Cactus Game Design Message Boards

In regular pick up games or most low level tournaments, I'll let something like that slide, on the assumption that my opponent will do the same for me. In ROOT or anything at a state level or higher, I play for keeps, and I hold myself to the same standard I hold my opponent too. Sometimes that comes back to haunt me, but in official categories, making a mistake then complaining when your opponent doesn't let you take it back is poor form, especially if you're going to be a rule nazi yourself.

he searched for an enhancement, didnt mean to be confusing

he searched for an enhancement, didnt mean to be confusing

Looking at your post, I can see that now.  I read it initially as searching for HT, my bad

In that case, I would let him do it in that order (except at States+ as mentioned in my post) because it couldn't actually affect anything (as it was not an artifact being brought out a response to what was seen), and was a silly mistake.  The same cards would have been played regardless, just in a different, correct order (with HT activating and THEN Zadok Anoints).  I make those all the time (all the time ), and like it when other people give me a chance to play what I actually intended in friendlies/locals.  Sure, you can say 'no', and you'd be in your rights to do so, but personally I let something like that slide.  But again, that's just my take, and either way is respectable.

In ROOT or anything at a state level or higher, I play for keeps

Generally, I'll let people take things back in most cases even in tournaments, but we get to States and beyond, then it has to stick

In any level tournament or ROOT game, I'm gonna have to say the cards are played.

Just as a point of comparison, ROOT tournaments are most equivalent to District tournaments.  At least that is what their RNRS points are.

Generally I let players take back mistakes that don't change anything, unless they have been a stickler for rules earlier in the game.  Once one player decides to go all rules nazi, then the rest of the game has to follow suit.  But I prefer a more relaxed, friendly game.

Quote from: Chris on January 20, 2013, 11:50:32 PM

In ROOT or anything at a state level or higher, I play for keeps

Quote from: Redoubter on January 21, 2013, 12:08:26 AM

Generally, I'll let people take things back in most cases even in tournaments, but we get to States and beyond, then it has to stick

Quote from: The Guardian on January 21, 2013, 01:09:31 AM

In any level tournament or ROOT game, I'm gonna have to say the cards are played.

Just as a point of comparison, ROOT tournaments are most equivalent to District tournaments.  At least that is what their RNRS points are.

That's not nearly what the competition is though. When you have 3+ national champions playing a category, it's certainly higher competition than a District (except for maybe an Arden Hills District).

Just as a point of comparison, ROOT tournaments are most equivalent to District tournaments.  At least that is what their RNRS points are.

Perhaps logistically, but otherwise, no, I don't think so. I at least treat it like a State tournament, which is to say, I don't let anyone take anything back, nor do I ask them to do the same for me. I know of at least a few other people who are pretty active in ROOT who feel the same, and they're often found at "top tables" late in the tournament. Part of this attitude may just be because I played with Gabe more than anyone else online in the first couple years I was around, but I'm a better player because of it. If I'm holding myself to a no-mistakes standard, why shouldn't I hold my opponents to it as well? Again, I'll waive this off in casual games or at a local tournament, but I'm a competitive person, and I play to win. Please explain how that's a bad thing.

My assumption is that Alex was playing you, Underwood, since you were his ROOT opponent, so would the both of you mind giving your respective sides of what happened?

I would have ruled your way Alex--just like any other card, U&T needs to complete before anything else is done. If something else is done, then U&T is complete in my mind.

I am much like STAMP and no matter the level of play or the stakes of the game I let my opponents take anything and everything back as long as it was a mistake and they intended to do something else. But in this particular circumstance getting to see your opponents hand then get a auto win like that I would have called foul.

I do see ROOT as more of a friendly District level atmosphere than apparently some other people see it, so that obviously affects my perspective.  If Alex had demanded to play it straight by the book, I would have let him make that call.  It would have made the rest of the set of 3 games less fun because it just would've made everything more tense, but officially it was still his right.  I support his right to force the game to go by the book.  I also support his right to show some grace in a situation where the order of events couldn't possibly change anything.

I would argue that you were not within your right to ask to take back a mistake in an official tournament game, especially if the way Alex described it is accurate. If some people choose to show grace to their opponents in these types of situations, that's their prerogative, but nobody has a right to get frustrated when their opponent asks them to follow the rules. If it created a tense situation, that's on the person who made the mistake, then complained when they were called out on it, not the person who asked for a fair game.

I call foul.
He says his intent was obvious and that the order doesn't change anything.
I appeal to rules.
He asks if I'm seriously going to be that close to the rules.
I just let him do it because I don't have time to argue for 15 minutes when the games are already going to last three hours.

If this sequence of events needs to be corrected, then I'll change my opinion, but to me, this makes it sound like he was beginning to argue about it, and Alex dropped the subject because he didn't want to spend a bunch of time debating the subject. That's the main thing I would have an issue with in Alex's shoes. If he is in this situation and he calls foul, he's clearly not planning on letting it slide. Pressuring an opponent into letting you take back a mistake (which is, in my opinion, what this sounds like) is not good sportsmanship.

I did point out that there was nothing that possibly was affected in this case. 

Am I missing something here? You should not have been allowed to activate HT at all. Did you not use Spiritual Warfare to start the ensuing battle that turn? If you did, then that completely changes that turn's outcome.

My intent was to keep this a discussion focused on "takebacks" in general rather than picking on a particular player who made a mistake. That's all. 

I didn't mean to make it sound like I was targeting Underwood specifically, it just made a good example for what I was talking about (which MKC nailed), since I've found myself in Alex's position several times (though I don't believe ever with the good Professor).

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 21, 2013, 04:47:26 PM

I did point out that there was nothing that possibly was affected in this case. 

Am I missing something here? You should not have been allowed to activate HT at all. Did you not use Spiritual Warfare to start the ensuing battle that turn? If you did, then that completely changes that turn's outcome.

His point is that, had he not violated the rules, he could have played Zadok Anoints Solomon after flipping up Harvest Time anyway. He wasn't abusing the knowledge he got from Urim and Thummim, he just forgot to make the artifact switch before playing Zadok.

Am I the only one who noticed the fact you can't get Spirirtual Warfare with Zadok anoints?

Am I the only one who noticed the fact you can't get Spirirtual Warfare with Zadok anoints?

Yes you can. Zadok allows you to search for a card with a brigade other than teal, which would include Spiritual Warfare.

Never mind. That would indeed be a bigger problem. 

I played a certain card game for 17 years. Strict wasn't even the word for it. Unless your just playing to practice, if its a 'may' ability, when you forget there is no going back.

I'm reminded by a saying, "Practice makes perfect."

My basketball coach in high school always said, "PERFECT practice makes perfect!"

When playing against kids in my play group, casual games with less skilled players and sometimes even "teaching" games with experienced players, I will allow take backs. Sometimes I even encourage them by pointing out how my opponent can benefit from making a different play.

However, in tournament play and when preparing for a tournament, I try to adhere strictly to the rules. Part of the reason I've had success in high level tournaments is because of the high standard I expect of both myself and my opponents. When two quality players face off, the deciding factor between who wins and who loses most often comes down to who makes the most (or biggest) mistake(s), even more so than "luck of the draw".

Some very insightful posts so far, most in favor of no takeback.

I would say that both Alex and Prof U acted within their "rights" as players of the game.  Alex had every right to make his demand, as it was within the rules.  After he spoke up, Prof U had every right to request mercy, as he made a mistake, and there is no rule saying players can't make concessions for others.  The final word should always rest with Alex, though, since it was Prof's error.  If Alex still says "we follow the rules" after Prof's request, then it should be done so with no argument.

Redemption players play for different reasons; many of the better or more competitive players would want the rules followed to a T so that the outcome is "by the book" or "authentic".  Some players focus more on the relational aspect of the game and prefer to show mercy to (some) mistakes.  I see this as very similar to Paul's writings on weaker and stronger Christians. 

I'm not saying one is a weak position and the other is strong; I'm just saying, players can believe different things and still both be right.  If someone points out a mistake you have made, either:
1.  Take back what you did in error and do not raise complaint or hold a grudge.
2.  Ask for a takeback (mercy).

If a player chooses option 2 above after you have pointed out an error, either:
1.  Kindly insist on the rule being followed, which is within your rights.
2.  Let the player take it back and do not raise complaint or hold a grudge.

If a player chooses option 1 after option 2 was chosen, then take it back, since it is within the other player's right to demand that the rules be followed.  Don't take it personally or hold a grudge.

The key is not complaining, taking it personally, or holding grudges.  These are too often the outcome when people of different beliefs have their beliefs conflict.

So maybe we should be measuring the rankings by number of mistakes with the least mistake-prone being the number one player...and maybe focusing on the mistakes rather than strength of schedule or W-L record and such?

I think we should include a place in the Hall of Fame for the most mistakeless person of all time, which should include their grammar and spelling on the Message Boards!

We just need to put the keyword Takeback in the REG glossary.