Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: theselfevident on June 22, 2013, 11:39:00 PM
-
Why in all other general rules to Redemption you have the right to respond to your opponent's actions, but with Mayhem you can not? (ex. he/she plays mayhem, you get sog/nj, so do they, but they get to respond to "their own action") You should be able to respond to your opponent in a similar way to initiative in battle. This gives mayhem far to much power in deciding the outcome of games.
-
Play Nazareth
-
Play Nazareth
That's not the point of my question
-
You realize the other option is that you don't get to play SoG NJ on the draw if they want to play Mayhem don't you?
-
You realize the other option is that you don't get to play SoG NJ on the draw if they want to play Mayhem don't you?
explain? do you mean on the normal draw?
-
You realize the other option is that you don't get to play SoG NJ on the draw if they want to play Mayhem don't you?
explain? do you mean on the normal draw?
Yes. Normal draw. If you had the rule how you described, you wouldn't have any bearing to say that you can play sog nj in that situation.
-
Why in all other general rules to Redemption you have the right to respond to your opponent's actions, but with Mayhem you can not? (ex. he/she plays mayhem, you get sog/nj, so do they, but they get to respond to "their own action") You should be able to respond to your opponent in a similar way to initiative in battle. This gives mayhem far to much power in deciding the outcome of games.
All abilities must complete before the next can be played (unless a negate can be played). Since dominants can't be negated they must finish. If I play aotl, you can't respond to it, BUT you could play a card once it finishes (discarding a EC) you can play another card (Christian Martyr) after it. You can't reacting to my dominant(like a negate vs a battle winner), you are just playing something after it.
-
my point is, the way the ruling is, you can't play a card after Mayhem...
-
You realize the other option is that you don't get to play SoG NJ on the draw if they want to play Mayhem don't you?
explain? do you mean on the normal draw?
Yes. Normal draw. If you had the rule how you described, you wouldn't have any bearing to say that you can play sog nj in that situation.
I see it played this way on RTS anyway, how would my suggestion affect this?
-
When you push an EC into battle you get to respond to your own action by playing Grapes before they can AotL. Responding to your own action is only the solution when dominant slapjack occurs.
-
When you push an EC into battle you get to respond to your own action by playing Grapes before they can AotL. Responding to your own action is only the solution when dominant slapjack occurs.
So if I get to respond to my own action off of normal draw then i am allowed to play a card before they play mayhem because I am responding to my own action?
I don't think it is the only option... I think you presenting an evil character is your play, resulting special abilities. Your opponent should have an opportunity to respond to your action. Then prior to standard initiative you should be able to play your dom, but your opponent should be give a chance to respond to your action. That is my opinion and almost any other cg, you get to respond to your opponent.
-
I don't think drawing as part of your normal draw phase is an actual action, it's a game rule. If we're talking about drawing off a special ability that YOU control then yes that is your own action BUT responding to your own action only applies in slapjack. In other words, if you draw cards off your own special ability and get Sog/NJ and play them immediately your opponent can't play mayhem to stop you, but if you draw and then a reasonable amount of time passes or you go to play another card, then you're out of luck because you didn't play them in response to your own action. At that point you are trying to play them in response to your opponents action of playing Mayhem, and you don't get to do that because you have to wait for Mayhem's ability to complete and also you can't respond to your opponent's actions in that way.
-
I don't think drawing as part of your normal draw phase is an actual action, it's a game rule. If we're talking about drawing off a special ability that YOU control then yes that is your own action BUT responding to your own action only applies in slapjack. In other words, if you draw cards off your own special ability and get Sog/NJ and play them immediately your opponent can't play mayhem to stop you, but if you draw and then a reasonable amount of time passes or you go to play another card, then you're out of luck because you didn't play them in response to your own action. At that point you are trying to play them in response to your opponents action of playing Mayhem, and you don't get to do that because you have to wait for Mayhem's ability to complete and also you can't respond to your opponent's actions in that way.
once again I think this gives Mayhem to much power in determining outcomes of games
-
Keep in mind that a rule allowing a player to respond to their own action (thus winning a slapjack scenario) applies to more than just the use of Mayhem. In fact, as a whole, the rule benefits defense a great deal more than offense. As has been pointed out in this topic, the response to one's own action allows a player currently defending to play Grapes as soon as they present an evil character. It allows a player to play Burial on a tapped 2-Liner before their opponent can play Son of God.
-
Keep in mind that a rule allowing a player to respond to their own action (thus winning a slapjack scenario) applies to more than just the use of Mayhem. In fact, as a whole, the rule benefits defense a great deal more than offense. As has been pointed out in this topic, the response to one's own action allows a player currently defending to play Grapes as soon as they present an evil character. It allows a player to play Burial on a tapped 2-Liner before their opponent can play Son of God.
It seems to me that in fairness to effect, much like with initiative, you should have an opportunity to respond to an opponents action, or you should always be able to respond to your own actions, like in the draw phase example, you should be able to respond to your action of drawing... Mayhem has its cake and eats it too, and it shouldn't have that much power.
-
It seems to me that in fairness to effect, much like with initiative, you should have an opportunity to respond to an opponents action, or you should always be able to respond to your own actions, like in the draw phase example, you should be able to respond to your action of drawing... Mayhem has its cake and eats it too, and it shouldn't have that much power.
Wait, what? The rule, across the board, is that in a slapjack situation, the person responding to their own action goes first. If I draw Son of God during my draw phase and play it and my opponent plays Mayhem at the same time, my Son of God takes precedence. Always. If I place Isaiah (with Call) into battle to negate Lost Souls, I can play Son of God (the old one) on an otherwise-protected soul before my opponent can play Christian Martyr. Always. Changing a major rule like this because of one card (which isn't even that powerful) isn't wise.
-
ok so you can play sog/nj before mayhem on my normal draw... and why can't you play a standard card before they play mayhem on your draw?
-
Mayhem has its cake and eats it too
Well what else do you expect mayhem to do with its cake, stare at it?
-
It seems to me that in fairness to effect, much like with initiative, you should have an opportunity to respond to an opponents action, or you should always be able to respond to your own actions, like in the draw phase example, you should be able to respond to your action of drawing... Mayhem has its cake and eats it too, and it shouldn't have that much power.
Just say that you are playing the cards, or play them faster than your opponent. Never assume you have a second to 'think about it', because that is all the time that is needed for your opponent to play a card, regardless of the 'response to your own action' bit. If you get them down first or announce the play before they start to play Mayhem, you can win slapjack and it doesn't matter.
If they try to throw down Mayhem before you even draw, or before you resolve LS that may have been drawn, tell them to pick it back up. They cannot play it yet. Or better yet, if you are about to pick up the three cards when they drop Mayhem, just say "Okay, you played that before my draw phase, so it must have been on your turn. I'll draw 6, then draw the 3 for my draw phase, as long as you are now done your turn".
And Chris is right, drawing at the beginning of your turn is "your action". Otherwise the 'responding' tie-breaker could not apply to either player, and that is not a good idea. We need that tie-breaker for situations like this, and drawing has always been "your action".
ok so you can play sog/nj before mayhem on my normal draw... and why can't you play a standard card before they play mayhem on your draw?
Because it isn't Prep phase yet. The rule is that Mayhem can be played BEFORE Prep, when only Dominants are played.
-
Why do you need a tie-breaker, why not have a hard rule that says, based on your own action, you are allowed to play a dominant prior to your opponent responding to your action? much like initiative you announce whether or not you are going to play a dom, then you don't have slap jack????
-
Why do you need a tie-breaker, why not have a hard rule that says, based on your own action, you are allowed to play a dominant prior to your opponent? much like initiative you announce whether or not you are going to play a dom, then you don't have slap jack????
While I would prefer that, it is not currently the rule. I'm just saying that, based on the current rule, if there is no tie-breaker in that situation it is not a good thing.
-
I actually am starting to dislike the "reasonable amount of time" since that is both difficult to rule on and not well defined. Also I don't think the game should have to keep track of time (aside from the time limits in tournaments to keep games moving at a decent pace)
I actually will suggest a system of priority that would get rid of the "reasonable amount of time" altogether, weaken dominants (especially Mayhem) and kill slapjack altogether.
Priority: A player needs priority to play any card (except by initiative), activate any optional special ability or do a phase specific action (activate artifact, present rescuer, present blocker, add a site to battle).
A player gets priority at the beginning of the Preparation phase, discard phase, at the beginning of the battle phase and at every check of initiative. Priority passes to the left when you finish playing cards. Once all players pass priority in a row the next phase begins (if during preparation or discard phase), the first initiative check happens (if it is the battle phase before the first initiative check) or a player deals with the initiative check (if during the battle phase)
This would fundamentally change some of how the game works, it eliminates "reasonable amount of time" altogether, it eliminates slapjack, it also moves the presenting a hero for a battle firmly in the battle phase. It defines a few phase specific actions (which are sort of part of the game already, but forces them to be well defined), it weakens Mayhem because your opponent can't just play it right after a draw (or a reasonable amount of time after a draw), it keeps the responding to your own action (and expands on it). It would make play more well defined and therefore easier to rule weird situations (especially if an argument happens and a judge is called over, but doesn't know how long a player gave the other player to respond to their own action and can't therefore know if a reasonable amount of time happened)
-
I actually am starting to dislike the "reasonable amount of time" since that is both difficult to rule on and not well defined. Also I don't think the game should have to keep track of time (aside from the time limits in tournaments to keep games moving at a decent pace)
I actually will suggest a system of priority that would get rid of the "reasonable amount of time" altogether, weaken dominants (especially Mayhem) and kill slapjack altogether.
Priority: A player needs priority to play any card (except by initiative), activate any optional special ability or do a phase specific action (activate artifact, present rescuer, present blocker, add a site to battle).
A player gets priority at the beginning of the Preparation phase, discard phase, at the beginning of the battle phase and at every check of initiative. Priority passes to the left when you finish playing cards. Once all players pass priority in a row the next phase begins (if during preparation or discard phase), the first initiative check happens (if it is the battle phase before the first initiative check) or a player deals with the initiative check (if during the battle phase)
This would fundamentally change some of how the game works, it eliminates "reasonable amount of time" altogether, it eliminates slapjack, it also moves the presenting a hero for a battle firmly in the battle phase. It defines a few phase specific actions (which are sort of part of the game already, but forces them to be well defined), it weakens Mayhem because your opponent can't just play it right after a draw (or a reasonable amount of time after a draw), it keeps the responding to your own action (and expands on it). It would make play more well defined and therefore easier to rule weird situations (especially if an argument happens and a judge is called over, but doesn't know how long a player gave the other player to respond to their own action and can't therefore know if a reasonable amount of time happened)
I think this answers my issue perfectly
-
That would slow the game down immensely and not in a good way.
-
That would slow the game down immensely and not in a good way.
what a whole 15 seconds a turn?
-
That would slow the game down immensely and not in a good way.
what a whole 15 seconds a turn?
Including multi-player, going around every phase, and everyone taking the time to 'decide'? We already have turn limits and non-turtles time-out because people think way too long, and this adds additional actions. I agree with you that something different would probably be a good idea, but I don't think that the time issues can be dismissed out of hand, not in the least.
-
I've played games that have a format that is similar to the suggestion and turns go relatively quickly
-
I've played games that have a format that is similar to the suggestion and turns go relatively quickly
Those games aren't this one. The fact remains that any rule changes that slow the mechanics of the game down are bad. A better answer to the "reasonable amount of time" issue is to simply make the rule that "respond to your own action" only applies when slapjack occurs at roughly the same time, which I'm pretty sure is already the case.
-
ok so you can play sog/nj before mayhem on my normal draw... and why can't you play a standard card before they play mayhem on your draw?
because responding to your own action only applies to dominants, everything else follows standard initiative. Dominants can be played without initiative and are activated based on when they hit the table, unless the same time in which case the player who took the last action gets precedence. All abilities, including those of dominants, must fully complete before another card can be played. So you can't play Son of God after mayhem has been played if SOG is shuffled away by Mayhem, because Mayhem's ability has to complete before you can play a card.
-
I still don't see why you can't allow for the person who's turn it is to have precedence at the beginning of a phase. Having clear defined phases is not a far stretch and doesn't add but a couple seconds to say, I will be playing a dominant during my draw phase... this is not hard nor time consuming and the benefits outweigh the 2 seconds it takes, no more slap jack and confusion as to why there is no real initiative for doms and clears up issues both in live and RTS play...
-
This issue is virtually irrelevant in a live game imo.
-
I still don't see why you can't allow for the person who's turn it is to have precedence at the beginning of a phase. Having clear defined phases is not a far stretch and doesn't add but a couple seconds to say, I will be playing a dominant during my draw phase... this is not hard nor time consuming and the benefits outweigh the 2 seconds it takes, no more slap jack and confusion as to why there is no real initiative for doms and clears up issues both in live and RTS play...
Couple of things:
1. Slapjack is not only an issue at the beginning of phases. In fact, it can happen a lot more in the middle of phases.
2. Trying to say a specific number of seconds as the amount of time it would add doesn't work, 15 or 2, or any other number. We have hard limits on the amount of time taken per turn and per action, and no one observes those. Some people are just very slow players. It is a fact. Not everyone will add only a few seconds to each turn, that's the way it is.
3. You will never remove confusion. The fact that we have a specific card type that is designed to ignore all 'initiative' and be played any time will always cause a problem, it doesn't matter what we do. I agree that it could perhaps be better, but the solution proposed won't magically fix everything, unfortunately.
-
It would be clearer and make it more consistent tho... if the rule is dom init goes to the person who last had an action why is that so hard and you can be clear that you are playing a dom after your action.... much fewer slap jack instances.
-
I'm against codifying any amount of time as what I get, because then I can use it legally stall.
-
I'm against codifying any amount of time as what I get, because then I can use it legally stall.
That's why announcing similar to passing of init would eliminate that issue
-
I'm against codifying any amount of time as what I get, because then I can use it legally stall.
That's why announcing similar to passing of init would eliminate that issue
Not really. It can take some players quite a bit to decide what to do. That would make it worse.
-
It would be clearer and make it more consistent tho... if the rule is dom init goes to the person who last had an action why is that so hard and you can be clear that you are playing a dom after your action.... much fewer slap jack instances.
The idea of a "dominant initiative" starts to eliminate the point of having dominants in the first place. The person who plays first gets to go first. Ties go to the person who made the last action. There really aren't many ways that this is going to be any simpler, and none that I can think of that won't result in big changes in the amount of time a game takes. The only reasonable change that can be made is that ties go to the person who didn't make the last action, and that comes down to personal preference. It's one of those rules that affects how a player approaches a lot of different situations, and if it isn't broken (which it isn't), I don't see a point in fixing it.
-
It would be clearer and make it more consistent tho... if the rule is dom init goes to the person who last had an action why is that so hard and you can be clear that you are playing a dom after your action.... much fewer slap jack instances.
The idea of a "dominant initiative" starts to eliminate the point of having dominants in the first place. The person who plays first gets to go first. Ties go to the person who made the last action. There really aren't many ways that this is going to be any simpler, and none that I can think of that won't result in big changes in the amount of time a game takes. The only reasonable change that can be made is that ties go to the person who didn't make the last action, and that comes down to personal preference. It's one of those rules that affects how a player approaches a lot of different situations, and if it isn't broken (which it isn't), I don't see a point in fixing it.
Is it a reasonable amount of time from the point you draw to the point the person plays Mayhem, which is instantaneously, if you have the right to respond to your own action then you should get that right. it is broken
-
Lol no it's not broken, Mayhem used to be broken now it's fine.
-
It's not broken at all. The scenario where is would matter probably happens 1 in 50 games (and it didn't even decide the game in your situation, so I really don't get the fuss - it's a pretty easy ruling that's consistent across the board).
-
If you have the right to respond to your own action, then you should never have dom-slap jack and thus it is broken... is there any question when passing initiative? No you know who has the right to play their card. Also, when you play an evil character (as pointed out before) you have the right to play Grapes, no dom slap jack, you just get the right no question.
-
If you have the right to respond to your own action, then you should never have dom-slap jack and thus it is broken... is there any question when passing initiative? No you know who has the right to play their card. Also, when you play an evil character (as pointed out before) you have the right to play Grapes, no dom slap jack, you just get the right no question.
You only have the right to respond to your own action in a slap jack situation. Slapjack just happens to occur a lot on RTS. Again, this is not an issue IRL, and if it is, we have a consistent rule on it that makes complete sense.
-
If you have the right to respond to your own action, then you should never have dom-slap jack and thus it is broken... is there any question when passing initiative? No you know who has the right to play their card. Also, when you play an evil character (as pointed out before) you have the right to play Grapes, no dom slap jack, you just get the right no question.
You only have the right to respond to your own action in a slap jack situation. Slapjack just happens to occur a lot on RTS. Again, this is not an issue IRL, and if it is, we have a consistent rule on it that makes complete sense.
I really don't see how this adds any significant amount of time and it reduces confusion and issues both IRL and on RTS...
-
If you have the right to respond to your own action, then you should never have dom-slap jack and thus it is broken... is there any question when passing initiative? No you know who has the right to play their card. Also, when you play an evil character (as pointed out before) you have the right to play Grapes, no dom slap jack, you just get the right no question.
You only have the right to respond to your own action in a slap jack situation. Slapjack just happens to occur a lot on RTS. Again, this is not an issue IRL, and if it is, we have a consistent rule on it that makes complete sense.
I really don't see how this adds any significant amount of time and it reduces confusion and issues both IRL and on RTS...
There isn't any confusion other than you? There's very clear rules. I don't get it.
-
I think people generally learning the game, they understand the concept of initiative and transferring that to your opponent and if they have played other CG's, they are used to responding to the opponent's actions, not them getting special preference when they played the last card. It's not a good rule... but if its going to be a rule, it should be cut and dried and consistent, not based on "I (maybe) played it first and reasonable amount of time" it should be defined
-
It is consistent, if you and your opponent both play a dominant at the same time then the person who last did something gets priority. You can't play it after they did and claim responding to action, but at the same time your opponent can't throw down his dominant mid action and say he played it first.
This is not a situation where you can compare redemption to other CGs because other CGs don't have dominants, the only thing I can think of that comes close is exodia and the rule there is you drew all 5 you win, no if ands or buts. The "special preference" rule was made for one very specific situation really, you rescue the two liner once and as soon as your opponent "taps" it you play SOG/NJ before they can get their hands back to their cards to bury it. THAT is unfair, because they knew exactly what they were going to do and the action of making the notation, for your sake, that you rescued half of the lost soul should not warrant you an advantage. The rule is about making it so that game actions like drawing, handing over souls, and the like don't give your opponent an advantage because he knows what he wants to do and is going to use the time it takes to complete those actions to get a leg up on you. That's not fair, you shouldn't be punished for following the rules.
-
It is consistent, if you and your opponent both play a dominant at the same time then the person who last did something gets priority. You can't play it after they did and claim responding to action, but at the same time your opponent can't throw down his dominant mid action and say he played it first.
This is not a situation where you can compare redemption to other CGs because other CGs don't have dominants, the only thing I can think of that comes close is exodia and the rule there is you drew all 5 you win, no if ands or buts. The "special preference" rule was made for one very specific situation really, you rescue the two liner once and as soon as your opponent "taps" it you play SOG/NJ before they can get their hands back to their cards to bury it. THAT is unfair, because they knew exactly what they were going to do and the action of making the notation, for your sake, that you rescued half of the lost soul should not warrant you an advantage. The rule is about making it so that game actions like drawing, handing over souls, and the like don't give your opponent an advantage because he knows what he wants to do and is going to use the time it takes to complete those actions to get a leg up on you. That's not fair, you shouldn't be punished for following the rules.
but you are being punished with Mayhem by simply drawing... or in the opposite instance when they play Mayhem to draw sog/nj... you have no recourse in either case... it shouldn't be allowed to be both ways...
-
No, you aren't. your opponent cannot play mayhem before you finish drawing your 3 cards, but you also can't draw 3, wait a moment, and then when he chooses to play mayhem decide you were going to use SOG/NJ and claim responding to your own action. Playing them must immediately follow your drawing of the cards.
-
No, you aren't. your opponent cannot play mayhem before you finish drawing your 3 cards, but you also can't draw 3, wait a moment, and then when he chooses to play mayhem decide you were going to use SOG/NJ and claim responding to your own action. Playing them must immediately follow your drawing of the cards.
But you don't get the chance because your opponent plays Mayhem as soon as you draw... that's not a reasonable amount of time to decide if you want to use those cards... I'm not saying wait 10 seconds to decide, but give them a chance to play, or ask them before you play a dom after they have played an ability like you ask with init. this also makes for a great bluff.
-
But you don't get the chance because your opponent plays Mayhem as soon as you draw
If he plays Mayhem as you are drawing your cards, meaning you are have like taken the cards from the deck but they aren't completely in your hand yet, then to my knowledge the same rule applies as does with burial and you may play your dominants and dominants only because you were not given the opportunity to respond to your own action.
If you have put the cards in your hand and did not immediately move to take the dominants out then you've forfeited your chance to respond to your action. You can't put your hand down, or stop to think, because at that point your action is complete. This is harder to interpret in RTS and, in fairness, I could see how it might cause a problem but the rules aren't designed for RTS, they are designed for redemption and until we get a better online platform, one that would hopefully do something like ask you if you are going to play a dom after each action and if you say no you forfeit responding to own action, then you just have to deal. It's stinks, but so does RTS.
-
in the instance of burial you can announce tap and burial, that's not hard... the point is what if you have sog you draw nj on your 3rd card, you have sog/nj in had already but on your 3rd draw, you bring it to your hand... mayhem: no chance to play those cards... i think its not well thought out personally... announcing your intentions with this would be a lot simpler and fairer to players.
-
i think its not well thought out personally
It was thought out, and beaten to death to get the rules we have now. This discussion has happened before, many times, and it will happen again...many times. This thread is pretty much dead at this point, not sure what else can be added. You don't like it, others do or think that a change would do much, and we can go back and forward forever. Truly, we could, and all we would do would be repeat the same points (in relatively the same order).
-
in the instance of burial you can announce tap and burial, that's not hard... the point is what if you have sog you draw nj on your 3rd card, you have sog/nj in had already but on your 3rd draw, you bring it to your hand... mayhem: no chance to play those cards... i think its not well thought out personally... announcing your intentions with this would be a lot simpler and fairer to players.
Fair to which players, specifically?
-
in the instance of burial you can announce tap and burial, that's not hard... the point is what if you have sog you draw nj on your 3rd card, you have sog/nj in had already but on your 3rd draw, you bring it to your hand... mayhem: no chance to play those cards... i think its not well thought out personally... announcing your intentions with this would be a lot simpler and fairer to players.
Fair to which players, specifically?
fair to the individual drawing or if i had it my way the person responding to the opponent... as it stands the player holding the mayhem (or dom) has too much power imo... and if this is a continuous discussion maybe it should be looked at in a different light than just the status quo... the negatives are confusion and inability to react to your opponent, giving them an decidedly unfair advantage, specifically relating to mayhem as it gets both advantages, not just one, and it would not add much if any play time to the game to simply define the init of and attempt to eliminate slapjack. I don't see why its hard to say there are defined phases and during those phases there is priority based on either responding to your own action or (imo a more fair approach) responding to your opponents action and if you pass on your priority, then at least you had the opportunity.
-
in the instance of burial you can announce tap and burial, that's not hard... the point is what if you have sog you draw nj on your 3rd card, you have sog/nj in had already but on your 3rd draw, you bring it to your hand... mayhem: no chance to play those cards... i think its not well thought out personally... announcing your intentions with this would be a lot simpler and fairer to players.
I was under the impression that human action was trying to be phased out of the game along time ago. As of lately with responding to one's own action in the case of a slapjack situation ( this is only in case of a slap jack situation right?, see even I dont know?) I feel like the game and the people who govern it are just trying to create a working system which seems to me is still in progress...
We need a system of set rules. I understand that the elders are always working to accomplish this and that the game has come along way, however in case of a real life situation like Westy was talking about, If my opponent throws down a mid combat mayhem after I take an action (idk draw a card) and then I throw down an AotL, a judge is called over and my opponent argues that it is not a slapjack situation and a judge must rule based on what information he has...wouldnt it be easier to have a better way of ruling than this? Is this all we got? Just thinking out loud...
-
in the instance of burial you can announce tap and burial, that's not hard... the point is what if you have sog you draw nj on your 3rd card, you have sog/nj in had already but on your 3rd draw, you bring it to your hand... mayhem: no chance to play those cards... i think its not well thought out personally... announcing your intentions with this would be a lot simpler and fairer to players.
Disclaimer: I have not read the whole thread.
The quote above seems to indicate that Mayhem is the problem, rather than dominant order of operations. We've already had to give a first-turn errata to Mayhem. :o
I think that announcing your intentions will only give your opponent a chance to change their strategy. If you were truly just waiting for SoG/NJ, you would play it immediately anyway, thus the Mayhem would be a slapjack situation. If you draw the cards, with SoG/NJ now in your hand, but you start pondering your next move, then Mayhem should not have to be announced, since it would change the strategy you were obviously undecided about.
If Mayhem is OP, to the extent of changing the course of every major tournament, then we need to ban it. If Mayhem is only a problem when it works against you at pivotal moments in your Redemption career, and not an OP Tournament Bane, then we need to live with our current resolution system.
-
i mean at the time you are going to instantly play whatever dom in reaction to your own action, just say I am doing this which would equal playing it. Your given priority to play that card, by announcing it you are doing exactly that initiating the process of playing your dom(s) without the need of slapjack... for example... it is the beginning of my draw phase.... I draw and announce "i am going to play a dom..." and play the dom.. not hard or time consuming... its as easy and quick as asking "my init?" and in the instance of battle, if you ask "my init?" you pass priority to play a dom to your opponent and they have the option. Its really not that hard.
-
The difference is that you don't need the other players permission to play a dom. When you have one, you can play it at any time so long as no other effect is in the process of completing.
-
The difference is that you don't need the other players permission to play a dom. When you have one, you can play it at any time so long as no other effect is in the process of completing.
which causes slapjack issues and an unclear ruling basis as RTSManiac pointed out... and in no way do you have to ask permission... I think the status quo is "well we don't really have a better solution..." well there is a better solution as far as rulings, clarity, and fairness of play... my 2 cents
-
Slapjack issues are resolved by the responding to your own action rule...that is the solution, and outside of RTS is works just fine. The issue is with RTS, not with the rule.
-
Slapjack issues are resolved by the responding to your own action rule...that is the solution, and outside of RTS is works just fine. The issue is with RTS, not with the rule.
I agree. In face to face games there is not an issue. We're not going to change the rules because they don't work perfectly on an archaic piece of software, even if it is all we have to play on.
-
Well, I gave my 2 cents in to apparently and continuous debate. In simpler terms: it is what it is regardless of what my opinion or anyone else's is...
-
Right but that doesnt mean we shouldnt talk about it.
-
Adding a new layer to this. I have an EC in Tower of Thebez and my opponent has Holy Grail up. Can I remove the EC from ToT and immediately place it in battle before my opponent can announce a Grail or otherwise indicate he's using it, or does he get some kind of a grace period with which to use it?
-
I think that he gets a chance to use holy grail, i'm not sure though.
-
I agree that if you move an EC from the Tower to territory, then you have to give your opponent a chance to convert them with Holy Grail before adding them to battle.
-
I attack.
Before you declare blocks, I convert your EC.
-
I attack.
Before you enter your battle phase, I convert your EC...
Then before you enter battle I DoN your Holy Grail.
-
I haven't read the whole thread, but the simple reason why (to me at least) you can't play SoG from your original hand is because dominants are instant and instants can't be paused by another instant.
-
wow i just got a -2 on my above post and I know not why?
Prof U's ruling above is correct isn't it?
-
Your post isn't exactly punctuated like it is an answer.
-
above fixed
-
in the instance of burial you can announce tap and burial, that's not hard... the point is what if you have sog you draw nj on your 3rd card, you have sog/nj in had already but on your 3rd draw, you bring it to your hand... mayhem: no chance to play those cards...
Can I ask for a quick recap here (or a pointer to the appropriate thread)?
In the situation above if I immediately went to play SoG/NJ, my big two would take precedence over Mayhem, correct? Wouldn't playing SoG/NJ be in response to your own action (i.e., your draw)?
-
In the situation above if I immediately went to play SoG/NJ, my big two would take precedence over Mayhem, correct? Wouldn't playing SoG/NJ be in response to your own action (i.e., your draw)?
You are correct, from what has been verified here.