Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: stefferweffer on June 21, 2010, 02:32:40 PM
-
I have Tabernacle with Lampstand in it, and Unholy Writ activated in my artifact pile.
My opponent, in their preparation phase, activates Captured Ark. I choose to shuffle my Lampstand.
Can I now play Destruction of Nehushtan on their Captured Ark, thus negating what it did, so that my Lampstand returns to the Tabernacle?
Thanks!
-
yes.
-
+1
The question in my mind is who gets to play DoN first if both players want to.
Does the player with Captured Ark get to play their DoN on Unholy Writ while LotS is temporarily shuffled because they are responding to their action of activating Captured Ark? (This is my guess.)
Or does the player with LotS get to play their DoN on Captured Ark because they are responding to their action of physically shuffling their deck?
-
Does the player with Captured Ark get to play their DoN on Unholy Writ while LotS is temporarily shuffled because they are responding to their action of activating Captured Ark?
I believe so.
Interesting move...
-
The one who played Captured Ark gets to respond to his action first. This is why most of my decks now include at least one way to have 3 Arts active at all times.
-
The one who played Captured Ark gets to respond to his action first. This is why most of my decks now include at least one way to have 3 Arts active at all times.
Agree. In my last tournament deck I had High Priest's Palace in there for the sole reason of opening another artifact space, because of Captured Ark :)
-
+1
The question in my mind is who gets to play DoN first if both players want to.
Does the player with Captured Ark get to play their DoN on Unholy Writ while LotS is temporarily shuffled because they are responding to their action of activating Captured Ark? (This is my guess.)
Or does the player with LotS get to play their DoN on Captured Ark because they are responding to their action of physically shuffling their deck?
I agree that they should get first shot with DON on Unholy Writ, but I assume that given enough time, (10 seconds?), if they have not played DON yet, then I can play mine, and they can't retroactively say "Well before you play yours..."
-
Now that I think about it more, Can't an opponent also play Destructive Sin or Image of Jealousy to negate Tabernacle's ability, thus removing the artifact within it? When that happens is the artifact instantly discarded?
-
The question in my mind is who gets to play DoN first if both players want to.
Whoever plays their DoN first is who gets to play it first. There is not such things as "initiative" to play a Dominant. In the rare event that both players play their DoN at the same time, then the tie would go to the person who used Captured Ark because they were responding to their own action.
Now that I think about it more, Can't an opponent also play Destructive Sin or Image of Jealousy to negate Tabernacle's ability, thus removing the artifact within it? When that happens is the artifact instantly discarded?
You cannot negate the identifier of a Fortress. DS or IoJ isn't going to remove an Artifact being held by the Tabernacle or a Temple.
-
The question in my mind is who gets to play DoN first if both players want to.
Whoever plays their DoN first is who gets to play it first. There is not such things as "initiative" to play a Dominant. In the rare event that both players play their DoN at the same time, then the tie would go to the person who used Captured Ark because they were responding to their own action.
Now that I think about it more, Can't an opponent also play Destructive Sin or Image of Jealousy to negate Tabernacle's ability, thus removing the artifact within it? When that happens is the artifact instantly discarded?
You cannot negate the identifier of a Fortress. DS or IoJ isn't going to remove an Artifact being held by the Tabernacle or a Temple.
That's good to know about the identifier. I never thought of it as different in that way. Thanks!
-
Whoever plays their DoN first is who gets to play it first. There is not such things as "initiative" to play a Dominant. In the rare event that both players play their DoN at the same time, then the tie would go to the person who used Captured Ark because they were responding to their own action.
Which is extremely stupid and holds the game back in many ways. This should have been fixed forever ago.
Also, Spreading Mildew will work the way you were wanting.
-
Whoever plays their DoN first is who gets to play it first. There is not such things as "initiative" to play a Dominant. In the rare event that both players play their DoN at the same time, then the tie would go to the person who used Captured Ark because they were responding to their own action.
Alright, I'm super confused. I know there was a case where I believe it was you yourself who said you would have to wait like 5 seconds before playing your dominant after an opponent made a certain move...
-
Alright, I'm super confused. I know there was a case where I believe it was you yourself who said you would have to wait like 5 seconds before playing your dominant after an opponent made a certain move...
Although there isn't "technically" an initiative check for dominants, careful players will basically do one. The idea is that if your opponent has done the last action, and they call over a judge and make a case that they either played a dominant at the same time as you, or even that you played too fast before they even had a chance (ie. because they were still shuffling their deck etc.) then the judge is going to respond in their favor. And at that point you have now revealed that you have that dominant in your hand. Similarly, if you activate an art and then go into battle, and your opponent calls over a judge and makes a case that they didn't have enough time to play DoN before you entered battle, then probably the judge will have to rule in their favor again, and now you have revealed how you wanted to attack.
The point is that in these cases, I find it to be better to hesitate for a bit to allow my opponents to play dominants. In fact, sometimes I'll even ask them if they want to DoN an art (like Hidden Treasures or Gifts of the Magi) before I make my attack, just to make sure. You don't have to do this of course, but if you don't, then there will probably come a time when you will reveal something and then get a judges ruling against you.
-
theres alot of these last action clauses that i dont agree with and have gotten into quite heated disputes with many a player over in ROOT. very touchy subject.
-
theres alot of these last action clauses that i dont agree with and have gotten into quite heated disputes with many a player over in ROOT. very touchy subject.
"Responding to your own action" may be touchy, but at least it is a consistent way to resolve disputes about who played their dominant first and it prevents "slapjack" which is infinitely more touchy :)
-
On a side note, I think Grapes of Wrath made this even worse, since often the blocking player is only blocking to play Grapes, and the attacking player realizes this and wants to play AOTL first.
-
I guess im just afraid of what i dont understand.
-
On a side note, I think Grapes of Wrath made this even worse, since often the blocking player is only blocking to play Grapes, and the attacking player realizes this and wants to play AOTL first.
When using GoW defensively, the defender does have the priority to play his GoW before that attackers AotL. This is because the defender is responding to his own action of adding a blocker to the battle.
I guess im just afraid of what i dont understand.
In that case, education is the solution to your problem :)
-
In that case, education is the solution to your problem
In that case, I look foward to my thrashing- i mean, teaching from the professor
-
In that case, I look foward to my thrashing- i mean, teaching from the professor
Always glad to help out a fellow inquiring mind :)
-
Mark,
I dont like the "responding to own action" idea you present because it punishes decisive players and rewards "cowards" for lack of a more poetic term. The Gow/AotL play is precisely what I fear. Someone presents a charachter has Grapes in their hand (but may actually be deciding to play some enhancements w/initiative) and I play AotL then they say..."but I was gonna grapes him!" When in reality if I had given them the time they may not have. But now, all of a sudden they are crystal clear as to what they wanted to do. Now this "responding to my own action" clause gives them leeway to "change their mind" mid battle so to speak.
Personally I like slapjack with the responging to the own action only in the rare tie as gabe said, I think that if you are going to make a move you better be decisive. I am not going to sit there and play your deck for you. Maybe in a pick-up game when I am playing my jr. highers, but in a tournament? no. Time to put on your big boy pants and deal because my money spends the same as yours so you can play your deck and I will play mine and if you cant make a decision, I dont mind making mine decision first.
-
Personally I like slapjack with the responging to the own action only in the rare tie
1 - Most people don't like slapjack.
2 - Re-read your post and ask yourself, "does this sound like fun and fellowship"?
3 - You are welcome to play your style, but just beware that you may have rulings go against you if your opponent makes a case that you didn't give them time to play their cards.
-
Personally I like slapjack with the responging to the own action only in the rare tie
1 - Most people don't like slapjack.
2 - Re-read your post and ask yourself, "does this sound like fun and fellowship"?
3 - You are welcome to play your style, but just beware that you may have rulings go against you if your opponent makes a case that you didn't give them time to play their cards.
Some segment of players find fun in have a decisive game that isn't hampered by rulings related to the initiative to play a card that, in the rulebook, is stated to be allowed to be played anytime, and then will offer the fellowship of various plays that could have been made after the game, for the benefit of the other player.
And, seriously, just ask "My initiative?" or say "Your initative, but I'm gonna Martyr you first.", etc.
-
3 - You are welcome to play your style, but just beware that you may have rulings go against you if your opponent makes a case that you didn't give them time to play their cards.
You've taken a previous ruling on how to handle ties when two players play their Dominates at the same time and you've somehow tried to twist it into "initiative" to play a Dominant. What you're talking about doesn't exist in Redemption and hopefully never will. ::)
-
Hopefully it will. The rules have been almost entirely fixed, but the "Dominants don't follow any rules" rule is the one remaining loose tangent, and it's a HUGE one. NO other successful card game has cards that you can just play whenever without any sort of rules governing who gets to play it first if both players have one.
Nothing in a card game should ever have to do with being more physically quick than your opponent.
-
In almost all cases it has to do with mental quickness, not physical quickness. Considering this is a strategy game that seems rather fitting.
-
I disagree entirely. I've seen many, many, many, many instances where two people want to play dominants and the "winner" is whoever is able to reach the dominant in his hand faster. There is also the problem that Judges have to make completely subjective calls that may impact the winner of entire tournaments. If there are no rules for playing Dominants, how can anyone be expected to enforce the...rules?
-
I agree with both Gabe's and Polarius's perspectives. The above example crustpope gave:
The Gow/AotL play is precisely what I fear. Someone presents a charachter has Grapes in their hand (but may actually be deciding to play some enhancements w/initiative) and I play AotL then they say..."but I was gonna grapes him!" When in reality if I had given them the time they may not have.
is exactly what I dont want to see in a high level tournament. Ive played in ROOT games where someone gave me time to play my doms without me knowing they were giving me time and then they play something and i tell them i was going to play my dom and they said they gave me enough time and i told them i was waiting on them to ask for initiative and they said they didnt have to b/c they gave me enough time and it was all over from there...mercy
-
Nothing in a card game should ever have to do with being more physically quick than your opponent.
Very well said!
In almost all cases it has to do with mental quickness, not physical quickness. Considering this is a strategy game that seems rather fitting.
A look into the mind of one of the greatest Redemption players there are.
-
"Someone presents a charachter has Grapes in their hand (but may actually be deciding to play some enhancements w/initiative) and I play AotL then they say..."but I was gonna grapes him!" When in reality if I had given them the time they may not have. But now, all of a sudden they are crystal clear as to what they wanted to do. "
What you describe above is a dishonest player, so I hope that does not come up very often in this game. I personally don't want it to reach a point where I feel I have to put my Grapes out simultaneously with my EC (which I don't think is allowed anyway). You see, because I can't play two cards at once, and my opponent already has his hero on the table, he can have his hand on a facedown card (AOTL) ready to pounce, whereas I can't play two cards at once. It's just frustrating, and creating Grapes of Wrath is what caused this. Didn't anyone foresee this happening, where this GOOD Dominant would be used so much to STOP a rescue attempt by the winning player?
Am I allowed to play my EC and announce as I do so "I'm blocking with ____ but I'm also going to play Grapes of Wrath on him" to avoid the "slapjack" scenario?
-
Actually the GoW/AotL thing online is a very good example of why this is needed.
If you are planning on blocking on RTS, you have to physically drag your EC into battle from territory, and then move your mouse up to your hand to click on GoW. You opponent only has to wait until seeing your EC in the middle of the screen and then click on AotL while you are moving your mouse toward your hand. It is physically impossible to beat the AotL in this case, and that is why I would always rule in favor of the defender getting to play Grapes before the attacker could play AotL.
Of course in a face-to-face game this isn't so much an issue. There you can move your EC into battle with one hand and play GoW immediately with the other hand.
Am I allowed to play my EC and announce as I do so "I'm blocking with ____ but I'm also going to play Grapes of Wrath on him" to avoid the "slapjack" scenario?
I'm also fine with announcing moves like this.
-
On a sad note, anyone care to predict how many times a ruling will have to be made on AOTL versus Grapes at Nationals? I hope the judges are all in agreement one way or the other beforehand.
-
On a sad note, anyone care to predict how many times a ruling will have to be made on AOTL versus Grapes at Nationals? I hope the judges are all in agreement one way or the other beforehand.
It shouldn't ever be a problem but I suppose it could happen if there are indecisive players who's hesitate.
If your intention is to block with your EC and immediately play Grapes, I can't see any reason that you shouldn't place your EC into battle with Grapes on top of him (assuming there are not abilities that need to complete first). This shows your intention and doesn't allow any window for AotL. I also use this same type of play to give a player half of the "Lost Souls" and play Burial. It's easy to do and avoids any chance for slap jack.
I also don't seem to have a problem with this over RTS, but I tend to know what I'm going to do and not hesitate. We're only talking about one second from the time you drag your EC into battle and move the mouse to your hand to click on the card.
-
"Someone presents a charachter has Grapes in their hand (but may actually be deciding to play some enhancements w/initiative) and I play AotL then they say..."but I was gonna grapes him!" When in reality if I had given them the time they may not have. But now, all of a sudden they are crystal clear as to what they wanted to do. "
What you describe above is a dishonest player, so I hope that does not come up very often in this game.
You would be surprised how frequently this comes up. I wouldnt call them dishonest so much as I would call them "indecisive"
Aand Mark, I think there is a different set of code of ethics when playing online than playing face to face. There are things that are impossible to do online that are possible to do face to face (such as play cards nearly simultaneously)
In real life, if my opponent hesitates, I wont. I know what is in my hand and I know that possibly my only shot will be to play a certain card. SInce dominants do not require initiative, the only question you will hear me ask is (if it is a banding ec) "are you banding?" because that makes a difference and I want them to ensure that they are not bringing someone else into the battle before I play AotL.
-
You would be surprised how frequently this comes up. I wouldnt call them dishonest so much as I would call them "indecisive"
Aand Mark, I think there is a different set of code of ethics when playing online than playing face to face. There are things that are impossible to do online that are possible to do face to face (such as play cards nearly simultaneously)
In real life, if my opponent hesitates, I wont. I know what is in my hand and I know that possibly my only shot will be to play a certain card. SInce dominants do not require initiative, the only question you will hear me ask is (if it is a banding ec) "are you banding?" because that makes a difference and I want them to ensure that they are not bringing someone else into the battle before I play AotL.
I think stefferweffer's thought was this - there are two ways to think about this scenario, and both result in the person being "dishonest".
1. The person with Grapes was trying to decide whether to play an EE or play Grapes and hadn't decided when the attacker played AotL. If a person is still deciding between their options when AotL is played, and he/she says "I was going to play Grapes", then they are dishonest because they are claiming to have made up their mind when they hadn't (and after the opponent showed him his move, thus making it obvious which decision would have been better).
2. The person with Grapes actually planned to play an EE first and then play Grapes when AotL was played. If this person claims "I was gonna play Grapes!", they are clearly dishonest.
-
I usually wait to play my grapes as a block on my EC just so i can say-
"You cant play that AotL"
"Why not"
"Because i get to respond to my own action first"
"But I gave you enough time"
"Not enough, i guess" :-X
-
I think the moral of this story is that players need to learn to be decisive. If your going to use Grapes, fine, but don't even give your opponent a chance to use Angel of the Lord.
-
I think the moral of this story is that players need to learn to be decisive. If your going to use Grapes, fine, but don't even give your opponent a chance to use Angel of the Lord.
Bingo. this is my feeling precicely. read your cards, decide what you want to do and then execute it.
-
Yep, there's a reason why you don't have to present a blocker immediately upon a hero entering battle.