Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: The Guardian on October 26, 2008, 02:40:37 AM
-
This situation came up today in a tournament game.
Multi-player game with 3 players (A, B, C)
Player A has Covenant with Phinehas active and makes a rescue with a Priest from the house of Eleazar. Player B blocks with an EC. Player A lays Angel of the Lord. Player B (not noticing that Covenant with Phinehas is active) says "Okay, I use Christian Martyr on your Priest." Player A says, "You can't, I have Cov. w/ Phin active." Player C then uses Destruction of Nehushtan on Cov w/ Phinehas and Player B proceeds to use CM on the Priest.
Should this be allowed? Clearly Player C had no intention of using DoN until he realized that Player B only had Christian Martyr to stop the rescue. Would it make a difference if Player B actually drops Christian Martyr on the table as opposed to just verbally saying it?
Fortunately today was only a small local tournament (the other two players didn't even say anything about it), but it did have a pretty big affect on the game which finished 5-4-4.
For the record, I was Player C and ended up winning the game. It wasn't until a few hours later that I was reviewing the games I had played and I really thought about how easily a situation like that could occur. Had I been in Player A's shoes in a major level tournament I would have appealed to the judge that the Christian Martyr could not be used on my Hero--regardless of whether CM was physically dropped or the player announced it verbally but hadn't actually dropped it yet.
Thoughts?
Card abilities:
I'm going to assume most everyone knows what the dominants do.
Covenant with Phinehas (Covenant) ~ Protect your Priests from the House of Eleazar from discard abilities on evil cards.
-
I think that this situation would be resolved in this manner.
Player A points out that the priest is protected from CM. If there is another hero in play, then there is a target available and Player B would have to pick another hero to discard at that time (if Player A plays strictly by the book).
If Player A decides to be lenient and allow Player B to take back his CM into his hand, then Player A is risking that situations might change that would not be in his favor. If he decides to be lenient anyway, then the game proceeds as if CM had not been played yet.
If Player C watches all this and decides that it would be best to remove that protection, then he could play DoN at that time to remove the protection. He of course doesn't know that his opponent will still CM, and is risking using his DoN in vain.
If Player B wants to take advantage of his ability to play CM now, then he could do that. If he feels like that would be unfair to the person who was kind enough to let him take his card back, then he could forgo playing CM anyway, and give up the LS.
The point is that everyone should make their decision independently. Player A should decide to be strict or lenient without knowing whether someone will play DoN. Player B should decide whether to use DoN without knowing whether someone will play CM. Player C should decide whether to take advantage of a second chance.
-
I wish I could have stayed for that game, but my brother was hungry and wanted to go home....
-
Doesn't this get in the face of the "cards activate when they hit the table" rule?
-
I think that this situation would be resolved in this manner.
Player A points out that the priest is protected from CM. If there is another hero in play, then there is a target available and Player B would have to pick another hero to discard at that time (if Player A plays strictly by the book).
If Player A decides to be lenient and allow Player B to take back his CM into his hand, then Player A is risking that situations might change that would not be in his favor. If he decides to be lenient anyway, then the game proceeds as if CM had not been played yet.
If Player C watches all this and decides that it would be best to remove that protection, then he could play DoN at that time to remove the protection. He of course doesn't know that his opponent will still CM, and is risking using his DoN in vain.
If Player B wants to take advantage of his ability to play CM now, then he could do that. If he feels like that would be unfair to the person who was kind enough to let him take his card back, then he could forgo playing CM anyway, and give up the LS.
The point is that everyone should make their decision independently. Player A should decide to be strict or lenient without knowing whether someone will play DoN. Player B should decide whether to use DoN without knowing whether someone will play CM. Player C should decide whether to take advantage of a second chance.
And, if you're playing prof. Underwood, he will graciously let you do anything you want because he is a very good sport and a gracious player. ;) *coughs* (you can pay me later) :)
On a serious note(even though the above is totally true) I agree with this. I believe that even though he did not lay it down, his CLEAR INTENTION was to play cm. So it's up to all the players to decide what they will allow. just my two cents.
-
The letter of the law would clearly favor player B since he didn't lay CM on the table. You could debate the spirit of the law, but then you're legislating from the bench, as it were.
-
If he plays CM, hero is protected, end of story.
If he SAYS that he is going to play CM, but doesn't take his hand off or whatever before DON is played I think that should be allowed. Mostly because I would rather just have people be legitimate about it and say "Can you play DoN so I can use CM?" If it is not allowed, people will talk around it by making suggestions like, "I think I could block if you didn't have that stinking artifact active."
-
An excellent point, Ben. I've always been a proponent of players asking for assistance but not naming specific cards (i.e "Can you play Burial to stop him?"). However, perhaps it is different for a player to be able to say what he could do with his own cards--"I only have Christian Martyr to stop his rescue."
Thoughts on this?
-
alot of problems would be solved if there was no table talk whatsoever during mp.
-
I'm assuming you mean no game-related talking? I'm all for chatting it up during a game, as long as the conversation is not "Hey guys, how do we stop Justin?" :P
-
I'm assuming you mean no game-related talking? I'm all for chatting it up during a game, as long as the conversation is not "Hey guys, how do we stop Justin?" :P
"Hur me!" seems to be alot more fun than that ;)
-
I'm assuming you mean no game-related talking? I'm all for chatting it up during a game, as long as the conversation is not "Hey guys, how do we stop Justin?" :P
"Hur me!" seems to be alot more fun than that ;)
Were you at oh... ALL of the CT local tounaments last season and I didn't know it?
And er, if you ban talking from multiplayer.... it'd be so much more boring.
-
perhaps it is different for a player to be able to say what he could do with his own cards--"I only have Christian Martyr to stop his rescue."
There are no rules as to how to hold your cards in your hand. If a person wanted to turn their CM around so that it was facing everyone, that would be their choice. This is of course a trade off. It allows others to know what you have (bad), but also allows them to know how to help if they desire (good).
alot of problems would be solved if there was no table talk whatsoever during mp.
I actually think that table-talk (at least in some sense of the word) is part of what makes multi-player a fun and unique experience. I also find that multi-player is a good chance to really teach some newer players some of the more intricate strategies of the game. If anything, I think that there should be more talking allowed, not less.
-
If he plays CM, hero is protected, end of story.
If he SAYS that he is going to play CM, but doesn't take his hand off or whatever before DON is played I think that should be allowed. Mostly because I would rather just have people be legitimate about it and say "Can you play DoN so I can use CM?" If it is not allowed, people will talk around it by making suggestions like, "I think I could block if you didn't have that stinking artifact active."
I totally agree, if someone lays down CM and the hero is protected then CM must target another hero.
On a side note, I don't think talking at the table should be allowed period (unless its a joke or something said not relating to the game at hand) It just makes the game cheapened in my opinion, because its like the other players are ganging up on that one player. Really, if you're smart and player X is making a rescue that could win the game, and he has Cov with Phinehas to protect his priest from getting CM and you only have DoN in your hand and no CM. WHY WOULDN'T you play DoN in hope of someone else playing CM!?!?!?!?! You shouldn't have to say anything at all, if you have half a brain you'll play DoN and another player that has CM will play it with out anything said. It's not that HARD!
-
On a side note, I don't think talking at the table should be allowed period (unless its a joke or something said not relating to the game at hand) It just makes the game cheapened in my opinion, because its like the other players are ganging up on that one player. Really, if you're smart and player X is making a rescue that could win the game, and he has Cov with Phinehas to protect his priest from getting CM and you only have DoN in your hand and no CM. WHY WOULDN'T you play DoN in hope of someone else playing CM!?!?!?!?!
Haha, and Daniel is always the one getting ganged up on. :-* Shame on you for winning T1 Multi...
-
There are no rules as to how to hold your cards in your hand. If a person wanted to turn their CM around so that it was facing everyone, that would be their choice. This is of course a trade off. It allows others to know what you have (bad), but also allows them to know how to help if they desire (good).
I disagree with this. There are abilities that instruct a player to reveal their hand to one or more persons. That cannot happen if you are already showing people your cards, so the obvious default is un-revealed.
-
There are no rules as to how to hold your cards in your hand. If a person wanted to turn their CM around so that it was facing everyone, that would be their choice. This is of course a trade off. It allows others to know what you have (bad), but also allows them to know how to help if they desire (good).
I disagree with this. There are abilities that instruct a player to reveal their hand to one or more persons. That cannot happen if you are already showing people your cards, so the obvious default is un-revealed.
So if you were to say, "accidently" drop a card on the table and it were to land face up and it was "revealed" would that be considered cheating?
-
I would consider that scenario as well as Mark's to be a form of "table-talking" not permitted by tournament rules.
-
My understanding of table-talking is vocally speaking to another player about the game.
-
There are abilities that instruct a player to reveal their hand to one or more persons. That cannot happen if you are already showing people your cards, so the obvious default is un-revealed.
#1 - If I have only 1 card flipped backwards, then it is still something quite different to show someone my whole hand.
#2 - If a rule is not stated, it is not enforceable. "Obvious defaults" are not rules.
So if you were to say, "accidentally" drop a card on the table and it were to land face up and it was "revealed" would that be considered cheating?
This is another reason why I don't think we should make a rule about this. It would just lead to people doing "sneaky" stuff like this. It is much better to just let people show a card if they want to. There is already a built in negative to having your cards known by your opponents, so I don't think there needs to be anything added on top of that.
P.S. I am completely arguing from principle here, as I don't think I have ever actually done this in a game.
-
P.S. I am completely arguing from principle here, as I don't think I have ever actually done this in a game.
I would argue from principle that this is cheating. Showing your cards to your opponents so that they can assist you in defeating another opponent is creating an unfair situation for the lone player. How would this not be cheating?
Granted, I don't play multiplayer, but is this really how multiplayer games are allowed to flow? I need to know for judging purposes. I would not allow the kind of stuff you guys are talking about here.
-
#1 - If I have only 1 card flipped backwards, then it is still something quite different to show someone my whole hand.
Reveal is not limited only to your whole hand. Even conceding this, even showing one card means your whole hand is not "un-revealed" and therefore violates the principle all the same.
-
If he plays CM, hero is protected, end of story.
If he SAYS that he is going to play CM, but doesn't take his hand off or whatever before DON is played I think that should be allowed. Mostly because I would rather just have people be legitimate about it and say "Can you play DoN so I can use CM?" If it is not allowed, people will talk around it by making suggestions like, "I think I could block if you didn't have that stinking artifact active."
I totally agree, if someone lays down CM and the hero is protected then CM must target another hero.
On a side note, I don't think talking at the table should be allowed period (unless its a joke or something said not relating to the game at hand) It just makes the game cheapened in my opinion, because its like the other players are ganging up on that one player. Really, if you're smart and player X is making a rescue that could win the game, and he has Cov with Phinehas to protect his priest from getting CM and you only have DoN in your hand and no CM. WHY WOULDN'T you play DoN in hope of someone else playing CM!?!?!?!?! You shouldn't have to say anything at all, if you have half a brain you'll play DoN and another player that has CM will play it with out anything said. It's not that HARD!
Please do not insult people. If anyone doesn't think about it, they don't have half a brain, they just forgot, or are new and therefore should be being encouraged. I know you mean NO insults with this post, just be careful. This could be taken wrong. But I agree that you should do everything in your power to stop them if they are making a game winning rescue. However, he WASN'T making a game winning rescue. Because remember, Justin won the game.
-
Showing your cards to your opponents so that they can assist you in defeating another opponent is creating an unfair situation for the lone player.
There is also a downside to showing a CM to your opponents. If I know that you have CM in your hand, then I am NOT going to play my CM to stop the rescue. In fact, the rules state that if you can stop a critical rescue, then you must. And since everyone sees you have the card, and they can't see my cards, then you would be forced to play. So it could hurt you just as much as the "lone player".
In fact, this happened in one game at Nats, I knew at one point that a player had CM in their hand and it came down to the end of the game and that was all they had left to stop the person before me and myself from winning the game. The person before me attacked for the 5th LS, and my opponent probably would have rather that person win than I (since we are friendly nemisises). However, he had to play the CM that I knew he had, and therefore, had nothing left on my turn to stop me.
So there is a potentially good and bad outcome to choosing to hold a particular card backward. And I think that is sufficient. However, as for how to rule this at a tournament, I think that would be up to you. Since there are no stated rules against this sort of thing, you could allow it. Or since some people (ie. Schaef) feel like it is an "obvious default", I think you could also choose to not allow it.
-
i don't remember there ever being a rule that forces you to play anything.
-
i don't remember there ever being a rule that forces you to play anything.
I think he referring to this:
Players are expected to make an honest attempt at stopping a player who is close to winning.
-
define 'close to winning'. its an ambiguous clause.
-
Funny
-
define 'close to winning'. its an ambiguous clause.
In the game at Nats that I referred to, the attacking player had 4 LSs saved already and was going for #5. That is close to winning. If the player with CM had not played it and had given the last LS to him, then I would have had plenty of grounds to convict him of cheating and create a major incident.
Of course this would have never happened, since my opponent is an honorable player. He and I had been competing all year long and had many close games. This was just the final battle in a long war, and we are good friends as well as rivals. I suspect that he would have done the right thing despite the rule, but it was mentioned during the game :)
-
I hope all multi players play like your rival, that's the way it should be played.
-
Showing your cards to your opponents so that they can assist you in defeating another opponent is creating an unfair situation for the lone player.
There is also a downside to showing a CM to your opponents. If I know that you have CM in your hand, then I am NOT going to play my CM to stop the rescue. In fact, the rules state that if you can stop a critical rescue, then you must. And since everyone sees you have the card, and they can't see my cards, then you would be forced to play. So it could hurt you just as much as the "lone player".
I don't agree with the logic that you are trying to present. I would equate it with arguing that you should be allowed to ride on top of a minivan roof rack. Sure there are inherent dangers, but there is no law that specifically states that you are not allowed to ride on a roof rack.
I agree with schaef that some things are just accepted as true unless a rule states otherwise. Cards in your hand and your draw pile are assumed to be unseen by other players. This is common sense, imo. To do otherwise is an attempt to circumvent the rules. I define that as cheating.
For the sake of consistency, though, I am willing to accept that my definition is biased in some way. I would really like to know what other hosts would do in this case. I would rule against this practice as a host. Place your votes, please. ;D
I may find out in the end that I am the fanatic and that all of the rest of you will start chanting "Let them play!" in true Bad News Bears style. ;)
-
For the sake of consistency, though, I am willing to accept that my definition is biased in some way. I would really like to know what other hosts would do in this case. I would rule against this practice as a host. Place your votes, please. ;D
I will admit that my definition is biased as well. I want multi-player to have a significantly different feel than 2-player. And I think that some of this interaction between multiple players in the game is part of what makes it so interesting. I also am a fan of small-government. In Redemption, that translates to having a few rules as necessary.
I love the fact that instead of banning cards, Redemption works hard to keep the game balanced by having variable costs and risks related to powerful cards. Similarly, I think that this is a case where it is better to allow the mechanics of the game to deal with this scenario rather than making a new rule about how people have to hold their cards. Allow the negative potential of your opponents seeing your cards to limit how much people do this sort of thing.
I vote "Let them play" :)
-
Yeah, but come on, there's like 8 billion card games in the world, and how many of them do you actually show your hand?
-
Actually I like to show part of my hand when I'm playing poker (for fun, not for money). Sometimes I'll turn around 4 of my 5 cards to show that I am close to a straight, or flush, or whatever. Then I get to watch everyone else desperately try to figure out if that last card completes it or if I'm bluffing :)
Of course there is also a risk to that. If they can already beat a straight, then they don't care what my last card is, and I have just told them for sure that they can win. Whereas, if I didn't show anything, then there was the possibility that my hand was better than theirs. But I am willing to risk the possible downside because it is just too fun :)
-
Intentionally showing your hand to another player without a card forcing you to do so is cheating. I think that this only applies to people who are showing their hand with the intention of manipulating another player's decisions or showing off (poor sportsmanship).
I've played with a lot of people (my wife included) who inadvertently show their hands because of their laid back nature during a game. This type of hand showing is something that I think we'll always have due to the "fun and fellowship" environment associated with this game.
-
Intentionally showing your hand to another player without a card forcing you to do so is cheating.
So say you. I disagree.
-
Intentionally showing your hand to another player without a card forcing you to do so is cheating.
So say you. I disagree.
99% of card games out there do not allow you to show your hand. why would redemption be any different?
-
Currently, it is. Showing your hand is not against any rule.
-
theres also no rule saying i cant set your deck on fire and then dump mt. dew on it to put it out. guess i'll try that next time i see you.
-
Alright, then I'll see you in court. My deck is worth over one hundred dollars, and if you do what you just described that's against the law if not the rules. It's also dealing with other peoples' cards rather than your own, which is another major difference.
-
theres also no rule saying i cant set your deck on fire and then dump mt. dew on it to put it out. guess i'll try that next time i see you.
I can only assume you are joking. There are rules against that sort of thing. It is called "destruction of property" and if you tried that, a person could report you to the police. We are not talking about what you do to someone else's cards. We are talking about what you do to your own cards, and there is no rule about facing one the wrong way.
I suppose that you could catch your own card on fire (as long as it wasn't inside the building, which would probably be illegal). However, I do think that there is a pre-existing Redemption rule against tearing cards other than Haman's Plot. So there could be consequences even for this sort of action :)
Instaposted.
-
So you're saying the "unwritten rule" of not showing your own hand should not apply, but not looking at (or accosting) other people's cards?
-
Clearly they are two distinct interpretations of what is allowed here, so there needs to be an executive decision. For the purpose of consistent judging, is this allowed or not? No more opinions at this point. We need Rob.
-
Alright, then I'll see you in court. My deck is worth over one hundred dollars, and if you do what you just described that's against the law if not the rules. It's also dealing with other peoples' cards rather than your own, which is another major difference.
it was an ambiguous statment to prove that it only takes common sense to determine what we can and cant do in a redemption game.
i suppose, though, if you threaten prosecution, i can always set the lost souls in my lob on fire, therefore preventing you from rescuing anything from me. no rule against that, eh?
-
Additionally, I checked Hoyle's rules for poker, and it says, among other things, that "needlessly stalling the action of a game" is improper and could be grounds for being barred from the tournament. No specific information is given about what constitutes a needless stall. Somehow, tournament players struggle through.
Redemption already goes beyond the pale IMO accommodating requests for rules that should be basic common sense. There has to come a point when people just say enough, already.
-
Ok, I will then. Enough with the unwritten "rules" of table talking that aren't even close to being universally agreed upon and cause silly situations like people trying to hold cards backwards in their hands or accidentally dropping cards. Table talk will always be a part of MP in some way, shape or form, so why try to outlaw it when the results of such a silly rule are themselves silly?
-
I guess my only dilemma is having a situation in a tournament where several players are having fun through creative table-talk, trying to enjoy the fellowship, while the one person leaves feeling cheated. I have always tried to watch out for the lonely one, but that's just me.
-
exactly. the only way to curb cheating table talk is to just nip it in the bud and ban ALL table talk. that solves all problems.
-
Well, well, this one got big quick.
Here's some things to consider.
"Close to winning."
Let's say Player A has 2 LS and hasn't used SoG/NJ. Player B has 4 LS and has played SoG/NJ already. I have the only LS available and Player A is about to take his turn followed by Player B. Based on the game scenario, I know that the only way to stop either player is using my Christian Martyr. Player A attacks me--do I give him the LS even though he is close to winning? Yes. If I use CM on Player A, then Player B walks in for the win. Even if I knew Player A had SoG/NJ, I have to hope that LS don't show up 2 at a time and perhaps Player A is forced to use SoG by itself to stop someone else from getting #5.
Obviously this is all fairly complicated, and we can't expect every player to be able to process that.
"Showing a card."
If it was legal to voluntarily show your hand or a card to everyone in a MP game, that would already be in the rules. A player accidently dropping a card (something I've done myself) or flashing their hand unintentionally is stuff that happens, but all effort should be made to prevent these things. Furthermore, it's going to look VERY suspicious if a player tries to be "sneaky" and drop a hint to another player by accidentally dropping a card when that card has obvious relevance to the current situation.
FWIW, showing your hand in poker tournaments (in an attempt to get a reaction from the opponent) is only legal when there are just 2 players left in the hand--and sometimes it is not allowed at all--and never when there are multiple players in the hand.
I can only assume you are joking. There are rules against that sort of thing. It is called "destruction of property" and if you tried that, a person could report you to the police. We are not talking about what you do to someone else's cards. We are talking about what you do to your own cards, and there is no rule about facing one the wrong way.
The point is that there is nothing against that in the Redemption rulebook, but clearly it's still not allowed.
Allowable table talk for a tournament game (in reference to the game) is as follows:
"I have no way to stop this player, does anyone want to do anything before I surrender a LS?"
-
"I have no way to stop this player, does anyone want to do anything before I surrender a LS?"
i'd be hesitant to even allow this. where does it even say in the rules that we are allowed to table talk?
-
Players must make an honest attempt to stop a player who is close to winning. Ergo, players must also give other players the chance to make that attempt. By asking this, an opponent cannot say "He didn't give me a chance to do anything..."
-
And then there's always the REG...
"Revealing a card makes the card visible to all players."
"A card can only be revealed based on a special ability."
-
Players must make an honest attempt to stop a player who is close to winning. Ergo, players must also give other players the chance to make that attempt. By asking this, an opponent cannot say "He didn't give me a chance to do anything..."
right, and this can easily be done without asking players if they wish to do anything. simply by giving each player reasonable time to respond to a rescue attempt works just fine. if i see a defending player reaching for a lost soul to give up, and i wish to play something that will stop the rescue attempt, i will say 'hold on a second...' and proceed to play the card i wished to play. we shouldnt have to hold another persons hand and walk them through the steps of playing something to stop a rescuing player. in my opinion thats table talk, because you're helping another player be aware of something they might have missed. tournaments are always decided by the player that makes the fewest mistakes.
i just think its ironic that the whole reason that clause is in the rulebook was because of me...:D
-
tournaments are always decided by the player that makes the fewest mistakes.
I disagree. Tournaments are often won by the player who makes the fewest mistakes. However, a player making a mistake at a crucial moment can also decide a tournament. I have been on both sides of this many times (benefitting from the mistake and losing because of the mistake).
-
correct me if im wrong: but if you benefit from it, then its not a really a mistake, is it?
-
correct me if im wrong: but if you benefit from it, then its not a really a mistake, is it?
Perhaps you misunderstood me, I was referring to when other people made a mistake and it either benefitted or hurt me.
-
And then there's always the REG...
"Revealing a card makes the card visible to all players."
"A card can only be revealed based on a special ability."
Nice find Schaef. This discussion now switches from whether there is a rule against flipping one of the cards in your hand backwards, to whether there should be a rule as such.
Before I did not support the creation of such a rule, and thought the game would be better without adding such rule. However, now that I know such a rule already exists, I retract my support for such actions. And I don't care about the issue enough to argue for the rule's removal. Ah well.
-
exactly. the only way to curb cheating table talk is to just nip it in the bud and ban ALL table talk. that solves all problems.
No the only way to truly curb cheating is to simply ban multi-player. Don't get me wrong here. I love multiplayer, but if a group of players wants to make sure that someone wins, they can talk outside the table and figure out a plan to circumvent the rest of the people. No it isn't fair, but it happens.
I honestly have NO issue with table talk as long as it isn't plotting against one person. Reminding someone they have unholy writ up to use vs the person about to win (Cough Guardian ;) ) is seemed as rude table talk but I don't see much issue with it, yes it could cost the rescuer the game, but the card was on the table in plain sight for everyone to see. Honestly if people want to gang up on me (It happens in t2 with me, people don't like my anb, they don't wanna block) it is their choice, It may suck to be me but eh saying they can't attack someone who they view as a thread seems a bit unfair to them. (Sorry guardian, I know you usually get ganged up against in multi).
As for flipping cards around in hand, as long as everyone can see them that is fine with me. If I know you have a card I can figure out a way around it alot easier. Yes it DOES play mind games but...that happens in multiplayer anyways. Honestly removing table talk is making it t1 2p with ...less talking about the game...and more people.
-
As for flipping cards around in hand, as long as everyone can see them that is fine with me.
The issue that I was bringing up was how to rule from a host's perspective. Since the REG has been quoted as saying this practice is not allowed, a host would be required to prevent it. If you want to do this among friends, that's your prerogative. But, in a tournament, the answer is, "No. It's not fine."
-
There is NO rule against table talking. Those who think it should be a rule are very loud, but that does not make them correct. Table talk has always been a part of MP and it always will be whether or not it's legal (and right now, it is legal). If you get butthurt over table talk, stop playing MP. Don't try to change the dynamics of the game to suit your personal taste.
-
There is NO rule against table talking. Those who think it should be a rule are very loud, but that does not make them correct. Table talk has always been a part of MP and it always will be whether or not it's legal (and right now, it is legal). If you get butthurt over table talk, stop playing MP. Don't try to change the dynamics of the game to suit your personal taste.
Before you light the torches and gather your posse, I was talking about holding your cards backwards. That's why I quoted only RR's comments about flipping cards. There is a rule about revealing your cards.
-
There is NO rule against table talking.
point me to the rule that says table talking IS allowed.
Table talk has always been a part of MP and it always will be whether or not it's legal (and right now, it is legal).
just because its 'always' been a part of mp doesnt necessarily make it right. again, show me the rule 'legalizing' table talk.
Don't try to change the dynamics of the game to suit your personal taste.
ironic, seeing how this entire post was biased.
seriously, i lolololololol'd when i read this. take this brash attitude to any official poker tournament, and even UTTER the words 'table talk'...see what happens.
-
I vote we ban T1 Multi. ::)
Kirk
-
Wow. I feel like we're arguing the most common sense thing ever.
My 2 cents. Multiplayer is ALL about strategy. That's how it rolls.
I dont want to sit silent at a multiplayer game. Part of the fun of multiplayer is laughing about the ridiculousness that ensues. Esp. in booster.
So, lighten up. Geez.
~Marti
-
Wow. I feel like we're arguing the most common sense thing ever.
My 2 cents. Multiplayer is ALL about strategy. That's how it rolls.
I dont want to sit silent at a multiplayer game. Part of the fun of multiplayer is laughing about the ridiculousness that ensues. Esp. in booster.
So, lighten up. Geez.
~Marti
+1.
point me to the rule that says table talking IS allowed.
Every other thing we are not allowed to do has a rule backing it.... but this doesn't. Put the logic with it. If they ever remove table talk from MP it becomes alot more boring.
-
Every other thing we are not allowed to do has a rule backing it.... but this doesn't.
we already know this statement as completely false. does it say im not allowed to burn my own cards during a match? or rip up my lost souls so you cant rescue them?
im not oppossed to merely talking during mp games. in most other card games (even non-CCG games, as this comes from a seasoned pinnochle and spades player), 'table talk' is a degenerate term often referred to cheating. saying ANYTHING during a match that could possibly benefit any other player in the game defaults to table talk, and is not allowed. if someone doesnt see that they have an unholy writ up to stop a rescuing player, then thats their own fault. again, we're not to hold someone elses hand and walk them through the steps of stopping other players, ESPECIALLY at the tournament level. im completely fine with 'table talk' during a friendly mp match, because yes, it can be fun. but at a tournament level, its wrong to do so. tournaments are designed to filter out the players that make the most mistakes and those that do not.
-
And this is an example of taking tournaments too seriously. There are some people who need to realize tournaments are for fun and fellowship, and it's not all about winning. It's fun to win, and sure, I'm competitive, but I don't let that control my enjoyment of being with my brothers and sisters in Christ. If you're going to be so serious about it that it ruins the fun for other people, find a game that is more focused on competition. This game is based on fun and fellowship, and that's never going to change.
-
taking tournaments too 'seriously'? are you serious? what exactly do you THINK a tournament is? heres what dictionary.com has to say:
tour·na·ment /Pronunciation Key –noun 1. a trial of skill in some game, in which competitors play a series of contests: a chess tournament.
a trial of SKILL. do you think its a players personal skill to be helped by another player? no. its also not fair to the other players in a tournament either. if redemption was not designed with at least an ounce of competitive edge to it, it would not be (first and foremost) a game, and it would not have a tournament structure either. sure, 'fun and fellowship' is all cool and warm and fuzzy and all, but dont spoil it for the rest that like to be competitive either.
again, show me an ounce of truth to your assertations that 'table talk' is printed anywhere in the rulebook, and i'll be obligated to end this conversation. otherwise, i see no way any of your arguments hold any water.
-
Now would be a good time for one of the Photoshop masters to create a picture of a mug with "My Arguments" written on it.
-
LOL, at 2005 Nats in MN every game was non-stop table-talking in booster draft. In my last game there was this kid named Joe, I think, who was so exhausted and strung out on Mountain Dew that he never STOPPED talking. Shride was also very talkative that day and he's a playtester.
But in most every instance it was all good-natured and I never got the impression that anyone felt cheated.
-
LOL, at 2005 Nats in MN every game was non-stop table-talking in booster draft. In my last game there was this kid named Joe, I think, who was so exhausted and strung out on Mountain Dew that he never STOPPED talking. Shride was also very talkative that day and he's a playtester.
But in most every instance it was all good-natured and I never got the impression that anyone felt cheated.
i was at that nationals, and i actually was the winner for booster draft. i was the guy with the broken leg. know what i heard at my last table? silence. i could hear a pin drop.
dont get me wrong, i have nothing against friendly talking during a game, as long as it doesnt pertain to the game. that is what most of us refer to as 'table talk', and is a form of cheating in most any other card game.
-
Redemption is not about winning. Redemption is about fellowship. That's been made very clear.
-
Redemption is not about winning. Redemption is about fellowship. That's been made very clear.
ok, then i guess everytime we sit down for a redemption match, we'll just skip the whole 'game' part and do the fellowhip part, k?
-
Redemption is not about winning. Redemption is about fellowship. That's been made very clear.
So we should award prizes to the people who are having the most fun, rather than who wins? ;)
I think that there are two different avenues being addressed here - playing with friends and playing in major tournaments. Most of us likely act differently in these two circumstances.
-
Redemption is not about winning. Redemption is about fellowship. That's been made very clear.
So we should award prizes to the people who are having the most fun, rather than who wins? ;)
I think that there are two different avenues being addressed here - playing with friends and playing in major tournaments. Most of us likely act differently in these two circumstances.
I wouldn't be opposed.
-
Redemption is not about winning. Redemption is about fellowship. That's been made very clear.
So we should award prizes to the people who are having the most fun, rather than who wins? ;)
exactly my point here. and i actually wouldnt be oppossed to awarding a good sportsmanship prize (at all the tournaments i place in, i always award my winnings either to the last place finisher or the player with the best sportsmanship and attitude). but tournaments are designed to be a test of skill, and awarding those players with the best skill. 'table talk' only serves to lessen the value of skill needed to win a redemption match, and that is not fair whatsoever to anyone in the tournament (not even the person being helped).
-
Your point is unneeded sarcasm? :-p
Since when is multi FAIR? People play to purposfuly remove Ls players can rescue etc. Not on table talk just naturaly. "Hey that guy has 2 ls...and I have 2 ls and the only ls he can get is mine and guy rescuing has 2 ls and used sog nj... if I give that guy his 4th, the guy who might have sog nj won't be able to get one!" yes this is furthering it so you can get another ls, and is known as smart multiplay, but multi is never fair, one person is honestly gonna get jumped, be it on purpose or not.
taking tournaments too 'seriously'? are you serious? what exactly do you THINK a tournament is? heres what dictionary.com has to say:
tour·na·ment /Pronunciation Key –noun 1. a trial of skill in some game, in which competitors play a series of contests: a chess tournament.
a trial of SKILL. do you think its a players personal skill to be helped by another player? no. its also not fair to the other players in a tournament either. if redemption was not designed with at least an ounce of competitive edge to it, it would not be (first and foremost) a game, and it would not have a tournament structure either. sure, 'fun and fellowship' is all cool and warm and fuzzy and all, but dont spoil it for the rest that like to be competitive either.
again, show me an ounce of truth to your assertations that 'table talk' is printed anywhere in the rulebook, and i'll be obligated to end this conversation. otherwise, i see no way any of your arguments hold any water.
I don't answer to the dictionary, I answer to the front of the redemption rule book. :-p There is nothing wrong with being competitive unless it ruins someone else's fun. You don't want it to ruin it for competitive people, don't ruin it for us fun lovers. Again calling for the rulebook when you throw at me table talk not being banned in the rules is bull honkey is pretty hypocritical.
Also yes it is :D Its persuasive skill. :-p
Josh "AnB is fun" Kopp.
-
hey, proper grammar and punctuation is your friend.
you supposedly 'answer to the redemption rule book', yet you still cant provide a single strand of evidence in it that even REMOTELY hints towards 'table talk' being legal? and you call me hypocritical? wow, you're either full of unending conundrums or just full of yourself. weren't you also the one that said you played texas hold 'em? hows your so-called 'table talk' working there?
it absolutely perplexes me what some of the children say on these boards...
-
Actually, he was calling me a hypocrite, which is true. I tell my students that they need to be responsible and do their homework, yet it takes me over a week to grade their tests because I refuse to do them at home. :o
-
well, if you're not on the clock, then you shouldnt have to do anything school-related :)
which is why i never understood the concept of 'homework'...why not just do it in school with the rest of the work? why rob poor children of much needed fun-time when they already spend 7 hours a day at school? :D
-
hey, proper grammar and punctuation is your friend.
Try not to criticize the posting skills of others in a post where you don't capitalize a single sentence.
-
i have never capitalized a single sentence since my inception on these boards. its logical to say that i do this on purpose.
it was actually a shot at one of the prime candidates that criticizes other people (usually far younger than himself) on these boards for their grammar and sentence syntax. i found it ironic, as his post was one of the most butchered ones i've ever seen him create.
-
i have never capitalized a single sentence since my inception on these boards.
..... other than your Personal Text under your avatar...... 8)
-
:o
good find, ymt! i must change it immediately! down with capitalization! down with taking the extra effort of putting my pinky on the shift button!
-
If you hurry, you can change it before Schaef gets back on. :o
-
*rushes*
i could, but then it would look tacky uncapitalized. my signature is also capitalized. and im pretty sure i usually capitalize headers when i start a topic.
i should have said i have never capitalized a single sentence in any of my posts.
-
its logical to say that i do this on purpose.
Whether you do it on purpose or not, it's still poor form, and it's exactly the reason "lol you can't spellz0rz" is one of the most tired arguments on the Intarweb.
-
^lolz g00d sp3llz!!!
Seriously, let's argue about something that kinda matters, not how we type and spell. If I can udnerstand you, your better than most.
-
i have never capitalized a single sentence since my inception on these boards. its logical to say that i do this on purpose.
it was actually a shot at one of the prime candidates that criticizes other people (usually far younger than himself) on these boards for their grammar and sentence syntax. i found it ironic, as his post was one of the most butchered ones i've ever seen him create.
I ask people to spell correctly, I don't jump on people for grammar. E.g. Wase.
The Rulebook says its for fun and fellowship, I find talking in a multi-player game fun. :-p You do realize no matter how loud you scream "but it isn't in the rulebook" the argument still falls flat on its face because the rulebook doesn't back your point either?
-
its logical to say that i do this on purpose.
Whether you do it on purpose or not, it's still poor form, and it's exactly the reason "lol you can't spellz0rz" is one of the most tired arguments on the Intarweb.
maybe poor form in english 101, but in a day and age of 'el-oh-el' and 'semi-colon, dash, closed parenthesis', im pretty sure that me failing to hit the shift key is still light years ahead of the deterioration of the human language.
The Rulebook says its for fun and fellowship, I find talking in a multi-player game fun. :-p You do realize no matter how loud you scream "but it isn't in the rulebook" the argument still falls flat on its face because the rulebook doesn't back your point either?
thats great, have 'fun' in a friendly, non-sanctioned redemption match. would you not agree that a tournament (which might i remind you is a test of skill) is of a higher calibur than just a normal redemption match? and what makes you think that just because it isn't explicitly spelled out to you in the rulebook that you can't table talk, that somehow gives you the right that you can? the rulebook also doesn't say i cannot rip my lost souls up once i draw them to stop you from rescuing them...but you know what, i'm pretty sure i cannot. 'cant' almost always trumps 'can'.
-
Higher calibur? depend what you mean. Is there more competition? Yeah sure. Does that (at least for me) ever stop me from being a complete fool? Nope. I don't think we will ever agree on this. I play for fun, regardless if it is a fun game or not. You play for the competition. So I doubt we will see eye to eye.
As for your example.
You could, they are still LS cards, they are still in your LOB, and Imo still able to be rescued.
-
ok, what if i used a ray gun that warped all my lost souls to a different dimension? hmmmmmmm? :)
-
Can I borrow it so my hero can get into that dimension to get them? ;)
-
ok, what if i used a ray gun that warped all my lost souls to a different dimension? Hmmmmmmm? :)
you Capitalized!
-
Can I borrow it so my hero can get into that dimension to get them? ;)
well, sure, but i must warn ya, the evil characters over in that dimension are uber-tuff...like, leviathan/ttb numbers times a gajillion, with potw/12fg/red dragon/pot special abilities all rolled into one. and the ray gun can only handle a capacity of one hero and 7 of my lost souls...sooooooo...good luck :D
you Capitalized!
are you seeing things?
-
Can I borrow it so my hero can get into that dimension to get them? ;)
well, sure, but i must warn ya, the evil characters over in that dimension are uber-tuff...like, leviathan/ttb numbers times a gajillion, with potw/12fg/red dragon/pot special abilities all rolled into one. and the ray gun can only handle a capacity of one hero and 7 of my lost souls...sooooooo...good luck :D
you Capitalized!
are you seeing things?
I misqoted you. just a joke.
-
Stop playing Redemption. This obviously isn't the game for you. Table Talk is currently legal in Redemption because there is no rule against it. Burning cards goes against fun & fellowship. Burning other peoples' cards is illegal. If you don't like it, play a game where it is not legal. Poker, for example, which is a different game than Redemption, doesn't allow table talk.
-
maybe poor form in english 101, but in a day and age of 'el-oh-el' and 'semi-colon, dash, closed parenthesis', im pretty sure that me failing to hit the shift key is still light years ahead of the deterioration of the human language.
If proper English is optional in the age of the Intarweb, then stop using the grammar hammer on others.
-
maybe poor form in english 101, but in a day and age of 'el-oh-el' and 'semi-colon, dash, closed parenthesis', im pretty sure that me failing to hit the shift key is still light years ahead of the deterioration of the human language.
If proper English is optional in the age of the Intarweb, then stop using the grammar hammer on others.
if you're going to bust my chops about the grammar hammer, then you're going to have to nitpick at all the other ones that are picking on people far younger than them. enforce all or enforce none at all. enough digression.
Table Talk is currently legal in Redemption because there is no rule against it.
everytime i see this posted, i begin to worry about your outlook on life, not to mention your upbringing. just because you see no printed rule against it means that gives you permission to do so? get real.
Burning cards goes against fun & fellowship.
really? that sounds like a personal opinion to me. what may be not fun to you may be fun to me. on the same note, if i feel i'm being cheated by other players 'table talking', then i'm definately not having fun and i'm definately not enjoying the so-called fellowship.
If you don't like it, play a game where it is not legal.
lets see...PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THEM??? seems like, as schaef would put it, an 'obvious default' of common sense.
Poker, for example, which is a different game than Redemption, doesn't allow table talk.
and that kind of makes my mind wander how far you would truly go in any game without table talk.
-
if you're going to bust my chops about the grammar hammer, then you're going to have to nitpick at all the other ones that are picking on people far younger than them. enforce all or enforce none at all. enough digression.
I will enforce what I will enforce. You are not the first nor the last for me to call out on this behavior, and you're not even the only person I've asked to knock off this behavior this same evening. So get off the cross and play nice with the others.
-
I'm having more and more of a hard time taking you seriously as your insult:discussion ratio keeps going up, but I'm going to try once more.
just because you see no printed rule against it means that gives you permission to do so?
There is no rule that says you can use the same Hero in two consecutive Rescue attempts. There is a rule that says you cannot make two rescue attempts in the same turn. There is no rule that says you cannot table talk. There is a rule that says you cannot deny your opponent the option to shuffle your cards after a search.
and that kind of makes my mind wander how far you would truly go in any game without table talk.
In a game without table talk, I wouldn't table talk. I only table talk in Redemption.
lets see...PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THEM??? seems like, as schaef would put it, an 'obvious default' of common sense.
PRETTY MUCH ALL™ other games are based on competition. Redemption is fundamentally different in that competition--even in sanctioned official tournaments--is secondary in importance to fun and fellowship. Obviously Redemption is not the game for you and you should stop playing.
-
Okay, take a deap breath...... ah, much better. NOW post what you want to.
-
PRETTY MUCH ALL™ other games are based on competition. Redemption is fundamentally different in that competition--even in sanctioned official tournaments--is secondary in importance to fun and fellowship. Obviously Redemption is not the game for you and you should stop playing.
what you think is 'fun and fellowship' is clearly defined as cheating in any other CCG. common sense would dictate that it would naturally follow suit in Redemption as well, but maybe thinking isnt for you?
on that same measure, if 'table talk' is allowed during a match of redemption, what rule stops me from using a cell phone during a match and calling up, say...tim maly...to give me help and pointers on the current match im in? surely, by your standards, you wouldnt think that is cheating, would you? hey, im just having fun...
-
PRETTY MUCH ALL™ other games are based on competition. Redemption is fundamentally different in that competition--even in sanctioned official tournaments--is secondary in importance to fun and fellowship. Obviously Redemption is not the game for you and you should stop playing.
what you think is 'fun and fellowship' is clearly defined as cheating in any other CCG. common sense would dictate that it would naturally follow suit in Redemption as well, but maybe thinking isnt for you?
on that same measure, if 'table talk' is allowed during a match of redemption, what rule stops me from using a cell phone during a match and calling up, say...tim maly...to give me help and pointers on the current match im in? surely, by your standards, you wouldnt think that is cheating, would you? hey, im just having fun...
As long as you don't go over by the time limits in the rules, be my guest. Cept there is a rule about interfering with games, so Tim Maly would get in trouble.
-
PRETTY MUCH ALL™ other games are based on competition. Redemption is fundamentally different in that competition--even in sanctioned official tournaments--is secondary in importance to fun and fellowship. Obviously Redemption is not the game for you and you should stop playing.
what you think is 'fun and fellowship' is clearly defined as cheating in any other CCG. common sense would dictate that it would naturally follow suit in Redemption as well, but maybe thinking isnt for you?
on that same measure, if 'table talk' is allowed during a match of redemption, what rule stops me from using a cell phone during a match and calling up, say...tim maly...to give me help and pointers on the current match im in? surely, by your standards, you wouldnt think that is cheating, would you? hey, im just having fun...
As long as you don't go over by the time limits in the rules, be my guest. Cept there is a rule about interfering with games, so Tim Maly would get in trouble.
i believe there is a rule against spectators. show me the rule of using a cell phone to talk to someone for help during a match.
-
In order to be able to comment on the current match he'd have to be able to see it (Spectating).
-
no, i would be able to explain it to him over the phone. he can then comment.
-
Wow. This isn't a logical argument at all. Just drop it guys.
~TM
-
no, i would be able to explain it to him over the phone. he can then comment.
If you can talk that quick in 30 seconds....O_o; As marti said. Sense = 0.4% which according to someone...is less than 0%.
-
no, i would be able to explain it to him over the phone. he can then comment.
If you can talk that quick in 30 seconds....O_o; As marti said. Sense = 0.4% which according to someone...is less than 0%.
somehow, they manage to do it on who wants to be a millionaire. very much possible to assess, relay, and receive comments in 30 seconds; its actually much longer, because its 30 seconds per phase/card played.
im also surprised to hear people say that it isnt logical to 'table talk' on a cell phone, yet its perfectly fine to 'table talk' in person at a match. hypocritical much? doesnt surprise me.
rr's cognitive resources = 0.4%
-
Somehow, I think WWTBAM is completely different seeing as it is a planned call.
-
Somehow, I think WWTBAM is completely different seeing as it is a planned call.
o....k?
-
On "who wants...." they have a question with 4 answers, and even then sometimes they go over. This isn't a question with 4 answers. This is 3-4 players each with anywhere from 50 to 150 cards.
-
it's more like 50-however many josh kopp has today cards. But point made.
-
since when did the amount of cards in deck matter when relaying a current game situation? is there anywhere near that many cards present on the table when playing a game? it honestly doesnt take more than a few seconds to ask a simple question regarding the game...
'hey, i have a lois and et, and my opponent has a kot and potw in territory. should i lead with the small lois and hope they block with a huge ec with no immunity so i can drop the aocp easily, or should i just wipe everyone out with et/aocp, and hope my opponent isnt holding another ec in hand?
if you really want to test my capabilities using a phone during a match, i'll remember to have some nationals winners on speed dial next time we play. my part time job outside of gamestop is telemarketing...do you really think 30+ seconds would not more than accomadate me?
-
I can't turn my back on you guys for one day?