Cactus Game Design Message Boards

This situation came up today in a tournament game.

Multi-player game with 3 players (A, B, C)

Player A has Covenant with Phinehas active and makes a rescue with a Priest from the house of Eleazar. Player B blocks with an EC. Player A lays Angel of the Lord. Player B (not noticing that Covenant with Phinehas is active) says "Okay, I use Christian Martyr on your Priest." Player A says, "You can't, I have Cov. w/ Phin active." Player C then uses Destruction of Nehushtan on Cov w/ Phinehas and Player B proceeds to use CM on the Priest.

Should this be allowed? Clearly Player C had no intention of using DoN until he realized that Player B only had Christian Martyr to stop the rescue. Would it make a difference if Player B actually drops Christian Martyr on the table as opposed to just verbally saying it?

Fortunately today was only a small local tournament (the other two players didn't even say anything about it), but it did have a pretty big affect on the game which finished 5-4-4.

For the record, I was Player C and ended up winning the game. It wasn't until a few hours later that I was reviewing the games I had played and I really thought about how easily a situation like that could occur. Had I been in Player A's shoes in a major level tournament I would have appealed to the judge that the Christian Martyr could not be used on my Hero--regardless of whether CM was physically dropped or the player announced it verbally but hadn't actually dropped it yet.

Thoughts?

Card abilities:
I'm going to assume most everyone knows what the dominants do.
Covenant with Phinehas (Covenant) ~ Protect your Priests from the House of Eleazar from discard abilities on evil cards.

I wish I could have stayed for that game, but my brother was hungry and wanted to go home....

I think that this situation would be resolved in this manner.

Player A points out that the priest is protected from CM.  If there is another hero in play, then there is a target available and Player B would have to pick another hero to discard at that time (if Player A plays strictly by the book).

If Player A decides to be lenient and allow Player B to take back his CM into his hand, then Player A is risking that situations might change that would not be in his favor.  If he decides to be lenient anyway, then the game proceeds as if CM had not been played yet.

If Player C watches all this and decides that it would be best to remove that protection, then he could play DoN at that time to remove the protection.  He of course doesn't know that his opponent will still CM, and is risking using his DoN in vain.

If Player B wants to take advantage of his ability to play CM now, then he could do that.  If he feels like that would be unfair to the person who was kind enough to let him take his card back, then he could forgo playing CM anyway, and give up the LS.

The point is that everyone should make their decision independently.  Player A should decide to be strict or lenient without knowing whether someone will play DoN.  Player B should decide whether to use DoN without knowing whether someone will play CM.  Player C should decide whether to take advantage of a second chance.

And, if you're playing prof. Underwood, he will graciously let you do anything you want because he is a very good sport and a gracious player. *coughs* (you can pay me later)

On a serious note(even though the above is totally true) I agree with this. I believe that even though he did not lay it down, his CLEAR INTENTION  was to play cm. So it's up to all the players to decide what they will allow. just my two cents.

If he plays CM, hero is protected, end of story.

If he SAYS that he is going to play CM, but doesn't take his hand off or whatever before DON is played I think that should be allowed. Mostly because I would rather just have people be legitimate about it and say "Can you play DoN so I can use CM?" If it is not allowed, people will talk around it by making suggestions like, "I think I could block if you didn't have that stinking artifact active."

alot of problems would be solved if there was no table talk whatsoever during mp.

I'm assuming you mean no game-related talking? I'm all for chatting it up during a game, as long as the conversation is not "Hey guys, how do we stop Justin?" 

"Hur me!" seems to be alot more fun than that

perhaps it is different for a player to be able to say what he could do with his own cards--"I only have Christian Martyr to stop his rescue."

There are no rules as to how to hold your cards in your hand.  If a person wanted to turn their CM around so that it was facing everyone, that would be their choice.  This is of course a trade off.  It allows others to know what you have (bad), but also allows them to know how to help if they desire (good).

alot of problems would be solved if there was no table talk whatsoever during mp.

I actually think that table-talk (at least in some sense of the word) is part of what makes multi-player a fun and unique experience.  I also find that multi-player is a good chance to really teach some newer players some of the more intricate strategies of the game.  If anything, I think that there should be more talking allowed, not less.

On a side note, I don't think talking at the table should be allowed period (unless its a joke or something said not relating to the game at hand) It just makes the game cheapened in my opinion, because its like the other players are ganging up on that one player. Really, if you're smart and player X is making a rescue that could win the game, and he has Cov with Phinehas to protect his priest from getting CM and you only have DoN in your hand and no CM. WHY WOULDN'T you play DoN in hope of someone else playing CM!?!?!?!?!

Haha, and Daniel is always the one getting ganged up on.    Shame on you for winning T1 Multi...

Quote from: Prof Underwood on October 27, 2008, 02:16:46 PM

There are no rules as to how to hold your cards in your hand.  If a person wanted to turn their CM around so that it was facing everyone, that would be their choice.  This is of course a trade off.  It allows others to know what you have (bad), but also allows them to know how to help if they desire (good).

I disagree with this.  There are abilities that instruct a player to reveal their hand to one or more persons.  That cannot happen if you are already showing people your cards, so the obvious default is un-revealed.

So if you were to say, "accidently" drop a card on the table and it were to land face up and it was "revealed" would that be considered cheating?

My understanding of table-talking is vocally speaking to another player about the game.

P.S.  I am completely arguing from principle here, as I don't think I have ever actually done this in a game.

I would argue from principle that this is cheating. Showing your cards to your opponents so that they can assist you in defeating another opponent is creating an unfair situation for the lone player. How would this not be cheating?

Granted, I don't play multiplayer, but is this really how multiplayer games are allowed to flow? I need to know for judging purposes. I would not allow the kind of stuff you guys are talking about here.

Quote

If he plays CM, hero is protected, end of story.

If he SAYS that he is going to play CM, but doesn't take his hand off or whatever before DON is played I think that should be allowed. Mostly because I would rather just have people be legitimate about it and say "Can you play DoN so I can use CM?" If it is not allowed, people will talk around it by making suggestions like, "I think I could block if you didn't have that stinking artifact active."

I totally agree, if someone lays down CM and the hero is protected then CM must target another hero.

On a side note, I don't think talking at the table should be allowed period (unless its a joke or something said not relating to the game at hand) It just makes the game cheapened in my opinion, because its like the other players are ganging up on that one player. Really, if you're smart and player X is making a rescue that could win the game, and he has Cov with Phinehas to protect his priest from getting CM and you only have DoN in your hand and no CM. WHY WOULDN'T you play DoN in hope of someone else playing CM!?!?!?!?!  You shouldn't have to say anything at all, if you have half a brain you'll play DoN and another player that has CM will play it with out anything said. It's not that HARD!

Please do not insult people. If anyone doesn't think about it, they don't have half a brain, they just forgot, or are new and therefore should be being encouraged. I know you mean NO insults with this post, just be careful. This could be taken wrong. But I agree that you should do everything in your power to stop them if they are making a game winning rescue. However, he WASN'T making a game winning rescue. Because remember, Justin won the game.

i don't remember there ever being a rule that forces you to play anything.