Cactus Game Design Message Boards

While re-reading the 4th ED rulebook, I came across this apparent contradiction:

Page 9:  Battle Phase

d. Resolve the rescue attempt or battle challenge (battle resolution). Note that Dominant cards cannot be played here.
1 End of battle (no more enhancements can be played)
2 Discard characters in battle that are defeated
3 if the Evil Character is defeated, transfer a Lost Soul (if there is one) from the blocker’s Land of Bondage to the rescuer’s Land of Redemption
4 Return surviving characters to territory; discard enhancements in the Field of Battle

Page 18:  Dominants Played During Battle

You and/or your opponent can play a dominant(s) (lamb or grim reaper icon) at any time during
the game except while a special ability is being completed or during Battle Resolution.

Page 18-19:  Example - Playing Dominants During Battle

You are making a rescue attempt with John, a purple brigade Hero with abilities of 5/5. Your opponent blocks with Saph, a black brigade Evil Character with abilities of 9/11. You hero is losing. You have initiative.
Instead of playing an enhancement on John, you play Angel of the Lord, a dominant (lamb icon card), that allows you to “Discard an Evil Character”. You discard Saph. Your opponent cannot stop
this using an enhancement. Your opponent also cannot present a new Evil Character. John, who is now unblocked, rescues a Lost Soul (unless your opponent plays Chistian Martyr (grim reaper icon card) that allows him to “Discard a Hero.”).

Page 24: Battle Resolution

Battle Resolution
After the last enhancement is played and both players have passed, the battle ends and the battle outcome must be resolved. It is now too late to play a Dominant card this battle.


So which is it:  no dominants can be played during battle resolution, or Christian Martyr can be played to discard my sole rescuing hero when the last EC is removed from battle??  I had this situation in a recent tournament where I discarded my opponent's last EC, was now unblocked, and had a sole rescuing hero.  He threw down CM.  I didn't think this could be done, but because I was unfamiliar with the rules at the time and didn't challenge it, I went with it.  When this situation occurs, a dominant like CM should not be able to be played since my opponent had plenty of time to play that during battle but didn't.  This is what I believe the point of the repetitious rules about how dominants cannot be played during battle resolution, but then the rules appear to be contradicting when it says CM can be played in response to AotL being played against the sole blocker, who is taken out and now the LS is unblocked.

Am I missing something here?

Confirming that both players have to pass the ability to play dominants and/or activate available cards/abilities before it moves to Battle Resolution.

Basically, you stay in Step C until both players are done playing everything they want/can (unless an ability moves to Battle Resolution).

These entries are way too wordy and overexplain specific scenarios instead of simply letting cross-indexing and firm definitions do the work, which was ironically done in a wrong-headed attempt to head off confusion. However, they're not technically wrong or breaking the game if you understand that battle resolution doesn't happen until all players agree it does. In fact, a more streamlined meta-rule about priority (which is already dead in the water it seems) would solve this problem alongside the many others.

Rulebooks are updated when a new starter deck is released. There have been many, many advances in how we think of the rules since the last starter deck, and the REG is the document that reflects those upgrades. In fact, I believe if there is a conflict between the rulebook and the REG, the REG takes precedence.

I am convinced that within a season or two we will have a new starter backed with a new rulebook that is succinct, hopefully contains zero examples in its rules, and a robust document that will give new players everything they need. Give it some time! We just now eliminated "but that's not how we used to do things" from the list of valid arguments.

Quote from: Watchman492 on July 29, 2016, 06:06:45 PM

I had this situation in a recent tournament where I discarded my opponent's last EC, was now unblocked, and had a sole rescuing hero.  He threw down CM.  I didn't think this could be done, but because I was unfamiliar with the rules at the time and didn't challenge it, I went with it.  When this situation occurs, a dominant like CM should not be able to be played since my opponent had plenty of time to play that during battle but didn't.

What you are missing is that the battle did not end when you discarded his EC. Your opponent is allowed to respond to your action with his own dominant before Battle Resolution begins. Whether he "had plenty of time to play it" earlier or not is irrelevant.

YMT, thank you for clarification.  When I wrote "had plenty of time to play it" was with the understanding, based upon what I read in the rulebook, that he could not play a dominant during battle resolution, and that battle resolution occurs when the blocker(s) is removed.  But based upon the responses, I have learned that battle resolution doesn't exactly occur when the last blocker is removed from battle. 

So from what I'm understanding, battle resolution occurs when the two players "agree" on when the battle is over after each player has had the opportunity to finish playing anything that would either effectively stop a rescue attempt/battle challenge or not be further hindered in the rescue attempt/battle challenge.  Is this correct?  And I've also learned that I should basically not give too much regard to the 4th edition rulebook but refer almost exclusively to the REG.

This whole when-battle-resolution occurs is still ambiguous to me as I'm not seeing anything that clearly states this in the REG, which, in my humble opinion, needs to be more clearly defined if the 4th edition rules are effectively outdated, and there's nothing very specific in the REG that goes into the details discussed in these responses (unless I'm missing it).  There is an entry for Battle Resolution in the REG but it definitely does not go into detail about when this really occurs, what can be played/not played, etc., again, unless I'm missing or not fully understanding what's in the REG.  I know you all are much more experienced at this game than I am and have had plenty of play time and discussion about these rules, but to the newer player, these issues are pretty frustrating, to say the least, especially when I'm trying to learn the game AND teach people how to play.  This game reminds me of state statutes being on the books but that those laws and procedural justice is mostly enforced or guided by case law (when judges make a ruling that applies to how law enforcement and future court proceedings address the proper application of Constitutional rights). 

I feel sorry for new players who have not been introduced to this game by an experienced player but have purchased the 4th edition SD, read the rulebook, and have to unlearn many different things that are in the rulebook when they start playing with experienced players.  There needs to be a better solution to this problem with future starter decks (as Minister Polarius eluded to) given the constant errata changes.  Perhaps just an online-only rulebook instead of a printed one would be the best option.

I love this game, but my goodness, these constant errata changes are frustrating!

The REG is intended to be an "advanced guide". Everything that you need to play and enjoy the game is in the rulebook, but for tournament play where minor issues can mean a difference between winning or losing the tournament, a more in depth guide is needed. Which is where the REG comes in. It doesn't have step by step rules as to how you would go about playing the game. So if you are looking for how to play a particular part of the game, it might be better to look in the rulebook, then verify that the REG doesn't contradict it. For looking up how a certain ability should be played, the REG is usually better.

But the rulebook is still valid, and looking there for understanding the game is perfectly fine, as long as it's not contradicted by the REG.

And yes, you are correct. Battle resolution happens when both players agree the battle is over.

Thank you, Mark. 

In my opinion, the rulebook is still not very clear on this particular subject and needs to be re-worded.  Think of a new player who buys the starter deck, reads the rule book, and then comes across the same rules/example that I pointed out at the beginning of this thread.  The way Battle Resolution is worded and described in the rulebook, and how dominants cannot be played during Battle Resolution, and then the example of CM being played apparently during Battle Resolution (as defined in the rulebook), is confusing at the very least.  I simply think that the rulebook could and should be clearer and go into a little more detail as to why a dominant like CM can be played in the cited example.  There's no other place in the book that unequivocally explains this scenario.