Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Quote from: Zerutul on July 12, 2017, 01:15:23 PM

I think it makes perfect sense for the blocker to respond to AoTL if it results in mutual or stalemate. Seems like an unfair combo to play AotL on one EC then allow the rescuer to also get rid of the other one with an enchantment but that's just my opinion..

You might be right in a sense but think of it this way if the hero plays and enhancement that gets rid of one evil character and then immediately plays the angel of the Lord and gets rid of the other one it's the same thing just in different order.

It's not the same thing. Playing in the right order is part of the skill of the game. Ending the play with AotL doesn't give the defender special initiative. It's a good play versus the wrong play.

Here's another scenario I thought of. Let's say I take a 3/3 hero in to battle and my opponent plays a 3/3 Evil character. Right now the hero would have initiative but if I decide to play My Son of God and win a lost soul you're saying that I lose initiative because I played the Son of God which happens to be the last card played?

REG kind of contradicts itself from the first paragraph to the second one.

Initiative 

A player with initiative may play the next enhancement. (You never lose initiative in battle because you played the angel of the Lord or Son of God) Initiative is always given to the player who is losing the current bat-tle. The losing player cannot pass initiative. 

When there is a stalemate or a mutual destruction, the player who did not play the last card has initiative, (sounds to me like they're talking about battle not dominant initiative) but he must pass initiative if he does not play a card.

Quote from: Jeremystair on July 12, 2017, 01:35:33 PM

I understand what you're saying but if everyone knows the rule either way it's ruled it will always be played that way then. I'll never make that mistake again if you know what I mean. I just didn't think it made a difference because I've always played it one way and apparently a lot of other people have too and then there's everyone else who plays it a different way. I don't think it's skill in this scenario though I think it's knowing the rules so that you play it the right way. Apparently right now there's two ways to play it 

I believe the problem is, not everyone knows/understands the rule the same way and it needs to be completely clear in order to actually be a valid rule IMO.

True!

Quote from: Jeremystair on July 12, 2017, 01:58:25 PM

Here's another scenario I thought of. Let's say I take a 3/3 hero in to battle and my opponent plays a 3/3 Evil character. Right now the hero would have initiative but if I decide to play My Son of God and win a lost soul you're saying that I lose initiative because I played the Son of God which happens to be the last card played?

Based on the REG I would rule that playing Son of God during Mutual Destruction or Stalemate would pass initiative.

Quote from: Jeremystair on July 12, 2017, 01:58:25 PM

REG kind of contradicts itself from the first paragraph to the second one.

Initiative 

A player with initiative may play the next enhancement. (You never lose initiative in battle because you played the angel of the Lord or Son of God) Initiative is always given to the player who is losing the current bat-tle. The losing player cannot pass initiative. 

When there is a stalemate or a mutual destruction, the player who did not play the last card has initiative, (sounds to me like they're talking about battle not dominant initiative) but he must pass initiative if he does not play a card.

I don't see a contradiction in the REG (you added it in by adding more text). Why shouldn't you lose initiative by playing a dominant? It's obvious you do when the numbers change, but not all initiative changes happen because of numbers.

Yes going strictly by the exact wording in the REG dominants played during mutual destruction would pass initiative. The only possible debate is whether this is how it actually is supposed to be played or not and whether the REG is in error. From the elder comments this thread has received so far it would seem the REG is in error and is supposed to have the text "played in battle". I expect this will be fixed in the next update of the REG.

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on July 12, 2017, 06:46:10 PM

Based on the REG I would rule that playing Son of God during Mutual Destruction or Stalemate would pass initiative.

I don't see a contradiction in the REG (you added it in by adding more text). Why shouldn't you lose initiative by playing a dominant? It's obvious you do when the numbers change, but not all initiative changes happen because of numbers.

Don't take it personal man is just my opinion. I wasn't trying to add text I was just inserting my opinion in. Earlier the guardian said a dominant card is not considered played in battle and I agree. That's where the misunderstanding is. I think initiative in the REG is referring to cards played in battle even though it doesn't say it.

Don't worry, it's not at all personal. I've just spent many years getting very good at learning and arbitrating rules (in many different games), and I think I am fairly logical (I try to think of rules with a similar mindset to running a computer program). I don't care how this gets resolved (if they decide to stick with the current wording or add "In battle", but I was just interpreting it like I tend to do with any other rules, it just seemed fairly obvious to me how this should be ruled without a change in the REG.

I am also with ChristianSoldier and beers285. That is how we have played it around my area sense I started playing.

"Implied by context" is a terrible way to parse a rules document, but if we're going to do it that way we could fix Seize Him.

Short of that, the REG does not say "the last card played in battle," it says "the last card."

Quote from: The Guardian on July 12, 2017, 12:53:53 PM

This will be reviewed as soon as possible. 

So are we going to update the REG or leave it the way it is?

This really doesn't belong in the REG, it belongs in the base rulebook. We're working to update REG 5.0 and release an expanded 4th edition rulebook, hopefully at the same time. That won't happen until sometime after Nationals.

The "last card played" when determining initiative refers to the last character or enhancement played.

I don't expect the ruling to change though we will likely make sure it is clearer in the updated rulebook.

That is correct.