Author Topic: Dishonorable Play? (Read 6457 times)

MitchRobStew · « **Reply #25 on:** July 21, 2013, 08:57:26 PM »

1) My fault: It was probably one of the top 3 all time misplays on my part at a tournament.
2) Its a game: I didn't think anything of it at the time. Its always been a part of the game.
3) Fun and fellowship: It didn't take away from it. It was still a fun game.
4) Its teams: Most card aren't designed with teams in mind IMO (read Foreign Wives ability). Though that led to probably the best moment in that game.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #26 on:** July 22, 2013, 12:04:12 AM »

Quote from: Westy on July 21, 2013, 04:21:47 PM

Quote from: RTSmaniac on July 21, 2013, 03:56:48 PM
OK so I have a confession to make. My opponent set his heros aside with First Fruits and I activate Darius Decree and discard it to discard his heros...

What's wrong with this? He discarded his angels also! I didnt say anything...
You're intentionally allowing him to not play by the rules, resulting in an unfair game.

I never said I was perfect. Failure to maintain the gamestate is under the responsibility of both players. Failure to do so should result in a gameloss.

Whats worse is the turn before, he activates Urim and Thummim looks at my hand, puts Peter down, then tries to activate 4DCoin and I immediatly call a judge over to stop him. It was a misplay on his part, but only catching mistakes that benefit me was the issue that was really unfair.

Master KChief · « **Reply #27 on:** July 22, 2013, 12:23:00 AM »

Quote from: RTSmaniac on July 22, 2013, 12:04:12 AM

I never said I was perfect. Failure to maintain the gamestate is under the responsibility of both players. Failure to do so should result in a gameloss.

Agreed, with the addendum that a game loss is given only if the gamestate is irreparable.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #28 on:** July 22, 2013, 11:26:33 AM »

1 - I don't have a problem with bluffing in the game (ex. attacking with a hero lacking backup, grabbing 2 cards in your hand like Westy did, or even faking disinterest like MJB). Redemption is a strategy game, and part of strategy games is always the mind game with the opponent.

2 - I agree with everyone that if you feel convicted about something you shouldn't do it. Listen carefully to the Holy Spirit so that He'll keep talking to you

3 - I think that what RTSM did was flat wrong. If you notice a player not doing something that is a "may" ability, I don't think you have to point that out to make sure they didn't want to. But if you notice a player doing something incorrectly that is mandatory (ex. setting aside angels with First Fruits when it should just be humans), then I think you should have to point that out. And if you are going to be a rules lawyer when it is in your favor, then you should be a rules lawyer when it is not. Clift, you know that I love you man, and I have a ton of respect for you as a Christian, as a father, and as a friend. I encourage you to never do something like that again. You'll feel better, your opponent will feel better, and it's really just not worth it.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #29 on:** July 22, 2013, 12:19:26 PM »

I agree with Prof U on all three points.

I also want to point out that I was feigning complete interest and excitement in Matt and my TEAMS game to try to get Alan to choose me for Vain Philosophy, since Matt and I planned it out when one of us had SoG in hand. In reality, I was mostly disinterested, because I knew from our experience at Nationals that beating a team with Andrew isn't all that difficult when you have at least 300 cards between yourself and your teammate, 42 of which are Samaria...*

*No, I'm not serious. I'm always interested and excited in Redemption games. Except T1 Multi games. Watching one opponent speed through a deck and attacking with a gigantic banding chain during a T1 game is tolerable. Watching three opponents do it, not so much. But that said, I haven't played T1 Multi in years, and certainly not since the last set came out, so who knows what it's like now.

The Guardian · « **Reply #30 on:** July 22, 2013, 12:48:51 PM »

Quote

Watching one opponent speed through a deck and attacking with a gigantic banding chain during a T1 game is tolerable. Watching three opponents do it, not so much. But that said, I haven't played T1 Multi in years, and certainly not since the last set came out, so who knows what it's like now.

It's basically the same. Except now it's usually just a two Hero band that is CBN.

Red · « **Reply #31 on:** July 22, 2013, 12:54:37 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on July 22, 2013, 12:19:26 PM

I agree with Prof U on all three points.

I also want to point out that I was feigning complete interest and excitement in Matt and my TEAMS game to try to get Alan to choose me for Vain Philosophy, since Matt and I planned it out when one of us had SoG in hand. In reality, I was mostly disinterested, because I knew from our experience at Nationals that beating a team with Andrew isn't all that difficult when you have at least 300 cards between yourself and your teammate, 42 of which are Samaria...*

*No, I'm not serious. I'm always interested and excited in Redemption games. Except T1 Multi games. Watching one opponent speed through a deck and attacking with a gigantic banding chain during a T1 game is tolerable. Watching three opponents do it, not so much. But that said, I haven't played T1 Multi in years, and certainly not since the last set came out, so who knows what it's like now.

I can deck out turn two consistently in T1 Multi

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #32 on:** July 22, 2013, 03:06:12 PM »

I just want to state that I am completely opposed to the "gentleman's agreement" that you talked about people doing at last year's Nats regarding throwing games to James Roepke. I'm pretty sure that the rules actually state that you have to try your best to win. As a tournament host, I would disqualify anyone who was shown to have made this kind of deal.

I understand wanting to give James credit for creating the deck that dominated last year's Nats. But destroying the integrity of the overall tournament is NOT the way to do that. James is a great guy, and a great player, and he deserves to have the chance to win the tournament on his own merit (which he has come close to doing many times). Throwing games would cheapen his victory, and I would be surprised if he even wanted this deal to exist.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #33 on:** July 22, 2013, 03:13:03 PM »

Quote

And if you are going to be a rules lawyer when it is in your favor, then you should be a rules lawyer when it is not.

I agree, I know what I allowed my opponent to do was wrong, I just figured this was a good thread to show someone what a true dishonorable play looks like.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #34 on:** July 22, 2013, 03:39:02 PM »

Quote from: RTSmaniac on July 22, 2013, 03:13:03 PM

I know what I allowed my opponent to do was wrong, I just figured this was a good thread to show someone what a true dishonorable play looks like.

1 - Confession is good for the soul

2 - Don't beat yourself up about it, just learn from your mistake and don't repeat it.

3 - If you REALLY want an example of dishonorable play, you should check out this thread. At least your problem was a spur-of-the-moment decision made in the heat-of-competition of a game. This other example was premeditated.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #35 on:** July 22, 2013, 03:41:04 PM »

What about the classic "I give you the soul, then I play FA". I almost called someone out of that and made him eat falling away but I respected the player to much to do so. Would it have been dishonorable to make him play it for no affect or even fall away himself (in this case he didn't have a redeemed soul yet)?

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #36 on:** July 22, 2013, 03:57:46 PM »

I dont know if I should ask this...how does that work again?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #37 on:** July 22, 2013, 04:04:58 PM »

Believe it or not I generally agree with that assessment even though I was in the situation. I'm glad that I didn't have to play James and make the decision of whether or not to uphold the general agreement that anyone playing James' deck should fold to him (note there was the provision that the deal was only valid if he was undefeated at the time). I will try to post something a little more fleshes out when I'm not on the phone. But I do think if that situation had occurred the tournament may have been harmed. Luckily it did not to my knowledge.

Also note I opposed the suggestion to throw a root tournament awhile ago.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #38 on:** July 22, 2013, 04:33:29 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on July 22, 2013, 04:04:58 PM

Also note I opposed the suggestion to throw a root tournament awhile ago.

I remember that tournament, and that someone came up with that idea based on the best of intentions. However I also opposed it openly at the time, and continue to do so based on the same principles that apply here.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #39 on:** July 22, 2013, 04:35:08 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit on July 22, 2013, 03:41:04 PM

What about the classic "I give you the soul, then I play FA".

I'm not sure what you are implying is wrong with this one. Since you get to respond to your own action of handing over the LS, I don't see any problem with announcing ahead of time that you are playing Falling Away afterward. That just seems like good practice to eliminate arguments over slapjack.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #40 on:** July 22, 2013, 04:37:26 PM »

Well it breaks the rules of the game so that's probably the issue

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #41 on:** July 22, 2013, 04:38:18 PM »

The problem is that no lost soul was handed over. My opponent just said what he was going to do and at that point FA hit the table.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #42 on:** July 22, 2013, 04:59:31 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit on July 22, 2013, 04:38:18 PM

The problem is that no lost soul was handed over. My opponent just said what he was going to do and at that point FA hit the table.

I wouldn't call the play dishonorable (just silly), nor would I say that not allowing him to take it back/force him to FA himself is dishonorable. If someone told me they were going to do it, I'd tell them that it is a bad idea, and wait until the soul is handed over. If someone did do it to me at a tournament, I don't necessarily know if I would force them to target themselves or no one, but I would certainly rule in the favor of someone whose opponent did that and said that they have to target themselves/no one.

Chris · « **Reply #43 on:** July 22, 2013, 05:08:02 PM »

For what it's worth, if I announced a rescue and an intention to play Falling Away, and my opponent forced me to unrescue my own soul, I would walk away from that game. The whole point of not going through all the official motions is for convenience's sake, and there's literally no scenario where the player making the rescue attempt would have anything to gain if the person blocking did go through all the proper motions, since, as Underwood already pointed out, the blocking player has the right to respond to his own action anyway. Exploiting an attempt at keeping things moving (especially when so many players do it) is just disgusting.

Master KChief · « **Reply #44 on:** July 22, 2013, 05:21:00 PM »

Quote from: Chris on July 22, 2013, 05:08:02 PM

For what it's worth, if I announced a rescue and an intention to play Falling Away, and my opponent forced me to unrescue my own soul, I would walk away from that game.

Quote from: Chris on July 21, 2013, 12:08:27 PM

Quote from: TechnoEthicist on July 21, 2013, 12:04:20 PM
For the record, if that happened to me, I would have left the tournament.

In my opinion, this is a far better example of unsportsmanlike conduct than anything MJB or Westy did.

Gabe · « **Reply #45 on:** July 22, 2013, 05:26:03 PM »

The problem with this entire hypothetical situation is that once you enter battle resolution no Dominants can be played. You have to complete all the steps of battle resolution, including awarding the Lost Soul. It's not until battle resolution is complete and the battle phase has ended that any player may play a Dominant.

If the defender has discarded their EC by the numbers then he's entered battle resolution and cannot play FA. If the removal was by SA or the Hero was unblocked then FA was a legal play but he might have to target himself if the rescuer has no redeemed souls.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #46 on:** July 22, 2013, 05:34:53 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on July 22, 2013, 05:26:03 PM

The problem with this entire hypothetical situation is that once you enter battle resolution no Dominants can be played. You have to complete all the steps of battle resolution, including awarding the Lost Soul. It's not until battle resolution is complete and the battle phase has ended that any player may play a Dominant.

If the defender has discarded their EC by the numbers then he's entered battle resolution and cannot play FA. If the removal was by SA or the Hero was unblocked then FA was a legal play but he might have to target himself if the rescuer has no redeemed souls.

I agree with that, but I would assume that in most cases, if someone has taken the time to physically discard their EC by the numbers (which a lot of people don't do before surrendering an LS) then they would probably be the types of people that would take the time to hand over the LS. I would guess that in most situations where this would happen, an EC discarded by numbers or SA is still physically in battle when FA is played.

Gabe · « **Reply #47 on:** July 22, 2013, 05:42:49 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on July 22, 2013, 05:34:53 PM

I agree with that, but I would assume that in most cases, if someone has taken the time to physically discard their EC by the numbers (which a lot of people don't do before surrendering an LS) then they would probably be the types of people that would take the time to hand over the LS. I would guess that in most situations where this would happen, an EC discarded by numbers or SA is still physically in battle when FA is played.

If that's the case then he just played FA on on himself. Sloppy play does not pay.

The Guardian · « **Reply #48 on:** July 22, 2013, 05:53:26 PM »

Quote

I'm not sure what you are implying is wrong with this one. Since you get to respond to your own action of handing over the LS, I don't see any problem with announcing ahead of time that you are playing Falling Away afterward. That just seems like good practice to eliminate arguments over slapjack

One might say that rescuing the Lost Soul is an action that occurs after the surrendering of the Lost Soul and therefore the rescuing player has right of next response.

Some very plausible scenarios where the handing over of the Lost Soul does make a difference:
Player B states that he is surrendering a Lost Soul and going to play Falling Away. Before he actually surrenders the Lost Soul or puts Falling Away in play, Player A plays Mayhem.

Player A knows Player B has Falling Away in hand (via a hand reveal ability). Player B surrenders a Lost Soul, hands it over and starts to play Falling Away (meaning he is reaching for it in hand), but Player A plays Mayhem first.

Player A knows Player B has Falling Away and Christian Martyr in hand (via a hand reveal ability). Player B surrenders a Lost Soul, hands it over and starts to play Falling Away, but Player A plays Guardian of Your Souls first. (The idea being that Player A withheld GoYS so that Player B would surrender the Lost Soul instead of using Martyr.)

Gabe · « **Reply #49 on:** July 22, 2013, 06:06:23 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on July 22, 2013, 04:35:08 PM

Since you get to respond to your own action of handing over the LS, I don't see any problem with announcing ahead of time that you are playing Falling Away afterward.

This premise is false. You do not get to respond to your own action. That is a misuse, or misinterpretation of the rule that decides who gets the tie breaker in the rare event that two Dominants are played at the same time. Announcing what you intend to do only gives the opponent more of an opportunity to play their card first. Unless you have a gentlemen's agreement with your opponent I would not recommend playing that way.

News:

Author Topic: Dishonorable Play? (Read 6457 times)

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

Chris