to play it differently in multiplayer. I also plan to sit down with him and teach him the nuances of MP in the many situations that can arise (Shawn, if you read this, I will be trying to hold a multi clinic this week if you don't mind

).

THAT is when the teaching should occur: When no RNRS points are at stake. I can use the situation as an example, but not until the dust settles.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #43 on:** April 22, 2012, 09:18:30 PM »

I haven't read the whole thing, but I support free and unrestricted "table talk" in all categories. It's ridiculous to allow "if OOONNNLLLYYYYYY someone could play a CAAAAARRRRRDDDD to KIIIILLLLLLLL his Heeeeeerooooooooooo!?!?!?!?1one" but not, "Anyone have CM?"

Redoubter · « **Reply #44 on:** April 22, 2012, 09:28:28 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on April 22, 2012, 09:18:30 PM

I haven't read the whole thing, but I support free and unrestricted "table talk" in all categories. It's ridiculous to allow "if OOONNNLLLYYYYYY someone could play a CAAAAARRRRRDDDD to KIIIILLLLLLLL his Heeeeeerooooooooooo!?!?!?!?1one" but not, "Anyone have CM?"

See, I'm against both. I support being able to say when you are surrendering a soul because it gives the opportunity to all players to interact, should they so desire, without giving any instruction on what to do, or that anything even has to be done.

When this issue came up in a game this weekend, where someone in a multi game wanted to play doms but the soul got surrendered to fast, there was no chance of the person who won the soul winning, but they still wanted to play that particular rescue. They have that right, just as much as those in battle, to add their doms during battle resolution.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #45 on:** April 22, 2012, 09:31:50 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on April 22, 2012, 09:10:41 PM

After the round, however, I told him what the situation was and how to play it differently in multiplayer. I also plan to sit down with him and teach him the nuances of MP in the many situations that can arise (Shawn, if you read this, I will be trying to hold a multi clinic this week if you don't mind ).

THAT is when the teaching should occur: When no RNRS points are at stake. I can use the situation as an example, but not until the dust settles.

This is fine and dandy if the players are from your own personal playgroup. However, some of us have players that come to our tournaments that we've never met. They read about it online, then just show up.

We also don't have as much time between rounds as you seem to. I run a very tight ship with tournaments, so the rounds start and end promptly.

My voice has been meaningless of late, but I will not support a written rule that prohibits table talk intended to help new players, especially at the Local and District levels. If we are going to adopt an "all-or-nothing" rule, then I would vote for "all."

Redoubter · « **Reply #46 on:** April 22, 2012, 09:39:05 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on April 22, 2012, 09:31:50 PM

My voice has been meaningless of late, but I will not support a written rule that prohibits table talk intended to help new players, especially at the Local and District levels. If we are going to adopt an "all-or-nothing" rule, then I would vote for "all."

I do understand this opinion completely. I hope you understand my point that it is still an official tournament with RNRS points at stake, and as such should still be treated the same as a higher level tournament.

I suppose I do understand your point that not every area has the same time or connection between players in the region. I know almost everyone who comes to our Local and District tournaments, and we always leave a couple of minutes between rounds to recoup.

Honestly, what I told him between rounds took 30 seconds. A more detailed lesson will take longer, but the majority of the point was able to be communicated quickly.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #47 on:** April 22, 2012, 09:43:37 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on April 22, 2012, 09:39:05 PM

I hope you understand my point that it is still an official tournament with RNRS points at stake, and as such should still be treated the same as a higher level tournament.

I do understand, but I would argue that RNRS points are being gained just as much from people not saying anything as there are from people being manipulative. Since both extremes exist, I think we need to give the benefit of the doubt to those who are willing to honestly assist the novice players.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #48 on:** April 22, 2012, 09:48:12 PM »

Quote

When this issue came up in a game this weekend, where someone in a multi game wanted to play doms but the soul got surrendered to fast, there was no chance of the person who won the soul winning, but they still wanted to play that particular rescue. They have that right, just as much as those in battle, to add their doms during battle resolution.

That's not the issue here. The battle isn't even allowed to move to resolution until all players agree they're done playing things. The only way for any sort of "table-talk" rule to make sense is if people weren't allowed to talk period during a multiplayer game. Since that's ridiculous, and any sort of graduated rule would be like what I described before, I prefer no rule against it whatsoever.

Not to mention, letting negotiation be a skill in Multi will mean that one has to be skilled to win #flamefuel

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #49 on:** April 22, 2012, 09:54:05 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on April 22, 2012, 09:48:12 PM

Not to mention, letting negotiation be a skill in Multi will mean that one has to be skilled to win #flamefuel

More importantly, this game is intended to bring fun and fellowship. I don't see how either is accomplished if everyone is silent.

News:

Author Topic: What is the official rule on Table Talk in multi player (Read 7213 times)

Chris

Chris

Chris

Chris