Author Topic: Interaction of Dominants and Artifacts (Read 6453 times)

SirNobody · « **on:** November 15, 2009, 04:45:16 PM »

Hey,

I have Hidden Treasures active, Midwives and Micah in my territory, Search and Christian Martyr in my hand, and several redeemed souls with no Guardian in a multiplayer game. One of my opponent's has Unholy Writ active.

I attack with Micah and use Hidden Treasures to play Search to get Guardian of Your Souls. Can I then play Christian Martyr on Micah to discard him before my opponent can use Unholy Writ to capture him?

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #1 on:** November 15, 2009, 04:52:34 PM »

I say yes - you are responding to your own action of playing search.

browarod · « **Reply #2 on:** November 15, 2009, 04:57:46 PM »

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on November 15, 2009, 04:52:34 PM

I say yes - you are responding to your own action of playing search.

If there's one thing I've seen a lot on this forum, it's that you always get to respond to your own actions before an opponent can.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #3 on:** November 15, 2009, 05:01:56 PM »

I say it no.

If your opponent declares his intent to use UW at earliest convenience on Micah, then that ability is "waiting in line" from the time Micah enters battle. Hidden Treasures would also activate at earliest convenience based on the lone hero entering battle. Since both of those triggers respond to the same action, the player with Micah would get to do his thing first (play Search). However, once Search finishes then UW would be next in line. After all abilities triggered by Micah entering battle have completed, then dominants could be played, followed by enhancements based on initiative.

Sean · « **Reply #4 on:** November 15, 2009, 05:04:24 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on November 15, 2009, 05:01:56 PM

I say it no.

If your opponent declares his intent to use UW at earliest convenience on Micah, then that ability is "waiting in line" from the time Micah enters battle. Hidden Treasures would also activate at earliest convenience based on the lone hero entering battle. Since both of those triggers respond to the same action, the player with Micah would get to do his thing first (play Search). However, once Search finishes then UW would be next in line. After all abilities triggered by Micah entering battle have completed, then dominants could be played, followed by enhancements based on initiative.

There is nothing that says declaring what you plan on doing gives you the right to carry it out.

Master KChief · « **Reply #5 on:** November 15, 2009, 05:12:53 PM »

but the uw player must still be given the oppurtunity to exercise the use if they want to. i agree with prof.

Gabe · « **Reply #6 on:** November 15, 2009, 05:23:53 PM »

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on November 15, 2009, 04:52:34 PM

I say yes - you are responding to your own action of playing search.

Responding to your own action only applies in a situation where two players could play an ability, usually Dominants, and they both play them at the same time. "Responding to your own action" is a way to provide a resolution in the event of a tie.

To answer Tim's question, placing a human Hero in battle triggers Unholy Writ giving it's controller the option to use it's ability. Unholy Writ has to wait for the Hero's abilities and Hidden Treasures to carry out as well as any other abilities that result from those abilities. Once that chain of events is complete, Unholy Writ has precedence. Since it's an optional ability you either use it right away or lose your chance if your opponent plays a Dominant to stop it.

Unholy Writ
Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: A human Hero in battle may be taken prisoner. Discard Artifact after use. • Play As: When holder chooses, capture a human Hero during battle. Discard Artifact after one use.

Even if I'm wrong, there's no such thing as initiative to play a Dominant. It would be a slapjack between the two players to see who could use their card first.

crustpope · « **Reply #7 on:** November 15, 2009, 06:59:08 PM »

I agree that this is slap jack as well. UW can be triggered first, but it is dependant upon the human action, just as Cm is dependant upon human action. There is no rules governing who gets to play it first, it is basically first come first served.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #8 on:** November 15, 2009, 11:18:25 PM »

Quote

Even if I'm wrong, there's no such thing as initiative to play a Dominant. It would be a slapjack between the two players to see who could use their card first.

Right - and this is exactly why we created the 'Respond to own actions' rule - For situations where both players have "initiative" to play.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #9 on:** November 16, 2009, 12:05:02 AM »

I am a proponent of the "responding to own action" rule completely replacing the "whichever hit the table/whoever declared intent first" rule. There is no place for physical swiftness in a strategy card game.

crustpope · « **Reply #10 on:** November 16, 2009, 12:46:58 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on November 16, 2009, 12:05:02 AM

I am a proponent of the "responding to own action" rule completely replacing the "whichever hit the table/whoever declared intent first" rule. There is no place for physical swiftness in a strategy card game.

Fine, I agree to a point. I dont like the idea of physical swiftness being a part of the game either, but the responding to own action, really give the offense one more advantage in a long list of advantages that they already own. I tend to preffer the idea of setting SA's in order that they are activated or triggered. Which would actually give UW a chance to respond in some of these cases

SirNobody · « **Reply #11 on:** November 16, 2009, 10:13:09 AM »

Hey,

I agree with RDT's opinion on this topic.

Quote from: Minister Polarius on November 16, 2009, 12:05:02 AM

I am a proponent of the "responding to own action" rule completely replacing the "whichever hit the table/whoever declared intent first" rule. There is no place for physical swiftness in a strategy card game.

By my understanding of the rules, in two player, that has already happened.

Quote from: crustpope on November 16, 2009, 12:46:58 AM

...but the responding to own action, really give the offense one more advantage in a long list of advantages that they already own. I tend to preffer the idea of setting SA's in order that they are activated or triggered. Which would actually give UW a chance to respond in some of these cases

While Unholy Writ may get the short end of the stick in many of these scenarios, almost all of these scenarios are very rare, and in the average case Unholy Writ is still winning out. It is in most top decks, and you'd have a hard time convincing me it's not one of the five best defensive cards in the game.

I'm not sure what all is on the "long list of advantages" that offenses have, but it seems to me they need every advantage they can get, considering in the very game that prompted this thread my defense was about two cards (that were in my deck I just didn't draw them) away from locking out a speed deck (less than five brigaded evil cards).

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #12 on:** November 16, 2009, 10:16:55 AM »

Quote

speed deck (less than five brigaded evil cards

That's your defenition of 'Speed Deck' now? Cool! My deck is no longer a speed deck! Gomer+Uzzah+TAS+Foul Spirit+Plot. Thats 5 brown brigade cards.

SirNobody · « **Reply #13 on:** November 16, 2009, 10:20:46 AM »

Hey,

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on November 16, 2009, 10:16:55 AM

Quote
speed deck (less than five brigaded evil cards

That's your defenition of 'Speed Deck' now? Cool! My deck is no longer a speed deck! Gomer+Uzzah+TAS+Foul Spirit+Plot. Thats 5 brown brigade cards.

No, it was just clarifying that not only do I consider it a speed deck, but having less than five brigaded evil cards 95% of other people would call it a speed deck too. Your deck is still a speed deck in my mind

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #14 on:** November 16, 2009, 02:49:53 PM »

with Gabe, for the reason Gabe offered.

Allowing Tim to play his CM prior to his opponent using UW is no different than his opponent arguing he gets to play Destruction of Nehustan in between the time Micah enters battle and Search is played.

Tim didn't even search for Christian Martyr, so how can playing Christian Martyr be considered a response to his own action?

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #15 on:** November 16, 2009, 03:05:24 PM »

Quote

Allowing Tim to play his CM prior to his opponent using UW is no different than his opponent arguing he gets to play Destruction of Nehustan in between the time Micah enters battle and Search is played.

Emphasis mine.

It is very different - Hidden Treasures is a instantaneous triggered ability which triggers when the Hero enters battle - UW is an ongoing manually triggered ability.

And thats the key - UW is a human action, Hidden Treasures is a game action.

As to the second part - How can me playing my SoG after I draw a soul be considered a response? I didn't draw it. How can me playing DoN after I block Lydia with KoT be a response? I didn't block with DoN.

Playing Christian Martyr is a response to his action because Tim gets the first chance to play something, it doesn't matter what it it. I think its very clear what Tim was doing - It was planned out all the way, it wasn't like he was sitting there in battle and then realized that his opponent had UW.

Gabe · « **Reply #16 on:** November 16, 2009, 03:12:27 PM »

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on November 16, 2009, 03:05:24 PM

I think its very clear what Tim was doing - It was planned out all the way, it wasn't like he was sitting there in battle and then realized that his opponent had UW.

Being part of the discussion with you Tim and Prof U the night this took place I have to disagree. Tim admitted to having DoN before entering battle. He forgot to play it or didn't realize Prof U had Writ until Prof mentioned he wanted to use his Writ when Tim was in battle. It wasn't well planned out. It was a mistake on Tim's part that was going to turn out bad for him. Now he's trying to justify his mistake by posting a hypathetic scenerio to show the rules allow him to get around it.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #17 on:** November 16, 2009, 03:14:41 PM »

Right -And after we had our discussion I did some more thinking on it and I think I agree with you, that since Tim had no intention of DoNing Writ until Prof pointed it out he can't do it - but in this hypothetical one I agree with Tim.

lightningninja · « **Reply #18 on:** November 16, 2009, 03:34:43 PM »

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on November 16, 2009, 03:14:41 PM

Right -And after we had our discussion I did some more thinking on it and I think I agree with you, that since Tim had no intention of DoNing Writ until Prof pointed it out he can't do it - but in this hypothetical one I agree with Tim.

I thought you don't care about intentions?

I don't really care or want to start anything (not that I think you're taking it this way, just clarifying) but I thought this was kinda funny.

EDIT: Woops... I meant to quote... oh well.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #19 on:** November 16, 2009, 03:39:49 PM »

I don't think I said anything like that.

SirNobody · « **Reply #20 on:** November 16, 2009, 05:00:04 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on November 16, 2009, 03:14:41 PM

Right -And after we had our discussion I did some more thinking on it and I think I agree with you, that since Tim had no intention of DoNing Writ until Prof pointed it out he can't do it - but in this hypothetical one I agree with Tim.

The intention is what made the in game situation very fuzzy. But we can't ask or expect judges to determine the intention of players. The ruling we make must be independent of intention. In fact I think we need to assume that any action a player takes is intentional.

Gabe, the reason I presented this scenario rather than the exact one that occurred in the game was because I wanted the discussion to be independent of intention as I believe the ruling needs to be. Disregarding intention, I believe this scenario is functionally the same as the scenario that happened in my game. The cards are different, but the ruling should be the same.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Gabe · « **Reply #21 on:** November 16, 2009, 05:02:14 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on November 16, 2009, 05:00:04 PM

Disregarding intention, I believe this scenario is functionally the same as the scenario that happened in my game. The cards are different, but the ruling should be the same.

SirNobody · « **Reply #22 on:** November 16, 2009, 05:04:30 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on November 16, 2009, 02:49:53 PM

Tim didn't even search for Christian Martyr, so how can playing Christian Martyr be considered a response to his own action?

When I give a player half of the lost souls card I then respond to my action by playing Burial. I get to do that before my opponent can respond to my action by playing Son of God on the second half of Lost Souls. How is this scenario any different?

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #23 on:** November 16, 2009, 05:42:26 PM »

[A bunch of stuff about responding to your own action deleted--mjb]

I deleted the arguments about responding to your own action because I realized as I was driving home that as far as my argument goes the entire discussion is completely irrelevant to this hypothetical at hand. The "respond to your own action" rule only occurs when two players have equal claim to initiative. The hypothetical example provided at the start isn't such a case at all.

Here is the normal precedence of initiative in this case.

1) Micah enters battle.
2) Hidden Treasures and Unholy Writ trigger simultaneously.
3) HT goes first because get to respond to your own actions in a tie situation.
4) Unholy Writ goes off.

If the blocker is not allowed to play a dominant between steps 2 & 3, why would the rescuer be able to play a dominant between steps 2 & 4? This is not a case of both players having equal rights to initiative. The blocker already has his initiative slot queued up.

We can see this very simply by removing HT from the equation. If I push a hero into battle against an opponent who has Unholy Writ active, my opponent gets to decide whether or not to use UW before I can play DoN to take it out. If I wanted to play DoN to take out UW I needed to do it before I entered battle. Why would adding HT and an extraneous search change this?

Quote from: SirNobody on November 16, 2009, 05:04:30 PM

When I give a player half of the lost souls card I then respond to my action by playing Burial. I get to do that before my opponent can respond to my action by playing Son of God on the second half of Lost Souls. How is this scenario any different?

In this scenario both you and your opponent have equal claims to having initiative.after the half of the Lost Souls card is granted. That is distinct from the case where you have SAs already triggered. SAs that have already triggered and are merely waiting to activate take precedence over dominants--at least that's how I understand it from in the case of pushing a hero into battle and then trying to DoN an active UW.

SirNobody · « **Reply #24 on:** November 16, 2009, 08:26:10 PM »

Hey,

I give you half of lost souls. You then have the opportunity to play Son of God to rescue the rest of it. I play Burial to deprive you of that opportunity.

I play search off of Hidden Treasures. You then have the opportunity to use Unholy Writ to capture my hero. I play Christian Martyr to deprive you of that opportunity.

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on November 16, 2009, 05:42:26 PM

Because you are playing Burial in direct response to giving half of a Lost Souls in the sense that the first action logically leads to the second. If you searched for CM then the two scenarios would be analogous, but how does searching for Guardian in anyway imply that you are going to play CM on yourself?

Quote

In this situation it strikes me that playing CM was merely something extra you wanted to do outside the normal rules of initiative.

That sounds to me like you can't see the strategy in the play so you don't think it should be allowed. Maybe there isn't a strategy to it, maybe there is and you just don't see it or agree with it. But just like intention the strategy of a play shouldn't affect it's legality.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

News:

Author Topic: Interaction of Dominants and Artifacts (Read 6453 times)

browarod