Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on August 14, 2010, 05:14:24 PM
-
If I play Hur into territory, can I slap down a set aside before my opponent has the opportunity to play Christian Martyr?
I believe no because there is supposed to be a window for dominant play, just as if I used holy grail to convert Saul to Paul and pushed him into battle my opp has time to play don.
-
I would also say no.
-
The question is not about one motion. I put a hero in territory, as a second motion, I placed the set aside on him. Is there somewhere in the rules that requires you to ask your opponent if they want to play a dominant before you play a set aside?
-
Is there somewhere in the rules that requires you to ask your opponent if they want to play a dominant before you play a set aside?
I believe the rule is you don't have to ask, but you cannot deny your opponent a chance to play a card by being physically faster than him.
-
I believe the rule is you don't have to ask, but you cannot deny your opponent a chance to play a card by being physically faster than him.
+1 In general I wait a second or two just to be sure. If it is something that commonly gets a dominant response, I do sometimes ask as well. For example if I activate Gifts of the Magi with Hur sitting in my territory, I usually ask if my opponent wants to play Destruction of Nehustan. I don't have to, I could just wait 1-2 seconds and go, but I think asking is nice.
-
I believe the rule is you don't have to ask, but you cannot deny your opponent a chance to play a card by being physically faster than him.
+1 In general I wait a second or two just to be sure. If it is something that commonly gets a dominant response, I do sometimes ask as well. For example if I activate Gifts of the Magi with Hur sitting in my territory, I usually ask if my opponent wants to play Destruction of Nehustan. I don't have to, I could just wait 1-2 seconds and go, but I think asking is nice.
I second this motion since it would then become a game based on who had the quickest reflexes, not just good strategy.
-
I believe the rule is you don't have to ask, but you cannot deny your opponent a chance to play a card by being physically faster than him.
+1 In general I wait a second or two just to be sure. If it is something that commonly gets a dominant response, I do sometimes ask as well. For example if I activate Gifts of the Magi with Hur sitting in my territory, I usually ask if my opponent wants to play Destruction of Nehustan. I don't have to, I could just wait 1-2 seconds and go, but I think asking is nice.
I second this motion since it would then become a game based on who had the quickest reflexes, not just good strategy.
If it's true that you can't deny your opponent a chance to play a dominant because you're faster than him. Then he could just wait for you to put down your card, then say "oh, you went faster than me, I get to play a dominant." Please show me somewhere in the rule book, where it says that there is no playing cards to fast. That it's illegal for you to play a card in your territory to fast for your opponent.
From what I know, there is no "initiative" in territory. I don't have to ask you if its my initiative to put down a hero from my hand. I don't have to ask for initiative from my opponent before activating an artifact. So what you're saying is, your opponent could just sit there, you wait 30 seconds, then play your set aside, he decides he doesn't like what thats going to do. He can just say "you cant deny me a chance to play my dominant!" "You moved to fast!" Can we get a ruling from Bryon or another official judge please?
-
it is true what the others have said, you cannot deny your opponent the chance to play a dom. if you try to play too fast, your opponent can call you on it and get it ruled in his favor.
-
If it's true that you can't deny your opponent a chance to play a dominant because you're faster than him. Then he could just wait for you to put down your card, then say "oh, you went faster than me, I get to play a dominant."
No. That is a scenario where your action will affect your opponent's action. That is totally different: he was given a chance and did not use it. Once that chance is up, too bad. He played it wrong.
Please show me somewhere in the rule book, where it says that there is no playing cards to fast. That it's illegal for you to play a card in your territory to fast for your opponent.
No thank you. Mostly because one doesn't exist.
From what I know, there is no "initiative" in territory. I don't have to ask you if its my initiative to put down a hero from my hand. I don't have to ask for initiative from my opponent before activating an artifact.
There is no initiative, but that isn't totally true. I can't draw 3 cards and throw down a hero the second I see I have one, my opponent must have a chance to play a dom (AKA Mayhem).
So what you're saying is, your opponent could just sit there, you wait 30 seconds, then play your set aside, he decides he doesn't like what thats going to do. He can just say "you cant deny me a chance to play my dominant!" "You moved to fast!"
No. Like I said above, that is totally different. In that scenario your opponent was given a chance to play a dominant but chose not to. Once you play your set aside, its too late. He was given his chance. This 'too fast' idea is simply to stop slap jack.
Can we get a ruling from Bryon or another official judge please?
This was discussed a while back, I know SirNobody gave a fairly definite answer. Go look for the thread.
-
Today I was making a rescue, they block and said "my initiative" and instantly threw down Joseph in prison. I wanted to aotl him so I put it down and he said I still couldn't get the soul, even though I was gonna use the dom before the enhancement. What should have happened there :P
-
you should have had the oppurtunity to play aotl before he played jip. that would be a prime example of slapjack.
-
Today I was making a rescue, they block and said "my initiative" and instantly threw down Joseph in prison. I wanted to aotl him so I put it down and he said I still couldn't get the soul, even though I was gonna use the dom before the enhancement. What should have happened there :P
You should have yelled at and verbally (or physically) assaulted him for assuming it is his initiative. After that you should have either made him pick up his enhancement, or burn it yourself, and then play Angel of the Lord.
-
If it's true that you can't deny your opponent a chance to play a dominant because you're faster than him. Then he could just wait for you to put down your card, then say "oh, you went faster than me, I get to play a dominant."
No. That is a scenario where your action will affect your opponent's action. That is totally different: he was given a chance and did not use it. Once that chance is up, too bad. He played it wrong.
Please show me somewhere in the rule book, where it says that there is no playing cards to fast. That it's illegal for you to play a card in your territory to fast for your opponent.
No thank you. Mostly because one doesn't exist.
From what I know, there is no "initiative" in territory. I don't have to ask you if its my initiative to put down a hero from my hand. I don't have to ask for initiative from my opponent before activating an artifact.
There is no initiative, but that isn't totally true. I can't draw 3 cards and throw down a hero the second I see I have one, my opponent must have a chance to play a dom (AKA Mayhem).
So what you're saying is, your opponent could just sit there, you wait 30 seconds, then play your set aside, he decides he doesn't like what thats going to do. He can just say "you cant deny me a chance to play my dominant!" "You moved to fast!"
No. Like I said above, that is totally different. In that scenario your opponent was given a chance to play a dominant but chose not to. Once you play your set aside, its too late. He was given his chance. This 'too fast' idea is simply to stop slap jack.
Can we get a ruling from Bryon or another official judge please?
This was discussed a while back, I know SirNobody gave a fairly definite answer. Go look for the thread.
I'll do this one by one. (sorry, I don't know how to quote each of your things separately)
1. Actually, that is exactly what happened in our game today, where this first came up. I played my guy, then my set aside, I did it quickly, he then said that I couldn't do that because I moved to fast and didn't give him a chance to play a dominant.
2. Exactly what I thought, there isn't one in the rule book. I've never had it ruled this way and I have never seen anything it the rule book about this.
3. Whoa. When did that happen? Exactly why can't I put down a hero from my hand when I see I have one? That is exactly what I said, I have to ask my opponent if he wants to play a dominant on a card in my hand before he even sees it? So then it brings up the question, what if you wait for your opponent to put down a hero you don't like? Then he can just play mayhem and say you didn't give him a chance? Or, what if someone slapped down mayhem before I could put down a hero, could I then call him out for moving to quickly when I wanted to play a dominant on him?
4. As I said above, that what happened in our game, except it wasn't 30, more like 4-5. I pulled my hero out of kerith Ravine, and then played the set aside. I was in no hurry because I didn't know he had CM. But again, he claimed I moved to fast and that I didn't give him a chance.
5. I would actually like to here a ruling from Bryon, no offense to Sir Nobody. I play at Bryon's tournaments and slapjack situations have come up and there was never a ruling like this.
-
Hey,
From what I know, there is no "initiative" in territory. I don't have to ask you if its my initiative to put down a hero from my hand. I don't have to ask for initiative from my opponent before activating an artifact. So what you're saying is, your opponent could just sit there, you wait 30 seconds, then play your set aside, he decides he doesn't like what thats going to do. He can just say "you cant deny me a chance to play my dominant!" "You moved to fast!" Can we get a ruling from Bryon or another official judge please?
You don't have to ask for initiative in battle and you don't have to ask for initiative between performing actions during your prep phase. But you do have to give your opponent time to respond to either if they want to (just like Munchkin approximately 2.6 seconds should be allowed for the player to respond :) ). This is exactly why I don't do the "my initiative" thing in battle, because if you do it in battle then you really should be doing it between every action you take during your prep and discard phase as well.
Ultimately every time someone makes a claim that their opponent played too quickly it's going to turn into a he said/she said situation and the Judge will have to make a judgment call. But when both players are aware of this rule it is very rare to see a dispute about it come up.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
This thread is getting very close to making me leave the game in spite of the awesome new set.
-
As I said above, that what happened in our game, except it wasn't 30, more like 4-5. I pulled my hero out of kerith Ravine, and then played the set aside. I was in no hurry because I didn't know he had CM. But again, he claimed I moved to fast and that I didn't give him a chance.
This is inaccurate. Your hero moved out of Kerith Revine (not even all the way to the territory), and then the set aside card appeared, and he went back to Kerith Revine. All that happened in less than 3 seconds. And you were in a hurry, because we were drawing near to the time limit for the end of the game and you were behind.
I'd also like to point out that we extended the time limit on the game to allow the game to finish, and you to come back and win. I clearly was not trying to cheat you out of playing your cards. I just wanted to make sure that you gave opportunity for me to play mine.
-
The way I see it is this:
It's ok to play fast, as long as you're not doing it with intention of slapjacking someone. If you make a fast play such as the one described in this thread, and the opponent immediately says "WAIT! I was going to CM that hero!" Then their play should be allowed, as it is a legal play. However, if they say like a minute later, "Oh, I was going to CM that guy," then I would not allow them to do so. They have to be relatively quick to respond in a situation like that.
In other words, don't check for initiative for every action, as that will slow games down like crazy, but don't try to play so fast that opponents can't react.
-
Hey,
I would actually like to here a ruling from Bryon, no offense to Sir Nobody. I play at Bryon's tournaments and slapjack situations have come up and there was never a ruling like this.
Sir Nobody is an elder just like Byron. So am I. MKC, Sauce, and RR are all 3 REPs. Everyone in this thread has agreed that your understanding is incorrect. At this point, the answer should be obvious, and you don't need Bryon to post here as well. You're welcome to talk to him about it at the next tournament when you see him, but as far as this thread is concerned, this issue should be closed.
Since Bryon is the one that hosts tournaments that Eric goes to, Eric has every right to want to hear from Bryon on this topic; It just doesn't necessarily have to be on the boards or in this thread.
As one of the two parties involved in this ruling question, Prof, you are in no position to say when the issue should be closed. A REP, Elder, or even Rob becomes just an average player when it comes to ruling questions that come up in games that they are playing.
I'm glad I wasn't the one that had to make this ruling because as I said before it's just a he said/she said sort of situation and there's never a clear answer in those cases. But if this had happened in a face-to-face tournament, and I was the Judge making the decision, I'd probably rule in Eric's favor because Prof has a reputation of being a very deliberate player that often doesn't act as quickly as he can/should. I'm just glad that this ruling didn't affect the outcome of the game.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
But if this had happened in a face-to-face tournament, and I was the Judge making the decision, I'd probably rule in Eric's favor because Prof has a reputation of being a very deliberate player that often doesn't act as quickly as he can/should.
So, if it had not been the Prof (whom you obviously have personal issues with) and it had been a player with no "reputation of being very deliberate", then you would not have ruled in Eric's favor? That type of favoritism/discrimination is not something I would advertise. Just sayin'.
-
Hey,
You don't have to ask for initiative in battle and you don't have to ask for initiative between performing actions during your prep phase. But you do have to give your opponent time to respond to either if they want to (just like Munchkin approximately 2.6 seconds should be allowed for the player to respond :) ). This is exactly why I don't do the "my initiative" thing in battle, because if you do it in battle then you really should be doing it between every action you take during your prep and discard phase as well.
Ultimately every time someone makes a claim that their opponent played too quickly it's going to turn into a he said/she said situation and the Judge will have to make a judgment call. But when both players are aware of this rule it is very rare to see a dispute about it come up.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
The problem that I see with this idea is that it is unclear. If you don't ask for initiative in battle or you don't ask if the opponent wants to play a dominant before every single card you play outside of battle, how can you determine what giving them a chance to play a dominant was? I have often been playing and been surprised by an opponent's playing of a card before I was mentally able to anticipate that they were going to do that. I'll then realize that I could have stopped that if I had only played one of my dominants. Were they playing too fast or was it just that I was not anticipating their strategy until I saw what they played?
If there had been 30 seconds since they played the previous card, a judge would probably rule that 30 seconds was enough time for me to have had a chance. But what if it was 20 seconds? What if it was 10 seconds or five seconds? If it's really going to be a specific number of seconds instead of an initiative check, then it should be specified as a specific number of seconds so that a player knows they can wait that number of seconds between cards so that the opponent can't claim they weren't given a chance to play a dominant after a strategy is revealed.
This is why I always ask if it is my initiative in battle, because I don't want to reveal my enhancement and then have the opponent say they get to play their dominant first. But now with all of the strong set-asides, territory class, weapons and artifacts combined with the wealth of dominants, the prep phase has just as many possible issues like this.
I've always considered slapjack as playing two cards simultaneously (other than SOG and NJ) by the same person. But if we're going to have a rule about playing two separate cards in two separate motions as being too fast, then we should have an actual definition of what too fast is. Otherwise, players may use the "too fast" idea as a way around an opponent's strategy.
Mike
-
Hey,
The problem that I see with this idea is that it is unclear. If you don't ask for initiative in battle or you don't ask if the opponent wants to play a dominant before every single card you play outside of battle, how can you determine what giving them a chance to play a dominant was? I have often been playing and been surprised by an opponent's playing of a card before I was mentally able to anticipate that they were going to do that. I'll then realize that I could have stopped that if I had only played one of my dominants. Were they playing too fast or was it just that I was not anticipating their strategy until I saw what they played?
If you opponent instantly knows they want to play their dominant they get to. You must give your opponent time identify the situation, you do not have to give your opponent time to analyze the situation. While the 2.6 seconds comment was kinda a joke, it's actually a pretty good estimate. If you wait 2.6 seconds that should be enough time for your opponent to identify the situation.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
You don't need to wait for your opponent before you play a set-aside during your prep phase. The rule book lists that as one of many actions you can perform during that phase. There's no such thing as initiative during that part of the turn.
-
While the 2.6 seconds comment was kinda a joke, it's actually a pretty good estimate. If you wait 2.6 seconds that should be enough time for your opponent to identify the situation.
I've also played Munchkin and feel like 2.6 seconds is a good rule of thumb. And in this case, the hero was certainly NOT in the territory for 2.6 seconds before the set aside was played (at least not on my side of the RTS screen).
-
The fact that this is an RTS dispute is the relevant fact here. I don't think this situation would ever happen in real life because the players can communicate better.
-
And in this case, the hero was certainly NOT in the territory for 2.6 seconds before the set aside was played (at least not on my side of the RTS screen).
The fact that this is an RTS dispute is the relevant fact here.
I have a feeling that Mark's extremely slow internet played a factor here. The Hero may very well have been in territory for 30 seconds but due to lag Mark may not have even seen it there during that time. I'm being serious here. I've played Mark enough times and talked to him over Skype and there's usually some pretty bad lag.
-
I agree, hence my comment. I perhaps should have explicitly stated that.
-
Yes, the lag was almost definiately the problem. But, my main question now is, do you have to wait for your opponent to play a dominant when you play a set aside? If i'm just a player who likes to move fast in his games, not meaning to stop his opponent from playing, just likes to move fast. If I play my set aside quickly, do I have to give my opponent a chance to play his dominant, even when its in my prep phase?
And i'm sorry Prof, if I was rude to you. I did not mean to be rude or to disrespect you. I apologize and hope there are no hard feeling between us.
-
You do not have to, at least not according to the current rules. But it is definitely a good idea, especially if it is a play that you think your opponent may be wanting to make, just so you avoid slapjack situations, which shouldn't really be a part of the game, but are sometimes necessary effects of having a game with dominants.
-
Yes, the lag was almost definiately the problem.
I do have a lag problem (although I'm thankful to have internet at all out here in the hills of Eastern KY), and I think much of my reputation as a slow player comes from online play as a result. Just to put things in perspective, at the MW Regional tournament, I was 1 of only 2 players who NEVER timed out a game in the T2-2p category.
And i'm sorry Prof, if I was rude to you. I did not mean to be rude or to disrespect you. I apologize and hope there are no hard feeling between us.
I forgive you for anything like that, and I have no hard feelings at all. As I mentioned to you after the game, you played a great tournament, you played a great game against me, and you deserved the win. I'm actually looking forward to the chance to play you again in the future :)
-
As an aside, I am curious as to why you can not play the set-aside card directly onto a hero in Kerith Ravine. Wasn't that the point of the "Set-aside enhancements work" sentence in the SA?
-
I always ask for initiative to play because thats how i was taught to play. From what Ive heard from Tim, thats not the case. In a game we played, he blocked with an EC, waited and then played. I had never seen anyone do that before and I was waiting for him to ask for initiative just so i could say no and play AotL. He said he didnt have to ask and I was like "WELL. new to me."
It makes since when gabe says you dont have to have initiative to play a set aside b/c its in prep phase- but is this a slapjack situation?
continue...
oh yea- and you should get a chance to play AotL before they play JiP. Just make sure you dont wait for them to ask for initiative or you may be sorry like I was with Tim.
-
I always ask for initiative to play because thats how i was taght to play. From what Ive heard from Tim, thats not the case. In a game we played, he blocked with an EC, waited and then played. I had never seen anyone do that before and I was waiting for him to ask for initiative just so i could say no and play AotL. He said he didnt have to ask and I was like "WELL. new to me."
It makes since when gabe says you dont have to have initiative to play a set aside b/c its in prep phase- but is this a slapjack situation?
continue...
Imo if I don't have to wait for you to slap down your set aside, I shouldn't have to wait for DON on my HG after I convert Saul to Paul and last I knew that was illegal. I remember that signifigant time needs to be given (or just ask) for a dom to be played before the next acting or be willing to undo your move based on a "late" dom (assuming it isn't unresonable)
-
I disagree entirely. You're comparing apples to oranges when you're comparing ending a phase and playing a card you're allowed to play during your prep phase.
I don't see why you should have to give your opponent time to do anything when you're in your prep phase. The rulebook says you're allowed to play stuff, and it also says Dominants can be played at any time. What it does not say is that Dominants take precedence over other stuff that you can play at any time within phases. If I want to throw down a Judge and The Lord Fights for You in the same instant, I shouldn't be susceptible to someone calling a judge over and undoing my play so he can play Mayhem or CM or what-have you. I also shouldn't have to wait during my upkeep phase to Judge's Seat an EC before "giving my opponent time" to CM the Hero in the seat. And idk how the argument is going to turn out, but if it turns out that all that happens during Draw and Upkeep phases is automatic checks for counters and stuff like that, I don't feel the need to wait around before throwing up LotS to stop a Mayhem right after I draw (provided there is nothing to update in upkeep). Why is there this mentality that Dominants being allowed to be played outside any rules should take prescience over everything else? It's certainly not in the rules.
-
It just seems like slapjacking to me if you throw down stuff just to keep from getting CM'd or mayhemed or what not. Maybe thats what Darius Decree is for. *shrug*
-
If we had to have a quick pause between all plays in territory, the time limit needs to be increased.
-
It just seems like slapjacking to me if you throw down stuff just to keep from getting CM'd or mayhemed or what not. Maybe thats what Darius Decree is for. *shrug*
I think the concept of "slapjacking" being a thing during a phase other than battle is unhealthy. The problem I have is with judges being able to undo perfectly legitimate plays if someone claims "ZOMG SLAPJACK" in a situation that makes it really difficult to determine intent. For example, if someone flips up Four Drachma Coin and the other player has Mayhem, then the first player puts Peter in play and Discards it. The second player could then call a judge over and potentially undo the play after scouting the opponent's strategy by claiming he was going to use Mayhem to stop Peter from entering play. I picked this as an example because you can't say "well just put Peter in play first then" because you then have a problem with player A putting Peter in play, player B waiting to see if the coin is coming, and then having a Judge undo it so he can CM Peter.
In battle, it's still possible to abuse, but much easier to determine (obviously, you're going to want to AotL that Sadducee when you have SoG in your hand). Furthermore, verbal initiative checks are feasible in battle, since few cards get played (comparatively), so that would eliminate the entire issue. There's still a problem with AotL V. Grapes, but that's been solved to give priority to Grapes in the case of a tie (as it should be).
Being able to play faster and making Dominants a bit weaker is good for the game. Therefore, I propose we do away with the entire notion of "giving the opponent time to play Dominants." It's not even in the rules anyway. Instead, we should make brief verbal checks for initiative in battle mandatory (99% of people use them anyway), make the "both players agree" rule apply to the ending of all phases, not just battle (preventing huckster HT or HG moves), and have the prep and Discard phases run like the rules say they should--that is, you can play whatever you're allowed to play whenever you want to play it, and if your opponent manages to slip a Dom in, good for him.
-
I think what is really being discussed is sportsmanship vs gamesmanship.
Sportsmanship would be allowing a brief pause between actions and plays to allow the opponent the chance to react. I believe CM, AotL, and Grapes are the only times you have to really allow a brief moment for you opponent to play. Sportsmanship would dictate that in the battle you ask for the initiative. Mayhem can be played as an opponent starts to draw. I will even announce that I am playing Mayhem at the end of the draw step to be clear. (The very reason I do this is once I was waiting to see if they drew lost souls, which they did not, and ended up placing a hero down). As for DoN in regards to HG and Gifts...DoN negates them...I fail to see why initiative matters then.
Gamesmanship is what Pol is describing. He is playing within the rules of the game and using them to his advantage. Gamesmanship in Redemption is taking actions before your opponent has the chance to respond. It is playing that enhancement as you block because you have initiative. It is playing a character and a set aside at the same time. The best way to avoid being taking advantage by this person is perform actions as quickly as possible and let them know you need to see and hear each action he does individually and tell him to wait if you need to make a decision so he does not keep on playing.
There is nothing wrong with either styles as far as rules and gameplay is concerned. It is a matter of personality. Sportsmanship is more polite, friendly, and casual. Gamesmanship is ruthless and competitive.
So until a ruling is actually made with authority you can be either person. I play with sportsmanship, because this is a Christian card game I feel that it is the appropriate style for the setting. However, if I know someone is doing the opposite I will not be afraid to take advantage of the rules they are abusing in return though I would rather not play that person if it can be avoided.
-
Hey,
So until a ruling is actually made with authority you can be either person.
Your opponent has a right to respond to any action you perform with a dominant or a manually triggered ability as long as they intend to do so immediately upon observing the action taken (with the exception that you can respond to your own action with a dominant or manually triggered ability first).
That is the rule and has been the rule for several years.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
So until a ruling is actually made with authority you can be either person.
Your opponent has a right to respond to any action you perform with a dominant or a manually triggered ability as long as they intend to do so immediately upon observing the action taken (with the exception that you can respond to your own action with a dominant or manually triggered ability first).
That is the rule and has been the rule for several years.[citation needed]
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
I think what is really being discussed is sportsmanship vs gamesmanship.
Sportsmanship would be allowing a brief pause between actions and plays to allow the opponent the chance to react. I believe CM, AotL, and Grapes are the only times you have to really allow a brief moment for you opponent to play. Sportsmanship would dictate that in the battle you ask for the initiative. Mayhem can be played as an opponent starts to draw. I will even announce that I am playing Mayhem at the end of the draw step to be clear. (The very reason I do this is once I was waiting to see if they drew lost souls, which they did not, and ended up placing a hero down). As for DoN in regards to HG and Gifts...DoN negates them...I fail to see why initiative matters then.
Gamesmanship is what Pol is describing. He is playing within the rules of the game and using them to his advantage. Gamesmanship in Redemption is taking actions before your opponent has the chance to respond. It is playing that enhancement as you block because you have initiative. It is playing a character and a set aside at the same time. The best way to avoid being taking advantage by this person is perform actions as quickly as possible and let them know you need to see and hear each action he does individually and tell him to wait if you need to make a decision so he does not keep on playing.
There is nothing wrong with either styles as far as rules and gameplay is concerned. It is a matter of personality. Sportsmanship is more polite, friendly, and casual. Gamesmanship is ruthless and competitive.
So until a ruling is actually made with authority you can be either person. I play with sportsmanship, because this is a Christian card game I feel that it is the appropriate style for the setting. However, if I know someone is doing the opposite I will not be afraid to take advantage of the rules they are abusing in return though I would rather not play that person if it can be avoided.
This is a gross misrepresentation of my position on so many levels. Rather than picking it apart line by line, I'm just going to say that this is not indicative of my stance, and refer people to read what I actually posted.
-
Yeah, I didn't really get that from your post Pol. I am not sure what he is trying to say in response to you.
-
But you do take advantage of skipping steps and not allowing your opponent the chance to play a card.
I think if you did a check at the end of each phase you would be fine.
Diagram of a Turn
Draw Step
Current player Draws. Players now have the opportunity to play dominants before the Upkeep Step. Current player would say "I am ending my draw step" Opponent may either take immediate action or ask for a brief pause prior to entering the next step.
Upkeep Step.
Perform all upkeeps. Players now have the opportunity to play dominants before entering the Preparation step. Current player would say " I am ending the draw step" Opponent may either take immediate action or ask for a brief pause prior to entering the next step.
Preparation Step
All current triggers resolve. Opponent has opportunity to play dominants. Current player pauses after each action is completed in this step to allow the possible play of dominants. It is up to his opponent to say "wait" if he requires a moment to make a decision. Current player declares I am ending my Prep Step. Opponent may either take immediate action or ask for a brief pause prior to entering the next step.
It is simply a matter of structure. In the current rules where you do not have to ask you opponent if they are going to perform an action allows for players to take advantage of "quickplaying" and "backtracking"
Pol- I was not trying to sum up your entire stance. But "Being able to play faster and making Dominants a bit weaker is good for the game. Therefore, I propose we do away with the entire notion of "giving the opponent time to play Dominants." " Is not fair to all players. Because if you quickly pick up 3 cards and place a hero in battle almost simultaneously it diminishes the potential of the mayhem I wanted to play.
People like to be able to think. Redemption should not be a game of reaction. We have sports or video games for reactions. This is about strategy. The fact that you would like to not give you opponents to consider a play is not wrong, its just not sportsmanlike.
-
Gamesmanship is what Pol is describing. He is playing within the rules of the game and using them to his advantage. Gamesmanship in Redemption is taking actions before your opponent has the chance to respond. It is playing that enhancement as you block because you have initiative. It is playing a character and a set aside at the same time. The best way to avoid being taking advantage by this person is perform actions as quickly as possible and let them know you need to see and hear each action he does individually and tell him to wait if you need to make a decision so he does not keep on playing.
...
Gamesmanship is ruthless and competitive.
Despite the fact that that doesn't describe Pol's post at all, you've also grossly misinterpreted both stances. You can be perfectly polite and friendly in a "gamesmanship" stance and entirely rude, mean, and nasty in a "sportsmanship" stance. It's not about how you play the cards themselves, it's about the attitude you have while playing said cards.
For people who can formulate strategies and play cards quickly, it's not fair to them for someone else to see them play a string of cards in, say, 5 seconds and then complain that they didn't get the chance to play such and such card/ability after the first card in the chain and get everything rewound until then. If they were intending to CM the first hero played, they should have had it ready and in their playing hand to put down as soon as they saw said hero. If they weren't intending to CM the first hero, then they shouldn't get the right of way, so-to-speak, in that particular instance. It's one thing to be wanting to get rid of the first or a specific hero they play, it's another entirely to see that a combo is being used and only play your dominant after said combo is revealed and you see that it would be really bad for you. If you think you need extra time to think about a hero, then just say "WAIT" when they play it. This gives you time to consider CM and saves them the trouble of revealing their strategy needlessly if you do end up deciding to CM their hero.
-
@Browarod- Sportsmanship and Gamesmanship are not all about attitude. They are about how the game is played.
Sportsmanship-sportsmanlike conduct, as fairness, courtesy, being a cheerful loser, etc.
Gamesmanship- the use of methods, esp. in a sports contest, that are dubious or seemingly improper but not strictly illegal. (playing a character and a set aside before your opponent can react.
I think you need to look at the definition of the two terms again.
I am just saying, to use your example of 5 cards being played in order, that after I play each card that they have the time to respond. I am completely for once a card has been played you cannot go back. But the opportunity need be present for me to CM your hero before you set him aside. Once you put that set aside down it must resolve and my opportunity has expired. I do not think it is right to be able to lay down 5 cards one after another without some pause between each.
If I put down a teal hero and wait a couple seconds or ask my opponent for a response and they decline then I play Pentecost there is no reason to go back. They knowingly passed there chance to interact. Why is that so negative?
Whether you like it or not playing cards without giving your opponent a chance to respond is not wrong or illegal. It is just not sportsmanlike which there is no rule for.
If you read my second post you would see that we agree that players can say "wait." Active players need to not rush through their turns so their opponents can at least call for that pause. If you do this you will never have to undo your plays.
-
I want to officially announce that I have initiative to play Gamesmanship Neutralized to convert Polarius back to a white brigade hero (musician). I am simultaneously going to play Sleep to set aside any human who really needs some, which sounds like several people in this thread.
-
Pol and Diest posts both have merit. I think we just need to get used to making sure our opponent doesnt want to respond to any action we perform (with a dominant or a manually triggered ability). I also believe we need to make sure we have initiative to play before just throwing cards on the table(i also perfer verbal checks, Sir Nobody). I know thats kinda hard to do when we dont even know how to play a card ( Im looking at you Judas Plot). If someone is playing a zubulan deck, then heck yea i want any oppritunity i can get to get rid of that dude just as much as my opponent doesnt and we will both make sure that the other doesnt get that chance, especially if we can get the rules to back us up. *sarcasm time* how bout we just say everytime someone throws down a zebby they win? *end sarcasm* Believe me i know what it looks like when my opponent cant do anything to get in my way of a win. Ive seen the heartache and frustration. I also know what it feels like to be put in that position and i completly deserve it. (Kirk) luv u buddy.