Author Topic: Does this work? (Read 5217 times)

stefferweffer · « **on:** June 21, 2010, 02:32:40 PM »

I have Tabernacle with Lampstand in it, and Unholy Writ activated in my artifact pile.

My opponent, in their preparation phase, activates Captured Ark. I choose to shuffle my Lampstand.

Can I now play Destruction of Nehushtan on their Captured Ark, thus negating what it did, so that my Lampstand returns to the Tabernacle?

Thanks!

Master KChief · « **Reply #1 on:** June 21, 2010, 02:35:56 PM »

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #2 on:** June 21, 2010, 02:54:23 PM »

The question in my mind is who gets to play DoN first if both players want to.

Does the player with Captured Ark get to play their DoN on Unholy Writ while LotS is temporarily shuffled because they are responding to their action of activating Captured Ark? (This is my guess.)

Or does the player with LotS get to play their DoN on Captured Ark because they are responding to their action of physically shuffling their deck?

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #3 on:** June 21, 2010, 03:45:21 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on June 21, 2010, 02:54:23 PM

Does the player with Captured Ark get to play their DoN on Unholy Writ while LotS is temporarily shuffled because they are responding to their action of activating Captured Ark?

I believe so.

Interesting move...

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #4 on:** June 21, 2010, 04:03:09 PM »

The one who played Captured Ark gets to respond to his action first. This is why most of my decks now include at least one way to have 3 Arts active at all times.

stefferweffer · « **Reply #5 on:** June 21, 2010, 04:32:18 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on June 21, 2010, 04:03:09 PM

The one who played Captured Ark gets to respond to his action first. This is why most of my decks now include at least one way to have 3 Arts active at all times.

Agree. In my last tournament deck I had High Priest's Palace in there for the sole reason of opening another artifact space, because of Captured Ark

stefferweffer · « **Reply #6 on:** June 21, 2010, 04:35:28 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on June 21, 2010, 02:54:23 PM

The question in my mind is who gets to play DoN first if both players want to.

Does the player with Captured Ark get to play their DoN on Unholy Writ while LotS is temporarily shuffled because they are responding to their action of activating Captured Ark? (This is my guess.)

Or does the player with LotS get to play their DoN on Captured Ark because they are responding to their action of physically shuffling their deck?

I agree that they should get first shot with DON on Unholy Writ, but I assume that given enough time, (10 seconds?), if they have not played DON yet, then I can play mine, and they can't retroactively say "Well before you play yours..."

stefferweffer · « **Reply #7 on:** June 21, 2010, 04:39:38 PM »

Now that I think about it more, Can't an opponent also play Destructive Sin or Image of Jealousy to negate Tabernacle's ability, thus removing the artifact within it? When that happens is the artifact instantly discarded?

Gabe · « **Reply #8 on:** June 21, 2010, 04:42:27 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on June 21, 2010, 02:54:23 PM

The question in my mind is who gets to play DoN first if both players want to.

Whoever plays their DoN first is who gets to play it first. There is not such things as "initiative" to play a Dominant. In the rare event that both players play their DoN at the same time, then the tie would go to the person who used Captured Ark because they were responding to their own action.

Quote from: stefferweffer on June 21, 2010, 04:39:38 PM

Now that I think about it more, Can't an opponent also play Destructive Sin or Image of Jealousy to negate Tabernacle's ability, thus removing the artifact within it? When that happens is the artifact instantly discarded?

You cannot negate the identifier of a Fortress. DS or IoJ isn't going to remove an Artifact being held by the Tabernacle or a Temple.

stefferweffer · « **Reply #9 on:** June 21, 2010, 05:09:06 PM »

Quote from: BrianGabe on June 21, 2010, 04:42:27 PM

Quote from: Prof Underwood on June 21, 2010, 02:54:23 PM
The question in my mind is who gets to play DoN first if both players want to.

Whoever plays their DoN first is who gets to play it first. There is not such things as "initiative" to play a Dominant. In the rare event that both players play their DoN at the same time, then the tie would go to the person who used Captured Ark because they were responding to their own action.

Quote from: stefferweffer on June 21, 2010, 04:39:38 PM
Now that I think about it more, Can't an opponent also play Destructive Sin or Image of Jealousy to negate Tabernacle's ability, thus removing the artifact within it? When that happens is the artifact instantly discarded?

You cannot negate the identifier of a Fortress. DS or IoJ isn't going to remove an Artifact being held by the Tabernacle or a Temple.

That's good to know about the identifier. I never thought of it as different in that way. Thanks!

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #10 on:** June 21, 2010, 05:26:57 PM »

Quote from: BrianGabe on June 21, 2010, 04:42:27 PM

Whoever plays their DoN first is who gets to play it first. There is not such things as "initiative" to play a Dominant. In the rare event that both players play their DoN at the same time, then the tie would go to the person who used Captured Ark because they were responding to their own action.

Which is extremely stupid and holds the game back in many ways. This should have been fixed forever ago.

Also, Spreading Mildew will work the way you were wanting.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #11 on:** June 21, 2010, 11:20:09 PM »

Quote from: BrianGabe on June 21, 2010, 04:42:27 PM

Whoever plays their DoN first is who gets to play it first. There is not such things as "initiative" to play a Dominant. In the rare event that both players play their DoN at the same time, then the tie would go to the person who used Captured Ark because they were responding to their own action.

Alright, I'm super confused. I know there was a case where I believe it was you yourself who said you would have to wait like 5 seconds before playing your dominant after an opponent made a certain move...

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #12 on:** June 22, 2010, 10:23:19 AM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on June 21, 2010, 11:20:09 PM

Alright, I'm super confused. I know there was a case where I believe it was you yourself who said you would have to wait like 5 seconds before playing your dominant after an opponent made a certain move...

Although there isn't "technically" an initiative check for dominants, careful players will basically do one. The idea is that if your opponent has done the last action, and they call over a judge and make a case that they either played a dominant at the same time as you, or even that you played too fast before they even had a chance (ie. because they were still shuffling their deck etc.) then the judge is going to respond in their favor. And at that point you have now revealed that you have that dominant in your hand. Similarly, if you activate an art and then go into battle, and your opponent calls over a judge and makes a case that they didn't have enough time to play DoN before you entered battle, then probably the judge will have to rule in their favor again, and now you have revealed how you wanted to attack.

The point is that in these cases, I find it to be better to hesitate for a bit to allow my opponents to play dominants. In fact, sometimes I'll even ask them if they want to DoN an art (like Hidden Treasures or Gifts of the Magi) before I make my attack, just to make sure. You don't have to do this of course, but if you don't, then there will probably come a time when you will reveal something and then get a judges ruling against you.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #13 on:** June 22, 2010, 12:08:49 PM »

theres alot of these last action clauses that i dont agree with and have gotten into quite heated disputes with many a player over in ROOT. very touchy subject.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #14 on:** June 22, 2010, 12:23:46 PM »

Quote from: RTSmaniac on June 22, 2010, 12:08:49 PM

theres alot of these last action clauses that i dont agree with and have gotten into quite heated disputes with many a player over in ROOT. very touchy subject.

"Responding to your own action" may be touchy, but at least it is a consistent way to resolve disputes about who played their dominant first and it prevents "slapjack" which is infinitely more touchy

stefferweffer · « **Reply #15 on:** June 22, 2010, 12:26:56 PM »

On a side note, I think Grapes of Wrath made this even worse, since often the blocking player is only blocking to play Grapes, and the attacking player realizes this and wants to play AOTL first.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #16 on:** June 22, 2010, 12:27:19 PM »

I guess im just afraid of what i dont understand.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #17 on:** June 22, 2010, 12:40:34 PM »

Quote from: stefferweffer on June 22, 2010, 12:26:56 PM

On a side note, I think Grapes of Wrath made this even worse, since often the blocking player is only blocking to play Grapes, and the attacking player realizes this and wants to play AOTL first.

When using GoW defensively, the defender does have the priority to play his GoW before that attackers AotL. This is because the defender is responding to his own action of adding a blocker to the battle.

Quote from: RTSmaniac on June 22, 2010, 12:27:19 PM

I guess im just afraid of what i dont understand.

In that case, education is the solution to your problem

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #18 on:** June 22, 2010, 09:59:42 PM »

Quote

In that case, education is the solution to your problem

In that case, I look foward to my thrashing- i mean, teaching from the professor

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #19 on:** June 23, 2010, 12:15:08 AM »

Quote from: RTSmaniac on June 22, 2010, 09:59:42 PM

In that case, I look foward to my thrashing- i mean, teaching from the professor

Always glad to help out a fellow inquiring mind

crustpope · « **Reply #20 on:** June 23, 2010, 12:50:54 AM »

Mark,

I dont like the "responding to own action" idea you present because it punishes decisive players and rewards "cowards" for lack of a more poetic term. The Gow/AotL play is precisely what I fear. Someone presents a charachter has Grapes in their hand (but may actually be deciding to play some enhancements w/initiative) and I play AotL then they say..."but I was gonna grapes him!" When in reality if I had given them the time they may not have. But now, all of a sudden they are crystal clear as to what they wanted to do. Now this "responding to my own action" clause gives them leeway to "change their mind" mid battle so to speak.

Personally I like slapjack with the responging to the own action only in the rare tie as gabe said, I think that if you are going to make a move you better be decisive. I am not going to sit there and play your deck for you. Maybe in a pick-up game when I am playing my jr. highers, but in a tournament? no. Time to put on your big boy pants and deal because my money spends the same as yours so you can play your deck and I will play mine and if you cant make a decision, I dont mind making mine decision first.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #21 on:** June 23, 2010, 01:03:26 AM »

Quote from: crustpope on June 23, 2010, 12:50:54 AM

Personally I like slapjack with the responging to the own action only in the rare tie

1 - Most people don't like slapjack.
2 - Re-read your post and ask yourself, "does this sound like fun and fellowship"?
3 - You are welcome to play your style, but just beware that you may have rulings go against you if your opponent makes a case that you didn't give them time to play their cards.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #22 on:** June 23, 2010, 01:07:40 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on June 23, 2010, 01:03:26 AM

Quote from: crustpope on June 23, 2010, 12:50:54 AM
Personally I like slapjack with the responging to the own action only in the rare tie
1 - Most people don't like slapjack.
2 - Re-read your post and ask yourself, "does this sound like fun and fellowship"?
3 - You are welcome to play your style, but just beware that you may have rulings go against you if your opponent makes a case that you didn't give them time to play their cards.

Some segment of players find fun in have a decisive game that isn't hampered by rulings related to the initiative to play a card that, in the rulebook, is stated to be allowed to be played anytime, and then will offer the fellowship of various plays that could have been made after the game, for the benefit of the other player.

And, seriously, just ask "My initiative?" or say "Your initative, but I'm gonna Martyr you first.", etc.

Gabe · « **Reply #23 on:** June 23, 2010, 01:25:24 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on June 23, 2010, 01:03:26 AM

3 - You are welcome to play your style, but just beware that you may have rulings go against you if your opponent makes a case that you didn't give them time to play their cards.

You've taken a previous ruling on how to handle ties when two players play their Dominates at the same time and you've somehow tried to twist it into "initiative" to play a Dominant. What you're talking about doesn't exist in Redemption and hopefully never will.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #24 on:** June 23, 2010, 01:43:49 AM »

Hopefully it will. The rules have been almost entirely fixed, but the "Dominants don't follow any rules" rule is the one remaining loose tangent, and it's a HUGE one. NO other successful card game has cards that you can just play whenever without any sort of rules governing who gets to play it first if both players have one.

Nothing in a card game should ever have to do with being more physically quick than your opponent.

News:

Author Topic: Does this work? (Read 5217 times)