Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: lightningninja on May 05, 2009, 11:19:23 PM
-
which can activate first: The throne of David or go into Captivity?
-
For reference, ToD is triggered by an EC "blocking" and GiC is triggered by an EC being "in" battle.
-
I can see this both ways.
At first I thought the blocking trigger happens first. As soon as the EC enters battle, all "if an EC blocks" abilities must be given the chance to trigger. Then, all "if an EC is in battle, then you may at any time..." abilities can trigger. The "if an EC blocks" trigger is already set up. The arrow is on the string and the arrow is drawn. All it takes is for the instance of the block to take place. The "if an EC is in battle" ability is an optional ability that can happen when the blocker chooses, but you don't check for "in battle" triggers until after checking triggers for a "block" action.
But now I see it differently. The triggers happen simultaneously. The "if EC blocks" happens at the same instance as "EC is in battle." Since the action of putting the EC into battle caused the simultaneous trigger, the person who performed this action gets first choice to act. That means GitC can go first, if the blocker chooses.
I think my former thoughts were wrong, but what do you think?
-
We came to the same conclusion that you did. Since both SA's are "may" abilities that have to be manually chosen, we gave priority to the player putting the EC into battle because they would logically control the timing of the simultaneous triggers.
-
But IMO that would not prevent TToD From activating. True te King may be captured, But the hero should still be able to draw a card and play an enhancement Because it works on the same prinicipal as the artifact. Something outside the battle is affecting the outcome.
-
He can still draw, but the character is captured before he can play.
-
Let me phrase it this way. After a character is presented in battle, each player is given the chance to play a Dominant if he is able, and wishes to do so.
Once you present your EC, do I get to play my AotL first or do you get to play your CM first? Is priority assigned?
-
If that is the case, then throne of David seems useless other then drawing cards, when GitC is in play.
Are we better off throwing down Ethiopian treasurer and AoCP?
-
Let me phrase it this way. After a character is presented in battle, each player is given the chance to play a Dominant if he is able, and wishes to do so.
Once you present your EC, do I get to play my AotL first or do you get to play your CM first? Is priority assigned?
im not quite sure What you are trying to say there schaef..
@ Bryon. Why cant they both be triggered at the same time. IN the example above, AOTL can be used at the same time that Cm is used. True Doms dont need triggers, they can be played at any time, but the conditions of both cards are fulfilled, so who says one has to go before or after the other. Play GITC at the same time that the hero plays a card. If it is an interrupt, let it fulfill and then capture the hero. It just may be that they EC gets beaten up too.
I dont see why they cant both actrivate at the same time.
-
Let me phrase it this way. After a character is presented in battle, each player is given the chance to play a Dominant if he is able, and wishes to do so.
Once you present your EC, do I get to play my AotL first or do you get to play your CM first? Is priority assigned?
My understanding is that it is all slapjack.
-
If that is the case, then throne of David seems useless other then drawing cards, when GitC is in play.
Are we better off throwing down Ethiopian treasurer and AoCP?
Provided there is no Warrior class character in their hand or on the Darkness, then yeah, that would stop GitC
-
I dont see why they cant both actrivate at the same time.
Nothing in the game besides New Jerusalem happens "at the same time" as anything else.
-
Tim is right. Even banding in a bunch of characters. They are all targeted for band "at the same time" but their abilities activate in the order you move them into battle. Same thing applies here. If both cards are triggered at the same time, the player who pulled the trigger (the player who put the EC into battle), gets to decide if he will use GitC. If he does, then TToD gets to activate. So, you get to draw. However, the hero is gone (assuming no banding), so no card can be played.
Let me phrase it this way. After a character is presented in battle, each player is given the chance to play a Dominant if he is able, and wishes to do so.
Once you present your EC, do I get to play my AotL first or do you get to play your CM first? Is priority assigned?
This exact question happened at a tournament. I was not there to determine who played first. I ruled that the blocker has first chance to respond to his own action. I've ruled the same when I can't tell who played Son of God first when a Lost Soul is drawn in a 4-4 tie. Ties go to the guy who was responding to his own action.
In an effort to curb slapjack, I always give first-response to the player whose action pulled the trigger. Then players can take turns responding with their various cards.
The only question I have is whether these are simultaneous triggers, or if "if EC blocks" and "if EC is in battle" happen consecutively. I think they are simultaneous.
-
The only question I have is whether these are simultaneous triggers, or if "if EC blocks" and "if EC is in battle" happen consecutively. I think they are simultaneous.
I think they're all different names for the same thing. REG, Definition of "Block":
Placing an Evil Character into the Field of Battle constitutes blocking.
The only exception (which isn't the case here) is a side battle where one member is an EC.
-
In an effort to curb slapjack, I always give first-response to the player whose action pulled the trigger. Then players can take turns responding with their various cards.
This was what I was looking for. I figured what applied to Dominants applied to (optional) triggered Artifacts. The consensus of you and Tim on this matter seems to solidify the idea that blocker gets to use GiC first.
-
FWIW, I agree that the blocker would have the option to use GiC first.
-
I still dissagree, but then again, who am I? ;)
I believe that just because SOG/NJ are the only ones that currently happen simultaneously, that that does not mean that other things cannot happen simultaneously. IF the triggers happen at the same time, then why can't both cards activate at the same time. The worst that can happen would be that both characters are taken out of battle, the block is still successful but at least the Hero has a chance to do some damage.
That is the point of the card correct? to give heroes a chance to do some damage under the onslaught of all these horsies and killer arts?
-
The point of the card was to give the big-numbered kings a chance to play an enhancement at all. They rarely get initiative the old fashioned way. :)
-
They rarely get initiative the old fashioned way. :)
Which is why I think that we should revisit this idea that the blocker is the only one that gets to determine the trigger. I say let them both play. The EC uses GiTC and the Hero plays ..whatever. Then the results are tallied and appropriate actions taken. If there is anything left standing then it wins. IF both are left standing then it resolves under regular initiative rules.
I also think that TToD should work against an EC that has horsies too but im not gonna hold my breath for that to change.
Forgot that that was a part of the card.
-
TToD says "if no evil weapon is in battle,..."
That was part of the balancing of the card.
You can only use GitC once. TToD is unlimited, and you still get to draw even if the character(s) in battle go away before you can play.
Besides all this, we are trying to make rulings based on steps and overarching principles. No simultaneous actions. No special cases for certain cards.
-
Yeah... I think that's a good rule. Although I did see it the other way... and this is why:
I always thought it was like initiative. Any time someone does something, the opponent gets a chance to act. I also think I remember hearing that if an artifact was activated, you had to give at least a few seconds for your opponent to play a dom, and I think in between doms the same principle applys.
My other reason is that as you said before, TTOD is always ready to go. Go into Captivity you have to manually activate. So I had the impression that since it is ready to go... as soon as the evil character is presented, TTOD activates before your opponent gets a chance to do something manually. They are both triggers, but not both are manuel.
I don't want to start an argument... I just want to make sure that nothing was overlooked, because I could see this in the future, as I typically use royalty.
-
so if it is a weapon class evil character and GitC is active, then i get a chance to capture you before you play CM right?
-
Do you mean angel of the lord?
-
Yes, you get to capture IMMEDIATELY upon entering battle and completing your special ability.
-
yea srry i mean AotL
-
While I agree with Bryon, is there any documentation pointing to this? If not, can there be some?
-
This should be documented somewhere. In the REG for now, and rules later.
-
Funny, in a tie during battle (stalemate, mutual destruction) initiative is given to the person who did not play the last card.
Yet you all are suggesting the opposite is true for playing of dominants and resolving simultaneous triggers.
I vote for consistency.
-
Those are unrelated cases.
-
Unrelated to those of you who have been playing the game forever and are competely immersed in the designing, ruling and playing of the game.
It's hard to see the forest through the trees. ;)
-
Well, since Artifacts and Dominants aren't played by initiative rules and the issue has to be resolved even when it's not stalemate or mutual anyway, can you explain how they are related?
-
If you decide to step out of the forest, I will.
-
For those elevated above the tree line (Godspeed, don't laugh):
check for initiative <> evaluating triggers <> players playing dominants
Because each is a different gameplay action.
But if the results for each are:
a = result of initiative check = stalemate/mutual destruction = tie
b = result of trigger evaluation = simultaneous = tie
c = result of players playing doms = hit table at same time = tie
Then a = b = c.
Using consistent logic I would have:
Response to result(a) = Response to result(b) = Response to result(c) = player who did not play last card plays first.
Using that logic for any type of gameplay, we have:
1. gameplay action occurs
2. Result of gameplay action = tie
3. Response to result = player who did not play last card plays first
For you Windows people that would be called Plug-n-Play...or another way to put it is "interoperability standard".
-
A is the only one of the three scenarios that is driven by the order of cards played in the battle. It makes sense that a rule governing the flow of battle would stem from the flow of battle. To apply the same standard outside the flow is arbitrary.
I can show you seven different ways to win a battle but just because X action = win does not also mean that in all seven scenarios I must place the EC in the discard pile and hand over a Lost Soul. There is such a thing as circumstance.
TBH it's insulting to think because I don't agree with you that I can't comprehend what you're saying.
-
It is too simple to just simplfy these situations down to a simple tie. The nature of the three different scenarios are very unique and require a different way to be handled. If you try to focus on the end result, then yes, I suppose you have a tie. However, I believe it is more important to focus on how you got to the tie, rather than the simple fact that you are at a tie.
edit: yeah, what Shaef said right before I posted :)
-
So, Stamp, are you saying this:
Game is tied 4-4. You and I each have Son of God in hand. You draw a lost soul. I get to play Son of God first? Why? Don't you know before I do that a lost soul is drawn?
This is not an initiative situation. Dominants don't follow initiative. If we tried to force them to behave in a similar way, we'd only confuse the issue with new players.
-
Well it's highly likely that you'll have your hand on the trigger before I can drop the lost soul and get to my SoG. ;)
You're right, doms are odd man out. But I would say that the simultaneous triggers could follow the same logic as initiative.
-
I don't see why. They follow the same pattern as Dominants. They don't follow the flow of battle. They're not driven by initiative. They are optional plays to be exercised at the holder's discretion. That Artifact has a lot more in common with the Dominant in my hand, than cards that are handcuffed to the state of battle and the natural order of playing Enhancements. That's what initiative is all about, after all, governing the play of Enhancements in battle.
-
As I already stated, I agree that under the current rules, GiC gets to go first.
I also think that Scott has a good point. As we add more and more cards to the game that trigger simultaneously, these situations will come up more often. It might make sense to at least consider having cards that trigger or activate in/during battle follow the rules of initiative, even if they're Fortresses, Artifacts, Sites, Lost Souls,etc. That would be a rule change and would need careful consideration but it might make things simpler for new players to understand and learn the intricacies of the game. Just something to consider for the next rulebook update or maybe one further in the future.
-
Well it's a good thing I'm not a playtester. It would probably be "Twelve Angry Men - The Sequel". :D
-
Just wondering (*as he asks from 20 feet away hiding behind a "tree"*), why can't the Arts/Fortresses follow the dominant rulings? For Doms, whichever one hit the table first gets to activate first. So, why can't it be that whichever is activated first (TToD or GiC) gets to complete first, since both are "simultaneous results"? Obviously, this would make TToD slightly more powerful, as it is ongoing w/o using up an Art. slot whereas GiC does.
I do, though, support the current ruling (of allowing the blocker choose, etc.). I just think that this ruling would help with "consistency", even later down the road (if more cards like this are made/used).
-
How is it inconsistent to always rule whichever player triggers an artifact's and/or a fortress's special ability simultaneously gets to complete their artifact or fortress first, then their opponent second, not consistent?
Seems like it is pretty easy to understand that who ever triggers a special ability gets to use that special ability first and their opponent gets to react second.
-
Just wondering (*as he asks from 20 feet away hiding behind a "tree"*), why can't the Arts/Fortresses follow the dominant rulings? For Doms, whichever one hit the table first gets to activate first. So, why can't it be that whichever is activated first (TToD or GiC) gets to complete first, since both are "simultaneous results"?
That works for Fort vs. Art (though you might have to remember if the same GiC was active before TToD came into play), but if the situation comes down to Fort vs. Fort or Art vs. Art, you could run into some problems - especially with younger kids or against ANB decks.