Author Topic: Dominant initiative and regular initiative (Read 6573 times)

Jeremystair · « **on:** July 12, 2017, 10:47:32 AM »

So my hero is making a rescue attempt and my opponent blocks and bands in another evil character. I now have initiative because I'm losing I play Angel of the Lord and discard one of his evil characters. We are now in a mutual destruction do I still have initiative to play an enhancement? Or does he have initiative since I played the angel of the Lord?

I guess my question is do we have to check for initiative in order for me to play the angel of the Lord? And is the angel of the Lord considered the last card played when we're looking for initiative during a mutual destruction?

The Guardian · « **Reply #1 on:** July 12, 2017, 10:59:32 AM »

No, dominants are not considered "played in battle" even though that's usually where people put them on the table during a battle. Keep in mind though that if you play a dominant, your opponent gets the opportunity to play a dominant as well before you play any enhancements. (i.e. you play Shipwreck on his Nazareth--he can respond with Christian Martyr before you get to play a search enhancement).

Jeremystair · « **Reply #2 on:** July 12, 2017, 11:21:44 AM »

The REG states that when there is a mutual destruction the player who did not play the last card has initiative. So is the Angel the Lord considered the last card played?

jbeers285 · « **Reply #3 on:** July 12, 2017, 11:34:28 AM »

The best scenario here for the rescuer would be to play an enhancement that some how removes one of the blockers from battle while you have initiative. Then kill the other with AotL and then your opponent never gets SI.

Jeremystair · « **Reply #4 on:** July 12, 2017, 11:35:26 AM »

I understand that now. The problem is we're in the middle of a battle and waiting on this answer to be more clarified before we move on.

jbeers285 · « **Reply #5 on:** July 12, 2017, 11:36:09 AM »

Yes AotL is the last card played. The blocker gets initiative.

Jeremystair · « **Reply #6 on:** July 12, 2017, 11:42:29 AM »

You don't sound too confident in your answer. Are you sure

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #7 on:** July 12, 2017, 11:45:29 AM »

Dominants don't count as the last played card for purposes of determining normal battle initiative. In the mutual destruction situation described the Hero should have initiative since the Evil Character was the last card played in battle. The Guardian just answered this in the first reply of the thread.

Jeremystair · « **Reply #8 on:** July 12, 2017, 11:48:40 AM »

Thanks but I noticed that I asked for different questions and the guardian answered no so it wasn't very clear my bad.

jbeers285 · « **Reply #9 on:** July 12, 2017, 11:49:54 AM »

Quote from: Kevinthedude on July 12, 2017, 11:45:29 AM

Dominants don't count as the last played card for purposes of determining normal battle initiative. In the mutual destruction situation described the Hero should have initiative since the Evil Character was the last card played in battle. The Guardian just answered this in the first reply of the thread.

Never ever seen it ruled that way.

The person playing AotL created the Mutual Destruction scenario not the blocker. The blocker should have standard initiative.

The Guardian · « **Reply #10 on:** July 12, 2017, 11:52:35 AM »

I've always understood it to the work that way, and I thought that was documented in either the rulebook or REG, but I'm not finding it at first glance. Going to keep digging...

The Guardian · « **Reply #11 on:** July 12, 2017, 11:54:49 AM »

Quote

The person playing AotL created the Mutual Destruction scenario not the blocker. The blocker should have standard initiative.

True, but it's not about who created MD, it's who played the last card, and whether that means "the last card in battle" or "the last card in the game."

As I mentioned previously, dominants are not played in battle.

jbeers285 · « **Reply #12 on:** July 12, 2017, 11:56:49 AM »

Why does played it battle or played even matter? I've never heard the target of battle ever matter before. I've only ever heard "last card played"

Josh · « **Reply #13 on:** July 12, 2017, 11:57:25 AM »

I've always understood this to be "last card played in battle". Thus, in the OP's scenario, playing AotL would only pass initiative to the defender IF it causes the EC to be losing by numbers. A stalemate or mutual destruction would keep initiative with the hero.

I'm guessing the REG is simply missing the words "...in battle".

jbeers285 · « **Reply #14 on:** July 12, 2017, 11:59:57 AM »

Initiative
A player with initiative may play the next enhancement. 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, but he must pass initiative if he does not play a card.

- the Reg

It's not missing anything imo. This has been standard since I picked up a starter deck for the first time.

Gabe · « **Reply #15 on:** July 12, 2017, 12:00:10 PM »

Quote from: jmhartz on July 12, 2017, 11:57:25 AM

I've always understood this to be "last card played in battle". Thus, in the OP's scenario, playing AotL would only pass initiative to the defender IF it causes the EC to be losing by numbers. A stalemate or mutual destruction would keep initiative with the hero.

I'm guessing the REG is simply missing the words "...in battle".

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #16 on:** July 12, 2017, 12:05:49 PM »

Quote from: jbeers285 on July 12, 2017, 11:59:57 AM

Initiative
A player with initiative may play the next enhancement. 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, but he must pass initiative if he does not play a card.

- the Reg

It's not missing anything imo. This has been standard since I picked up a starter deck for the first time.

Initiative is about the battle and cards in it, it's implied only cards played in the battle matter for determining it. The rulebook and REG definitely should be updated to include this but I've also been playing for quite a number of years and this is how I and everyone I've ever played with has played it.

jbeers285 · « **Reply #17 on:** July 12, 2017, 12:07:35 PM »

Playing AotL is causing the EC to be transitioned into an alternate battle state. This seems so simply logical to me I'm struggling to understand why it would be ruled any other way. The Reg as currently worded supports my assessment. Saying "oops we forgot some words" (apparently for the last 5 or so years, at least) doesn't seem like an accurate ruling tactic.

Nothing personal intended just stating my opinion on the matter.

The Guardian · « **Reply #18 on:** July 12, 2017, 12:10:04 PM »

Honestly it sounds like it could be one of those "regional" things where people have played it differently in different groups, and it hasn't come up often enough for people to question it.

I honestly thought I remembered reading a line about that in one of the rule documents.

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #19 on:** July 12, 2017, 12:15:00 PM »

Quote from: jbeers285 on July 12, 2017, 12:07:35 PM

Playing AotL is causing the EC to be transitioned into an alternate battle state. This seems so simply logical to me I'm struggling to understand why it would be ruled any other way. The Reg as currently worded supports my assessment. Saying "oops we forgot some words" (apparently for the last 5 or so years, at least) doesn't seem like an accurate ruling tactic.

Nothing personal intended just stating my opinion on the matter.

There have been countless things like this found in the REG where small bits of clarifying text or even entire mechanics are missing because the situation never came up for anyone to notice. The REG is far from an exhaustive index of every aspect of how Redemption is played but it is an ongoing project to make it one. It makes since logically this way as long as you include the implied text (last card played in battle).

The battle state changes so initiative has to be redetermined. It is found to be mutual destruction so a check is made for who played the last card in battle. It was the blocking Evil Character so the Hero has initiative.

Jeremystair · « **Reply #20 on:** July 12, 2017, 12:40:29 PM »

Quote from: jbeers285 on July 12, 2017, 12:07:35 PM

Playing AotL is causing the EC to be transitioned into an alternate battle state. This seems so simply logical to me I'm struggling to understand why it would be ruled any other way. The Reg as currently worded supports my assessment. Saying "oops we forgot some words" (apparently for the last 5 or so years, at least) doesn't seem like an accurate ruling tactic.

Nothing personal intended just stating my opinion on the matter.

I believe it should say the word "in battle" in the REG. It should always be in favor of the hero besides you just stated earlier that if I played the cards a different way I could have won the battle.

Watchman · « **Reply #21 on:** July 12, 2017, 12:46:04 PM »

If this had come up in tournament I would have ruled that AotL was the last card played so the EC would have initiative based upon a face value reading of the 4th edition rulebook and the REG. My judgment wouldn't have been wrong either even if certain players have been playing it the other way for a while as what other players have been doing in other parts of the country (whether they've played it with the hero obtaining initiative or the EC) or how they've always played it has no bearing on a ruling based upon what the rulebook(s) itself says or doesn't say about a certain play. So if MD or stalemate was intended to be the last card played in battle then yes, the REG and whenever a new rulebook is created needs to be updated with the words "the last card played in battle".

The Guardian · « **Reply #22 on:** July 12, 2017, 12:53:53 PM »

This will be reviewed as soon as possible.

Zerutul · « **Reply #23 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..

Jeremystair · « **Reply #24 on:** July 12, 2017, 01:20:57 PM »

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.

News:

Author Topic: Dominant initiative and regular initiative (Read 6573 times)