Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Warrior_Monk on July 21, 2013, 12:49:04 AM
-
I was playing Teams, and I was going for my third lost soul. My opponent starts to hand the soul to my teammate, who was holding the redeemed souls. I reach for two cards in my hand, feigning the SoG/NJ play. My opponent immediately throws down SoG/NJ before my non-dominant cards are revealed. This ultimately resulted in being able to get a 2 Liner block and made us win the game.
I didn't lie, but I did imply, and so I kind of feel guilty about that, so I thought I should ask for another perspective. I was actually hoping for a Mayhem (I had just mayhem'd myself and it was a pretty bad hand), but I've often done things like this as a joke, never realizing what consequences it could have. I don't think there's anything that can really be done about this legally, since somebody could complain that somebody feigned the dominant play and actually just be playing characters, but it does seem to be in bad taste. On the other hand, my opponent got greedy and jumped the gun to try to get a better soul differential, and it's his fault that he played the cards.
I really don't know what to call it, but should this be considered poor sportsmanship, and what can we do to discourage dirty play such as this?
-
I wouldn't like it if someone did it to.me, but I do.t think that it is unsportsmanlike like. It is a stradegy. If you had seen their hand and knew what they had, it would be an annoyance, but it would be my own fault for making the asumption. But I definitely wouldn't call it dishonorable or dirty play or anything.
-
Andrew, this is a Christian game, first and foremost. We are supposed to play with integrity, not psyching people out in hopes of taking advantage of them. At the same time, those of us who become frustrated in the heat of the game (myself included) also do not display good character. Thankfully there is forgiveness for us both. That being said, I am glad I did not have to judge your team game, because some sort of punishment should happen in events like this for actions like you've described.
-
On the other hand, my opponent got greedy and jumped the gun to try to get a better soul differential, and it's his fault that he played the cards.
Ohhh how I have a love hate relationship with teams. I had a teammate that jumped the gun many many times... we lost a number of games because of that itchy trigger finger. Sure if you actually did the feign without having Sog and NJ in hand thats in the realm of sketchy play... but eh... its really more of a learning experience for the other player to not jump the gun.
-
Frankly, as a host, I have no sympathy for players who hold SoG/NJ in their hand and choose not to play them, waiting for the "opportune moment." You get what you deserve.
Your play is obviously improper, otherwise you would not feel guilty about it.
I am curious, though, how the revealed cards were played. It is against the rules to reveal any of your cards, unless a SA specifically says to. Were you putting down characters, or discarding to 8? If not, then that is another problem entirely.
-
I am curious, though, how the revealed cards were played. It is against the rules to reveal any of your cards, unless a SA specifically says to. Were you putting down characters, or discarding to 8? If not, then that is another problem entirely.
I never actually got to reveal them, I moved them up in my hand and I grabbed them together like you might SoG/NJ, and started to pull it out of my hand.
One was a character, one was an enhancement, so it wasn't like I could have gotten away with "Oh, I was just putting characters around." I was deceptive, even if I wasn't completely intentionally trying to force the misplay. Who draws SoG/NJ T2 after a Mayhem anyway?
-
The first thing to point out here is that in no way, shape, form, or fashion did Westy break any kind of rule. He bluffed (a very commonly-used strategy in many, many card games) and it worked; and while it could be argued that this was a dirty play, I think throwing around terms like "bad character," "improper," or "integrity" is silly.
-
For those of you saying that what Westy did was wrong, please answer the following questions.
1. Is it wrong to bluff in a game of any sort?
1a. If it is wrong to bluff in a game, then is it wrong to play any game that requires a player to bluff (Poker, Shadows Over Camelot, I Doubt It (often known by other names), Avalon, Mafia, etc)?
2. Is it wrong to bluff in sports (pump-fake, juke, hand signals, ball fake, etc)?
It seems to me in a cursory overview of the competitive landscape today, whether that be in sports, card games, board games, or the like, that bluffing is a natural part of competition.
3. Is bluffing in competition the same as lying? I have a weekly playgroup and we regularly play Bang! and Avalon (hidden identity games) and sometimes I am asked this question.
Kirk
-
The first thing to point out here is that in no way, shape, form, or fashion did Westy break any kind of rule. He bluffed (a very commonly-used strategy in many, many card games) and it worked; and while it could be argued that this was a dirty play, I think throwing around terms like "bad character," "improper," or "integrity" is silly.
I agree and I would also lump "dishonorable" into that list as well. I don't see anything at all wrong with what Westy describes. Playing your opponent is part what sets top players apart from those that are just good at the game. There are several plays like this that I will do from time to time. Sometimes it's a bluff, sometimes it's the real deal.
That being said, if your conscience is convicted about your actions then you need to follow that first and foremost.
-
He bluffed (a very commonly-used strategy in many, many card games) and it worked...
This isn't just any other card game. ;)
...and while it could be argued that this was a dirty play, I think throwing around terms like "bad character," "improper," or "integrity" is silly.
Frankly I think that "dirty" is a lot harsher than "improper." I guess that makes you silly, too.
That being said, if your conscience is convicted about your actions then you need to follow that first and foremost.
This is more of what I was getting at. The Bible is clear that "For him who knows the right thing to do, and does not do it, to him it is a sin." If Westy feels guilty, then it was improper for him to do this. Now, understand that I am not aware of the whole situation, so it is possible that Westy only felt guilty after the scolding of the opponent, in which case it would not be quite the same. ;)
-
Let's throw in the (kinda) opposite situation from a game yesterday.
Situation: We were playing TEAMS (against Westy and Rawrlolsauce!) and had four redeemed souls. I had SoG in my hand, but there were no LS out to be rescued. I feigned complete disinterest in the game--I even stacked my hand on the table in a pile in front of me (which I do frequently in multiplayer games when I am know I not going to be part of the action). When Sauce! drew a lost soul, I immediately flipped SoG from the top of my hand stack for the win.
So from some of the answers given above, I take it that some of you would argue that since I was completely and actively interested in the game that it was somehow un-christian of me to feign disinterest. So two questions to this faction of the general audience:*
1) Am I right in surmising you feel this was a dishonorable play on my part?
2) If not, why not? Specifically do you see as the difference between my bluff and Westy's bluff?
One question to the full audience:
1) Does it matter the age and/or experience level of the opponents? If I am playing against Westy (for example) can I engage in a greater degree/higher level of bluffing than I can if I was playing against new players?
And lastly one question for Westy:
1) Do you feel I took unsportsmanlike advantage of you and Alan by pretending not to care?
*Just to avoid having people make (incorrect) assumptions about my mental state here--I feel absolutely no regret or remorse on how I played.
-
I have a type of experience in this area. I do Christian home school speech and debate. So there are a lot and i mean a lot of things i can legally do something that are just not ethical in a debate. So the rule I and lot of people follow by. Is Think if you had this done to you would you be offended. And if you have to think about for one second DO NOT DO IT. I think this rule can apply to Redemption as well
-
I wouldn't be offended by someone duping me so I guess I'm good then.
-
Interesting responses. I would argue that games like Bang, Shadows, Poker, etc, bluffing is a mechanic of the game. You want to convince people that you are someone you are not so that you can get the upper hand. That's not the same with Redemption. MJB's feigned disinterest is his choice, but I would not call that dishonorable. His actions did not cause his opponent to do things differently. The first situation did. The opponents were baited, they took the bait, and the 1st team won because of that. That's not showing who was the better Redemption player, that's showing who was the best at mind games.
For the record, if that happened to me, I would have left the tournament. I guess that's why I don't play Teams (among MANY other reasons), and why I'm just a good player and not a "top" player. Whatever that means...
I'd be curious to hear Rob's thoughts on this, since he did actually create the game. Also for the record, I would argue that bluffing is NOT a mechanic of Redemption (nowhere is it in the rulebook that the object of the game is psyche your player out). One counter would be attacking with a hero with nothing to back it up and hoping your opponent doesn't block. However, that's a legitimate play as you are making a rescue attempt and you are hoping your opponent doesn't have anything to counter. I guess someone could see something like that as bluffing I suppose.
-
His actions did not cause his opponent to do things differently.
That isn't necessarily true. MJB's action of feigning disinterest would lead his opponents to believe he did not have Son of God in his hand. This assumption could encourage the opponent to draw more, since he would believe that his drawing a soul would be, at that moment, irrelevant.
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.
I'd be curious to hear Rob's thoughts on this, since he did actually create the game. Also for the record, I would argue that bluffing is NOT a mechanic of Redemption (nowhere is it in the rulebook that the object of the game is psyche your player out). One counter would be attacking with a hero with nothing to back it up and hoping your opponent doesn't block. However, that's a legitimate play as you are making a rescue attempt and you are hoping your opponent doesn't have anything to counter. I guess someone could see something like that as bluffing I suppose.
There is no written rule of poker that bluffing is acceptable. It's a taught skill, and universally recognized to be a legitimate play, but it isn't actually a mechanic of the rules. A bluff in Redemption would be making a rescue attempt with a protected Gideon (with no good enhancements in my hand) while my opponent has King of Tyrus in his territory, leading my opponent to believe I'm about to play Edict, possibly leading him to refrain from blocking. The only real difference in this scenario and the one that Westy described is Westy's opponent has more to lose. Either way, the goal is to mislead the opponent.
-
Bluffing and capitalizing on an opponent overextending because of it has been around in CCGs for decades. Frankly I'm astonished this is a seemingly new concept to people that play this game.
-
I'm interested how those against bluffing expect multi player to be played then.
-
Playing your opponent is part what sets top players apart from those that are just good at the game.
Note: I'm not targeting Gabe in particular here; I'm only using his quote because it seems to sum up what several people are saying in this thread. It sums it up nicely, I suppose.
But this is why I don't play this game anymore in a competitive context. Because in order to be a "top player," you have to resort to things that some may consider against good Christian conscience. I, like Brad and Westy, would feel bad for this. This is a question of ethics, not morals. Is it wrong? No. But is it ethical? That's where the debate lies, and I would err on the side of not doing it.
How can we prevent it? Sadly, we can't, because of what MKC said (that it's been in CCG's from the beginning).
~Marti
-
Well, you know, if he was holding his hand in his right hand, and his two cards in the left, perhaps he was following the biblical instruction to not let your right hand know what your left is doing?
-
Bluffing has never bothers me. Still doesn't bother me and will never bother me. I like it when my oponents bluff, it makes the game funner for me.
-
Bluffing has never bothers me. Still doesn't bother me and will never bother me. I like it when my oponents bluff, it makes the game funner for me.
This thread was about Westy. The fact that he even posted this thread would indicate that he was struggling with the appropriateness of his actions. That's the Holy Spirit working, and we should never ignore Him.
Unless, of course, this whole thread was just bait for people like Brad to become target practice for the hecklers, as most threads that mention ethics end up becoming. :o
-
Lots of good points from both sides.
To begin, bluffing has always been part of the game, yes. I frequently push a hero out that they can simply block with an evil character and win. This type of bluffing seems a bit more serious, and I honestly am not sure how I feel about it. Personally, I think of the Matt Brinkman example, and the fact of the matter is we (at least, I) probably wouldn't have played SoG/NJ unless we were sure that he had SoG, because I'm playing to win, and not for soul differential. We had also just looked at Jordan's hand with Vain Philosophy (since Jordan was actually interested in the game and had been doing the most drawing). In that regard, I don't see a problem with it at all because I would have done things differently regardless of the bluff.
However, I did this to MitchRobStew, who is one of the guys I most look forward to seeing at a tournament, and that probably has more to do with my conscience than anything else. I also started this thread because I thought it was an interesting topic that Redemption hasn't heard a lot about. I've really enjoyed reading both sides of the argument. So yeah, a bit for the "hecklers", but I did feel bad about it because I was playing for third and ended up hitting my friend with a low blow (which I do consider it, though I agree it is perfectly legal). Realistically, since we weren't playing for first, and lost soul differential didn't matter if you lost, he still shouldn't have played SoG/NJ. That makes it more of a mistake on his part, which makes me feel better, but still, if it was an RLK, I probably wouldn't have thought twice about it.
-
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...
-
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 won a game in the T3 ROOT competition by bluffing. I had no EEs to stop my opponent's offense, so I played down Proud Pharisee, Naaman, and another Pharisee just to show him my ECs in hopes that would scare him into not attacking. He didn't attack and I won 6-5. Say what you want, but bluffing is a part of Redemption; just maybe not the example given in the OP (which can only be done in person).
That being said, we shouldn't do anything that violates our conscience, or knowingly violates another believer's conscience.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :o
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/strategies-and-combos/redemption-metagaming-giving-you-the-edge/msg513019/#msg513019) 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.
-
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)?
-
I dont know if I should ask this...how does that work again?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Well it breaks the rules of the game so that's probably the issue
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ::)
-
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.)
-
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.
-
Amen. There isn't such a thing as responding to your own action and no one listens when I say that.
-
Okay, yeah, it's sloppy play, but I would force them to take it back and hand it over, not fall away themselves. I find it pretty screwed up when I go play Pokemon and top tier players will allow me to take back my last action and Redemption players will rule shark me, often even times in fun games. Yes, it's a game, so we should try to teach people the rules, but it's also a game, and rule sharking like that is just not fun. Why do we care so much about winning that we go against the spirit of the game?
A prime example in Pokemon just came up at a small 8 person, best of the best invitational tournament, where David Cohen allowed Tsuyagashi (or something) Yamato to take back an energy attachment, and lost the game because of it. Should David really be kicking himself for being a nice person? No. That's ridiculous.
-
A prime example in Pokemon just came up at a small 8 person, best of the best invitational tournament, where David Cohen allowed Tsuyagashi (or something) Yamato to take back an energy attachment, and lost the game because of it. Should David really be kicking himself for being a nice person? No. That's ridiculous.
I don't even let my son take back energy attachments. ;)
-
But this is also why people keep game changing characters in their hands until they can throw them down in battle. What you don't see says alot about what you do. I would save the thief and Prince of this world until my opponent declared a rescue. If you laid all your cards on the table, there is no strategy. You can't defend as easy. Authority of Christ would get rid of all evil characters in a heartbeat. Feigning a play may seem wrong, but if it reveals what you can't see, it would be a plus.
That being said, I agree that the skill level of the opponent has alot to do with what is done. I would never feign a play against my group, but also, I have been known to pick to cards up to play and change my mind. Not intentional. It keeps the opponent on their toes.
-
So if I'm playing a hard-nosed competitor, should I take FA out of my hand and drop it on the table at the same moment I'm physically placing the LS in their hand? If they played Mayhem or another dom before the LS touched their skin, I would then have to force them to wait until I had completed handing them the LS (at which point battle resolution is complete) and then getting it back from them (since my FA was played at that moment, it is the first dom to hit the table legally after battle resolution), then activating its ability (which now won't shuffle my already-played FA).
This is why I'm souring on Redemption tournament play. The only reasons to attend any tourney over district level is (1) play Booster (because it's fun) and (2) get the promos.
-
but I would force them to take it back and hand it over, not fall away themselves
I would do this as well unless they had rule-sharked me earlier in the game.
-
Hey,
The falling away question happened at nationals in 2009. It was ruled one way during the game in question, but after extensive further discussion the judges present decided that announcing what you were doing was effectively the same as doing it.
Redemption has always held the general concept that we do not give a player an advantage for being more dextrous of physically faster than their opponent. If a player wishes to respond to their own action by playing a dominant you cannot deprive them of that opportunity by being physically faster to play your dominant.
Regarding the original quesiton, I actually think Westy's opponent was closer to being in the wrong than Westy because the opponent saw Westy's "intent" to play Son of God and New Jerusalem and tried to gain an advantage through being physically faster and play his own Son of God and New Jeruslaem first.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Why would it be 'wrong' to play SoG/NJ if you're reading a SoG/NJ that will end the game? It was the absolute correct play by the opponent, even if it was a bluff.
-
Hey,
Why would it be 'wrong' to play SoG/NJ if you're reading a SoG/NJ that will end the game? It was the absolute correct play by the opponent, even if it was a bluff.
Because gaining an advantage by being physically faster than your opponent is against the spirit of the rules of Redemption (and to as much of an extent as we have been able to define it is against the letter of the law of the rules of Redemption as well). If the defender expects the opponent has a Son of God and New Jerusalem that will end the game when they hand over the soul they should play their own Son of God and New Jerusalem before surrendering it.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
We don't like it when people are faster than other people, only when they're smarter.
-
If the defender expects the opponent has a Son of God and New Jerusalem that will end the game when they hand over the soul they should play their own Son of God and New Jerusalem before surrendering it.
The entire point is the person surrendering the soul does not know the rescuer has/has bluffed SoG/NJ until after the soul is surrendered in Westys example, not before.
-
Every time one of these dominant scenarios come up I swear I get even more confused on how they work... :o
-
3 - If you REALLY want an example of dishonorable play, you should check out this thread. (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/strategies-and-combos/redemption-metagaming-giving-you-the-edge/msg513019/#msg513019) 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.
Says the guy who created M.A.S.K. .... ;)
Every time one of these dominant scenarios come up I swear I get even more confused on how they work... :o
The good news is that you can rule it any way you like, and have at least one Elder confirming the ruling here on the Boards. ;D