Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => Topic started by: Warrior_Monk on April 11, 2011, 09:54:15 PM
-
Okay, so I've always been of the mind that you should defend as much as you're able, and not let somebody win unless you can't do anything more, but a situation recently came up that might make me change my thoughts on that.
Situation:
5 Players. 4 people have 4 lost souls (two shared a 2 Liner), 1 (player B) has 3. Player A has 4 and makes a rescue attempt against Player Sauce (who doesn't have defense), and he has Falling Away in his hand. Should he play it on Player A, and keep the game going as long as he can (even though Player C would undoubtedly win, causing the other 4 to tie for 2nd), or play it on players C and D and give player A the soul, causing Player Sauce to take second, and Player A to win.
This is in a district tournament.
So should Player Sauce do the selfish thing and take second, or the general thing to fight until the end?
-
Redemption is, first and foremost, a game. The point of most games is to do your best to win, within the bounds of the rules. I would say that any player should do their best to place as high as they can.
-
+1
I do not believe it is unethical to play your cards in such a way that it benefits yourself the most. At a tournament a few weeks ago, (in a MP game obviously), I played Angel of the Lord during my brother's rescue attempt because I feared the blocking player was going to make a play to discard a Hero I needed to keep. Yes, the dominant benefited my brother, but it wasn't because I was trying to help my brother--it was simply that I felt that play would be the most beneficial to me and in the end I won a very close game because of that play.
-
However, should you pick on one player who's in last place, but has been established as a good player?
-
hehe yeah that reminds me of ct states last year me rob m and sam nurge me and rob keep fighting and i keep punishing sam with my cards
-
Theoretically, player B could have drawn a Falling Away, played it on Player C, and then Player C draws Falling Away, and plays it on Player D, then Player Sauce can win. Although it was probable that Player Sauce was going to lose anyway, it wasn't a guarantee.
I played Angel of the Lord during my brother's rescue attempt because I feared the blocking player was going to make a play to discard a Hero I needed to keep. Yes, the dominant benefited my brother, but it wasn't because I was trying to help my brother--it was simply that I felt that play would be the most beneficial to me and in the end I won a very close game because of that play.
That was a great game...
-
However, should you pick on one player who's in last place, but has been established as a good player?
No. Fight who is winning.
As to the scenario, honestly, you aren't truly defending anyways. You're influencing lost souls, not stopping a rescue. I've done similar. I was at SE regionals at the top table, knowing that whatever I placed in at the table would be my place. I purposefully played ANB to try to stop the player who would of gotten third from achieving that so I could have third.
-
Want to know what'd be really interesting (or boring)? A 5 person booster (little defense, like booster was intended) where everyone knows two people have falling away in their hand. Scores tied 4-4-4-4-4.
-
I am a stout believer in if you can block DO NOT give free souls unless if some one else is going to win the game and your block will be wasted. For this case im of the opinion that his falling away should have been played to drag the game out. But that is just me and I honestly dont care if I win or lose games.
-
Multiplayer is total war. Make whatever plays you feel will end up getting you the best position at the end of the day. However, it is unethical to sandbag a notable player when there is no benefit to yourself.
-
Multiplayer is total war. Make whatever plays you feel will end up getting you the best position at the end of the day. However, it is unethical to sandbag a notable player when there is no benefit to yourself.
I'm not sure I agree with this.
Scenario: I have only 2 lost souls. I'm NOT going to win or get second place. I'm holding Falling Away. The leading player has 4 lost souls but also has GOYS in play. The second and 3rd place players both have 3 lost souls, and no GOYS. Leading player comes after me for lost soul number 5, and I have no way to stop it. Before I hand over that lost soul I'm probably going to break the tie for second place by playing FA on one of the "3 soul" players, AND I'm most likely to play it on the player that usually wins all the tournaments. It's just part of my nature to root for the underdog and give other players a chance, if I can't win myself.
Is it wrong to always target the best player at the table when all other things are equal? Do I instead need to be flipping a coin every time, so as to not appear partial? Or am I "ethically obligated" to keep FA in my hand and not play it before the end of the game?
-
Yes, it's incredibly frustrating. Why go through all that work to become good if it just means that people are going to go after you more?
-
Yes, it's incredibly frustrating. Why go through all that work to become good if it just means that people are going to go after you more?
Simple solution: If you're playing Booster Draft, don't take it so seriously. It's just that type of category. If you're playing T1-MP, that's your own fault. T1-MP is awful.
-
Before I hand over that lost soul I'm probably going to break the tie for second place by playing FA on one of the "3 soul" players, AND I'm most likely to play it on the player that usually wins all the tournaments.
I would be infuriated if I saw this. You had nothing to gain from the play and it was pure spite. Redemption goes way out of its way to avoid NPE and you just created it. If I were hosting the tournament I would even ban you from participating in Multiplayer in the future.
I don't play Multiplayer myself, so I would never have a bias in this argument. Sandbagging is wrong, especially in the scenario you just described. Manipulating the scoreboard so that you do well is A-ok, but manipulating it so that someone else does worse is nasty.
-
One of these days I'm going to make a T1 MP tournament deck with every card in it that can search for GOYS. Cards like FA (especially combined with the "Lost Souls" card) are just murder on T1 multi, and can actually lead to some hurt feelings when they are tossed around with reckless abandon.
-
Yes, it's incredibly frustrating. Why go through all that work to become good if it just means that people are going to go after you more?
Simple solution: If you're playing Booster Draft, don't take it so seriously. It's just that type of category. If you're playing T1-MP, that's your own fault. T1-MP is awful.
Unfortunately, it's the best type of play for pickup games.
-
Before I hand over that lost soul I'm probably going to break the tie for second place by playing FA on one of the "3 soul" players, AND I'm most likely to play it on the player that usually wins all the tournaments.
I would be infuriated if I saw this. You had nothing to gain from the play and it was pure spite. Redemption goes way out of its way to avoid NPE and you just created it. If I were hosting the tournament I would even ban you from participating in Multiplayer in the future.
I don't play Multiplayer myself, so I would never have a bias in this argument. Sandbagging is wrong, especially in the scenario you just described. Manipulating the scoreboard so that you do well is A-ok, but manipulating it so that someone else does worse is nasty.
You seem to assume that I'm doing it to hurt another player, but I'm specifically doing it to help a player that has never won a tournament before. I also disagree that Redemption goes out of its way to avoid cases like this, because they are the ones who created a dominant that can do exactly this, and then refused to ban it (like I wish they would).
I'm one of the two best players in our local playgroup. When I play multi-player, I can expect all the other players to play their Christians Martyrs on all my rescue attempts, and play their Angel of the Lord on all my blocking ECs, even when its not their turn. Not good strategy on their part, but certainly allowed within the rules. They're just so used to me winning, that they want to slow me down and give everyone else a chance. In a weird way its a compliment to my abilities too, so there IS something to be happy about. It's frustrating, but it's just a game, and I shrug it off. I certainly don't call a judge over and whine that everybody's targeting me and ask that they all be banned.
You're entitled to your opinion of course, but on what basis could you ban a player for playing a card that is allowed to be played at any time, for any reason? The best solution to this is what you and many others have done, DON'T PLAY MULTIPLAYER. But a judge banning someone because they don't like their dominant play?
-
Playing a dominant with no benefit to yourself and for no purpose other than to make one player place lower than another player does not fall within the parameters of fun and fellowship. It's not the same as playing a NPE T2 deck, since that also does benefit you by winning you the game. It's also not the same as playing FA on a top contender even though he has 1 LS and the other people at the table have 3 (because you're still in the game and could believe that the other players are no threats to you). But sniping a player in a tie situation right before handing over the final soul gives you nothing and costs whatever player you used FA on a placing.
You say you do it because you "root for the underdog," but motivations are subjective. What if there were a group of brothers or close friends at a tournament, and during the course of the game they consistently stopped other people at their table not from their family/group? If your exact scenario came up, but it was one brother who couldn't win playing FA to give his brother 2nd place right before losing, would that sound acceptable to you? I used to be a tournament judge and I had to police T-1 Multi quite closely. You'd be surprised how often it can be determined by backroom deals or good-old-boy systems if a strict stance against no-benefit sandbagging is not taken.
-
So if you're judging a game like this and you are not certain why a player targeted so and so, you call them out and ask them to defend their reason for targeting said player? I'm sorry, but this just seems like over-zealous judging to me, and taking a game a little too seriously. If I don't like how someone plays, I don't play again with that person. That type of person faces eternal consequences far worse than being banned from a tournament. If that means that I sit out of an event or two, so be it.
-
I would not ban them from an entire tournament. If I heard about no-gain sandbagging I would first tell the player that's not acceptable. If I heard about it again I'd make an announcement before the start of the next round. After that if people were still doing it I'd disqualify them. If they continued to do it at future tournaments I judged, at that point I would ban them from multiplayer.
Judges frequently do the same type of thing about another grey area: table-talk. I'm perfectly ok with it and I think it makes it more difficult for RLK's to screw up games because they were playing it like T1-2P.
-
On a side note, are we in agreement that Falling Away is a BAD card, for specifically these types of reasons?
-
People are free to do anything legally they want, and IMO a judge should only comment on things that happen that are illegal gameplaywise. If a person wants to do something as Steffer describes, he certainly can, and leave everyone else to decide how they feel about it. I personally probably wouldn't do anything to hurt another person's placing, etc. if it doesn't help me, but I wouldn't say that's a judge's call to say what someone can and can't do as long as they're following the rules.
On a side note, are we in agreement that Falling Away is a BAD card, for specifically these types of reasons?
I think it's nice in 2P, but if it were banned for multiplayer categories, I would nary shed a tear. If NJ were similarly banned for multiplayer, I would actually consider playing T1-multi once in awhile.
-
Again, I appeal to the precedent of table-talk. It's not illegal, but I've heard of plenty of people being disqualified/threatened with disqualification over it.
-
Again, I appeal to the precedent of table-talk. It's not illegal, but I've heard of plenty of people being disqualified/threatened with disqualification over it.
Could you get more specific, with maybe some examples, about "table talk"? Is it another thing that is only a problem in multi-player? I just want to make sure I understand what you're referring to.
Do you mean something like "If you come after me I won't block you."?
-
Again, I appeal to the precedent of table-talk. It's not illegal, but I've heard of plenty of people being disqualified/threatened with disqualification over it.
I thought there was a rule against it now? Or maybe that's just in MN, where we're a bunch of manipulative ne'er-do-wells who coerce RLK's into doing our bidding at every turn...
-
Again, I appeal to the precedent of table-talk. It's not illegal, but I've heard of plenty of people being disqualified/threatened with disqualification over it.
I thought there was a rule against it now? Or maybe that's just in MN, where we're a bunch of manipulative ne'er-do-wells who coerce RLK's into doing our bidding at every turn...
I'm not aware of a rule against Jedi mind tricks...
-
People are free to do anything legally they want, and IMO a judge should only comment on things that happen that are illegal gameplaywise. If a person wants to do something as Steffer describes, he certainly can, and leave everyone else to decide how they feel about it. I personally probably wouldn't do anything to hurt another person's placing, etc. if it doesn't help me, but I wouldn't say that's a judge's call to say what someone can and can't do as long as they're following the rules.
On a side note, are we in agreement that Falling Away is a BAD card, for specifically these types of reasons?
I think it's nice in 2P, but if it were banned for multiplayer categories, I would nary shed a tear. If NJ were similarly banned for multiplayer, I would actually consider playing T1-multi once in awhile.
I agree, a judge shouldn't call anything except that which is explicitly against the rules.
Table talk is a huge issue in our group, and I'm pretty strict about it. I define what is/isn't ok as "It's alright to tell someone what they can't do, but not ok to tell them what they can do." However, this is only in a tournament setting. I encourage teaching in casual play whenever possible.
-
My question:
Is it ok to play Mayhem in T2 multi on the first turn right after I have put down my cards?
What if I know I probably wouldn't benefit from it?
-
A first round Mayhem is basically always a benefit.
-
I agree, a judge shouldn't call anything except that which is explicitly against the rules.
Table talk is a huge issue in our group, and I'm pretty strict about it.
lol wut
-
Playing a dominant with no benefit to yourself and for no purpose other than to make one player place lower than another player does not fall within the parameters of fun and fellowship.
I agree with this. However, I can imagine one scenario within the parameters listed where playing FA could be to your benefit. Perhaps you have no chance to come in 1st or 2nd in that particular game. However, you have enough points going into that last round that you will place 2nd or 3rd as long as player X doesn't get any points that round either. In that case if player X is tied for 2nd and you play FA on them at the last turn before handing over the winning LS, then you would be ensuring you placing in the tournament.
Of course if the player attacking for #5 did NOT have GoYS, then you would have to play the FA on them in order to keep the game going. But if you truly had no defense other than the FA, and they already had GoYS out, then there's not anything you could have done.
-
In that case if player X is tied for 2nd and you play FA on them at the last turn before handing over the winning LS, then you would be ensuring you placing in the tournament.
Then there would be benefit to yourself and I would have no problem with it. The scenario being presented was one in which there was no benefit on any level, and the only goal was to hurt a player and favor another.
-
There are no ethics of defending, do whatever you want
-
Acceptable table talk:
"I am about to surrender a LS to Justin, does anyone want to do anything first?"
Unacceptable table talk:
"Justin is about to get a LS, you should play your Christian Martyr on his Hero!"
-
Good table talk...
"I am about to surrender a LS to Justin, does anyone want to do anything first?"
Better table talk...
"I just realized something. If someone were to play Grapes and discard my EC--since he is dying anyway--you could shuffle all of Justin's Heroes into his deck."
Even better table talk...
"New house rule--no one is allowed to use their dominants on anyone other than Justin."
Best table talk ever...
"No, that is Jordan. Justin is the other guy."
-
Semi-necro:
I've been thinking about the situation I mentioned on the first page more. 4 player multi, everyone has four souls. No defense is left besides player one and two both have falling away. Plenty of no SA souls to rescue and everyone has at least one hero. Player four makes a rescue. If player one plays his FA, player two wins the game. If player two plays his FA, player one wins the game. If neither of them play it, player 4 wins the game. Assume whoever wins won't effect the outcome of the tournament rankings.
Is anyone obligated to extend the game? Obviously if you understand the other person isn't going to use their FA on player 4, you're going to lose the game, so should you then play yours? Should you just let player 4 win? Should you be stubborn and try to win?
-
Is anyone obligated to extend the game? Obviously if you understand the other person isn't going to use their FA on player 4, you're going to lose the game, so should you then play yours? Should you just let player 4 win? Should you be stubborn and try to win?
Player 1 should play Falling Away on Player 4 so that they will at least get a turn. Then on their turn they should play Mayhem to get rid of Player 2's Falling Away. Then they should win and rejoice :)
Seriously, you never know what will happen. You might draw that Mayhem, or you might draw that Guardian, or you might draw enough defense to stop Player 2 from winning even if they do play Falling Away on you. Regardless, you should try to keep the game going as long as you can.
-
If I was Player 2, I'd burn Player 1 by playing Falling Away immediately after he plays it on Player 4.
-
Multiplayer is total war. Make whatever plays you feel will end up getting you the best position at the end of the day. However, it is unethical to sandbag a notable player when there is no benefit to yourself.
Unless of course you believe that person has a reasonable expectation to win the game/beat you.
In the first scenario I would have played for second and I would not have felt bad about it because that is how Multi is. It is total war and you take what you can and you do what you can to whomever you feel has the best shot of beating you.
edit- Seriously? a negative? thats childish...
-
Assume whoever wins won't effect the outcome of the tournament rankings.
If that's the case, then it doesn't matter too much who wins because everyone should feel good about being part of what presumably was a pretty epic game if it came down to 4-4-4-4 with a couple FAs floating around...
-
If I were player 1, I'd let player 4 win, and then rant about how much of a noob player 2 is for not playing his falling away.
-
If I were in this situation, I'd be player 3, wondering what the heck "ʇuɐʌɹǝs lnɟɥʇıɐɟ" means.
-
hmmm I would "go to the bathroom" and accidently pull the fire alarm. I need time to think things like this through.
-
hmmm I would "go to the bathroom" and accidently pull the fire alarm. I need time to think things like this through.
In our dorm, you don't even have to pull the fire alarm. Just make some popcorn.
-
pulling a fire alarm takes seconds. Burning popcorn at least five minutes
-
But hey, popcorn!
-
I agree with Some Kittens. I would much rather think things over a bowl of popcorn than loud beeps.
-
LOL. horribly burnt popcorn? mmmm....yummy :)
-
Burnt popcorn has a certain appeal to it. ;)
-
Heh, if I have a card that I can play, well, why not? What's the point of having a card and not playing it because it's serves you no purpose? Like, if I know I'm not going to win the tournament, but I can still wreak a little havoc on those that can win, why not? We had a guy do that and somehow ended up winning. I agree that you shouldn't play a card just to spite someone, but if you have the card and can play it, go for it! Just play it and see what happens. If it means that you get to basically choose who will win, then simply make that decision. If Player B will win because you don't play FA on them before surrendering the soul, or if Player C will win because you do play FA on player before surrendering the soul, then pick who you think should win. No one will know that you had to make that decision unless you mention it because no one is supposed to know what's in your hand. Basically your choice serves as the tie-breaker for who wins, so pick. It's just a game.
If any of that makes sense, then there just might be some hope left for me haha
-C_S