Author Topic: Angel of the Lord vs. Grapes of Wrath (defensively) (Read 9073 times)

The Guardian · « **Reply #50 on:** September 29, 2009, 02:26:34 PM »

I still think calling it a tie would be the best solution...for two players to be in that position and one of them loses because of a coin flip?

I can honestly say I would rather call it a tie than get the outright win if I were a player in that spot. Winning a coin flip would seriously cheapen any feeling of accomplishment.

SirNobody · « **Reply #51 on:** September 29, 2009, 05:11:34 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: The Guardian on September 29, 2009, 02:26:34 PM

say I wouI still think calling it a tie would be the best solution...for two players to be in that position and one of them loses because of a coin flip?

I can honestlyld rather call it a tie than get the outright win if I were a player in that spot. Winning a coin flip would seriously cheapen any feeling of accomplishment.

I've had games where there were six cards left in my draw pile at the beginning of my turn. If I draw Son of God during my draw phase I win, if I don't I lose. Effectively my game is determined by a coin flip isn't it? Games between evenly matched players often are determined by an element of chance, I don't see why we need to avoid chance in this sort of situation.

Although I think my preference would be to give preference in a counterclockwise direction.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

The Guardian · « **Reply #52 on:** September 29, 2009, 06:20:12 PM »

Quote

Effectively my game is determined by a coin flip isn't it?

It's not a completely random coin flip because the way you build your deck has a direct impact in how likely/unlikely you are to draw any given card (like Son of God) in a given game.

We lived with ties in MP when New Jerusalem could be played on another person's Son of God, why would they be so bad in this even rarer of circumstances? Furthermore, we still have time out ties in multi-player on occasion, should we flip a coin between the two players in the lead and give one of them the win?

Bryon · « **Reply #53 on:** September 29, 2009, 08:57:01 PM »

If there are 2 souls out, you can't rescue 4 out of that, right?

If there are 4 souls out and 2 players hit Son of God/NJ at the same time, then it is a tie. There is no conflict.

I'm talking about ties between dominants where one cannot happen if the other does.

Player A attacks. Player B blocks. Player C plays Grapes and player A plays AotL at the same time. Only one can win.

I vote for clockwise from the blocker. I know it feels to Kevin that seating order puts one guy out of luck, but that is the same with a coin toss. In other words, the seating order is the coin toss.

If player A, B, and C are clockwise around the table, then A's dominants will beat B's in ties, and B's will beat C's, and C's will beat A's. Roshambo.

The Guardian · « **Reply #54 on:** September 29, 2009, 11:29:45 PM »

Quote

Player A attacks. Player B blocks. Player C plays Grapes and player A plays AotL at the same time. Only one can win.

In that scenario, I think Player A should win (i.e. have the initiative to play the dominant) as he made the last action of the two players who are trying to play a dominant.

CountFount · « **Reply #55 on:** September 29, 2009, 11:41:07 PM »

Why not say you have to place the Dominants on the target? All Dominants have a target. Who ever gets to the target first wins? This means some action, but some clarity. Card on bottom was first played. Easy to Judge. SoG on the LS it is rescuing and NJ on the LS it is rescuing. If second player's SoG beats first players NJ to target. Too Bad.

Bryon · « **Reply #56 on:** September 30, 2009, 12:13:31 AM »

Quote from: The Guardian on September 29, 2009, 11:29:45 PM

Quote
Player A attacks. Player B blocks. Player C plays Grapes and player A plays AotL at the same time. Only one can win.

In that scenario, I think Player A should win (i.e. have the initiative to play the dominant) as he made the last action of the two players who are trying to play a dominant.

"Last action" only applies to the last action. It is who gets to respond first to an action in the case of a tie. No one is trying to respond to the action of putting a hero into battle, so that action has nothing to do with it. The last action was putting the EC into battle. 2 other players are trying to respond to that action by playing dominants. Who wins in the case of that kind of tie needs to be decided by some means. I vote clockwise from who performed the last action (presenting the blocker).

Kevin Shride · « **Reply #57 on:** September 30, 2009, 05:56:08 PM »

Quote

Why not say you have to place the Dominants on the target?

Because if I have to lean halfway across the table to play a dominant on a card, it will be painfully obvious to another closer player, who may then be able to simply drop a dominant from his hand onto the card to counter what I was trying to do.

Kevin Shride

Bryon · « **Reply #58 on:** September 30, 2009, 06:52:38 PM »

Quote from: Kevin Shride on September 30, 2009, 05:56:08 PM

Quote
Why not say you have to place the Dominants on the target?
Because if I have to lean halfway across the table to play a dominant on a card, it will be painfully obvious to another closer player, who may then be able to simply drop a dominant from his hand onto the card to counter what I was trying to do.

Good point. While I see the merit of the suggestion, I think Kevin's nailed its impraticality.

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #59 on:** September 30, 2009, 07:07:12 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on September 30, 2009, 06:52:38 PM

Quote from: Kevin Shride on September 30, 2009, 05:56:08 PM
Quote
Why not say you have to place the Dominants on the target?
Because if I have to lean halfway across the table to play a dominant on a card, it will be painfully obvious to another closer player, who may then be able to simply drop a dominant from his hand onto the card to counter what I was trying to do.
Good point. While I see the merit of the suggestion, I think Kevin's nailed its impraticality.

oops, my SoG landed on the unrescued 2liner instead of the other LS.....

lightningninja · « **Reply #60 on:** September 30, 2009, 08:44:44 PM »

I guess I agree with clockwise action. It doesn't seem there's any other way to solve it. $:-\$

CountFount · « **Reply #61 on:** September 30, 2009, 10:04:21 PM »

Quote from: Kevin Shride on September 30, 2009, 05:56:08 PM

Quote
Why not say you have to place the Dominants on the target?
Because if I have to lean halfway across the table to play a dominant on a card, it will be painfully obvious to another closer player, who may then be able to simply drop a dominant from his hand onto the card to counter what I was trying to do.

Kevin Shride

So, what is the problem? or the impracticality? How is this more impractical than the obvious blind guess of whose cards hit the open table first? It seems to me that it would be a more exciting than the bad luck of sitting in the wrong chair. In fact, the more we can make Redemption a contact sport the better.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #62 on:** September 30, 2009, 10:06:44 PM »

Lol,

That reminded me of one of my friends epic quotes -

"I think that chess should be added as an olympic sport - But only for the winter olympics - and only full contact chess." ~ Kenneth Ramage.

Smokey · « **Reply #63 on:** October 01, 2009, 05:50:35 PM »

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on September 30, 2009, 10:06:44 PM

Lol,

That reminded me of one of my friends epic quotes -

"I think that chess should be added as an olympic sport - But only for the winter olympics - and only full contact chess." ~ Kenneth Ramage.

ALL YOUR PAWN ARE BELONG TO US *Smacks other players pawn across the room*.

The Guardian · « **Reply #64 on:** October 01, 2009, 06:06:27 PM »

Quote

If there are 2 souls out, you can't rescue 4 out of that, right?

So your argument is that because 1 card (or 1 pair of cards) cannot be in two places, we should not consider ties a viable option?

I honestly cannot believe people would rather have a game decided by a coin flip or seat arrangement when two players made the exact same play to win. A tie is way more logical and not problematic at all. In a 4 person MP game, each player gets 2 points--heck, you could have a 3 way tie and each person gets 1.333 points. In a 3 person MP game, two tied players get 1.5 points each.

SirNobody · « **Reply #65 on:** October 01, 2009, 06:28:23 PM »

Hey,

Or we could go old school and do a sudden death game to 1

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #66 on:** October 01, 2009, 08:43:40 PM »

Oh wow... how epic pwnzrs would that be....

lightningninja · « **Reply #67 on:** October 01, 2009, 11:07:55 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on October 01, 2009, 06:06:27 PM

Quote
If there are 2 souls out, you can't rescue 4 out of that, right?

So your argument is that because 1 card (or 1 pair of cards) cannot be in two places, we should not consider ties a viable option?

I honestly cannot believe people would rather have a game decided by a coin flip or seat arrangement when two players made the exact same play to win. A tie is way more logical and not problematic at all. In a 4 person MP game, each player gets 2 points--heck, you could have a 3 way tie and each person gets 1.333 points. In a 3 person MP game, two tied players get 1.5 points each.

Wait... this would get SO complicated. I don't really love the idea of basing something like this on luck... but to have tie games or 3 way ties and split points I don't think is right.

Smokey · « **Reply #68 on:** October 02, 2009, 03:21:13 PM »

Quote from: lightningninja on October 01, 2009, 11:07:55 PM

Quote from: The Guardian on October 01, 2009, 06:06:27 PM
Quote
If there are 2 souls out, you can't rescue 4 out of that, right?

So your argument is that because 1 card (or 1 pair of cards) cannot be in two places, we should not consider ties a viable option?

I honestly cannot believe people would rather have a game decided by a coin flip or seat arrangement when two players made the exact same play to win. A tie is way more logical and not problematic at all. In a 4 person MP game, each player gets 2 points--heck, you could have a 3 way tie and each person gets 1.333 points. In a 3 person MP game, two tied players get 1.5 points each.
Wait... this would get SO complicated. I don't really love the idea of basing something like this on luck... but to have tie games or 3 way ties and split points I don't think is right.

I agree, My

is to continue to use the old system (whoever created the situation gets the first responce) and make a slight change to that allowing the two people in battle to get first dibs on playing dominants in multiplayer.

News:

Author Topic: Angel of the Lord vs. Grapes of Wrath (defensively) (Read 9073 times)