Author Topic: Another Dominant Slapjack Question (This Time with Simultaneity) (Read 5412 times)

EmJayBee83 · « **on:** March 03, 2013, 02:49:41 PM »

Hey All,

Since we always have so much fun discussing dominant slapjack, I just want to throw a question out with a bit if a twist to it.

Let us say that we are in a multiplayer situation where there are only two lost souls accessible (both belonging to player C). Player A puts NJ down on the table and is (obviously) going through his hand to find SoG. Player B slaps down his own SoG before player A can get his out. So the dominants have hit the table in the following order...

1) Player A's NJ
2) Player B's SoG
3) Player A's SoG

What happens in this situation?

Isildur · « **Reply #1 on:** March 03, 2013, 03:15:28 PM »

Player B gets a soul and Player A gets scolded for not playing both his doms at the same time.

jbeers285 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 03, 2013, 03:19:32 PM »

I agree with Wit player B getting the soul but I feel like that would be really bad form on the part of player B very disrespectful and against the idea of the game.

Would Jesus slap down in B's place?

Master KChief · « **Reply #3 on:** March 03, 2013, 03:33:14 PM »

You don't fall back on WWJD for a ruling argument. The rules are already clear and concise in regards to slapjack and resolving the order doms hit the table.

TechnoEthicist · « **Reply #4 on:** March 03, 2013, 04:38:32 PM »

And if I'm not mistaken, it means player A gets the opportunity to respond his own action first, hence it's NJ/SoG for Player A...and if it's not, it should be.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 03, 2013, 05:45:25 PM »

Quote from: TechnoEthicist on March 03, 2013, 04:38:32 PM

And if I'm not mistaken, it means player A gets the opportunity to respond his own action first, hence it's NJ/SoG for Player A...and if it's not, it should be.

TE could you explain why you feel this is a "responding to your own action" situation?

Also just to have everything in one place...

New Jerusalem (Lamb)--Play this card simultaneously with the Son of God card and rescue any additional Lost Soul in Play.

TechnoEthicist · « **Reply #6 on:** March 03, 2013, 06:35:37 PM »

Well, your scenario indicated that Player A was going after Son of God, it was just in his hand. As such he should have the first opportunity to play. If by some off chance he's sitting there indicating that decided to play the card without including Son of God, then yes, Player B has the opportunity to play Son of God.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #7 on:** March 03, 2013, 08:13:37 PM »

Quote from: TechnoEthicist on March 03, 2013, 06:35:37 PM

Well, your scenario indicated that Player A was going after Son of God, it was just in his hand. As such he should have the first opportunity to play.

Why?

Isildur · « **Reply #8 on:** March 03, 2013, 08:15:31 PM »

Brad your ruling logic makes sense with the recent rulings on Mayhem ect. but it makes no sense in the grand scope of things. I always thought the whole point of Doms was to circumvent the "is it my insh?" part of the game not add more chaos. I also have to point out if your logic is correct then why do we have all these slap jack rulings?

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #9 on:** March 03, 2013, 08:18:39 PM »

Quote from: Isildur on March 03, 2013, 08:15:31 PM

Brad your ruling logic makes sense with the recent rulings on Mayhem ect.

What recent rulings on Mayhem?

Master KChief · « **Reply #10 on:** March 03, 2013, 08:31:01 PM »

If everything is taken at a stance of technicality, the NJ would resolve without effect since Doms can be played at anytime. Player B's SoG would then resolve, then Player A's SoG afterward (only rescuing one Lost Soul, of course). Player A can claim he meant to respond to his own NJ with SoG, and is within all rights to do so, but that is despite the fact they were played separately, especially if he is falling on the argument of responding to their own action of the activation of NJ.

Regarding the ethics of such a situation, that is neither here nor there and doesn't belong in the official rules section.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #11 on:** March 04, 2013, 08:06:11 AM »

I've played hundreds if not thousands of games of Redemption, and I've never seen someone drop NJ and SoG far enough apart for anyone else to drop SoG/NJ in between them.

However if this happened, then I would let Player A take the 2 LSs. He was obviously playing both doms, so Player B can't slip his in purely due to speed of human action. I like TE's idea about responding to his own action, and we are trying to get rid of having any "slapjack rulings" Isildur

STAMP · « **Reply #12 on:** March 04, 2013, 11:07:31 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on March 03, 2013, 08:18:39 PM

Quote from: Isildur on March 03, 2013, 08:15:31 PM
Brad your ruling logic makes sense with the recent rulings on Mayhem ect.
What recent rulings on Mayhem?

If you have some other cut-rate insurance you can't play a dom.

Redoubter · « **Reply #13 on:** March 04, 2013, 11:12:07 AM »

Quote from: Master KChief on March 03, 2013, 08:31:01 PM

If everything is taken at a stance of technicality, the NJ would resolve without effect since Doms can be played at anytime. Player B's SoG would then resolve, then Player A's SoG afterward (only rescuing one Lost Soul, of course). Player A can claim he meant to respond to his own NJ with SoG, and is within all rights to do so, but that is despite the fact they were played separately, especially if he is falling on the argument of responding to their own action of the activation of NJ.

Came here to say this, and it's completely correct. By the rules, and strictly by the rules, this is how the scenario should be playing out, because NJ was played without SoG. It doesn't do anything. I don't think a judge would be off their rocker to force it to play out that way in a tournament, as it is a true reading of the rules.

But I also agree with Prof U that this shouldn't be happening very often. More likely would be SoG played without NJ, and that scenario may need some more focus. Though again, if they aren't played together and the other player has enough time to throw down their dom, by the rules that dom was played alone.

Chris · « **Reply #14 on:** March 04, 2013, 01:43:17 PM »

If we want to talk about the rules and strictly by the rules, it's impossible to play Son of God and NJ at exactly the same time. One will always hit the table first, even if it's just by a fraction by a millisecond. This is even worse in RTS. I think this is an area where some grace is probably required, since "letter of the law" can be enforced to the point where NJ becomes a useless card. Should they have played SoG and NJ as close as possible to each other as they could? Absolutely. However, when player A played NJ, it's obvious he was reaching for SoG next.

Now that said, the way this scenario likely developed, there might be one caveat to my opinion. If players A and B were both legitimately racing to play their dominant first (instead of player A just being slow on getting both cards out) then I would rule in Player B's favor.

That was probably confusing.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #15 on:** March 04, 2013, 02:57:27 PM »

Quote from: Chris on March 04, 2013, 01:43:17 PM

If we want to talk about the rules and strictly by the rules, it's impossible to play Son of God and NJ at exactly the same time. One will always hit the table first, even if it's just by a fraction by a millisecond. This is even worse in RTS. I think this is an area where some grace is probably required, since "letter of the law" can be enforced to the point where NJ becomes a useless card. Should they have played SoG and NJ as close as possible to each other as they could? Absolutely. However, when player A played NJ, it's obvious he was reaching for SoG next.

Actually, based on a previous ruling, simultaneous was ruled to mean "Within a very brief amount of time" or something like that. Sauce had a heyday with it, ask him about the specifics. The point is, SoG and NJ are supposed to be laid together to work. You can't play one and then the other. And if you do, make sure it's SoG you play first.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #16 on:** March 04, 2013, 03:24:10 PM »

I vote we all pretend that SOG/NJ have errattas that add the ability "Player may play SOG/NJ immediately."

Immediately is close enough to simultaneous for me.

Master KChief · « **Reply #17 on:** March 04, 2013, 05:01:23 PM »

'Simultaneous' is easier to accomplish IRL than on RTS because you can easily drop both Dominants in one fell swoop. This is the way it has traditionally been played ever since NJ was released. Dropping one without the other, regardless of intention, is the incorrect way to play both Doms and adhere to what is widely considered to be the 'simultaneous' clause on NJ. I cannot lend credence towards the idea of 'intention', based on it being a completely ambiguous entity that warrants absolutely no place in this game since it cannot be properly measured in any possible way.

STAMP · « **Reply #18 on:** March 04, 2013, 05:10:46 PM »

We've been playing the cart before the horse ever since NJ came out. It always should have been NJ/SoG.

If you play SoG first, you don't know that NJ is supposed to be played simultaneously until SoG's special ability is completed, which by that time NJ cannot be played simultaneously in the context of the rules.

However, you play NJ first, its special ability allows for both cards to be played simultaneously because it's telling you how to play the two cards together, overriding game rules of how cards activate.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #19 on:** March 04, 2013, 08:07:06 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on March 04, 2013, 08:06:11 AM

I like TE's idea about responding to his own action, and we are trying to get rid of having any "slapjack rulings" Isildur

What action am I responding to? Are you proposing that we make a general rule that after a player plays a card he gets the first option to play a dominant?

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #20 on:** March 04, 2013, 08:13:07 PM »

Playing NJ and playing SoG should not be two separate actions, so you can't respond to your own action. They should have to be played together, and basically at the same time.

Gabe · « **Reply #21 on:** March 05, 2013, 12:32:58 AM »

I was looking for something else tonight and stumbled upon this entry on one of the insert cards from the Priests set:

Quote from: Ruling Clarifications from Priests insert card

2) The New Jerusalem Dominant reads, "Play this card simultaneously with the Son of God card and rescue any additional Lost Soul in play." Because of the requirement to play the card simultaneously with Son of God, it is only possible for you to play New Jerusalem with your own Son of God card an only if you lay the two cards down together. Otherwise, New Jerusalem will not take effect.

Shame on whomever put NJ on the table and reached for the SoG in their hand.

Chris · « **Reply #22 on:** March 08, 2013, 12:52:23 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on March 04, 2013, 08:07:06 PM

Quote from: Prof Underwood on March 04, 2013, 08:06:11 AM
I like TE's idea about responding to his own action, and we are trying to get rid of having any "slapjack rulings" Isildur
What action am I responding to? Are you proposing that we make a general rule that after a player plays a card he gets the first option to play a dominant?

Strictly speaking, we already have this rule. In instances of dominant slapjack, where there is no clear winner, the person responding to his own action (for instance, playing Mayhem) will win. At least, last I heard, that was the rule.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #23 on:** March 08, 2013, 08:05:19 AM »

ex. As a judge you walk up on a situation where player's are arguing about who's Dom goes first, you have to rule that the person who took the last action has priority to play Dom first. Is this right?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #24 on:** March 08, 2013, 08:13:39 AM »

Quote from: RTSmaniac on March 08, 2013, 08:05:19 AM

ex. As a judge you walk up on a situation where player's are arguing about who's Dom goes first, you have to rule that the person who took the last action has priority to play Dom first. Is this right?

Basically, yes.

News:

Author Topic: Another Dominant Slapjack Question (This Time with Simultaneity) (Read 5412 times)

Chris

Warrior_Monk

Rawrlolsauce!

Warrior_Monk

Chris