Cactus Game Design Message Boards

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.

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?

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).

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.

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.

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.

... 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. 

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.