Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Player A makes a rescue attempt against player B, who has the 2-Liner Lost Soul in his territory. Player B decides to tap the 2-Liner (or, put another way, Player A rescues half of the 2-Liner), and at the same time, Player A plays Son of God and New Jerusalem while Player B plays Burial. Who gets precedence here? As we all know, the standard when true dominant slapjack comes up is the person who made the last action gets to respond to it. However, who specifically made the last action? Player B gave up half of the 2 Liner, but Player A is the one who rescued it.  The status quo (as far as I am aware) is that Player B would get it, but I'm not sure that's right.

Status quo would be that Player B would win slapjack, because the action of surrendering a soul is an action taken by that player to indicate that they indeed lost the battle.  Further, since it is the standard rule that they then have to select the soul as well, it makes sense for the 'last action' to go to Player B because surrendering is an action.

In addition.  If my opponent plays Birth Foretold can I let them know while they are doing it that I am playing Vain Philosophy (to do it there NJ if it's in their hand). Prior to them playing SoG/NJ?

You can say it but if they drop SoG/NJ immediately after finishing BF at the same time you play VP you can't prove that they weren't already going to do that so they'd get priority.

Quote from: SiLeNcEd_MaTrIx on October 04, 2013, 06:09:23 PM

In addition.  If my opponent plays Birth Foretold can I let them know while they are doing it that I am playing Vain Philosophy (to do it there NJ if it's in their hand). Prior to them playing SoG/NJ?

You can say it but if they drop SoG/NJ immediately after finishing BF at the same time you play VP you can't prove that they weren't already going to do that so they'd get priority.

Part of the issue anyway is that the player using BF should have the opportunity, ideally, to play.  They are always going to be at a disadvantage due to the actions they are taking and the other person just sits there with only VP in hand right above the table.  This is where 'technically correct' and correct are different for me.  The rules technically are (right now) that browarod is correct, it only matters who gets the card on the table, tie going to 'last action'.  I don't feel that ignoring announcing actions is courteous, however, and so when I play Redemption (where courtesy should definitely come into play), I hope to be able to announce my intentions to follow-up an ation, being able to act on that intent if I'm doing something like searching out SoG just to play SoG+NJ.

I'd like to see some rule changes to reflect this, but the argument has been around forever, and nothing has changed.  The current rules are that if anyone announces their intent, that's nice.  They have to still win slapjack.

Define slapjack.

Whoever plays first wins.  If both cards hit the table at the same time, or such that the playing of one before the other cannot be determined, it's a tie.

It is only in that case that 'last action' comes into play, by the rules.

Status quo would be that Player B would win slapjack, because the action of surrendering a soul is an action taken by that player to indicate that they indeed lost the battle.  Further, since it is the standard rule that they then have to select the soul as well, it makes sense for the 'last action' to go to Player B because surrendering is an action.

While surrendering is an action, it is not the last action involved in a rescue. If I rescue against my opponent and he "surrenders" the anti-burial lost soul, I can hold off on actually rescuing it until I play Burial. In the same way, the 2 Liner should have to be accepted by the person rescuing. The 2 Liner seems to be an odd situation, because the handing over process doesn't physically take place the first time, but rescuing a soul is a 2 part action done by both players, but the one rescuing makes the last action.

Quote from: Westy on October 04, 2013, 07:07:17 PM

If I rescue against my opponent and he "surrenders" the anti-burial lost soul, I can hold off on actually rescuing it until I play Burial.

This is not always the case.  If we have a battle, and I announce that I lose by the numbers, then no other cards can be played between that time and giving you the LS (including your desire to play Burial).

Two things.
1. Actually, that's true, during Battle Resolution no dominants could be played (including Burial), which means you can't play dominants until the Discard Phase, and at the beginning of the phase (per Mayhem ruling) whomever's turn it is has the right of way, so SoG/NJ still wins.
2. That's not exactly true, since both players still have to agree on going to battle resolution. You can't say "I die by the numbers" and not give your opponent a chance to play Grapes before you die. They have to accept your surrender.

Actually, that excerpt from the rulebook changes everything. The fact of the matter is there is no such thing as intent when looking at dominants in Redemption: The person who plays faster wins. Obviously, there are quite a few people who don't like this, but there is nothing in the rules to suggest that announcing your intention somehow allows you to override your opponent playing a dominant first.

Hey,

The falling away question happened at nationals in 2009.  It was ruled one way during the game in question, but after extensive further discussion the judges present decided that announcing what you were doing was effectively the same as doing it.

Redemption has always held the general concept that we do not give a player an advantage for being more dextrous of physically faster than their opponent.  If a player wishes to respond to their own action by playing a dominant you cannot deprive them of that opportunity by being physically faster to play your dominant.

Announcing intention by all means allows a player to respond to their own action first. Furthermore, a judge will always rule in favor of the player showing the intention to respond to their own action, regardless of any players physical dexterity.

I love how people keep saying that "a judge will always rule..." when the people who have posted in this thread are likely all judges (at some point) and clearly do not agree. 

FWIW, if I am the judge, I will always rule in favor of the player that was in the middle of another action.

Providing the player was in the middle of an action that counted as a "respondable" action--right YMT? 

No. My decision is based solely on my own discretion.

Discarding all of your characters to indicate losing a battle--not an action you can respond to.

This is correct.  Winning a battle by special ability still allows the playing of other cards.  Therefore the person who played the card with the SA that won the battle actually did the last action and would have precedence to respond to their own action first (ex. playing Burial before being given the Anti-burial LS).

I am not sure about discarding your characters in a by the number situation to indicate losing a battle.  I'm just guessing that that *is* an action you can respond to, maybe an elder or two would care to weigh in on that.

This is also correct.  Winning a battle by the numbers does NOT allow the playing of other cards before battle resolution.  Therefore the person who is giving half of the 2-liner has the precedence to respond to their own action first (ex. playing Burial before your opponent plays SoG)

I love how people keep saying that "a judge will always rule..." when the people who have posted in this thread are likely all judges (at some point) and clearly do not agree. 

I've been to a LOT of big (state, regional, national) tournaments in the last 7 years, and my experience is that everyone agrees a lot more about these things in person than they do here on the forum.  I have consistently seen people rule these sort of issues in line with the guidelines that I'm talking about and in line with the idea of showing courtesy to your opponent.