Author Topic: Another Dominant Slapjack Question (This Time with Simultaneity) (Read 5401 times)

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #25 on:** March 08, 2013, 08:15:02 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?

This was my understanding as well. As judges, we don't have time to let a back-and-forth ensue about which dominant hit the table first.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #26 on:** March 08, 2013, 11:36:10 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood 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.

The only time that ruling would be automatic is if the dominant was played as a direct response to that last action.

Here is an example where I would rule otherwise...

Player A has GoYS in hand and is making a rescue with only the shuffler available to him. Player B has an unstoppable offense, four redeemed souls (meaning he will win next turn) and Falling Away in his hand. During the rescue Player A plays AoCP (took the last action). Player B realizing he is beat drops FA (to get a LS other than Shuffler to give to Player A) at the "same time" that Player A drops GoYS.

If called over I can see absolutely no reason why I should rule that player A gets to play his dominant first because he happened to take the last action. This is because the action of dropping AoCP has no direct relationship to playing GoYS or FA.

In a case like this flipping a coin would be a much fairer resolution to the problem.

Master KChief · « **Reply #27 on:** March 09, 2013, 12:06:25 AM »

I've seen stranger things than dropping Goys after an AocP. The problem is you cannot prove intent, because dropping Goys after AocP, while not likely, is still within the realm of possibility. Ruling in vein of something absolute such as responding to last action is top-down, and doesn't create a needless exception.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #28 on:** March 09, 2013, 09:30:37 AM »

Quote from: Master KChief on March 09, 2013, 12:06:25 AM

I've seen stranger things than dropping Goys after an AocP. The problem is you cannot prove intent, because dropping Goys after AocP, while not likely, is still within the realm of possibility. Ruling in vein of something absolute such as responding to last action is top-down, and doesn't create a needless exception.

I am not arguing that we do not need such a rule. I am merely noting that currently we do not (I believe) have such a ruling, and for the ruling we *do* have my example is not an exception.

The "responding to your own action" guideline has always been limited to actions that are proximal causes for playing the dominant (e.g., finishing a search to play a dominant, handing over a lost soul to play burial). This has never--to the best of my knowledge--been extended to responding to unrelated actions (e.g., playing AoCP gives you first right to play GoYS).

If we are going to make this an absolute judging rule, then we should really make it an actual rule rule and (optionally) add something equivalent to an initiative check for playing dominants. This idea has been rejected multiple times in the past, however, which suggests to me that whoever makes these decisions appreciates a bit of Dominant slapjack every once in a while. That being the case, it seems unfair to lower their enjoyment via the dribs and drabs of extending the "responding to your own action" guideline.

Anyways, that how I see it.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #29 on:** March 09, 2013, 10:19:54 AM »

I agree with MJB that there needs to be a written rule, because I also agree with MKC that "intent" can never be the basis of a ruling like this. That can only lead to problems in tournaments.

As an example:

After a player plays a card, they will have first priority (or initiative if we choose that word) to play a dominant once all related special abilities complete.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #30 on:** March 09, 2013, 10:26:31 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on March 09, 2013, 10:19:54 AM

I agree with MJB...

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on March 09, 2013, 10:19:54 AM

...I also agree with MKC...

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #31 on:** March 09, 2013, 10:30:40 AM »

Just realize that we are not in OD.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #32 on:** March 09, 2013, 12:40:09 PM »

Just understand as a judge I will always rule as stated. If someone wants to overturn that ruling it is out of my hands. Basically it looks like a slapjack situation to me of GoYS vs FA. I walk up and Im going to ask one question.

Who took the last action? AoC. GoYS takes presedence.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #33 on:** March 09, 2013, 12:43:20 PM »

Quote from: RTSmaniac on March 09, 2013, 12:40:09 PM

Just understand as a judge I will always rule as stated. If someone wants to overturn that ruling it is out of my hands. Basically it looks like a slapjack situation to me of GoYS vs FA. I walk up and Im going to ask one question.

Who took the last action? AoC. GoYS takes presedence.

I agree that this is simpler for a judge, which is what I will always prefer. I would have ruled the same way, and then asked why in the world they kept GoYS in their hand.

Chris · « **Reply #34 on:** March 09, 2013, 01:49:03 PM »

Quote from: RTSmaniac on March 09, 2013, 12:40:09 PM

Just understand as a judge I will always rule as stated. If someone wants to overturn that ruling it is out of my hands. Basically it looks like a slapjack situation to me of GoYS vs FA. I walk up and Im going to ask one question.

Who took the last action? AoC. GoYS takes presedence.

As far as I know, this is the official ruling, though maybe something should be added in the next edition of the REG.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #35 on:** March 09, 2013, 02:56:44 PM »

Quote from: Chris on March 09, 2013, 01:49:03 PM

Quote from: RTSmaniac on March 09, 2013, 12:40:09 PM
Just understand as a judge I will always rule as stated. If someone wants to overturn that ruling it is out of my hands. Basically it looks like a slapjack situation to me of GoYS vs FA. I walk up and Im going to ask one question.

Who took the last action? AoC. GoYS takes presedence.

As far as I know, this is the official ruling, though maybe something should be added in the next edition of the REG.

Can you point me to the place where it was ruled that the "action" in "responding to your own action" included completely unrelated actions such as AoCP in my example. Like I said, the only times I have ever seen this ruled at all was with respect to proximal actions.

Moreover, wouldn't this make the issue even worse? I walk over to the table--and see that GoYS (and only GoYS) is down. Player B says, "I just touched my ECs to remove them from battle and then Player A dropped GoYS. Since I was removing the souls, I was in the middle of completing an SA which is making the last action and I was going to play Falling Away immediately after" Congrats, you have now converted dominant slapjack into "do anything slapjack."

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #36 on:** March 09, 2013, 04:01:23 PM »

First of all, what was the last card played? I think you are confusing "human actions" with cards being played.

Second of all, any player that gets caught with GoYS in their hand gets what they deserve.

Chris · « **Reply #37 on:** March 09, 2013, 04:08:10 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on March 09, 2013, 02:56:44 PM

Can you point me to the place where it was ruled that the "action" in "responding to your own action" included completely unrelated actions such as AoCP in my example. Like I said, the only times I have ever seen this ruled at all was with respect to proximal actions.

No, but I've never seen it ruled to be specifically about proximal actions. I see no reason to draw a distinction between the two, since that just further complicates things.

Quote

Moreover, wouldn't this make the issue even worse? I walk over to the table--and see that GoYS (and only GoYS) is down. Player B says, "I just touched my ECs to remove them from battle and then Player A dropped GoYS. Since I was removing the souls, I was in the middle of completing an SA which is making the last action and I was going to play Falling Away immediately after" Congrats, you have now converted dominant slapjack into "do anything slapjack."

This makes no sense. What exactly is meant by "touched my ECs to remove them from battle"? What souls are being removed? What was the SA that caused anything to be removed? The only time the "respond to own action" rule applies is when two (or more) players play dominants at the same time and it's reasonably considered a tie.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #38 on:** March 10, 2013, 10:54:48 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on March 09, 2013, 04:01:23 PM

First of all, what was the last card played? I think you are confusing "human actions" with cards being played.

YMT, you were on the boards when the "responding to your own actions" decision was made and you know it is all about "human actions." For those who weren't on the boards at the time, here is a recap of the argument underlying the "respond to your own actions" ruling...

If Player A plays a search card of some sort it has been ruled that he has the first chance to play a dominant following the search. Why?

Note it is not--as Chris claimed---simply

Quote from: Chris on March 09, 2013, 04:08:10 PM

The only time the "respond to own action" rule applies is when two (or more) players play dominants at the same time and it's reasonably considered a tie.

If it were strictly a time-based thing I could slap my dominant down as soon as my opponent places the search card in play. My dominant would be on the table well before his, and no one would reasonably consider this a tie. Why can't I do that? Because it has been ruled that all special abilities have to complete before a dominant can be played. In the case of a search that means I have to allow my opponent to search his deck, select a card, shuffle his deck and put it back in place before I can play a dominant. OK--as soon as my opponent places his deck back can I slap my dominant down and win? Once again, no. The reason being that--barring the passage of time--only my opponent knows when he feels he has finished completing his special ability.

This "only my opponent knows when he is done" is the exact argument that was advanced as the basis behind the "responding to your own action" guideline.

Quote from: Chris on March 09, 2013, 04:08:10 PM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on March 09, 2013, 02:56:44 PM
Can you point me to the place where it was ruled that the "action" in "responding to your own action" included completely unrelated actions such as AoCP in my example. Like I said, the only times I have ever seen this ruled at all was with respect to proximal actions.

No, but I've never seen it ruled to be specifically about proximal actions. I see no reason to draw a distinction between the two, since that just further complicates things.

Chris, the distinction was made in the original ruling since the whole basis of responding to you own action only holds when you are talking about proximal actions. In the example I provided previously, once Player A plays AoCP no on can play a dominant until AoCP completes. If Player A has no ECs down (or they are protected), then only Player B can state when AoCP completes. By the original reasoning behind the "respond to your own action" ruling, Player B should get first right to play a dominant following the AoCP.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #39 on:** March 10, 2013, 10:58:05 PM »

While Player B may physically move the evil characters to the discard pile, Player A is the one who technically discards them as it's his special ability, thus Player A decides when AoCP completes.

The Guardian · « **Reply #40 on:** March 10, 2013, 11:18:59 PM »

Quote

I would have ruled the same way, and then asked why in the world they kept GoYS in their hand

I can answer that.

I was in a T1 MP game at Nationals 2006. It was my first turn and I was making a rescue attempt. I had drawn GoYS but was holding it in hand in hopes I might get a free LS (less likely to occur if I have GoyS down). When the blocking player stated he could do nothing, another player started to play Christian Martyr but then hesitated and decided not to. I surmised that he also had Falling Away in hand so as soon as the other player declared he could do nothing, I dropped GoyS as the Lost Soul was being handed over. The player who had Christian Martyr made a bit of a fuss, but I believe that was a perfectly valid play on my part. Now, there was no issue of timing because he didn't even get Falling Away on the table, but he tried to argue that he should have been given the opportunity to play CM when I played GoyS.

Master KChief · « **Reply #41 on:** March 10, 2013, 11:46:55 PM »

Regarding the responding to your own action vs card, how does the player putting a tick on his 2 liner then responding with Burial fit into this?

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #42 on:** March 11, 2013, 01:20:33 AM »

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on March 10, 2013, 10:58:05 PM

While Player B may physically move the evil characters to the discard pile, Player A is the one who technically discards them as it's his special ability, thus Player A decides when AoCP completes.

So putting aside for the nonce that "responding to you own action" was originally formulated as a "spirit of the game" rule because it was argued that it wasn't fair to penalize someone for having to carry out mechanical actions (shuffling etc.) that were required of their SA, let's talk about this from the technical point of view.

If I drop AoCP, how long do I have to decide when it completes? If everyone moves their applicable ECs into the discard pile and then an opponent plays Burial (for example), can I simply declare that AoCP wasn't complete when Burial was dropped and now drop my SoG/NJ or whatever? Can I take one second to decide that AoCP has completed, ten seconds, half a minute? If I get to decide when the ability completes, then I don't see how we ever get into a slap jack situation. We may as well make this an official rule (as opposed to a judging guideline) and do initiative checks for dominants.

Isildur · « **Reply #43 on:** March 11, 2013, 02:14:46 AM »

Quote

If I get to decide when the ability completes, then I don't see how we ever get into a slap jack situation. We may as well make this an official rule (as opposed to a judging guideline) and do initiative checks for dominants.

Imo this is just ridiculous. I understand the purpose of trying to eliminate slap jack rulings.. But I always thought the point of Doms was to circumvent the "is it my insh?" part of the game not add more chaos. I never remember hearing any of this stuff when I was learning to play back in the day and even recently as of a couple of years ago why the sudden change?

Note. I know im repeating myself with the "isnt the point of doms" statement but I never really got a response to the purpose of the card type.

Master KChief · « **Reply #44 on:** March 11, 2013, 02:49:29 AM »

Dominants add so much unnecessary confusion to the game, not to mention most have broken abilities. Wouldn't the simplest course of action be to ban them, then reprint them as balanced versions of other card types?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #45 on:** March 11, 2013, 08:57:32 AM »

Quote from: RTSmaniac on March 09, 2013, 12:40:09 PM

Just understand as a judge I will always rule as stated. If someone wants to overturn that ruling it is out of my hands. Basically it looks like a slapjack situation to me of GoYS vs FA. I walk up and Im going to ask one question.

Who took the last action? AoC. GoYS takes presedence.

This is how I would rule as well.

I also agree with Guardian that there are cases where someone would want to avoid playing GoYS until after AoCP completes. Another example would be if your opponent had Grapes of Wrath and FA in their hand. If you played GoYS before playing AoCP, then they would just play Grapes on an evil card in battle to stop your rescue. But if you play AoCP first, then there aren't any evil cards left in battle to play Grapes on, so if you play GoYS at that point, then you get the LS.

Chris · « **Reply #46 on:** March 11, 2013, 10:47:49 AM »

Quote

If I drop AoCP, how long do I have to decide when it completes? If everyone moves their applicable ECs into the discard pile and then an opponent plays Burial (for example), can I simply declare that AoCP wasn't complete when Burial was dropped and now drop my SoG/NJ or whatever? Can I take one second to decide that AoCP has completed, ten seconds, half a minute?

An ability completes when it completes, and if a person is going to argue that their ability was not complete, they need to justify it to a judge. I know that I would rule that the second the last evil character hits the discard pile, the ability has completed, regardless of what anyone at the table thinks. I don't know of many judges who would dispute this ruling.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #47 on:** March 11, 2013, 12:40:50 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on March 11, 2013, 08:57:32 AM

I also agree with Guardian that there are cases where someone would want to avoid playing GoYS until after AoCP completes.

My question was rhetorical. In any of these valid cases, you still deserve to get burned IMO. You made a choice, so deal with the consequences.

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on March 10, 2013, 10:54:48 PM

YMT, you were on the boards when the "responding to your own actions" decision was made and you know it is all about "human actions." For those who weren't on the boards at the time, here is a recap of the argument underlying the "respond to your own actions" ruling...

If Player A plays a search card of some sort it has been ruled that he has the first chance to play a dominant following the search. Why?

I'm not sure how this deals with my quote. Responding to a card being played (Search) is not the same as responding to my hands moving on the table.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #48 on:** March 11, 2013, 12:51:37 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on March 08, 2013, 08:15:02 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?
This was my understanding as well. As judges, we don't have time to let a back-and-forth ensue about which dominant hit the table first.

I'm confused about where you stand on this issue YMT. In the quote above you seem to be agreeing with the ruling that Guardian and I have made here about the player who plays AoCP getting to respond to that action by then playing their GoYS. But in the post immediately before this one, you seem to be saying that they should NOT be allowed to play their GoYS. Can you explain more clearly your perspective?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #49 on:** March 11, 2013, 12:54:21 PM »

I was saying that if the ruling had not gone in the favor of the person who was holding GoYS, then they got what they deserved. I already responded to the ruling for this situation.

News:

Author Topic: Another Dominant Slapjack Question (This Time with Simultaneity) (Read 5401 times)

Chris

Chris

Chris