Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Smokey on July 05, 2011, 09:07:36 PM
-
Q1.
I have Potiphar (May band to Potiphar's Wife) in battle with Egyptian Horses (ITB, d2, play next) and I play Enslaved by Egypt to capture a male hero.
All of that has to complete before banding abilities because of order of operations.
If I band to Potiphar's Wife (If male Heroes are defeated by a win or stalemate by Potiphar's wife, capture and place them in opponent's land of bondage instead) after I play Enslaved by Egypt does she get credit for it for her special ability because it doesn't trigger until battle resolution?
Q2.
My opponent has an activation triggered ability artifact active (Wash Basin: On activation, reveal the bottom X cards of an opponent's deck (limit 2). Discard the evil cards and place the rest on top or bottom of deck).
How does playing Destruction of Nethustan on it work, is it only discarded or does it negate the instant trigger and discard it?
When can I play DoN on it for it to be negated.
How does Dominant initiative work in phase change, does my opponent need to give me a chance to play a dominant during the window of opportunity I have to play DoN to negate it.
Q3.
Are Egyptian Wise Men magicians? They aren't listed in the REG as such. (I'm assuming it's outdated)
-
1. Very difficult to answer since "defeats" is not clearly defined. I would guess no since she didn't capture the Hero, Potiphar did.
2.a If played during the same phase, it fully negates it.
2.b See a
2.c See a
2.d Your opponent does need to allow for a dominant in response to anything he does before he switches phases.
3. No, "wise men" has been ruled too ambiguous to definitively be a magician.
-
1. Very difficult to answer since "defeats" is not clearly defined. I would guess no since she didn't capture the Hero, Potiphar did.
2.d Your opponent does need to allow for a dominant in response to anything he does before he switches phases.
1. Defeat is defined in the Reg as anything that stops a hero from rescuing a lost soul.
2. How would he go about that? Does it have to be verbal?
-
1. Yes, but it's a loose definition that doesn't take everything into account, and it's the definition for "defeat," not "defeats" (that is, who is it that's doing the defeating and when is it calculated).
2. It should be pretty obvious if your opponent is trying to rush it. Unfortunately there isn't a written rule for how any sort of initiative/phase check works.
-
Unfortunately there isn't a written rule for how any sort of initiative/phase check works.
I find that utterly ridiculous.
How could there be an absence of a written rule on how initiative and phase checks are acknowledged/passed.
Lets create a new definition for the game redemption:
A card game with loose definitions, vague wording, and unclear rules! oh joy!
-
Unfortunately there isn't a written rule for how any sort of initiative/phase check works.
I find that utterly ridiculous.
How could there be an absence of a written rule on how initiative and phase checks are acknowledged/passed.
Lets create a new definition for the game redemption:
A card game with loose definitions, vague wording, and unclear rules! oh joy!
Try javelin catching. Only one rule.
-
Try javelin catching. Only one rule.
Sure Ill play, I throw first. ;D
The absurdity that is redemption is not disputable.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me.
Sadly, Ive played card games for 15 years now and I know when I see ongoing problems that could easily be fixed.
-
And He can bring peace to the middle east and show me how to win NATS this year.
-
And He can bring peace to the middle east and show me how to win NATS this year.
1.)
Peace in the middle east:
Chuck Norris
2.)
Ill show you how to win nats:
Have me concede to you in the finals.
You think I am over hyping my play ability?
I am ranked top .001% of another card game (which is much more strategic) in the WORLD (out of 20 million people or so).
I've been featured in magazines as well as having my match broadcasted on ESPN 3.
My friends have sort of persuaded me to play redemption, even though it is an inferior game in design but not principal.
I have invented a new type of deck that I refer to as "type 1.5" and it easily catching on though out my state and eventually the nation.
Everyone should know there are many problems in redemption that could be fixed with a bit more effort from the play testers and game creator, Rob Anderson.
When my playgroup and I meet Rob Anderson next week, I will make sure to propose many changes to the game.
I know that I am not alone in thinking that redemption has many flaws.
I would love to restore redemption to prominence as the top card game of all time, unfortunately I do not have that power.
-
And He can bring peace to the middle east and show me how to win NATS this year.
1.)
Peace in the middle east:
Chuck Norris
2.)
Ill show you how to win nats:
Have me concede to you in the finals.
You think I am over hyping my play ability?
I am ranked top .001% of another card game (which is much more strategic) in the WORLD (out of 20 million people or so).
I've been featured in magazines as well as having my match broadcasted on ESPN 3.
My friends have sort of persuaded me to play redemption, even though it is an inferior game in design but not principal.
I have invented a new type of deck that I refer to as "type 1.5" and it easily catching on though out my state and eventually the nation.
Everyone should know there are many problems in redemption that could be fixed with a bit more effort from the play testers and game creator, Rob Anderson.
When my playgroup and I meet Rob Anderson next week, I will make sure to propose many changes to the game.
I know that I am not alone in thinking that redemption has many flaws.
I would love to restore redemption to prominence as the top card game of all time.
Wat...
-
You can't be top 0.0001% in Redemption, because there isn't 10K players. Therefore doing such means you're the best. And no one is able to come close to contesting Brian Cooper's deserved number one spot.
-
You think I am over hyping my play ability?
I am ranked top .001% of another card game (which is much more strategic) in the WORLD (out of 20 million people or so).
I've been featured in magazines as well as having my match broadcasted on ESPN 3.
I've heard about your success down in Florida, and I suspect you are a good player. However, I'm really hoping you get to go to Nats this year so that you can test yourself against the best players from around the country. I'm guessing that you'll come away with a greater sense of humility in addition to making some great friends :)
-
You can't be top 0.0001% in Redemption, because there isn't 10K players.
He said "another game," so I am certain he was not talking about Redemption. I can only assume he means MTG because of the numbers you mentioned.
I've heard about your success down in Florida, and I suspect you are a good player.
He still has to survive Regionals. :o
Besides, he hasn't played me yet (since I was hosting), and I am in the .001 percentile. ;)
-
When my playgroup and I meet Rob Anderson next week, I will make sure to propose many changes to the game.
I hope you will do so with more respect than you have shown in this thread.
-
I hope you will do so with more respect than you have shown in this thread.
Uhm, I hope you are referring to the guy who asked me to catch a javelin...
I don't expect people to agree with me, many people haven't invested the amount of time I have playing different card games.
Please explain to me how I have been disrespectful (even though you have no right to judge me).
Matthew 7:1-5 ESV
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye(emphasis added)? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. (emphasis added)
-
Uhm, I hope you are referring to the guy who asked me to catch a javelin...
He was joking. That is his usual humor, which being new to the boards you would not have realized.
I don't expect people to agree with me, many people haven't invested the amount of time I have playing different card games.
But some of us have. I have been playing many different card games over the last 15 years, ever since MTG started the CCG revolution. I was an official Pokemon Gym Trainer before becoming a Redemption host. Before MTG, there was only the standard deck card games, which I had been playing for 20 years before MTG came out. My parents taught me competitive card games ever since I was old enough to understand numbers and shapes. While the other kids were playing Chutes & Ladders, I was playing Bridge, Hearts and Spades.
I do not doubt that you have exceptional strategic ability, and that you can bring years of experience to this game. However, the manner in which you present your ideas determines whether you will be taken seriously. There are many other players in the Redemption ranks that are former MTG players, and some that were in the upper echelon (I believe Master KChief might be one). Your input could be a valuable tool if you will curb your disdain for Redemption's weaknesses long enough for your ideas to be heard. Right now, comments like the ones below will only make most of us tune you out before you even begin.
Please explain to me how I have been disrespectful (even though you have no right to judge me).
Certainly:
Everyone should know there are many problems in redemption that could be fixed with a bit more effort from the play testers and game creator, Rob Anderson.
You have no idea how much time Rob Anderson has put into Redemption, and Cactus Game Design does more than Redemption. Oh yeah, and then there's that whole being a husband and father thing.... but you wouldn't know about that, yet. ;)
Also, the playtesters are all volunteers from all over the country, so playtesting is likely very limited by each one's real life schedule.
The absurdity that is redemption is not disputable.
I would suggest that calling Redemption absurd would be disrespectful... maybe it's just me.... ::)
Lets create a new definition for the game redemption:
A card game with loose definitions, vague wording, and unclear rules! oh joy!
I really don't think I need to comment on this one.... :P
-
That verse has been taken out of content so many times. Also, I'm sure he would want to be measure the same way as he is measuring you (something that people tend to miss in those verses). By saying that his suggestion was a judgemental one, you are judging him as well. So, do you still want to use that verse?
Also, read what the Holy Bible say about pride before you try and throw a commonly misused verse at others.
-
FTR, I did notice that log in my eye. I have been taking it out piece by piece..... that's why I keep using this smiley: ;)
-
Let's not turn this into an Open Discussion thread. There are several very important questions in here.
-
All of the questions have been answered except for "how does one acknowledge the passing of initiative." That's been argued off and on for 4+ years.
-
Since when is Magic on ESPN? o_O. I assumed poker.
And speaking of poker, we should hold a poker tournament at nats.
-
All of the questions have been answered except for "how does one acknowledge the passing of initiative." That's been argued off and on for 4+ years.
We should probably have the discussion again. Maybe one of these times someone will actuall definitively rule.
-
I've stated before how I rule at my tournaments. If there is a dispute as to whether a player tried to prevent another player from using a dominant by slapjacking cards, then I will always side with the player who wanted to play their dominant.
So if you're at my tournament, it is in your own best interest to ask your opponent for initiative so that when you play your card, that they can't claim that they wanted to play a dominant first.
Since when is Magic on ESPN? o_O. I assumed poker.
Poker is NOT more strategic than Redemption. I don't know if MTG is, since I've never played it, but I've played poker, and I know that it is NOT.
-
Since when is Magic on ESPN? o_O. I assumed poker.
I was guessing that the Magic World Tour was televised at some point, since it is an international event.
-
I am ranked top .001% of another card game (which is much more strategic) in the WORLD (out of 20 million people or so).
Whoa. That's less than 0 percent.
-
I play both also (and by Poker I'm referring to Texas Hold'em overwhelmingly). Even though it doesn't seem intuitive, from personal experience it seems that Redemption is far more luck based and less dependent on skill then poker.
When I play against someone that I know just outclasses me in Redemption, I'll still win a surprising amount of games. When I play against someone that I know just outclasses me in poker, I'm going to lose all my chips. The only edge that I'll concede to Redemption in terms of strategy is deck building, which despite a seemingly infinite amount of combinations, follows a fairly loose guide. For the top decks, at least.
Although it has to be Magic beings "Majus Poker" doesn't result in anything.
-
The skill in Poker comes from elements not directly related to the game itself. It is a very simple game compared to Redemption.
-
The way that it is played directly enables the strategy. Whether you consider that part of the game or not is up to you
-
The skill in Poker comes from elements not directly related to the game itself. It is a very simple game compared to Redemption.
+1 Being good at Poker is all about reading your opponents and NOT allowing your opponents to read you. It is a game of psychology, not strategy.
-
+1 Some of that directly translates to CCGs.
-
+1 Some of that directly translates to CCGs.
+1, but although SOME of Redemption is about reading your opponent, it isn't practically the whole game :)
-
I've stated before how I rule at my tournaments. If there is a dispute as to whether a player tried to prevent another player from using a dominant by slapjacking cards, then I will always side with the player who wanted to play their dominant.
So if you're at my tournament, it is in your own best interest to ask your opponent for initiative so that when you play your card, that they can't claim that they wanted to play a dominant first.
I can not agree more with this "unofficial ruling", Its very intuitive and logical to have to pass and acknowledge initiative this way.
Since when is Magic on ESPN? o_O. I assumed poker.
Poker is NOT more strategic than Redemption. I don't know if MTG is, since I've never played it, but I've played poker, and I know that it is NOT.
I was featured on the JSS National championships, Magic Pro tour, Magic Grand Prix, and Worlds(which I lost on world-wide tv).
This was back in the day when they televised magic all the time, now they just put in on youtube or the wizards site.
I do not play texas hold em that much anymore.
-
I have tricked a few people into either battling or not battling me. The last tourney, I had no way to stop the next guy from winning the multiplayer game. I did, however, tricked the guy before him into battling me. Because of this, I was able to play FA on the person who was going to wil and I got the second half of SOG/NJ for the win. That was fun :).
-
Web definitions
scheme: an elaborate and systematic plan of action
the branch of military science dealing with military command and the planning and conduct of a war
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Strategy refers to a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal. The word is of military origin, deriving from the Greek word strategos, which roughly translates as general.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy
In game theory, a player's strategy in a game is a complete plan of action for whatever situation might arise; this fully determines the player's behaviour. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_(game_theory)
Strategy was a Canadian game show which debuted on the CBC on April 1, 1969. It was hosted by Alex Trebek and produced by Sidney M. Cohen. The show aired its final episode October 7, 1969.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_(game_show)
Perhaps psychology isn't strategy, which I believe it to be, but even then it directly dictates strategy and opens up an infinite amount of possibilities. Even with that in mind, Poker isn't "all about reading people". Obviously examining their bets and reactions when new cards are introduced or when you do something is important, but it isn't the only factor. Calculating how many hands can beat you given the table, in addition to the probability of each hand, is one example skill besides "reading people". Evaluating said probability and betting appropriately is another. Perhaps strategy isn't the best term to describe it beings it's so hard to define.
Redemption utilizes these to some extent, but not nearly as heavily as poker. Poker is essentially based around this. Perhaps strategy isn't the best term for this, I'd say skill is more appropriate.
-
So if you're at my tournament, it is in your own best interest to ask your opponent for initiative so that when you play your card, that they can't claim that they wanted to play a dominant first.
Just to clarify, are you saying that people should always ask for permission to move past any phase? The original question was a matter of battle initiative (I don't know why the word initiative was brought up, since the issue which spawned the question didn't involve playing a dominant during battle). Do you have verbally to ask, no matter how innocuous the artifact seems to you, if your opponent wants to DoN it before you can start your battle phase?
If yes that seems kind of... extra difficult. I feel like it could make games much more annoying if every turn you have to ask if your opponent wants to play a dominant. You'd essentially have to ask after every phase.
-
I was featured on the JSS National championships, Magic Pro tour, Magic Grand Prix, and Worlds(which I lost on world-wide tv).
Nice, do you still play?
-
So if you're at my tournament, it is in your own best interest to ask your opponent for initiative so that when you play your card, that they can't claim that they wanted to play a dominant first.
Just to clarify, are you saying that people should always ask for permission to move past any phase? The original question was a matter of battle initiative (I don't know why the word initiative was brought up, since the issue which spawned the question didn't involve playing a dominant during battle). Do you have verbally to ask, no matter how innocuous the artifact seems to you, if your opponent wants to DoN it before you can start your battle phase?
If yes that seems kind of... extra difficult. I feel like it could make games much more annoying if every turn you have to ask if your opponent wants to play a dominant. You'd essentially have to ask after every phase.
I almost always say "DON?" when activating artifacts that would matter once i go into battle. it's not really that difficult and if they say no and you go into battle and do something sneaky with the artifact they can't say"you went into battle to fast" because you verbally gave them a chance to do something. at least thats what i do.
-
I was featured on the JSS National championships, Magic Pro tour, Magic Grand Prix, and Worlds(which I lost on world-wide tv).
Nice, do you still play?
Occasionally, but not as a professional anymore.
-
Just to clarify, are you saying that people should always ask for permission to move past any phase?
No. A general thing to think about is ask if you would like to be asked. So if I turn up Gifts of the Magi, and I have Hur sitting in my territory, then I'll probably ask if my opponent would like to play a dom (DoN or CM). If my opponent chooses to go first and empties their hand of all but one card, then after I draw my 3 cards I'll probably ask if they want to play Mayhem. Stuff like this is usually pretty obvious, and simple courtesy to each other takes care of things.
As long as you ask when it is likely to matter, then you're covered. And if they complain sometime when it wouldn't matter, then you won't really care if it gets reversed.
-
In battle, I understand. However, in your examples above, things get a little sticky. If I suspect my opponent of a FTM, I'll drop everything as soon as possible. In the Hur/Gifts example, I'd attack from hand. It's not a good situation to play in, but there's such a drastic difference between the two.
-
You'd be breaking the rules if you tried to drop everything real quick in anticipation of a Mayhem, and any good judge would make you pick your cards back up.
Attacking with Hur from hand is perfectly fine, but if you flipped up Gifts and slapped Hur into battle from hand or territory or anywhere else, any good judge would make you go back if your opponent wanted to play DoN.
-
Attacking with Hur from hand is perfectly fine
I never knew you can "attack from hand"...
What a powerful move, there is no longer any need to play cards to territory then rescue?
-
Attacking with Hur from hand is perfectly fine
I never knew you can "attack from hand"...
What a powerful move, there is no longer any need to play cards to territory then rescue?
There never has been such a rule. Players have been able to attack and block from hand since I started playing Redemption, and that was a LONG time ago.
-
You'd be breaking the rules if you tried to drop everything real quick in anticipation of a Mayhem, and any good judge would make you pick your cards back up.
Attacking with Hur from hand is perfectly fine, but if you flipped up Gifts and slapped Hur into battle from hand or territory or anywhere else, any good judge would make you go back if your opponent wanted to play DoN.
Speaking from the position of an actual Tourny host/judge, I would allow it. Reasoning? There's nothing in the rules that says otherwise. It being the "right thing to do" is up to debate, but it is not a judges job to regulate morals, just gameplay.
-
Speaking from the position of an actual Tourny host/judge, I would allow it. Reasoning? There's nothing in the rules that says otherwise. It being the "right thing to do" is up to debate, but it is not a judges job to regulate morals, just gameplay.
Then you would be doing the players at your tournament a disservice. One point of the smaller tournaments is to help people prepare for the bigger tournaments. Therefore as a host, you should try to rule things the same way that they will be rules at Nats, so that your players will not be unprepared when they get there.
Multiple elders have posted regarding how to rule when players want to rush through phases etc. to beat dominants. That IS how it will be ruled at Nats. If you rule differently, then you are only hurting the people at your tournaments.
-
+1 Some of that directly translates to CCGs.
+1, but although SOME of Redemption is about reading your opponent, it isn't practically the whole game :)
I've read my opponents enough over the years to know that playing ANB drives them crazy. However, no matter how much they whine about either game, a spade is still a spade whereas ANB may soon become a spade.
-
This may be the first time I'll publicly disagree with an elder consensus, but here goes:
I'm not going to offer my opponent any opportunity to get one over me. I understand that there is a degree of politeness required, but I'm not going to telegraph my game any more than I have to. If they declare "Mayhem after draw," then I can't drop anything. Otherwise, I'll do what I can to win. If we get an official ruling announcement that I've got to announce the changing of every phase, then that's how I'll rule. Until then, I'll rule like I've played every Redemption game ever: The only two phase transitions requiring an announcement are Prep -> Battle and Discard -> Opp's Draw.
If there is an announcement, I'd ask that it be very specific.
-
You won't get an announcement saying as much. However I will state that the opponent must be given a reasonable amount of time to react to the playing of a card. You can't activate Gifts with one hand, while placing Hur into battle from the other. a good rule of thumb is about 10-20 seconds to process something like an artifact being activated - Back when I used to run Hur + Gifts I would generally activate Gifts, then sit and wait not saying anything to see if my opponent wanted to do anything, then rescue.
-
I'm not going to telegraph my game any more than I have to.
And in trying to avoid that, you will do the very thing. Because you'll be slamming down cards trying to beat their Mayhem getting to the table, then they'll call over a judge. The judge will make you shuffle all those cards back into your deck, just as if you didn't put them down. But the difference is that now your opponent knows a bunch of the cards in your deck and knows what to look out for. Do yourself a favor, and be more courteous to your opponents.
-
However I will state that the opponent must be given a reasonable amount of time to react to the playing of a card.
In the Mayhem example, I'm not reacting to the playing of a card.
While I still disagree, I'll rule as the Elders have said.
-
While I still disagree, I'll rule as the Elders have said.
I appreciate this willingness to submit to the authorities that happen to be in your life. This is a good example of what all of us should do in similar situations.