Cactus Game Design Message Boards

define 'close to winning'. its an ambiguous clause.

define 'close to winning'. its an ambiguous clause.

In the game at Nats that I referred to, the attacking player had 4 LSs saved already and was going for #5.  That is close to winning.  If the player with CM had not played it and had given the last LS to him, then I would have had plenty of grounds to convict him of cheating and create a major incident.

Of course this would have never happened, since my opponent is an honorable player.  He and I had been competing all year long and had many close games.  This was just the final battle in a long war, and we are good friends as well as rivals.  I suspect that he would have done the right thing despite the rule, but it was mentioned during the game

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on October 27, 2008, 05:01:27 PM

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.

There is also a downside to showing a CM to your opponents.  If I know that you have CM in your hand, then I am NOT going to play my CM to stop the rescue.  In fact, the rules state that if you can stop a critical rescue, then you must.  And since everyone sees you have the card, and they can't see my cards, then you would be forced to play.  So it could hurt you just as much as the "lone player".

I don't agree with the logic that you are trying to present. I would equate it with arguing that you should be allowed to ride on top of a minivan roof rack. Sure there are inherent dangers, but there is no law that specifically states that you are not allowed to ride on a roof rack.

I agree with schaef that some things are just accepted as true unless a rule states otherwise. Cards in your hand and your draw pile are assumed to be unseen by other players. This is common sense, imo. To do otherwise is an attempt to circumvent the rules. I define that as cheating.

For the sake of consistency, though, I am willing to accept that my definition is biased in some way. I would really like to know what other hosts would do in this case. I would rule against this practice as a host. Place your votes, please. 

I may find out in the end that I am the fanatic and that all of the rest of you will start chanting "Let them play!" in true Bad News Bears style. 

Yeah, but come on, there's like 8 billion card games in the world, and how many of them do you actually show your hand?

Intentionally showing your hand to another player without a card forcing you to do so is cheating.  I think that this only applies to people who are showing their hand with the intention of manipulating another player's decisions or showing off (poor sportsmanship).

I've played with a lot of people (my wife included) who inadvertently show their hands because of their laid back nature during a game.  This type of hand showing is something that I think we'll always have due to the "fun and fellowship" environment associated with this game.

Quote from: BrianGabe on October 29, 2008, 09:52:10 AM

Intentionally showing your hand to another player without a card forcing you to do so is cheating.

So say you. I disagree.

99% of card games out there do not allow you to show your hand. why would redemption be any different?

theres also no rule saying i cant set your deck on fire and then dump mt. dew on it to put it out. guess i'll try that next time i see you.

theres also no rule saying i cant set your deck on fire and then dump mt. dew on it to put it out. guess i'll try that next time i see you.

I can only assume you are joking.  There are rules against that sort of thing.  It is called "destruction of property" and if you tried that, a person could report you to the police.  We are not talking about what you do to someone else's cards.  We are talking about what you do to your own cards, and there is no rule about facing one the wrong way.

I suppose that you could catch your own card on fire (as long as it wasn't inside the building, which would probably be illegal).  However, I do think that there is a pre-existing Redemption rule against tearing cards other than Haman's Plot.  So there could be consequences even for this sort of action

Instaposted.

Clearly they are two distinct interpretations of what is allowed here, so there needs to be an executive decision. For the purpose of consistent judging, is this allowed or not? No more opinions at this point. We need Rob.

Additionally, I checked Hoyle's rules for poker, and it says, among other things, that "needlessly stalling the action of a game" is improper and could be grounds for being barred from the tournament.  No specific information is given about what constitutes a needless stall.  Somehow, tournament players struggle through.

Redemption already goes beyond the pale IMO accommodating requests for rules that should be basic common sense.  There has to come a point when people just say enough, already.

I guess my only dilemma is having a situation in a tournament where several players are having fun through creative table-talk, trying to enjoy the fellowship, while the one person leaves feeling cheated. I have always tried to watch out for the lonely one, but that's just me.

Well, well, this one got big quick.

Here's some things to consider.

"Close to winning."
Let's say Player A has 2 LS and hasn't used SoG/NJ. Player B has 4 LS and has played SoG/NJ already. I have the only LS available and Player A is about to take his turn followed by Player B. Based on the game scenario, I know that the only way to stop either player is using my Christian Martyr. Player A attacks me--do I give him the LS even though he is close to winning? Yes. If I use CM on Player A, then Player B walks in for the win. Even if I knew Player A had SoG/NJ, I have to hope that LS don't show up 2 at a time and perhaps Player A is forced to use SoG by itself to stop someone else from getting #5.

Obviously this is all fairly complicated, and we can't expect every player to be able to process that.

"Showing a card."
If it was legal to voluntarily show your hand or a card to everyone in a MP game, that would already be in the rules. A player accidently dropping a card (something I've done myself) or flashing their hand unintentionally is stuff that happens, but all effort should be made to prevent these things. Furthermore, it's going to look VERY suspicious if a player tries to be "sneaky" and drop a hint to another player by accidentally dropping a card when that card has obvious relevance to the current situation.

FWIW, showing your hand in poker tournaments (in an attempt to get a reaction from the opponent) is only legal when there are just 2 players left in the hand--and sometimes it is not allowed at all--and never when there are multiple players in the hand.

I can only assume you are joking.  There are rules against that sort of thing.  It is called "destruction of property" and if you tried that, a person could report you to the police.  We are not talking about what you do to someone else's cards.  We are talking about what you do to your own cards, and there is no rule about facing one the wrong way.

The point is that there is nothing against that in the Redemption rulebook, but clearly it's still not allowed.

Allowable table talk for a tournament game (in reference to the game) is as follows:
"I have no way to stop this player, does anyone want to do anything before I surrender a LS?"