Arena Tournament, Round 35: Syran vs Chilie III

[Talic]

High Ref Talic

It corrects the information issue. It invalidates the information that you looked at on her round 1 act 2. If we backed up to that point though, she'd have information she shouldn't (your location). Easiest way to handle the information breach is to effectively erase the look that's been determined to be illegal.

[chilepepper]

High Ref Talic

It corrects the information issue. It invalidates the information that you looked at on her round 1 act 2. If we backed up to that point though, she'd have information she shouldn't (your location). Easiest way to handle the information breach is to effectively erase the look that's been determined to be illegal.

But there wasn't a breach of information. I didn't learn anything by reading that post that I wouldn't have known anyway. Nobody gained or lost an advantage they wouldn't currently have anyway, and no rule was actually broken. I don't see how a rewind is called for here.

The other question: is this a moot point? Is Fishy still resigning the match?

[Talic]

High Ref Talic

As has been clarified, rule concerning looking at spoilers is only valid if you have LOS to the opponent. The rule states that you may look if you have LOS. When you looked, you had no way of knowing whether or not you had LOS for the entire opponent's action, as your look covered actions by Fishy that could very well have broken LOS.
The only way that LOS can be ascertained is if a ref provides it. (or if the player is incapable of breaking LOS, such as when one foe is invisible in the glass arena). Further instances where players look at action spoilers before they have concrete knowledge that all actions in that spoiler were performed with LOS will be dealt with as rules violations, unless this interpretation of those rules is overturned.
That said, I'm relatively sure that Fishy is maintaining the forfeit. I'll give it 'til morning, and make it official. If that's the case, then the rewind dispute you have is moot. If the match has been un-forfeited by then, based on resolution of the incident, then we'll deal with those concerns.

[chilepepper]

In the event Fishy doesn't want to forfeit, and in the interest of speeding things up; here's why I don't think there should be a rewind.

(spoilered because I don't want to soapbox unnecessarily, anyone can read that wants to)

Spoiler

Show

Per Kyeudo (I assume this would be in general)

...you merely need to prove different circumstances sufficient to grant a reroll of any one action in this match to be granted at least a rewind.

Okay, according to the letter of the rules, the look was valid. The rule has been clarified now, so it applies from the clarification forward, so the act of looking didn't actually break any rule.

He didn't move to break LoS, so the look was still valid.

I've already illustrated that all the information I got from looking I would have gotten without looking. That means whether I read it or metagamed it, I would have known everything I knew when I made my move in round 2. I think that clearly makes a rewind unnecessary and unjustified.

[Fishy]

Fido broke LoS, and you know his exact location. Forgot to mention that in the post where you establish how much smarter you are than everyone.

Regardless, I concede.

[chilepepper]

Fido broke LoS, and you know his exact location. Forgot to mention that in the post where you establish how much smarter you are than everyone.

Regardless, I concede.

Hmm, not sure which post it was where I established I was smarter than everyone else. I would dispute that though, I'm sure there's a couple other people here that would too. For instance, I don't know how you auto succeed on handle animal with a +5 when the DC is 10. I also don't know how when you issue a command to heel, which means "follow closely", your wolf ends up further away from you than when it started and further away from the starting point than you.

You are correct about the wolf and LoS though. I absolutely did miss that point and you are justified in asking for a rewind. But you are also justified in conceding the match. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but thanks for the win.

[Bayar]

This is not about learning what spell he casted or or about not breaking LOS.

It is about the rule that you are forbidden to look into peoples spoiler unless a ref says you are allowed (and usually the ref will tell you the location of the opponent rather than give you the right to look into his spoiler).

So regardless of breaking or not breaking LOS and valid looking, you broke a tournament rule. That is why you got a warning. Please try to understand the situation.

[Talic]

High Ref Talic

Fishy, Chile, please, try to calm down a bit. There's no need for any mudslinging on either side. I can understand this is a hot-button issue. Still, it is a game. No more, no less.

That said, concession is accepted.

Chile's character wins, and collects the prizes noted above.

[Fishy]

Owners of animal companions get a +4 bonus on Handle Animal checks involving their companion. 1d20+9 is always greater than 10.

[chilepepper]

This is not about learning what spell he casted or or about not breaking LOS.

It is about the rule that you are forbidden to look into peoples spoiler unless a ref says you are allowed (and usually the ref will tell you the location of the opponent rather than give you the right to look into his spoiler).

So regardless of breaking or not breaking LOS and valid looking, you broke a tournament rule. That is why you got a warning. Please try to understand the situation.

Funny thing is, I didn't break a rule.

Any actions done without LoS are posted in spoilers. Also, if one character is hiding and the other fails his Spot check, the hiding character gets to post in spoiler blocks, but gets to peek in the spotting character's actions as well. This is an honor system, so integrity is very important. Any accusations of cheating will be investigated by the High Referees.

I was hiding, it's impossible for Fishy to make the spot, I get to peek in his spoiler. The rule may be badly written, but I didn't break it.

What about this situation am I missing?

[chilepepper]

Owners of animal companions get a +4 bonus on Handle Animal checks involving their companion. 1d20+9 is always greater than 10.

See, I didn't know that. Guess I'm not as smart as you make me out to be ;)

[Mavian]

Woah bayar, keep it down. The rule in question was badly worded, and needs to be fixed, but there was a reason it was implemented. Now that its been shown to have problems, we'll go take another look at it. But there is no need for the lashing out.

[Bayar]

sry, didnt want to sound offensive or anything. Just trying to make a point.