How should we handle playing with bugged cards?

    • How should we handle playing with bugged cards?

      I ran into a dilemma today when my opponent played an Ayotochi Cavalry, put a valor on it, and attacked me. I learned that I was allowed to block, mentioned it to my opponent, and we concluded it was a known bug.

      This put me in an interesting spot over the next few turns as I kept getting attacked. To me, it seemed fair to treat it as though I couldn't block it, in spite of the bug, although I felt I was under no obligation to treat it as such. So, I let it through a couple of times, and blocked other things instead. Eventually, he attacked in such a way where that was only good block, and I was faced with my dilemma again. This time, I decided to block it, and there was a heated (but civil) discussion about it in the battle chat.

      So, what's the unwritten rule here? Is it a mean/inappropriate thing to do, to block a bugged card that I shouldn't be able to block? Obviously I CAN block it, but I am talking from a social perspective here. There are few points I considered:

      -I in no way created a bug, caused a bug to happen midgame, or controlled my opponent's play. The existence of the bug and the dilemma that was caused was completely out of my control.
      -I really do care about my opponent's gameplay experience. If I had thought they would get angry (which he didn't), I would not have blocked ever. To me, making the community friendly is more important than one game.
      -When I have faced bug problems in the past, by watching streamers, or by playing with bugged cards myself, the general feeling I had was that bugged cards shouldn't be run, unless you are comfortable running the bugged version (gamebreaking bugs should not be run at all).
      -If someone was unaware of a bug, the responsibility lies on them to check the known bugs list on the forums (This was the official response I received from staff when I wrote a ticket after my card didn't function as I expected it to in a previous draft)

      Is it reasonable to expect your opponents to pretend bugged cards function properly? Is there a civil responsibility to play the game the way the developers intended, even when they failed to create the game in the intended way?
    • I think I would have come to the conclusion too, Gregangel, if I hadn't had other experiences with bugs in the past. I wish I hadn't blocked, but I certainly felt like there was nothing wrong with it, given my past experiences with bugs.

      EDIT: And just to be completely clear, it's not like he attacked into my 4/4 and I let it through. The non-blocks on the Cavalry were all reasonable with or without the bug, except one in question.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by MantisAnt ().

    • My thoughts:
      • If, by player co-operation, the intended functionality of the card can be restored with no other ill effects on the game state, then in an ideal world the players should do that. If you know and trust the other player, then absolutely cooperate.
      • However, it's really hard to trust that a rando opponent would do the same if your situations were reversed, so refusing to cooperate is understandable, in the absence of an official rule saying "cooperate or be banned". I think such a ruling would be a mistake, though, since it would be really hard to enforce fairly.
      • It's a player's responsibility to be aware of cards that are bugged in a way that disadvantages them, and to avoid playing those cards if they're not OK with those disadvantages.
      • If a card is bugged in a way that bestows an advantage to the player playing them, players should refrain from playing those cards, and ideally the card should be banned from play until fixed. Players who intentionally abuse such bugs should be banned.
    • I don't see why it matters whether your opponent would do the right thing if the situations were reversed. All you can control is yourself, and you should absolutely do the right thing and not take advantage of the bug by blocking. Saying that people shouldn't play with the card if they're not OK with the disadvantages is just a way of justifying being a jerk. Don't be a jerk.
    • By doing the right thing, you're effectively playing a different format from your potential opponents (one where your ruby decks are weaker than theirs, in this case) and putting yourself at a disadvantage. Playing with the cards as they're implemented is fair to everyone, even if it's not ideal.

      Edit: To clarify, I think blocking a valorous cavalry is poor form and I don't think I would do it, but I don't think it should be punishable either, because this is a competitive game with money on the line and it's not fair to expect someone to voluntarily put themselves at a disadvantage if their opponent might not do the same if the roles were reversed.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Thoom ().

    • I don't think it should be punishable. But anyone that does it intentionally, knowing they're exploiting a bug, is being a jerk. Its bad for the game as a whole. Screw fairness and just do the right thing and if your opponent doesn't do the same, privately revel in the fact that they are a jerk and you are not.
    • Let's get technical here and apply Kant's categorical imperative. If everyone always blocks the Ayotochi Cavalry, what happens? If no one blocks the Ayotochi Cavalry, what happens?

      EVERYONE
      • Ayotochi Cavalry is a bad card that experienced players avoid
      • Inexperienced players get surprised when the card doesn't work like they expect
      NO ONE
      • Ayotochi Cavalry is good in some circumstances
      • We create a moral hazard, wherein players gain an advantage by breaking social norms with no consequences


      Creating moral hazards in a game is really bad and never works out. That's why physical games always require you to reveal cards when you search. Without the game engine enforcing rules, "Search your deck for a troop" gets you any card you want. So then we have to look at the consequences of everyone blocking. Do we actually harm anyone such that there's a true moral dilemma?

      Ultimately, my opinion is that creating the circumstance where you essentially have no idea what a card does against an opponent is the worst outcome here. In that case your choices are to be dishonest or to apply moral pressure to win a game:
      • Conceal your knowledge of the bug and hope your opponent doesn't think to block it (dishonest)
      • Try to convince your opponent that they should let it through (manipulative)


      So mixing in those virtue ethics I come to the following tenets:
      • I should not play Ayotochi Cavalry in more casual formats to minimize discomfort for my opponents.
      • In more competitive formats, I should expect it to be blocked and make the ability to do so clear to my opponent.
      • In the casual formats, I will only block it against players I expect should know better (i.e. Gold+ or in a final round).
      • In the competitive formats, I will block it when advantageous. (Corollary: if I want to let my opponent win, there's a concede button for that)
      • I will never get mad at my opponent for blocking the troop.
      • I will thank my opponent for not blocking, because I know he did not need to do so.
      • I will never not block it for the purpose of making my opponent think I don't know how the card works to then surprise block it later.


      TL;DR - it's not my job to help my opponent win, but I'm also not 100% a dick
    • Thank you for the responses. I wanted to see the situation through other eyes, to challenge my behavior in that situation. You have helped me do just that, so thanks.

      I think Galliard was sort of going in the direction that I was feeling. I wanted to let the cavalry through, but I saw a moral dilemma in doing so (the only options being either supportive of dishonesty or manipulation). When push came to shove, I chose to block, and I didn't do so because I wanted to win. I did so because (primarily) when I raised the point with the staff in the past (in the form of submitting a ticket when I lost due to a bug I didn't know), the policy seemed to firmly place the responsibility on me. Applying to this situation, I felt it was going against the cultural norm to take on the responsibility for the bug on myself. Whether I agreed or not, the responsibility was on my opponent, as the developers intend, in my mind. When faced with a hard situation, that was the logic I fell back on.

      I assumed that since my opponent knew it was a bug, he knew I could block. I thought we were cooperating. It turns out that he assumed that I wouldn't block. It's a bit dangerous to say that I was a jerk for not having the same assumption as him. If he had said "So, since he's bugged, you aren't going to block, correct?" or anything at all that gave me the impression that expected me to behave in such a way. I considered it on my own terms.

      In the end, I think I should have let it through in that specific circumstance. I was confused, saw two equally valid lines of thought, and chose one that made the most sense at the time. But, knowing that my opponent didn't have the same experiences I did, and having a different logic about how HEX handles bugs, I could have done better. I could have anticipated that it feels bad to have bugs cost you games. I remember feeling surprised and disheartened when I learned it was my responsibility to handle bugs, and that being ignorant of the social norms was not an excuse. I could have been more considerate.

      However, I think the most 'fair' thing to assume is that my opponent's are working under the tenants that Galliard laid out. That was what I did, and I behaved under that assumption. It turns out I was wrong, and for that, I challenge myself to do better the next time it comes up.
    • Mystery mentioned 'you should do the right thing'. I completely agree with this. However, it's not clear what 'the right thing' is. It may be obvious to some people, but from a technical standpoint, it is not obvious to me. I had conflicting ideas of what 'the right thing' was. I was working under different assumptions than my opponent.a

      I hope it is obvious, that that is exactly what this post was about. What is 'the right thing'? I would like to cooperate to restore the game to an unbugged state. What does that look like?
    • MantisAnt wrote:

      Mystery mentioned 'you should do the right thing'. I completely agree with this. However, it's not clear what 'the right thing' is. It may be obvious to some people, but from a technical standpoint, it is not obvious to me. I had conflicting ideas of what 'the right thing' was. I was working under different assumptions than my opponent.a

      I hope it is obvious, that that is exactly what this post was about. What is 'the right thing'? I would like to cooperate to restore the game to an unbugged state. What does that look like?
      I think the closest to a "right thing" you can get here is to be consistent with how you treat it in an individual game. Not blocking it a few times can be perceived as an agreement to never do so, which results in hurt feelings if you decide to later.

      This is the kind of situation that doesn't really come up in physical games. The closest I can think of is a game that has an obvious flaw in its rules and there's a proposed house rule to fix it. Expecting someone you don't know to agree to that house rule is unreasonable. But agreeing to it and then breaking it is worse.
    • I was playing in an evo game with the ayotochi, and I put a valor on it. My opponent was kind enough to mention that the card is bugged and that he can block it, before i declared attacks.

      Because of that I did not attack with it, and we played as if the card was bugged.

      Of course I lost :) but even without that I would of lost .

      I believe both players should consider it bugged with a courtesy message.
    • There is no dilemma IMO. If the card is bugged, you play it as if the card is bugged. At least it's like that on all the PvP games I have played, from Counter Strike to League of Legend. Your opponents(most of the time) aren't going to show you mercy just because of the bug, some even take advantage of the bug, so you should not expect to show mercy either. And it's not everyone's fault, the game is at fault, so there is no need to put yourself in a dilemma. Just give middle finger to the game and move on. The best you can suggest to ask your opponent is to send a support ticket to Hex for a ticket of whatever format you are playing. I did the same on Set 2 when Grave Nibbler is bugged(it will not become a 4/4 no matter what). I was told the card is bugged by my opponent, I proceed to tell every opponent that didn't know about the bug and ask them to submit a ticket to HexEnt. In the actual games, we just play a normal game.

      I submitted a ticket after my first encounter with the bug and got a draft ticket out of it, then I just avoid the crap out of the card until it's fixed. The only dick move in this situation is if I keep picking the cards and sending tickets to get tickets out of HexEnt.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Goliathus ().

    • For the record, I played a Draft match recently where my opponent played an Ayatochi Cavalry and put a Valor on it early in the 1st game. I told him to be careful and that the card was bugged (known issue) but that I would act as if I couldn't block it. He told me I could do, and would be fine with it... but I prefered to stick to my fairness and didn't block it, which cost me the game.
      I don't remember if I won the match in the end or not (I just remember winning game 2), but I'm not mad at all for being "nice" and "fair". If it was a big tournament with prizes? Honestly I don't know if I would have acted the same or not, especially with my opponent agreeing to being blocked...
      The silent death always comes from behind... so you'd better watch your back!

      KS Dungeon Crawler / Pro Player -|- Member of The Unnamed-Council - the Hex TCG PvE Guild -|- Known Issues
    • Really depends on the nature of the bug, in my opinion. If you can continue to play the game as if it weren't bugged (as is the case here), then I think you should do that, just as how in a paper TCG you would follow the rules of the cards even without a judge looking over your shoulder. If it's not possible to do that (e.g., Witch's Protection not creating a priority window) then I don't think you need to do something crazy convoluted to pretend the bug doesn't exist (e.g., they say they would have Strangled it in response, so you play like it's dead and they play like they don't have the Strangle), just let the chips fall where they may.
    • If this is a serious bug and the developers take it seriously enough, the card should have been disabled until it is fixed. Until then, every player who plays or faces it, does so at their own risk. Any course of action that is tacitly approved by the game, is equally acceptable to me.
      "Winning with terrormill is not fun? Try losing with it"