Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Amen. There isn't such a thing as responding to your own action and no one listens when I say that.

A prime example in Pokemon just came up at a small 8 person, best of the best invitational tournament, where David Cohen allowed Tsuyagashi (or something) Yamato to take back an energy attachment, and lost the game because of it. Should David really be kicking himself for being a nice person? No. That's ridiculous.

I don't even let my son take back energy attachments. 

So if I'm playing a hard-nosed competitor, should I take FA out of my hand and drop it on the table at the same moment I'm physically placing the LS in their hand? If they played Mayhem or another dom before the LS touched their skin, I would then have to force them to wait until I had completed handing them the LS (at which point battle resolution is complete) and then getting it back from them (since my FA was played at that moment, it is the first dom to hit the table legally after battle resolution), then activating its ability (which now won't shuffle my already-played FA).

This is why I'm souring on Redemption tournament play. The only reasons to attend any tourney over district level is (1) play Booster (because it's fun) and (2) get the promos.

Hey,

The falling away question happened at nationals in 2009.  It was ruled one way during the game in question, but after extensive further discussion the judges present decided that announcing what you were doing was effectively the same as doing it.

Redemption has always held the general concept that we do not give a player an advantage for being more dextrous of physically faster than their opponent.  If a player wishes to respond to their own action by playing a dominant you cannot deprive them of that opportunity by being physically faster to play your dominant.

Regarding the original quesiton, I actually think Westy's opponent was closer to being in the wrong than Westy because the opponent saw Westy's "intent" to play Son of God and New Jerusalem and tried to gain an advantage through being physically faster and play his own Son of God and New Jeruslaem first.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Hey,

Why would it be 'wrong' to play SoG/NJ if you're reading a SoG/NJ that will end the game? It was the absolute correct play by the opponent, even if it was a bluff.

Because gaining an advantage by being physically faster than your opponent is against the spirit of the rules of Redemption (and to as much of an extent as we have been able to define it is against the letter of the law of the rules of Redemption as well).  If the defender expects the opponent has a Son of God and New Jerusalem that will end the game when they hand over the soul they should play their own Son of God and New Jerusalem before surrendering it.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

If the defender expects the opponent has a Son of God and New Jerusalem that will end the game when they hand over the soul they should play their own Son of God and New Jerusalem before surrendering it.

The entire point is the person surrendering the soul does not know the rescuer has/has bluffed SoG/NJ until after the soul is surrendered in Westys example, not before.

3 - If you REALLY want an example of dishonorable play, you should check out this thread.  At least your problem was a spur-of-the-moment decision made in the heat-of-competition of a game.  This other example was premeditated.

Says the guy who created M.A.S.K. .... 

Every time one of these dominant scenarios come up I swear I get even more confused on how they work...

The good news is that you can rule it any way you like, and have at least one Elder confirming the ruling here on the Boards.