Arena Tournament, Round 35: Syran vs Chilie III

[ArenaManager]

Arena Tournament, Round 35: Syran vs. Chile III

Map:http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z123/TheChilliGod/Giantitp/Arena4ii.gif

Extra notes: Houses are on average 20 feet high (just use that average figure all over the house), hay piles are up to 10 feet high against the walls. And, I don't care whether you're immune to sanctuary effects, you are not immune to the arena's sanctuary effect. Creatures summoned during the 1st round are also affected by the sanctuary effect.

XP Award: 300 XP
GP Award: 300 GP

Fishy - Syran (http://www.thetangledweb.net/addon.php?addon=Profiler&page=view_char&cid=9008)
Chilepepper - Chile III (http://www.thetangledweb.net/addon.php?addon=Profiler&page=view_char&cid=8953&sid=3702033b26a0b49fb990758a933a5469)

All Combatants, please roll initiative.

[chilepepper]

No initial purchases.

[roll0]

[Fishy]

No money, no purchases.

Init: [roll0]

I get to keep my net from last round, right? I threw it, but it didn't hit anything, and wasn't destroyed.

[chilepepper]

Yes, anything borrowed or stolen is returned. You don't get it back if it's destroyed (or used, like a potion). It's all in the first post of the Waiting Room. Looks like I start, I'll get to it in a second.

[chilepepper]

Round 1

I'll start in C11 with a loaded sling in one hand and nothing in the other.

I'll move south past A15 breaking LoS.


Double move into A16, then back to A15 hiding.
[roll0] (-5 included)
At that range, there's no chance of either of them seeing me.


stats
HP: 5/5
AC: 18 T16 F13
Position: A15, hiding

edit: Done

[Fishy]

Syran - Round 1

Syran starts in D11, scroll in one hand, with the other free, and Fido in C11.


Standard: Cast Heroism, opting to share with Fido. DC 8 Caster Level Check: [roll0]
Free: Direct Fido to heel, automatically succeed.
Move: Syran to L11, Fido to M11.


Done, statblock in a moment when I find the right things to copy-paste.

[chilepepper]

Fix your starting position and repost your move, your red (W10-X11).

[Fishy]

Sure enough, you're right. Sorry.

Syran Round 1 again

Syran starts in W11, Fido in X11, scroll in one hand, other hand free.

Standard: Cast Heroism, opting to share with Fido. DC 8 Caster Level Check: [roll0]
Free: Direct Fido to heel, automatically succeed.
Move: Syran to Q14, Fido to Q16.

Done.

Statblock:
Syran:
Position: Q14
HP: 10/10
AC: 16, Touch: 13
Saves: +3/+4/+2
Horrible Death By Suffocation: 1/9,600
Fido:
Position: Q16
HP: 13/13
AC: 16, Touch: 12
Saves: +5/+5/+1

[chilepepper]

Swift action: Activate Law Devotion, bonus to attack
I'll be attacking defensively as well (-4 def., +3 law, -2 range).


You can see me peek out from A15, whir up my sling and let loose a bullet.
Attack [roll0] against your flat-footed AC
Damage [roll1]+[roll2]

Then I disappear, moving south.

Move action: south to A17, back to A15, and reallocate the law devotion to AC
Hide [roll3], again, because of range, I don't think he can spot me


stats
HP: 5/5
AC: 21 T19 F16
Position: A15, hiding
Condition: Law Devotion (+3 AC)


Done.

[Fishy]

Did you just read my spoiler?

[chilepepper]

Yep, and it's now your turn.

[Fishy]

Well, that was spoilered because you weren't supposed to read it, because we had no LoS. That's the whole point of spoilers.

[chilepepper]

I had LoS.

Rules
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.

edit: Oh, and there's no way you could have made the spot.

[Talic]

High Ref Talic

Chile's character had LOS at the time he looked in the spoiler, thus the look is legal.

I generally advise anyone (because of situations like this) to post actions as if opponent has LOS at all times, like the following example: (anyone may look).

My Actions:Cast a spell (Lv2):Heroism
CL check: [roll0]
Move to: XX.

@Refs:Stuff not related to your actions, such as questions, concerns, legality of something you want to attempt, etc.

The look was legal. LoS is established, by the slimmest of margins, between A15 and Q14. About 1 pixel in paint, actually. Chile's character made an attack with a sling and disappeared from view, travelling south, out of A15. Play resumes.

[Fishy]

For various reasons, I have no desire or intention to continue this match.

[Bayar]

Ref Bayar

Yeah, reading the spoiler without ref saying you have LOS is illegal. I dont think it matters if you think you have LOS or you KNOW you have LOS unless a referee confirms it. So I think that a High ref should rule if DQ is in order.

[Talic]

@Refs:Only issue there was that he knew he had LOS, because he had LOS at the start of his turn, and he knew he had LOS when he ended his turn, because his opponent couldn't have moved, and couldn't have readied an action, as it was round 1, part 1.

The ruling leaves a rather bad taste in my mouth, but that part in the arena rules allowing for spoiler reading is worded to benefit the sneaky type. For example, if Fishy had broken LOS with a double move, Chile would have gotten to see where Fishy moved to, even if he didn't have LOS to that final location. I think that section could definately use a rewrite/revision, but, I don't see any rule that Chile broke, as they currently are. My main point of the request is to get some input on the intended meaning of the text by the people that had a hand in putting it in there.

[Fishy]

Talic, respectfully, your interpretation three posts above me makes no sense.

Suppose I moved south to Y18. My opponent has LoS at the beginning of the move, but loses track of me somewhere along the way. If I wrote my move in the manner you describe, and he peeked, he'd see the end of my move, and have information he isn't allowed to have. Furthermore, because I do not know where LoS is broken, I can't solve this problem with formatting.

It's the Ref's job to say "You have LoS, peek at her spoiler," Or, "You have LoS, until she vanishes below Y15." This can't be done by the player.

[Mavian]

I have to agree with Fishy on this one.

Until a ref says you can look in your opponents spoiler, or gives you information, looking in a spoiler is illegal. Even if you know you have LoS, or assume so, it takes little time in the grand scheme of things to ask a ref to make sure.

There was no way for Chile to know if LoS existed after his opponents move, which means he should have asked for a LoS check, not just assumed.

[Talic]

High Ref Talic

In that case, with the above arguements made, I'll reverse my ruling.
To be honest, it left a bad taste in my mouth. I went by technicality, and lost site of something else. The Honor system is the primary thing here, and part of that is a sense of fair play. Rules-lawyering is a trait to be admired when applied to the D&D rules (Mavian is the prime example I'd like to use here), but not when applied to the Arena rules. Those rules are in place to build a fair system by which to compete. And that system only works when people follow the spirit of the rules. And the intent, fairly obvious, behind 3rd party LOS checks, and spoilered actions, is information control. Players should not have access to information that their characters can't observe.

@Refs:Next question. What should be done in a situation such as this?

If an LOS check had been requested, the result would have been constant LOS, allowing Chile to view it. In this, I suppose he's lucky that the opponent had LOS to him during the entire move. Should this be a disqual? Or is it enough for a warning? Mitigating factor does include minimal match impact, and a vaguely worded rule.

In either case, in my opinion, that spoiler-looking rule should probably be removed, to prevent confusion. If the ref is providing LOS, then it's an easy enough process to filter out what a player should see, from what he shouldn't. Examples in this current match would be the spell (Heroism). I know the rule works if everyone spoilers their info properly, but how often have we seen people who have badly formatted messages?

[Bayar]

Ref Bayar

@refs:
Now there is no true reason for a DQ, since it is a first offese. Just a warning. And I vote for match restart. Not that there is alot of stuff to restart...

[chilepepper]

A DQ is certainly NOT in order. There's nothing in the rules that says I have to wait for a ref to give me permission to look in a spoiler. It says if the spotter fails the spot, the hider gets to look. I can metagame that there is absolutely no way fishy or the animal could've spotted my hide. If you want to rewrite the rule, that's fine. But you can't DQ me for following the rules.

[Talic]

High Ref Talic

I agree, for what it's worth. Hence, in the above ref spoiler, I listed that very point as a mitigating factor in this instance. An unclear rule. I'm gonna give a bit more time for other high refs to weigh in, and, if none do, will likely issue a warning, make a request to have the rule clarified, and restart the match. This preserves information security, by making irrelevant the information that was viewed, makes the official stand on the rule clear (unless a higher ref overturns this, of course), and allows for everyone to get back to the important part here: Playing a game.

[chilepepper]

I don't know what's in the ref spoiler, I was only referring to

Ref BayarSo I think that a High ref should rule if DQ is in order.

[Bayar]

I don't know what's in the ref spoiler, I was only referring to

and I said "if". In my spoiler I said that it is not something major andfirst offense and deseves only a warning.

[chilepepper]

Fishy, I certainly don't want you to resign this match over this. If you're unhappy because I know you cast heroism, I would've known it anyway. If you had spoilered your move knowing I would look in the spoiler, I would have seen that you were casting a spell and I would have gotten a spellcraft check to identify it. Chances are that check would fail, but I know what spells you can cast. So if a ref had related the information to me instead, I would have known you cast SOME spell. I'm not in range for Daze, I didn't hear and Ghost Sounds; those are the one rounders. Read magic is pointless. Lullaby would've forced Will saves, so I would've known that. That leaves Heroism. Now that I've metagamed Heroism, I would've also known you shared it with your animal since it makes sense, and you've done it in previous matches.

[Bayar]

wait, daze isnt banned?

[Fishy]

That's not why I'm resigning, but thanks.

If Chile didn't break the word of the rules, but did something we want to discourage, then he shouldn't get a DQ, and the rule should be changed.

[Talic]

High Ref Talic

Very well, then. Consider a warning issued, all ye who read this. Wait for a ref to declare your LOS before making the assumption that a spoiler is allowed to read. If you have any doubt, do the safe thing, and ask a ref to make the call.

Provided both contestants wish to play this match, match will be rewound to Round 1, action 1.

If either player wishes to concede, I'll accept that as well.

I'll be PMing Kyeudo with a link to this match and the request above concerning the spoiler rule, just to make sure everything's above the board and fair here.

[chilepepper]

Why are we rewinding?

[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)
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.