Obligation to Acknowledge Mark

[scarlet flame]

I would say that by not acknowledging the change in marked status, Tyler committed a Communicating Incorrect Game Information violation

By attempting to trigger Cindra's ability, Tyler showed that they resolved their card correctly so it wouldn't be a GRV. However, they didn't make Nic aware of the change in public information which led to a potential misplay of allowing the attack to hit and trigger Cindra

Due to the fact that Nic can gain a potentially significant advantage in not being marked, I would lean on the side of giving them a Failure to Maintain Game State as well for tracking purposes to help make sure it wasn't intentional/cheating

[dapper shuttle]

FTMGS is only given for Gameplay Infractions, and Communicating Incorrect Game Information isn't a Gameplay Infraction

[scarlet flame]

In this case, from Nic's perspective didn't Tyler commit a GRV though? While they later found out that Tyler meant to mark them, Nic was allowing them to just not correctly resolve their card, which would be a GRV

[dapper shuttle]

Then they didn't commit the Communication infraction, they just committed a GRV :P

If the GRV led to a communication breakdown at a later point then you can address that using that infraction's fix — I'm actually not sure whether this should be a GRV or a CIGI infraction, just wanted to point out that if you're ruling CIGI you shouldn't also issue a FTMGS

(personally I'd lean CIGI? If you mark an opponent or become marked are you obliged to represent that? If not I think it's understandable to assume you've successfully marked your opponent even if no marker was used)

[scarlet flame]

Would you give CIGI to both players? What if you investigate and Nic says they were hoping Tyler forgot about the mark because they got confused with recent missed trigger conversations and thought it was allowed?

[dapper shuttle]

In the latter case I would remind Nic that intentionally committing FTMGS is Cheating :P

And in the latter case I would also consider "I hope my opponent missed their effect" to be a "mess around and find out" situation — they took a risk by banking on ambiguity and it didn't work out the way they wanted.

[scarlet flame]

well for it to be cheating, the player would have to be aware that they have to remind their opponent about that

[dapper shuttle]

Yeah I've come around on this being a "no infraction no penalty" situation

[scarlet flame]

I'd love to hear an update on whether marked counts as public or visible

[daring knot]

For now I would say it is visible information, because 'state' of a card is mentioned in the TRP and in the release notes for the set.

[dapper shuttle]

The rules reprise for the set uses the word "status" to describe what Marked is, which has one irrelevant mention in the CR and no mention in the TRP. I think we may just have to wait for the CR update before saying anything definitive, but for now I'd guess it's public information since nothing is saying you're required to represent it. nvm

I also just looked at the actually updated CR (which fabjud.ge/cr doesn't link to?) and it doesn't mention the token

It definitely doesn't

Same here 🤝

Life totals are visible because you have to represent them somehow

[young shore]

Don't think this is something that is defined in the rules but has to be defined in policy

[dapper shuttle]

Those sections are non-comprehensive lists of examples iirc (hey can't put everything there) but considering we both came to the same conclusion I think private is a good bet

Sorry public* :P

[scarlet flame]

As much as I want marked to be visible, I actually think it's public because it would fall under "properties of public objects that differ from their printed properties"

[young shore]

The nice thing about public properties is that you can normally identify it's current state by looking at the board

You cant really for marked especially if the marking happened a while ago and you didn't pay attention to hits properly

[scarlet flame]

In this case you can get into weird situations like hit with klaive -> kiss of death against Mario. It's either 3 or 4 damage with an on hit depending on if the trigger was missed

[dapper shuttle]

I think in the stated scenario (where a player gets marked then becomes unmarked immediately) it's reasonable to not rummage through your tokens for your big X and put it on the board just to remove it on the next attack, but having a physical reminder when it persists is probably valuable to both players

A thought: is it acceptable note-taking to put a little X on your life pad to track that your opponent is marked, and then use another symbol (an O?) to indicate that they lost the mark?

Another note is that since marking isn't a visible change to the game state, a trigger that marks only needs to be acknowledged when that mark becomes relevant, right? Which can be turns later potentially? (Not a critique, I think this is fine, just making sure I'm thinking about it correctly)

[fervent elk]

Frokm speaking with Josh at Christchurch, its the responsibility of the player marking, or unmarking, their opponent to keep track of it

[pearl ingot]

I like that idea

[formal agate]

It's open information and relevant to how a player may choose to block (or play in general). Being marked or not can make the difference in pitching or keeping a defense reaction.

I'll abide by whatever the consensus may be, but imo it should be openly and clearly indicated upon being applied, and should otherwise be missable.

[scarlet flame]

I agree with that sentiment, but I think that with the rules as written it's considered public information and doesn't necessarily need to be announced until relevant

[formal agate]

So I marked my opponent 2 turns ago without indication, then start playing a sick take up the mantle line.

I then argue it's not my job to remind them they're marked until it's relevant.

this is a problem waiting to happen in high stakes events, followed by a bunch of outrage and then a rule update to prevent it from happening again. I'd rather be ahead of that curve.

[scarlet flame]

like I said, I agree with you on what it should be. I think it currently falls under "you're allowed to remind your opponent about their triggers, don't assume they forgot to mark you". Could be worth bringing up in a more public channel though if we think the rules can/should be changed

[formal agate]

am I allowed to reject an opponent's marked indicator and say "no, just remember whether I'm marked or not" ?