Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Gohanick on July 16, 2009, 01:29:03 PM
-
Rescuer Rob has Angel of the lord in his hand and goes out for a rescue with a 5/5 Hero
Defender Dan has a 3/3 Evil character and wants to play Grapes of Wrath to shuffle Rob's Hero back to deck (Rob has the most souls)
Defender Dan brings his evil character into battle.
Who has initiative to play the first dominant?
-
Hmmm, interestinly enough I believe it would be Dan as he gets the first chance to respond to his own action (blocking).
-
Dominants are slapjackey. There's no way around it. Never has been.
See also:
We both are at 4 redeemed souls, both holding Son of God, no lost souls in play, someone draws a lost soul.
In my opinion, if it is your turn, you should get precedence to play dominants (and going clockwise around the table, in multiplayer.) It would solve a lot of this. Slapjack not only adds a dexterity element to an otherwise strategic game, it also is problematic when considering players who are elderly, younger, or have handicaps that may prevent them from quickly slamming cards down on the table.
ETA: Just to clarify, in this situation, I believe the correct ruling to be that it is merely whoever plays the dominant first. I just think that it should not be this way.
-
Precedent goes to whoever would have normal initative. However, in this case, Rob should make a verbal check, something along the lines of hey, it's goign to be your initiative, but... etc. At this point Dan would interject his Grapes of Wrath play.
In Josiah's case, whoever draws the lost soul will always redeem, if only for the sake that you can place the Son of God down with the soul simultaneously. However, there is a REG ruling somehwere that states the player cuasing the situation gains precedence to change it.
-
Guardian is correct that most judges have stated previously that they would rule in favor of the person who person who controlled the most recent action (blocking in this case) if both players dropped their dominants close enough together that there was an argument over who was first.
-
There's no such thing as "initiative to play a Dominant". If both players play their Dominant at the same time then the tie goes to the person who responded to their own action (Dan in the example). If one play hesitates and the other plays their Dominant, it's over. The faster player gets it.
-
whichever hits the table. i love rts cuz it knows exactly who clicked it first.
-
While your techincally right, that doesn't change the fact that Rob should be verbally confirming iniative and Dan should respond. I feel like confirming iniative is in the rulebook, but I'm almost certainly wrong considering I don't have it on me right now.
-
whichever hits the table. i love rts cuz it knows exactly who clicked it first.
This is not true. If players click simultaneously or even close to it, it will show up as both players getting theirs down first on their own screen.
-
This goes right back to the whole big hero with AotL against little hero with initiative and a discarding enhancement. There's something along the lines of saying "I'm going to AotL anything you block with" but then of course I'll block with several characters banded together even if I DON'T get initiative because now I know that. Grr.
-
whichever hits the table. i love rts cuz it knows exactly who clicked it first.
This is not true. If players click simultaneously or even close to it, it will show up as both players getting theirs down first on their own screen.
nope, u look at the Chat screen. that tells who played it first. case rested. :maul:
-
While your techincally right, that doesn't change the fact that Rob should be verbally confirming iniative and Dan should respond. I feel like confirming iniative is in the rulebook, but I'm almost certainly wrong considering I don't have it on me right now.
they are called DOMINANT for a reason.
-
Is Rob/Dan Required to perform a verbal initiative check first before any dominants are played?
-
Your wrong on both accounts. Read Justin's post again. He's right. As for Dominants, they still require a verbal check to interrupt the normal flow of the game. Also DOMINANTS really aren't that dominant seeing as they can't interrupt abilities, etc.
Is Rob/Dan Required to perform a verbal initiative check first before any dominants are played?
I would say yes but I am unsure of rulebook backing.
-
they can still be played before anything else whenever you feel like it unless an effect takes place first.
-
This goes right back to the whole big hero with AotL against little hero with initiative and a discarding enhancement. There's something along the lines of saying "I'm going to AotL anything you block with" but then of course I'll block with several characters banded together even if I DON'T get initiative because now I know that. Grr.
This is no longer an issue because of the initiative check that must take place. An EC cannot play an enhancement (unless a special ability allows him to) until the rescuer grants initiative.
nope, u look at the Chat screen. that tells who played it first. case rested.
Nope. If we both put a card in play at the same time, it's going show up on my screen like I played mine first and on your screen it will say you played yours first. I've had that happen many times.
-
Yes, but that's not the point. The point is your supposed to, even if it's not a rule per se, verbally confirm the flow of the battle. If you want to interrupt that, you make it known, you don't just slapjack.
-
Nope. If we both put a card in play at the same time, it's going show up on my screen like I played mine first and on your screen it will say you played yours first. I've had that happen many times.
Justin is correct. I've seen it multiple times too.
Yes, but that's not the point. The point is your supposed to, even if it's not a rule per se, verbally confirm the flow of the battle. If you want to interrupt that, you make it known, you don't just slapjack.
This is true for initiative and playing enhancements. It's not true of Dominants. There is no such thing as "initiative" for Dominants. You play them whenever you want (and another ability isn't completing). You don't need to ask permission to play your Dominants. Whoever plays it first gets to use the ability first.
-
This happens in my play group alot:
ex.
Tie game 3-3
Alex: RA's with a hero
Daniel: Blocks with a larger villain
Alex: Plays a Card that allows him to draw, he gets a lost Soul, he plays draws another card
Both: SoG/NJ
I always rule that the person reacts to their own actions first, So I give the game to Alex. Further:
Daniel: RA with a Hero
Alex : Blocks with a same sized EC (Mutual Destruction)
Daniel trys to play an enhancement, While Alex drops CM. I rule for Alex, he gets first chance to respond to his action.
Is this how it should be? Is this the way it currently plays?
-
Is Rob/Dan Required to perform a verbal initiative check first before any dominants are played?
No, you are not REQUIRED to do a verbal check, but it is in your best interest. Most hosts have ruled that if you play your dominant before doing a verbal check that they will make you take it back and then your opponent will gain the advantage of knowing what your cards are and what you want to do with them.
So it is better to do the verbal check first, and then play the dominant.
-
So you would agree Brian that if both dominants hit the table first, then Dan's would be ruled in favor of?
-
though you can just say hey hold up a min if they r goin 2 fast 4 u by playing enhancments b4 u grant nish.
-
There is no such thing as "initiative" for Dominants. You play them whenever you want (and another ability isn't completing). You don't need to ask permission to play your Dominants. Whoever plays it first gets to use the ability first.
This is correct.
And stupid.
-
There is no such thing as "initiative" for Dominants. You play them whenever you want (and another ability isn't completing). You don't need to ask permission to play your Dominants. Whoever plays it first gets to use the ability first.
This is correct.
And stupid.
this is correct
and it works perfectly fine.
-
So you would agree Brian that if both dominants hit the table first, then Dan's would be ruled in favor of?
If it's a tie, then, yes.
-
It doesn't need to be stupid. The only thing we can't really pre-determine is when in a MP game, two players are waiting to play SoG/NJ but there aren't enough Lost Souls on the table. A third player puts down two Lost Souls, assuming both players have dominants in hand to slap down at moment's notice, it's going to be virtually simultaneous.
Honestly, if I had to make a ruling on that, I'd probably call it a tie.
-
So you would agree Brian that if both dominants hit the table first, then Dan's would be ruled in favor of?
If it's a tie, then, yes.
Brian Am I ruling it correctly?
-
in a MP game, two players are waiting to play SoG/NJ but there aren't enough Lost Souls on the table. A third player puts down two Lost Souls, assuming both players have dominants in hand to slap down at moment's notice, it's going to be virtually simultaneous.
I think going clock-wise around the table makes as much sense as anything. Ties ftl :)
-
There is no such thing as "initiative" for Dominants. You play them whenever you want (and another ability isn't completing). You don't need to ask permission to play your Dominants. Whoever plays it first gets to use the ability first.
This is correct.
And stupid.
this is correct
and it works perfectly fine.
False. If it was fine, there wouldn't be arguments about it. Verbal checking is ALWAYS the best way to go.
-
Brian Am I ruling it correctly?
Example #1 - Alex vs. Dan. If both play SoG/NJ at the same time, yes, Alex gets to respond to his own action first (drawing the LS). You ruled that correctly.
Example #2 - Alex vs. Dan. Yes, you ruled it correctly but not for the right reason. Nothing about the situation has to do with responding to your own action because you're dealing with very different card types. Dominants can be played anytime. In this case Alex can play his CM before the players agree on who gets initiative. On the other hand, Enhancements can only be played according to initiative. Before Dan can play his enhancement he needs to confirm with Alex that he has initiative (verbal check is best but not required).
End result, +2 for you. :)
-
Cool Beans, At least I got it right :)
-
Some of the reasons it does not work just fine are as follows:
-Adds dexterity to a game of strategy. It is doubtful this is an intended or beneficial result. It is more likely "something we have to live with" (and we don't actually)
-Disadvantages the handicapped, or even just small kids or elderly players. Someone with the use of only one hand will need to set their hand down to draw new cards. If they draw a lost soul and then want to play Son of God, their opponent will likely have beat them to the punch. And the "last action taken" think only applies as a tiebreaker.
-It's outdated. AotL, for example, was not designed in an era of ongoing evil character abilities, interrupts, etc.
-It's even worse in multiplayer. If you rule the "last action" thing (i.e., Grapes of Wrath wins in the OP's example) AotL would actually win in multiplayer cases where a third player (not involved in battle) wants to play GoW, because people outside the battle have no "last action."
-Creates confusion. Look at this thread. A simple rule about who can play dominants when and how they take precedence over other cards would be wonderful.
I would suggest:
"Dominants can be played at any time by any player. Enhancements may not be played until initiative has been determined and both players have passed their opportunity to play a dominant. In cases where more than one player would like to play a Dominant, start with the player who's turn it is and go clockwise around the table giving each player the opportunity to play a dominant or dominants. If all players pass this opportunity, the player with initiative in battle must either play an enhancement or concede the loss, giving over a lost soul if applicable."
Note that this rule would also stop the Multiplayer problem of "he's gonna win, you play christian martyr" "no, you play it" "well YOU can play burial" ad nauseam.
-
I think going clock-wise around the table makes as much sense as anything. Ties ftl
No way. There is no reason a player should lose out for the sole reason he got stuck in the wrong seat. If two players have earned enough LS where they both just need to play SoG/NJ to win and they both play those at the same time (to the naked eye), then they both deserve to win.
-
It doesn't need to be stupid. The only thing we can't really pre-determine is when in a MP game, two players are waiting to play SoG/NJ but there aren't enough Lost Souls on the table. A third player puts down two Lost Souls, assuming both players have dominants in hand to slap down at moment's notice, it's going to be virtually simultaneous.
Honestly, if I had to make a ruling on that, I'd probably call it a tie.
If there are only 2 LS in play and SoG/NJ rescue exactly two souls how can you have a tie between 2 players both using SoG/NJ? Wouldn't that require 4 LS? :scratch:
-
I would rule it that way for lack of a better alternative.
-
-Disadvantages the handicapped, or even just small kids or elderly players. Someone with the use of only one hand will need to set their hand down to draw new cards. If they draw a lost soul and then want to play Son of God, their opponent will likely have beat them to the punch. And the "last action taken" think only applies as a tiebreaker.
I agree with your conclusion that we need a consistent rule regarding dominant play. However I disagree that the reason is because old people (or little kids) have slower reflexes. What if I have slower mental reasoning or reading ability and can't figure out what to play within the time limits? Should the time limits be extended? What if I can't sit in one place for 45 mins? Should all matches have a half-time for people to walk around. I think you make a game, and then people chose whether to play it. If a handicap makes it more difficult, then they have to overcome that, or play a different game. I know that sounds harsh, but otherwise you end up totally changing the game to make it possible for EVERYONE to play it. Imagine changing the rules of football so that quadriplegics could be just as good as the current players. It wouldn't be football anymore.
-
Please remember that when we discusss rule changes concerning the lost soul "issue" you seem to think exists. Thanks.
-
if the situation ever came up in multi where two players are waiting to drop sog/nj on two lost souls and do so, i would award each player 1 lost soul, then continue the game each at 4 lost souls, effectively fizzling their nj's. makes it more interesting :)
-
I agree with your conclusion that we need a consistent rule regarding dominant play. However I disagree that the reason is because old people (or little kids) have slower reflexes.
I never said that. I was referring to physical handicaps, as evidenced by the example I gave of the person with the use of only one hand.
Imagine changing the rules of football so that quadriplegics could be just as good as the current players. It wouldn't be football anymore.
Football is a game of dexterity.
Imagine changing the rules of chess to accomodate quadriplegics. It would... be completely reasonable.
-
Ok, whoever plays it first gets it.
In the event of ties, last action.
How is this a problem again?
Btw, i just thought if you were playing multi and your two opponents were fighting for a LS, I think it would be funny to play SoG on that Lost Soul why they were fighting for it. Lol. Or is that against the rules?
-
I also think that it's far overdue to standardize Dominant play. I don't personally have a solution, but there's absolutely no reason to still be "whoever throws it down first" this far into the life of the game.
-
In the extremely rare case in which two players throw down SOG/NJ as another player draws two souls, and it was viturally simultaneous, I would probably have the two players flip a coin or roll a die. I realize that's not perfect either, but only one of them can rescue the two souls, and somebody should. It's probably the fairest solution.
Kevin Shride
-
I disagree that the reason is because old people (or little kids) have slower reflexes.
I never said that.
I think you did. You also talked about people with one arm, but you did also mention the elderly and kids.
-Disadvantages the handicapped, or even just small kids or elderly players.
Imagine changing the rules of chess to accomodate quadriplegics. It would... be completely reasonable.
Good point.
-
I also think that it's far overdue to standardize Dominant play. I don't personally have a solution, but there's absolutely no reason to still be "whoever throws it down first" this far into the life of the game.
Thank you. This is exactly what I am trying (an apparently failing) to get across.
-
we could ad the "win by two rule" ::) :thumbup: :2cents:s
-
Some of the reasons it does not work just fine are as follows:
-Adds dexterity to a game of strategy. It is doubtful this is an intended or beneficial result. It is more likely "something we have to live with" (and we don't actually)
-Disadvantages the handicapped, or even just small kids or elderly players. Someone with the use of only one hand will need to set their hand down to draw new cards. If they draw a lost soul and then want to play Son of God, their opponent will likely have beat them to the punch. And the "last action taken" think only applies as a tiebreaker.
-It's outdated. AotL, for example, was not designed in an era of ongoing evil character abilities, interrupts, etc.
-It's even worse in multiplayer. If you rule the "last action" thing (i.e., Grapes of Wrath wins in the OP's example) AotL would actually win in multiplayer cases where a third player (not involved in battle) wants to play GoW, because people outside the battle have no "last action."
-Creates confusion. Look at this thread. A simple rule about who can play dominants when and how they take precedence over other cards would be wonderful.
I would suggest:
"Dominants can be played at any time by any player. Enhancements may not be played until initiative has been determined and both players have passed their opportunity to play a dominant. In cases where more than one player would like to play a Dominant, start with the player who's turn it is and go clockwise around the table giving each player the opportunity to play a dominant or dominants. If all players pass this opportunity, the player with initiative in battle must either play an enhancement or concede the loss, giving over a lost soul if applicable."
Note that this rule would also stop the Multiplayer problem of "he's gonna win, you play christian martyr" "no, you play it" "well YOU can play burial" ad nauseam.
I agree with most...
-
I think that solution is almost right, but the clockwise thing may not be the best option. There absolutely should be initiative for Dominants, no question.
-
This should be resolved as it actually came up tonight. Fortunately the game was not an official RooT game, nor did the long-term outcome change, but it was very close.
-
Hits table first = played first.
In case of tie, we go with who performed the last action to which those dominants responded.
This handles all ties in 2-player and teams (since teammates can be assumed to respond to their teammates actions before an opponent can).
In multiplayer, if player A and B are both responding to an action by player C, then one of these two should be implemented:
1) clockwise from whoever performed the action, or
2) flip a coin
Many games use clockwise "initiative." In fact, I think Redemption does for things like "at any time" abilities on artifacts, right? At least that's how I've sorted those conflicts.
-
Bryon, concerning your last question, I think flipping a coin/rolling a die is a much better solution than clockwise. The situation at least gives both players who have the dominants a chance at the win, as opposed to the player who just happens to be in the right seat.
Kevin
-
I still think calling it a tie would be the best solution...for two players to be in that position and one of them loses because of a coin flip?
I can honestly say I would rather call it a tie than get the outright win if I were a player in that spot. Winning a coin flip would seriously cheapen any feeling of accomplishment.
-
Hey,
say I wouI still think calling it a tie would be the best solution...for two players to be in that position and one of them loses because of a coin flip?
I can honestlyld rather call it a tie than get the outright win if I were a player in that spot. Winning a coin flip would seriously cheapen any feeling of accomplishment.
I've had games where there were six cards left in my draw pile at the beginning of my turn. If I draw Son of God during my draw phase I win, if I don't I lose. Effectively my game is determined by a coin flip isn't it? Games between evenly matched players often are determined by an element of chance, I don't see why we need to avoid chance in this sort of situation.
Although I think my preference would be to give preference in a counterclockwise direction.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Effectively my game is determined by a coin flip isn't it?
It's not a completely random coin flip because the way you build your deck has a direct impact in how likely/unlikely you are to draw any given card (like Son of God) in a given game.
We lived with ties in MP when New Jerusalem could be played on another person's Son of God, why would they be so bad in this even rarer of circumstances? Furthermore, we still have time out ties in multi-player on occasion, should we flip a coin between the two players in the lead and give one of them the win?
-
If there are 2 souls out, you can't rescue 4 out of that, right?
If there are 4 souls out and 2 players hit Son of God/NJ at the same time, then it is a tie. There is no conflict.
I'm talking about ties between dominants where one cannot happen if the other does.
Player A attacks. Player B blocks. Player C plays Grapes and player A plays AotL at the same time. Only one can win.
I vote for clockwise from the blocker. I know it feels to Kevin that seating order puts one guy out of luck, but that is the same with a coin toss. In other words, the seating order is the coin toss.
If player A, B, and C are clockwise around the table, then A's dominants will beat B's in ties, and B's will beat C's, and C's will beat A's. Roshambo.
-
Player A attacks. Player B blocks. Player C plays Grapes and player A plays AotL at the same time. Only one can win.
In that scenario, I think Player A should win (i.e. have the initiative to play the dominant) as he made the last action of the two players who are trying to play a dominant.
-
Why not say you have to place the Dominants on the target? All Dominants have a target. Who ever gets to the target first wins? This means some action, but some clarity. Card on bottom was first played. Easy to Judge. SoG on the LS it is rescuing and NJ on the LS it is rescuing. If second player's SoG beats first players NJ to target. Too Bad.
-
Player A attacks. Player B blocks. Player C plays Grapes and player A plays AotL at the same time. Only one can win.
In that scenario, I think Player A should win (i.e. have the initiative to play the dominant) as he made the last action of the two players who are trying to play a dominant.
"Last action" only applies to the last action. It is who gets to respond first to an action in the case of a tie. No one is trying to respond to the action of putting a hero into battle, so that action has nothing to do with it. The last action was putting the EC into battle. 2 other players are trying to respond to that action by playing dominants. Who wins in the case of that kind of tie needs to be decided by some means. I vote clockwise from who performed the last action (presenting the blocker).
-
Why not say you have to place the Dominants on the target?
Because if I have to lean halfway across the table to play a dominant on a card, it will be painfully obvious to another closer player, who may then be able to simply drop a dominant from his hand onto the card to counter what I was trying to do.
Kevin Shride
-
Why not say you have to place the Dominants on the target?
Because if I have to lean halfway across the table to play a dominant on a card, it will be painfully obvious to another closer player, who may then be able to simply drop a dominant from his hand onto the card to counter what I was trying to do.
Good point. While I see the merit of the suggestion, I think Kevin's nailed its impraticality.
-
Why not say you have to place the Dominants on the target?
Because if I have to lean halfway across the table to play a dominant on a card, it will be painfully obvious to another closer player, who may then be able to simply drop a dominant from his hand onto the card to counter what I was trying to do.
Good point. While I see the merit of the suggestion, I think Kevin's nailed its impraticality.
oops, my SoG landed on the unrescued 2liner instead of the other LS.....
-
I guess I agree with clockwise action. It doesn't seem there's any other way to solve it. :-\
-
Why not say you have to place the Dominants on the target?
Because if I have to lean halfway across the table to play a dominant on a card, it will be painfully obvious to another closer player, who may then be able to simply drop a dominant from his hand onto the card to counter what I was trying to do.
Kevin Shride
So, what is the problem? or the impracticality? How is this more impractical than the obvious blind guess of whose cards hit the open table first? It seems to me that it would be a more exciting than the bad luck of sitting in the wrong chair. In fact, the more we can make Redemption a contact sport the better. ;D
-
Lol,
That reminded me of one of my friends epic quotes -
"I think that chess should be added as an olympic sport - But only for the winter olympics - and only full contact chess." ~ Kenneth Ramage.
-
Lol,
That reminded me of one of my friends epic quotes -
"I think that chess should be added as an olympic sport - But only for the winter olympics - and only full contact chess." ~ Kenneth Ramage.
ALL YOUR PAWN ARE BELONG TO US *Smacks other players pawn across the room*.
-
If there are 2 souls out, you can't rescue 4 out of that, right?
So your argument is that because 1 card (or 1 pair of cards) cannot be in two places, we should not consider ties a viable option?
I honestly cannot believe people would rather have a game decided by a coin flip or seat arrangement when two players made the exact same play to win. A tie is way more logical and not problematic at all. In a 4 person MP game, each player gets 2 points--heck, you could have a 3 way tie and each person gets 1.333 points. In a 3 person MP game, two tied players get 1.5 points each.
-
Hey,
Or we could go old school and do a sudden death game to 1 :D
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Oh wow... how epic pwnzrs would that be....
-
If there are 2 souls out, you can't rescue 4 out of that, right?
So your argument is that because 1 card (or 1 pair of cards) cannot be in two places, we should not consider ties a viable option?
I honestly cannot believe people would rather have a game decided by a coin flip or seat arrangement when two players made the exact same play to win. A tie is way more logical and not problematic at all. In a 4 person MP game, each player gets 2 points--heck, you could have a 3 way tie and each person gets 1.333 points. In a 3 person MP game, two tied players get 1.5 points each.
Wait... this would get SO complicated. I don't really love the idea of basing something like this on luck... but to have tie games or 3 way ties and split points I don't think is right.
-
If there are 2 souls out, you can't rescue 4 out of that, right?
So your argument is that because 1 card (or 1 pair of cards) cannot be in two places, we should not consider ties a viable option?
I honestly cannot believe people would rather have a game decided by a coin flip or seat arrangement when two players made the exact same play to win. A tie is way more logical and not problematic at all. In a 4 person MP game, each player gets 2 points--heck, you could have a 3 way tie and each person gets 1.333 points. In a 3 person MP game, two tied players get 1.5 points each.
Wait... this would get SO complicated. I don't really love the idea of basing something like this on luck... but to have tie games or 3 way ties and split points I don't think is right.
I agree, My :2cents: is to continue to use the old system (whoever created the situation gets the first responce) and make a slight change to that allowing the two people in battle to get first dibs on playing dominants in multiplayer.