Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => Topic started by: czepp on April 05, 2014, 07:32:36 PM
-
While playing in a local tournament today I noticed something that was irritating me. When I would draw and pickup lost souls my opponent would place a Mayhem on the table. I try not to play in a slow manner, but I didn't even draw my third card before Mayhem hit the playing field. There was no reaction time to lay any LS down and continue the draw phase. I feel that this is an issue. I feel that the opponent must wait until the drawing phase is complete and ask for permission for initiative, or give at least 5 seconds to play a mayhem card while the drawing phase is in progress.
Ultimately I think that if the player does not have adequate time to play the lost souls drink the draw phase, the cards should be shuffled back into deck with the rest of the hand. I know that many would say this is crazy stupid and shouldn't be considered, but can we at least have some sort of delay of the Mayhem action to finish the draw phase?
-
I think the souls you drew would be placed, cards drawn to replace them, and THEN Mayhem would work.
-
I think the souls you drew would be placed, cards drawn to replace them, and THEN Mayhem would work.
That's how it's ruled. You can't play cards in draw phase.
-
Doesn't the draw phase have to be completed before mayhem even activates?
-
Your opponent should not be trying to play any cards during your Draw Phase. You have the right to draw your three cards, and replace any Lost Soul cards, before your opponent can do anything. Did you bring this situation up with the judge/host?
-
Yeah, you'd finish drawing and replace Lost Souls, then I believe that you have the opportunity to play any dominants you drew as long as you don't take a lot of time deciding if you want to play them. If you don't play anything right away your opponent has every right to play Mayhem after you've COMPLETED drawing and replacing souls.
-
While playing in a local tournament today I noticed something that was irritating me. When I would draw and pickup lost souls my opponent would place a Mayhem on the table. I try not to play in a slow manner, but I didn't even draw my third card before Mayhem hit the playing field. There was no reaction time to lay any LS down and continue the draw phase. I feel that this is an issue. I feel that the opponent must wait until the drawing phase is complete and ask for permission for initiative, or give at least 5 seconds to play a mayhem card while the drawing phase is in progress.
First, if you are referring to me on the first part, you had the third card already placed in hand with no indication it was coming down with a soul. I didn't throw down a dominant without the indication that you should be done with your draw. If it was another game, then that's a matter I cannot comment on :)
Second, no, 5 seconds is not how this works. The problem is that the active player can immediately go from drawing to playing cards down, and part of the advantage of playing Mayhem is that you can do so before that chance is taken. If I think you have Mayhem, I will just start throwing stuff down into territory right after drawing to beat your play.
Dominants cause slapjack, meaning fastest player wins. If you put each card you draw into hand, then make no immediate move to put down Lost Souls, I'm going to drop Mayhem then. If you need to replace souls, I have to pick it up and wait for the replacement to play it back down. But if you expect competitive players to act differently, it won't happen (nor is it against the rules or spirit of the game, sorry).
-
I don't think dominant slapjack is really fair in that situation as I have cards that I'm putting into my hand while you're just sitting there waiting to play your card as soon as I draw. As I said, I think the drawing player could respond to their draw by playing an dominants (but not other cards) they want to and then the opponent has the opportunity to play their Mayhem or whatever dominant.
-
As I said, I think the drawing player could respond to their draw by playing an dominants (but not other cards) they want to and then the opponent has the opportunity to play their Mayhem or whatever dominant.
Never disputed that the player drawing has 'first right' more or less to play dominants, but not to other cards. However, there is nothing to require me to "give the opportunity" to play Mayhem. I can just go right to Prep Phase and lay stuff in territory quickly to get it out of hand before you Mayhem, and there are no rules to prevent that. Likewise, there is nothing to stop me from playing Mayhem right after you draw if it does not appear you are working on putting souls in play. In either case, it is competitive play to be faster and beat your opponent to the action. With the current rules of the game, both actions are allowable.
Given that we have not been given a 'pass initiative' requirement for each phase thus far, as much as this comes up, it will not happen would be my guess.
-
I think the souls you drew would be placed, cards drawn to replace them, and THEN Mayhem would work.
That's how it's ruled. You can't play cards in draw phase.
Your opponent should not be trying to play any cards during your Draw Phase. You have the right to draw your three cards, and replace any Lost Soul cards, before your opponent can do anything. Did you bring this situation up with the judge/host?
First, if you are referring to me on the first part, you had the third card already placed in hand with no indication it was coming down with a soul. I didn't throw down a dominant without the indication that you should be done with your draw. If it was another game, then that's a matter I cannot comment on :)
It was on multiple occasions during the day, and I'm not pointing any fingers Dayne.
I guess I should emphasize that I was laying lost souls drawn from my drawing phase, not other cards in my hand. YMT I was the host, and it was a local event so it wasn't a concerning issue. I just would like to see more of a common courtesy from players, and if anyone agrees with me. When I want to lay Mayhem down after my opponent draws I wait at least 3-5 seconds to see if any lost souls were drawn. I've never had a slap jack issue occur at this point in a game. I guess it could be that I may not be at a competitive level as to National players where they face critical procedures in a move that have a short amount of time. Again I'm not blaming anyone in my local area for the behavior.
-
Dom slap jack or playing ahead of time has always been a frustrating aspect of the game for many players. Although I understand the frustration I believe the balance occurs when someone throws down a Dom early and it costs them dearly.
For instance at the t2 only I heard about a situation where someone was about to surrender a LS and played FA claiming they would just keep the LS in territory. Theoretically that person would have had to FA their own soul had their opponent stuck them.
More then once I have made the mistake of playing AotL or CM early in a block or rescue where protection occured due to a special ability and I had use the Dom on myself.
Recently I've had people slap down grapes on Judas Iscariot before they realized who they trying to grapes because they were afraid of what I was doing in the block( I guess)
I've seen this happen with burial, SoG/NJ, DoN and grapes getting wasted.
On one hand I get your point but on the other the Hanover/MD play group has become thick with competitive and national level players. This is going to continue to be part of the game and I don't see people backing off of their desire to give themself the best chance to win. (This includes me) Granted sometimes slapping dom's doesn't give you the best chance to win but it's something that is going to happen because sometimes slapjack wins.
-
And as PA/MD group member the trend of players letting competitive spirits overrule fellowship and courtesy is one of the things that is quickly souring me on this game. A competitive spirit is slightly selfish in nature and we need start placing an emphasis on to tempering it with Christian fellowship and courtesy for the health of the game and the region.
-
And as PA/MD group member the trend of players letting competitive spirits overrule fellowship and courtesy is one of the things that is quickly souring me on this game. A competitive spirit is slightly selfish in nature and we need start placing an emphasis on to tempering it with Christian fellowship and courtesy for the health of the game and the region.
While I agree that we should be Christ-like in our attitudes, I do not understand how being competitive and trying to win the game is not appropriate. That is the object of the game, and as long as we are not doing things like trying to cheat or lie to get there, there is no issue with being faster than your opponent and playing cards at a time that is more advantageous to you and more damaging to your opponent's chances of winning.
When I am trying to play Mayhem down before you can get any cards out of your hand, I am doing it because we are playing a game where each of us is trying to win. I'm not doing it to be mean to you. That is the difference to me, and this argument that being competitive is inherently harmful does not work with me.
-
That is not what I said, I said letting the over competitive behavior trump fellowship, is bad for the game. Everyone should play their best, but I believe graciousness should overrule winning a game. If my taking an action in my best interest knowing it will infuriate my opponent and cause them to have anger, I should consider being gracious. IMO we need more graciousness in this game, than competition. I am not saying you should not try to win but there has been a trend in our meta of players becoming more and more ruthless in their conduct and that is not good. If we are like the world in our conduct, what good are we as Christians?
Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Ephesians 4:2
Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 1 Corinthians 8:9
-
... the trend of players letting competitive spirits overrule fellowship and courtesy is one of the things that is quickly souring me on this game.
As one who has already been "soured" (to the point of no longer hosting tournaments), I completely agree with your sentiment. Let me know if you ever come visit Florida, so we can get together for a fun game night. ;D
-
And as PA/MD group member the trend of players letting competitive spirits overrule fellowship and courtesy is one of the things that is quickly souring me on this game. A competitive spirit is slightly selfish in nature and we need start placing an emphasis on to tempering it with Christian fellowship and courtesy for the health of the game and the region.
Can you provide one tangible example of this? Literally one?
Prior to yesterday's event I had intentionally played subpar decks at the previous 2 tournaments. Neither of the decks were speed and neither of them was designed around stopping my opponent from playing cards. Neither of those decks prevented my opponent from having a hand. This was to help provide opportunity for other people to win and to have games that included real battles. What would you like me to do to continue to encourage fun and fellowship? I attend as many tournaments your way and usually bring Charles to add people to the pool and support you as a host. I havnt seen you at a tournament in pa since states 2012.
Not to be rude but the only person I've seen get really upset at tournament is you. I find it a little condescending to bash your play group while you don't support half of it. I think Jesus said something about this, it had to do with a spec and a plank. I will give you this you have personally apologized to people after difficult situations and that is admirable. That doesn't excuse the behavior though.
Personally I'm proud of our play area. Everyone is getting better and becoming stronger players and I have not seen a decrease in fun or fellowship; rather the opposite is it true. People have Been interested in helping one another, and supporting one another as we have tried to rival the great MN play groups. (This is a fun way not a over bearing competitive way, just clarifying) I'm proud of that.
-
Everyone should play their best, but I believe graciousness should overrule winning a game. If my taking an action in my best interest knowing it will infuriate my opponent and cause them to have anger, I should consider being gracious.
I completely disagree with you that 'letting someone win' (which is what you are suggesting if you say not to take the most competitive action just because someone might be upset) should be a part of this game, or that not doing so is 'not Christian'. We are playing a game, and we are playing to win. I will not cheat. I will not lie. I do not even intentionally deceive (like has been talked about in other threads). But I will make the plays that give me the best chance to win, and I will capitalize on errors or good luck. That's the point of playing the game. Afterwards, I will laugh and fellowship and be gracious, win or lose (been working on the second part, and have been getting better), but that does not mean I won't try to win. Saying I shouldn't try to win at a tournament is nonsensical to me.
On a side note, I am moving this out of Ruling Questions. There isn't really a rule or ruling being discussed here, more of a 'how this is being currently played' discussion. Also, since I am in the thick of this one, I shouldn't be the moderator that determines if anything is amiss here.
-
It would be nice to hammer out some sort of 'initative' system when moving through phases. Essentially, establish which player has first crack at playing a Dom when phases end/begin. I think what tends to get people upset is when they're ninja-Dommed - players who've had more competitive experience should be used to that element of surprise, but I know it still stinks to have your hand abruptly Mayhemmed away, or your hero CM'ed outside of battle, or whatever other stuff that happens 'out of the ordinary'. All of us react differently to that surprise, especially when we feel the other player was gaming the system in order to pull it off.
As for our PA/MD side discussion here, the only thing I really want to say is that I've never left a tournament feeling like I'd had a bad experience. Sure, I've been frustrated (and probably frustrating) at times during actual tourney play, but I feel that we do a good job of keeping that frustration within the confines of the game. I have a tremendous amount of respect for each of you, as hosts, players, and friends. I've kind of been on hiatus with Redemption for a while, but I'm hoping to get down a couple times this summer. Definitely miss playing with y'all.
-
I've always felt that dominants, as a gameplay element, are broken. The issue with them (and Mayhem in particular) is that there is no real objective way to solve the arguments that arise from its play. For instance, in T1MP yesterday, Josiah drew for his draw phase, and I paused before playing Mayhem to give him the opportunity to play any dominants of his own. In the intertim, his Golden Cherubim hit the table a split second before my Mayhem. Does Cherubim get shuffled? The answer depends on who is judging: Some would argue that Cherubim hit the table, and therefore, would be active when my Mayhem goes off. Others would argue that by game rule, I was forced to pause for dominants and dominants only, and that even if the Cherubim hit the table, it should be shuffled because I was giving due consideration to my opponent. I suspect that most people would agree with my opinion that the Cherubim should shuffle (and after a brief discussion, Josiah did indeed shuffle it without needing to call a judge over, though whether that was because he agreed with me or because he didn't want an argument isn't for me to say), but there is still clearly an argument for the other side. Subjective rulings are one of the most controversial and upsetting parts of any competition (bad calls in virtually any sport are rampant), so if Redemption can avoid that as much as possible, I think it's for the best.
Thus, I believe that the rules regarding dominants should be changed to something like this: "A dominant may be played at any time, but the ability does not complete until all other abilities and game rules have resolved. In the case of two players playing a card at the same time (with at least one of them being a dominant), the person/team whose turn it is (or who had their turn last in multiplayer games) gets precedence." For instance, if I play Mayhem just as your draw phase is beginning, you could draw, put down Lost Souls, draw for the Lost Souls, and then all hands would shuffle. If I make a rescue attempt and you block with Assyrian Siege Army, I can play Grapes immediately, and ASA still blows up an artifact, fort, or site before he is discarded to instigate the shuffle. This almost completely eliminates slapjack from the game and makes dominants less of a hassle to deal with. The only instance where it would still cause problems is in the case of a tie where both players insist their card hit the table first, and a judge would simply have to rule that a tie goes to the person who's turn it is.
Does this make Mayhem slightly more powerful? Yes. However, it also balances other dominants by either forcing the person about to play a dominant to wait and risk getting Shanghai'd, or they can play it, and their opponent has the opportunity to take that into account when making decisions before the dominant kicks in. I don't really think Mayhem so powerful that this rule change would impact it much.
I think that if we want to talk about the role of competition in Redemption as a whole, that should be split into a different topic. If it's going to remain about competition in our playgroup in particular, it should probably be taken to PMs.
-
To avoid all of this I inform my opponent of the fact that when there draw phase has completed if he/she doesn't wish to respond to their action of drawing with a Dom, I intend to play mayhem. I've had no issues with this at any point.
As an aside I most definitely would have Pm'd my concerns to all necessary parties if the stage had been set in a private situation. However, in this situation the stage was set publicly and I felt the need to defend a group of players that was being misrepresented by an outlier opinion. I didn't feel it was appropriate to place an over arching stereotype on this or any group of players.
I will keep all conversation on the play group topic to PM's from this point forward and am more then willing to have a conversation with anyone who has questions or concerns about my posts.
I do apology for my part in derailing the topic.
@Chris to answer your question about the Multi game from yesterday, I realized your actions were courteous and that is why I agreed with your assessment. Had you tried to slap down mayhem because I dropped GC I would have at least got the opinion of the other players at the table.
-
To avoid all of this I inform my opponent of the fact that when there draw phase has completed if he/she doesn't wish to respond to their action of drawing with a Dom, I intend to play mayhem. I've had no issues with this at any point.
The issue is that the person playing Mayhem shouldn't have to open up the floor to other people playing dominants. Me saying I want to play Mayhem isn't binding to that other player in the slightest; they could use the opportunity to drop five heroes, and by game rule, they'd be allowed to (though a judge would probably rule against them, which is its own separate problem).
-
Frankly Dominants are pretty damaging to the game overall. A card type should not exist in a game where there is no real set of enforceable rules as to when it can be played. If in the situation in this thread the player had finished drawing and then reached for a card in his hand, I play mayhem, and he pulls a dominant which, due to responding to his own action he would have had the right to play, you can't really rule consistently when Mayhem fires in this situation. Was the drawing player always going to play the dominant or is he just trying to say that he was because now he sees that he's going to lose it if he doesn't play it? You can't have an ambiguous rule set surrounding any card, non the less cards that are that powreful.
-
I'm curious after all these years of people mentioning the issues (and problems) caused by not having a ruleset for the timing of dominants, why Redemption has not implemented such a ruleset. There is clearly no consistency across the country on how judges rule these situations, mostly because no one really knows. We changed the deck-building requirement associated with dominants, but this did not take care of the underlying issue. Are we unable to do this at the current stage of the game?
Along these lines, if we ever seriously consider a reboot, I think this is an important issue that needs to be addressed. This is not a PA/MD issue. This is an issue that affects everyone that plays Redemption. It's never too late to create a binding structure on the use of Dominants, since either all of us on the Boards are the ones chiefly affected, or the people that are not on the Boards will eventually come here looking for answers. I think that some of the "conflict" between competitive players and casual players can be avoided if such a structure was in place.
-
Along these lines, if we ever seriously consider a reboot, I think this is an important issue that needs to be addressed...It's never too late to create a binding structure on the use of Dominants
If we did a reboot, a defined ruleset on dominants would not be needed quite as much in the new format. If you did I/J forward (and also excluded old promos), you would only have Son of God, Angel of the Lord, Christian Martyr, Vain Philosophy, and Strife. The only real conflict would be between VP and SoG, unless they printed other doms that would cause problems (or reprinted things like Mayhem).
Also, need to point out that, of the 10 people at the tournament in question, I believe that 2 have won at least one category at Nats, 2 others have at least placed at Nats, and 1 other placed in RNRS. This is a competitive group, and people play to win the game (as they should) while fellowshipping and having good times with friends. Not all of that is exclusive.
-
Dominants need to have a defined ruleset regardless of if there is conflict between them. Rules must be made not just for now, but for the future. Change the rule so that they can be played any time during your turn, or in battle as normal. That presents nearly all, if not all, of the conflict that currently exists.
-
I think this should thread should be deleted IMO. It has turned into a shootout, and is def off the original topic. If a Mod could remove this I would sincerely appreciate it.
-
I actually felt it was back on topic
-
Not sure how talking about rule changes to fix dominant slapjack in a thread about dominant slapjack being an issue is off topic. The dominant rules tend to manifest their problems most often with Mayhem, but they are not exclusive to Mayhem by any means.
-
I think this should thread should be deleted IMO. It has turned into a shootout, and is def off the original topic. If a Mod could remove this I would sincerely appreciate it.
I don't know if it needs to be removed, but that's just my opinion on it. As I moved this, I no longer have control over it, but if you think there is an issue, just report the thread and see what the mods that can deal with it want to do :)
Still, until the dominant issue is resolved (because, as pointed out, the mechanics of a 'play anytime' card everyone has is messy and up in the air), this issue will keep coming up. I guarantee it.
-
A reboot would be great for the game. The only way to save the game is to start a reboot category where there would be, as said before, not a lot of OP doms and cards that are so OP they should not have ever been printed. I remember when I was about 8 years old and I lost a game against a very competitive player because my hands were not fast enough. So I definitely think we should work on fixing slapjack.
-
The game doesn't need a reboot, and fixing Dom's =/= stopping speed. I'd rather see the rules cleaned up than anything at this point.
-
The game doesn't need a reboot, and fixing Dom's =/= stopping speed. I'd rather see the rules cleaned up than anything at this point.
The game doesn't necessarily need a reboot, but it would be an easy fix for a ton of the issues that plague it.
-
The game doesn't need a reboot, and fixing Dom's =/= stopping speed. I'd rather see the rules cleaned up than anything at this point.
The game doesn't necessarily need a reboot, but it would be an easy fix for a ton of the issues that plague it.
It would also alienate a large portion of the player base, something an already hurting game probably can't afford.
-
The game doesn't need a reboot, and fixing Dom's =/= stopping speed. I'd rather see the rules cleaned up than anything at this point.
The game doesn't necessarily need a reboot, but it would be an easy fix for a ton of the issues that plague it.
It would also alienate a large portion of the player base, something an already hurting game probably can't afford.
I don't think it would have to alienate the player base if there was an unlimited format as well.
-
The game doesn't need a reboot, and fixing Dom's =/= stopping speed. I'd rather see the rules cleaned up than anything at this point.
The game doesn't necessarily need a reboot, but it would be an easy fix for a ton of the issues that plague it.
It would also alienate a large portion of the player base, something an already hurting game probably can't afford.
I don't think it would alienate the player base. As far as I've seen on recent threads everyone is pro reboot and the one person who didn't care for it said he would keep playing.
-
This forum has less than 100 active members. Seeing its opinions as the opinions of the entire redemption community, or most of it, is short cited. When people start showing up to Nats and find out the decks theyve been building and spending money on are illegal in the main event they aren't going to care as much that they can compete in a side shot event.
-
The dominant rules tend to manifest their problems most often with Mayhem, but they are not exclusive to Mayhem by any means.
I would estimate that 90-99% of the issues I encounter with dominants are related to Mayhem or Vain Philosophy. I'm willing to bet that most players could estimate similar numbers. Solving the problem with those will more or less solve the problem entirely. I'm willing to deal with issues that matter in 1% of games.
This forum has less than 100 active members. Seeing its opinions as the opinions of the entire redemption community, or most of it, is short cited. When people start showing up to Nats and find out the decks theyve been building and spending money on are illegal in the main event they aren't going to care as much that they can compete in a side shot event.
Actually, there are maybe ten people who actively make it to national tournaments who aren't at least semi-active on the forums in the entire country, and I don't think any of them are playgroup leaders. The tone of these forums is actually an excellent measure of the country as a whole, since almost any serious or influential player is on here. The forums and the Covenant Games website are the only real places to get the national tournament info as well, meaning a huge "READ THIS ANNOUNCEMENT" at the top of the tournament thread would keep anyone from being blindsided. Plus, if the decision that all new cards would be a part of a reboot was announced at or before Nats this year, that would give players a full year to cope. Not to mention the popularity of the idea of a Legacy Format, which would allow all cards from all sets, and the fact that such a category would likely not directly compete with a reboot of T12P. A Legacy Format could very well end up being the more popular of the two anyway, so it's a bit premature to call it a "side shot event". There are a few good arguments against rebooting, but I don't think you're making one of them. Card cost is also irrelevant; we're talking about a Christian CCG here - anyone who bought cards should have known the game could fold at any moment, and if they didn't, well that's their fault.
-
And as PA/MD group member the trend of players letting competitive spirits overrule fellowship and courtesy is one of the things that is quickly souring me on this game. A competitive spirit is slightly selfish in nature and we need start placing an emphasis on to tempering it with Christian fellowship and courtesy for the health of the game and the region.
Can you provide one tangible example of this? Literally one?
Yes I can. I have had the following feedback since our meta shift to more competitive play:
A family of 8-9 redemption players who no longer attend my tournaments because, last I heard from them they have more fun in an environment where they don't feel the rules change everyday and people don't take advantage of their level of play. They have more fun away from our meta.
A player who I have had to have multiple conversations with to keep him from quitting multiple tournaments because of his feelings of being taken advantage of by higher level players.
Members of my local play group lamenting to me" Shawn, remember when tournaments used to be fun?"
Several visitors to our tournaments who decided against getting into redemption because they did not like the tension in the atmosphere.
I feel this list is sufficient but I have many more stories.
Prior to yesterday's event I had intentionally played subpar decks at the previous 2 tournaments. Neither of the decks were speed and neither of them was designed around stopping my opponent from playing cards. Neither of those decks prevented my opponent from having a hand. This was to help provide opportunity for other people to win and to have games that included real battles. What would you like me to do to continue to encourage fun and fellowship? I attend as many tournaments your way and usually bring Charles to add people to the pool and support you as a host. I havnt seen you at a tournament in pa since states 2012.
Low blow man, I have had many personal and medical issues in the past year. It was the most I could do to keep hosting. I am sorry I didn't make it to more your way. Had you asked me you might have known why I didn't come. And I applaud you restraint, wish more competitive players showed it.
Not to be rude but the only person I've seen get really upset at tournament is you. I find it a little condescending to bash your play group while you don't support half of it. I think Jesus said something about this, it had to do with a spec and a plank. I will give you this you have personally apologized to people after difficult situations and that is admirable. That doesn't excuse the behavior though.
Now you are making this personal, you should have PM'ed this part, but since you made it personal and public I'll play along. I have gotten mad in the past. The ultra competitive play style is a stumbling block for me. You admit you have seen it be a stumbling block for me, and yet you think it a good play style. Paul had a lot to say about the strong yielding to the weak when their liberty caused a stumbling block. Competitive play has robbed me of many friends that no longer attends my tourneys so I have strong feelings towards it, in addition to my disappointment to losing. The Lord has been dealing with in this area of my walk. I would appreciate your prayers over your condemnation. I am not perfect but I am trying.
Personally I'm proud of our play area. Everyone is getting better and becoming stronger players and I have not seen a decrease in fun or fellowship; rather the opposite is it true. People have Been interested in helping one another, and supporting one another as we have tried to rival the great MN play groups. (This is a fun way not a over bearing competitive way, just clarifying) I'm proud of that.
I just wish more could enjoy the current format, we have lost many who will likely never return.
-
Shawn, are you arguing that I should intentionally lose in order to spare people's feelings? This is not a sarcastic question.
-
Everyone should play their best, but I believe graciousness should overrule winning a game. If my taking an action in my best interest knowing it will infuriate my opponent and cause them to have anger, I should consider being gracious.
I completely disagree with you that 'letting someone win' (which is what you are suggesting if you say not to take the most competitive action just because someone might be upset) should be a part of this game, or that not doing so is 'not Christian'. We are playing a game, and we are playing to win. I will not cheat. I will not lie. I do not even intentionally deceive (like has been talked about in other threads). But I will make the plays that give me the best chance to win, and I will capitalize on errors or good luck. That's the point of playing the game. Afterwards, I will laugh and fellowship and be gracious, win or lose (been working on the second part, and have been getting better), but that does not mean I won't try to win. Saying I shouldn't try to win at a tournament is nonsensical to me.
On a side note, I am moving this out of Ruling Questions. There isn't really a rule or ruling being discussed here, more of a 'how this is being currently played' discussion. Also, since I am in the thick of this one, I shouldn't be the moderator that determines if anything is amiss here.
And we will likely never agree on this. I believe what I believe because The Bible calls us to meekness, and I believe that applies to all walks of a Christians life, including the games they play. I am as entitled to my opinion as you are yours. I didn't say you weren't a Christian, or a bad person. I just stated my opinion that I believe players should show more meekness.
As an aside I most definitely would have Pm'd my concerns to all necessary parties if the stage had been set in a private situation. However, in this situation the stage was set publicly and I felt the need to defend a group of players that was being misrepresented by an outlier opinion. I didn't feel it was appropriate to place an over arching stereotype on this or any group of players.
And I felt the need to defend what is left of my non competitive play group. New players staying interested is vital for the games future, they don't usually start competitive. You can call mine an outlier opinion but I have a perspective on the MD play group that you do not have because I was hosting long before we had our meta shift. I was hoping my perspective would allow us to have a better understanding of each others side. But now I know where I stand in the other host's eyes.
Shawn, are you arguing that I should intentionally lose in order to spare people's feelings? This is not a sarcastic question.
No I am saying that instead of completely dominating an weaker opponent a seasoned player could perhaps ease of the gas and not ruthlessly crush weaker players(As I have witnessed). I do not, and have never advocated throwing a game. I just want the losing players to have a chance at enjoying the games even if they lose(which I believe is possible).
-
PM sent . .I think it would be best if the rest of this conversation stayed there and this thread remain for the dom discussion.
-
I would estimate that 90-99% of the issues I encounter with dominants are related to Mayhem or Vain Philosophy. I'm willing to bet that most players could estimate similar numbers. Solving the problem with those will more or less solve the problem entirely. I'm willing to deal with issues that matter in 1% of games.
A game covered in band aids does not need another bandaid, when the next mayhem comes down the line you can either deal with it and the SOG/Burial crap now or you can just deal with ALL of them now. Making dominants only playable on your own turn or in battle solves 100% of the issues, even going back to of FTM was still a thing, and it avoids having to errata cards or create rules specifically for 1 or 2 cards instead of the overarching card type. It creates a lot less confusion than an errata as well.
-
I like the idea of dominants only on your turn or battle, but how would this situation work? you have 3 redeemed souls and have made a rescue attempt for the 4th. I don't have anything to block but I do have falling away in hand which I plan to use to counter. However, you are expecting to play Son of God after the battle in order to win. Technically I would have to play falling away during the battle before blocking, or whenever I have initiative after abilities have played out, in order to get you back to 3 before you get your 5th using Son of God, right?
-
In that situation I would expect the player to adapt and play FA on their turn. Which, really, if your opponent has 3 LSs rescued and you have falling away in hand you should have already played in. SOG/NJ says hi. But the point of the rule change would be to eliminate slapjack situations. Twoliner-Burial vs SOG/NJ being the primary focus outside of Mayhem. There are going to be situation in which the rule change would give someone a slight advantage vs how the rule is now, but there would be no debate as to rather a card was played correctly or who has the right to play a dominant or anything like that which is what needs to be eliminated.
-
In that situation I would expect the player to adapt and play FA on their turn. Which, really, if your opponent has 3 LSs rescued and you have falling away in hand you should have already played in. SOG/NJ says hi. But the point of the rule change would be to eliminate slapjack situations. Twoliner-Burial vs SOG/NJ being the primary focus outside of Mayhem. There are going to be situation in which the rule change would give someone a slight advantage vs how the rule is now, but there would be no debate as to rather a card was played correctly or who has the right to play a dominant or anything like that which is what needs to be eliminated.
Making it so you can only play doms during battle or your turn would still leave at least one slapjack situation I can think of. Forced draw via something like TGW to soul gen for SoG/NJ when the person who's drawing has burial in hand.
-
In that situation I would expect the player to adapt and play FA on their turn. Which, really, if your opponent has 3 LSs rescued and you have falling away in hand you should have already played in. SOG/NJ says hi. But the point of the rule change would be to eliminate slapjack situations. Twoliner-Burial vs SOG/NJ being the primary focus outside of Mayhem. There are going to be situation in which the rule change would give someone a slight advantage vs how the rule is now, but there would be no debate as to rather a card was played correctly or who has the right to play a dominant or anything like that which is what needs to be eliminated.
Making it so you can only play doms during battle or your turn would still leave at least one slapjack situation I can think of. Forced draw via something like TGW to soul gen for SoG/NJ when the person who's drawing has burial in hand.
You have a valid point, perhaps dominants should also need initiative to play in battle?
-
Requiring initiative to play dominants almost completely defeats the point of AotL, CM, and Grapes. It makes Burial even more useless than it already is right now, and only allowing dominants on your own turn neuters Mayhem at a time where many people aren't even including it anymore. Your solution solves most of the problems with dominants, but drastically changes the way the entire game is approached.
-
I think this rule would be amazing. It would make doms a lot less OP and make games more interesting than a slap jack win.
-
Can you think of another way to solve the situation that Drrek described? Any mechanic in a card game that can fundamentally change the outcome of the game based solely on how fast a player can move a card from their hand to play is broken, it needs to be eliminated from the game. yes there will be causalities of that in the form of some cards being not as good as they were before, but overall it tightens up the rules of the game and resolves one of the most glaring issues in the current rule set. The problem with Dominants isn't JUST slapjack it's that these cards were designed to be some of the most powerful cards, if not THE most powerful cards, in the game, AND that they rely on slapjack. So you made your best cards the most broken to play.
How about dominants can only be played at the beginning of battle and the blocking player has first choice. You don't need initiative, AOTL, Grapes, and CM retain their usefulness, and Burial's issues are solved.
-
Can you think of another way to solve the situation that Drrek described?
Yes--currently we have a judging guideline for slapjack that says if a player is responding to his own action he has first dibs on playing a dominant otherwise the opponent can play a dominant. Why not simply upgrade this from a judging guideline to a game rule? So after taking each action a player would either play a dominant or effectively ask his opponent if he would like to play a dominant. Right now this is currently how AotL and CM are played in battle. Even when they obviously have initiative because of numbers, most experienced players ask, "My initiative?" to give their opponent a chance to play the dominant. In addition to the existing set of checks, you would end up adding in courtesy checks like, "I am done drawing, and I will play a dominant." and "I am done with prep phase; would you like to play a dominant?"
So under this proposal, Drrek's situation gets resolved as follows. Player A plays TGW to force player B to draw, which means Player A would get the first chance to play a dominant. In order to ensure that he knows when the action is complete Player A would simply tell Player B, "Please let me know when you are done drawing, so I can ask for an initiative check."
I would much prefer to simply codify the existing standards rather than completely re-writing the rules for playing dominants.
-
Because that judging guideline only solves if your opponent plays a card during your action. How long do you get to decide of you are playing a Dom after your action? Half a second? A second? All the while your oppenent is waiting, so he plays his Dom and suddenly no no you were just about to play one responding to own action! Responding to your own action is yet another bandai. Its helps judging but doesn't actually solve the problem.
-
Because that judging guideline only solves if your opponent plays a card during your action. How long do you get to decide of you are playing a Dom after your action? Half a second? A second?
I get as long as reasonably needed to make my decision which I signal to my opponent by either playing a dominant or asking if he would like to play a dominant. (Just like I can take a reasonable amount of time to play an enhancement when I have initiative during battle.) My opponent would not be able to play his dominant until asked if he would like to just prior to taking my next action or passing initiative.
If I take a second action without asking, my opponent would be able to call a judge over and say, "He didn't tell me he was leaving the draw phase (or whatever), and I wanted to play my dominant." The judge would then let you play your dominant.
All the while your oppenent is waiting, so he plays his Dom and suddenly no no you were just about to play one responding to own action! Responding to your own action is yet another bandai. Its helps judging but doesn't actually solve the problem.
If you look at the one case where this proposal is actually used currently (playing a dominant versus playing an enhancement in battle), I think you would see that your concerns are overblown. Currently the vast majority of players (even the most competitive) ask, "My initative?" or somesuch prior to playing an enhancement, precisely to avoid any arguments over whether you did/did not give enough time for your opponent to play a dominant. I cannot remember the last time I was called to judge a case of enhancement vs dominant slapjack nor do I see board threads asking about it.
Two posts back you said that basing on outcome on how fast you could get a card out of your hand was a broken mechanic. Not only do I agree with your assessment I would go you one better and say that any "how long do I have to wait" mechanic is just badbadbad. Remove the timing element (to the same extent it is removed for playing enhancements when you have initiative), and you resolve the dominant slapjack problems once and for all, *without* fundamentally changing how dominants work in general.
-
That would be fine with Dominants followed initiative but they don't. Initiative is a clearly defined mechanic for when you can play a card, that Dominants completely ignore. Asking your opponent if it is your initiative is irrelevant because you don't need it to play a Dom, and people don't wait for it to play a card for that very reason. Asking your opponent "would you like to play a dominant" is a verbal que to them that if they don't, you are likely going to, it gives them an advantage, and all because we don't have a clearly defined rule for "dominant initiative"
-
That would be fine with Dominants followed initiative but they don't. Initiative is a clearly defined mechanic for when you can play a card, that Dominants completely ignore.
I am (like you are) proposing to make changes to the rules on how to play dominants. In my case the change is that dominants would start following initiative, but of a higher priority sort that preempts initiative for non dominant cards. So if you have initiative to play a card or change phases or fill-in-the-blank I could say--"No wait, I want to play a dominant."
Asking your opponent "would you like to play a dominant" is a verbal que to them that if they don't, you are likely going to, it gives them an advantage, and all because we don't have a clearly defined rule for "dominant initiative"
I am proposing that we actually have a defined rule for "dominant initiative." This rule would be a straightforward extension of the existing rules for initiative in a manner that is essentially the de facto standard for how dominants get played in battle proper.
I agree that asking for initiative to possibly play a dominant may give my opponent an advantage--just like asking if I have initiative to play an enhancement signals I may be interested in playing an enhancement. So what we should do is compare the results of our two proposals. Which do you feel is the larger advantage...giving your opponent a verbal clue that you may be interested in playing a dominant or being prevented from playing a dominant at all outside of battle when it is not your turn?
-
I agree with MJB's perspective that this really isn't much of a problem as long as players communicate with each other. By asking if it's their initiative to play an enhancement it gives their opponent an opportunity to play a dominant first. By asking if their opponent wants to play a dominant, it does the same thing.
Sure it might clue your opponent that you are likely to play a dominant, but there are a few other considerations. Firstly, I usually know when my opponent is about to play Mayhem anyway because they have cleared their hand on a previous turn. So them asking me if I want to play a dominant after I draw my 3 cards isn't really giving anything away. Secondly, just because someone asks if I want to play a dominant doesn't mean that they will. They could be psyching me out to get me to use the cards in my hand sub-optimially out of fear of their coming dominant that never materializes. This adds to the strategy of the game.
In any event, at our tournaments (as well as the ones we've been to in OH and TN) we don't seem to have these problems. We also have a National Champion in our playgroup as well as a dozen other people who placed in the top 10 in something at Nats last summer. So our group can surely be competitive at times. But more importantly, we are brothers and sisters in Christ, and we are all friends. At the end of the day, fellowship is more important, and we enjoy hanging out together.
For anyone interested, we'll be having a state tournament this weekend, and you all welcome to come join us and see it for yourself :)