Cactus Game Design Message Boards

It doesn't need to be stupid. The only thing we can't really pre-determine is when in a MP game, two players are waiting to play SoG/NJ but there aren't enough Lost Souls on the table. A third player puts down two Lost Souls, assuming both players have dominants in hand to slap down at moment's notice, it's going to be virtually simultaneous.

Honestly, if I had to make a ruling on that, I'd probably call it a tie.

in a MP game, two players are waiting to play SoG/NJ but there aren't enough Lost Souls on the table. A third player puts down two Lost Souls, assuming both players have dominants in hand to slap down at moment's notice, it's going to be virtually simultaneous.

I think going clock-wise around the table makes as much sense as anything.  Ties ftl

Brian Am I ruling it correctly?

Example #1 - Alex vs. Dan.  If both play SoG/NJ at the same time, yes, Alex gets to respond to his own action first (drawing the LS).  You ruled that correctly.

Example #2 - Alex vs. Dan.  Yes, you ruled it correctly but not for the right reason.  Nothing about the situation has to do with responding to your own action because you're dealing with very different card types.  Dominants can be played anytime.  In this case Alex can play his CM before the players agree on who gets initiative.  On the other hand, Enhancements can only be played according to initiative.  Before Dan can play his enhancement he needs to confirm with Alex that he has initiative (verbal check is best but not required).

End result, +2 for you.  

Some of the reasons it does not work just fine are as follows:
-Adds dexterity to a game of strategy. It is doubtful this is an intended or beneficial result. It is more likely "something we have to live with" (and we don't actually)
-Disadvantages the handicapped, or even just small kids or elderly players. Someone with the use of only one hand will need to set their hand down to draw new cards. If they draw a lost soul and then want to play Son of God, their opponent will likely have beat them to the punch. And the "last action taken" think only applies as a tiebreaker.
-It's outdated. AotL, for example, was not designed in an era of ongoing evil character abilities, interrupts, etc.
-It's even worse in multiplayer. If you rule the "last action" thing (i.e., Grapes of Wrath wins in the OP's example) AotL would actually win in multiplayer cases where a third player (not involved in battle) wants to play GoW, because people outside the battle have no "last action."
-Creates confusion. Look at this thread. A simple rule about who can play dominants when and how they take precedence over other cards would be wonderful.
I would suggest:
"Dominants can be played at any time by any player. Enhancements may not be played until initiative has been determined and both players have passed their opportunity to play a dominant. In cases where more than one player would like to play a Dominant, start with the player who's turn it is and go clockwise around the table giving each player the opportunity to play a dominant or dominants. If all players pass this opportunity, the player with initiative in battle must either play an enhancement or concede the loss, giving over a lost soul if applicable."
Note that this rule would also stop the Multiplayer problem of "he's gonna win, you play christian martyr" "no, you play it" "well YOU can play burial" ad nauseam.

It doesn't need to be stupid. The only thing we can't really pre-determine is when in a MP game, two players are waiting to play SoG/NJ but there aren't enough Lost Souls on the table. A third player puts down two Lost Souls, assuming both players have dominants in hand to slap down at moment's notice, it's going to be virtually simultaneous.

Honestly, if I had to make a ruling on that, I'd probably call it a tie.

If there are only 2 LS in play and SoG/NJ rescue exactly two souls how can you have a tie between 2 players both using SoG/NJ?  Wouldn't that require 4 LS?

-Disadvantages the handicapped, or even just small kids or elderly players. Someone with the use of only one hand will need to set their hand down to draw new cards. If they draw a lost soul and then want to play Son of God, their opponent will likely have beat them to the punch. And the "last action taken" think only applies as a tiebreaker.

I agree with your conclusion that we need a consistent rule regarding dominant play.  However I disagree that the reason is because old people (or little kids) have slower reflexes.  What if I have slower mental reasoning or reading ability and can't figure out what to play within the time limits?  Should the time limits be extended?  What if I can't sit in one place for 45 mins?  Should all matches have a half-time for people to walk around.  I think you make a game, and then people chose whether to play it.  If a handicap makes it more difficult, then they have to overcome that, or play a different game.  I know that sounds harsh, but otherwise you end up totally changing the game to make it possible for EVERYONE to play it.  Imagine changing the rules of football so that quadriplegics could be just as good as the current players.  It wouldn't be football anymore.

if the situation ever came up in multi where two players are waiting to drop sog/nj on two lost souls and do so, i would award each player 1 lost soul, then continue the game each at 4 lost souls, effectively fizzling their nj's. makes it more interesting

Ok, whoever plays it first gets it.

In the event of ties, last action.

How is this a problem again?

Btw, i just thought if you were playing multi and your two opponents were fighting for a LS, I think it would be funny to play SoG on that Lost Soul why they were fighting for it. Lol. Or is that against the rules?

In the extremely rare case in which two players throw down SOG/NJ as another player draws two souls, and it was viturally simultaneous, I would probably have the two players flip a coin or roll a die.  I realize that's not perfect either, but only one of them can rescue the two souls, and somebody should.  It's probably the fairest solution.

Kevin Shride

I also think that it's far overdue to standardize Dominant play. I don't personally have a solution, but there's absolutely no reason to still be "whoever throws it down first" this far into the life of the game.

Thank you. This is exactly what I am trying (an apparently failing) to get across.

Some of the reasons it does not work just fine are as follows:
-Adds dexterity to a game of strategy. It is doubtful this is an intended or beneficial result. It is more likely "something we have to live with" (and we don't actually)
-Disadvantages the handicapped, or even just small kids or elderly players. Someone with the use of only one hand will need to set their hand down to draw new cards. If they draw a lost soul and then want to play Son of God, their opponent will likely have beat them to the punch. And the "last action taken" think only applies as a tiebreaker.
-It's outdated. AotL, for example, was not designed in an era of ongoing evil character abilities, interrupts, etc.
-It's even worse in multiplayer. If you rule the "last action" thing (i.e., Grapes of Wrath wins in the OP's example) AotL would actually win in multiplayer cases where a third player (not involved in battle) wants to play GoW, because people outside the battle have no "last action."
-Creates confusion. Look at this thread. A simple rule about who can play dominants when and how they take precedence over other cards would be wonderful.
I would suggest:
"Dominants can be played at any time by any player. Enhancements may not be played until initiative has been determined and both players have passed their opportunity to play a dominant. In cases where more than one player would like to play a Dominant, start with the player who's turn it is and go clockwise around the table giving each player the opportunity to play a dominant or dominants. If all players pass this opportunity, the player with initiative in battle must either play an enhancement or concede the loss, giving over a lost soul if applicable."
Note that this rule would also stop the Multiplayer problem of "he's gonna win, you play christian martyr" "no, you play it" "well YOU can play burial" ad nauseam.

I agree with most...

This should be resolved as it actually came up tonight. Fortunately the game was not an official RooT game, nor did the long-term outcome change, but it was very close.

Bryon, concerning your last question, I think flipping a coin/rolling a die is a much better solution than clockwise.  The situation at least gives both players who have the dominants a chance at the win, as opposed to the player who just happens to be in the right seat.

Kevin