Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: RTSmaniac on November 30, 2012, 12:54:59 AM
-
If I have Gifts active and my Feast of Trumpets resolves and i draw for my opponent, can I activate another art?
Feast of Trumpets (Pi)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Teal/Green • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Set aside all of your human Heroes for one turn. On return, choose a number from 1 to 4. All players must place that number of cards from hand beneath own draw pile and draw an equal number of cards. • Identifiers: OT, Feast • Verse: Leviticus 23:24 • Availability: Priests booster packs (Rare)
Gifts of the Magi (F)
Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Each time an opponent draws a card because of a special ability on a character or enhancement, holder may draw a card. • Play As: When an opponent draws because of an ability on a character or enhancement, you may draw up to an equal number of cards. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Matthew 2:11 • Availability: F Deck
-
No, you've chosen to use GotM was your active Artifact for the turn since it happens during your preparation phase.
-
I remember just checking for others. :)
-
So artifact selection comes *before* set-aside updates. Good to know.
-
So, special abilities that activate at the conclusion of a set-aside counter do not activate in the Upkeep Phase? Does the Upkeep Phase end immediately after counters are placed? Is the triggering of an artifact considered an official "use?"
-
Set-asides have always returned during the prep phase.
-
So artifact selection comes *before* set-aside updates. Good to know.
False. You choose the order of all actions you can perform during your prep phase. By choosing to use GotM you've chosen to have it active as your Artifact for the turn.
-
What if my opponent chooses to use my artifact during my prep phase? Say Mayhem/RBD because I can't think of a reasonable example. Am I allowed to switch artifacts then?
-
I have the same basic question as sauce. What if GotM wasn't a may ability?
-
I just don't really understand why bringing back your set asides means you're choosing to activate Gifts, besides the fact it'd be too powerful. It feels like I'm choosing to take an action that triggers its ability, not choosing to activate it. It just doesn't feel consistent. Take something like Lampstand, for example: I'm always using it by having it active. I'm certainly using it during my prep phase but before my artifact selection. Why am I allowed to ever deactivate it?
Another scenario:
I have a Pentecost set side and Lampstand up. My opponent has Mayhem in their hand. I draw 3, bring back Pentecost and draw 3, and put down some characters. Can I deactivate Lampstand at that point?
-
I just don't really understand why bringing back your set asides means you're choosing to activate Gifts...
You're over complicating this. Bringing back your set-aside doesn't mean you're choosing to activate Gifts. Activating Gifts by using it's optional drawing ability means you're choosing to activate Gifts.
-
I just don't really understand why bringing back your set asides means you're choosing to activate Gifts...
You're over complicating this. Bringing back your set-aside doesn't mean you're choosing to activate Gifts. Activating Gifts by using it's optional drawing ability means you're choosing to activate Gifts.
...which brings us to my question. What if Gifts wasn't a May ability?
-
Activating Gifts by using it's optional drawing ability means you're choosing to activate Gifts.
This is not true in any other case. If it's a bottom-up rule, it should not be valid. If it's top-down, it's inconsistent, messy, and counter-intuitive, but if true needs to be in the rules.
-
Activating Gifts by using it's optional drawing ability means you're choosing to activate Gifts.
This is not true in any other case. If it's a bottom-up rule, it should not be valid. If it's top-down, it's inconsistent, messy, and counter-intuitive, but if true needs to be in the rules.
As far as I'm aware it's true in every case - top down rule. Can you provide some common, valid examples of how you think this is inconsistent?
-
It's inconsistent with the definition we have for the prep phase. It says that we can chose to take actions in any order we want. By that definition we should be able to resolve set-asides, then address artifact activation. However, this is countermanded by an odd rule that says if your artifact gets activated by a set-aside resolving, you've been locked into choosing that as your active artifact.
If you want to have a rule that serves no purpose but disallowing a specific combo, you'd do better to bring back the order of prep phase operations (which would also have a lot of other benefits).
-
Without a firm answer on my question, I'm forced to guess that the reason this ruling is the way it is is because Gifts is a "may" ability. Thus, it's a choice whether or not you want to activate it off of Feast.
I'd also be in favor of an order in the prep phase.
-
Chris, I haven't answered your question be I have no interested in debating hypothetical situations.
Pol, if what you said was true it would be inconsistent. You've made it sound like players have no choice about when they bring back their set-aside characters. The fact that you do choose the order of everything, including when you bring back your set-aside characters is what makes this consistent.
-
So can I not choose to bring back my set-aside characters before activating an artifact?
-
yes.
Also Gabe I do not agree with this ruling. You are triggering Gifts from another card. You are not activating Gifts. If my opponent draws during battle with a card and I draw also, am I activating Gifts? From what I can tell trigger isnt even in the Redemption Terminology yet we use it regularly. Im not sure what the term activate even means as it has always addressed choosing your Artifacts in the game...
-
Hmmm, I should probably stop using 'trigger'. It doesn't necessarily have the best connotation.
I know there are probably a gajillion reasons why it won't be changed, but I've always preferred that cards return from set-aside during the 'increment counters' phase just prior to prep phase. So much more common sense doing it that way.
-
Also Gabe I do not agree with this ruling. You are triggering Gifts from another card. You are not activating Gifts. If my opponent draws during battle with a card and I draw also, am I activating Gifts? From what I can tell trigger isnt even in the Redemption Terminology yet we use it regularly. Im not sure what the term activate even means as it has always addressed choosing your Artifacts in the game...
Although I don't like this ruling, I can agree with it and don't see it as being inconsistent. I believe I was the first to ask this question years ago in hopes of taking advantage of the interaction between GotM and Feast of Trumpets. I believe Bryon gave the original ruling.
GotM triggering when your opponent draws a card does not cause you to use it, choosing to activate the optional ability that's triggered is what defines that you "use" it. If you want to activate another Artifact then simply choose not to draw from GotM.
-
Hmmm, I should probably stop using 'trigger'. It doesn't necessarily have the best connotation.
Roy Rogers would be ashamed of you.
-
choosing to activate the optional ability that's triggered is what defines that you "use" it.
Read that sentence and tell me that is simple enough to be ok.
-
So flipping an artifact up is activating it, and using its optional ability is also activating it? Do I understand that correctly?
If so, what if I flip over Holy Grail then immediately use it? Am I allowed to activate the same artifact twice in rapid succession?
It seems silly I can flip it up and then use it, but I can't use it then flip it down.
-
It seems silly I can flip it up and then use it, but I can't use it then flip it down.
I think you guys are over-analyzing this. You can choose to use any one artifact in your artifact pile each turn. If you bring back guys from Feast of Trumpets, and choose to use GotM to draw some extra cards, then that's your artifact for the turn. If you choose NOT to use GotM, then you still have the ability to choose a different artifact to use for that turn.
-
Chris, I haven't answered your question be I have no interested in debating hypothetical situations.
It is not necessarily hypothetical. Let me give you an actual scenario, then, to discuss:
Rain Becomes Dust
All cards that an opponent draws because of a special ability used by that opponent are revealed instead. Place all revealed Lost Souls in opponent’s territory. Discard the rest.
This is not optional. Should your opponent play Mayhem immediately following your draw (for the maximum hit to you, of course), they then have activated the mandatory SA on RBD, and you had zero control over it whatsoever. And this does definitely happen, I Mayhem'd with RBD up twice on purpose at Nats for strategic purposes. So does that mean that in this case, RBD must remain active for the remainder of turn?
Or as another example that may come up, if I play an artifact like Covenant with Phinehas to protect heroes in my territory from discard and an opponent throws out a CM on a protected hero first thing on my turn, does that stop me from activating a different artifact, or is that a different case? If it does, then it is another example of a scenario fitting Chris's question.
As a side note, I find this rule to be consistent with the rules about artifact activation in general, which I find more important than consistency with other rules (like the return from set-aside bit) since they refer to the actual class of cards. However, I do feel that it would be much better to have a dedicated Artifact Phase in the turn, immediately following (or during) upkeep, that would save a lot of these questions and result in absolute consistency without issues of 'top-down' vs 'bottom-up'.
-
Or as another example that may come up, if I play an artifact like Covenant with Phinehas to protect heroes in my territory from discard and an opponent throws out a CM on a protected hero first thing on my turn, does that stop me from activating a different artifact, or is that a different case? If it does, then it is another example of a scenario fitting Chris's question.
That would be a different case, since protection isn't triggered on cards targeting, protection is ongoing so it is always "active". But you Rain Becomes Dust is definitely a good example of a mandatory triggered ability.
The way I see the ruling is, once you have chosen to use an optional activated or triggered ability on an artifact you have in effect chosen to use that artifact as your active artifact in that location for the turn.
By optional activated ability I mean an ability like Holy Grail or Unholy Writ, which you can use whenever supposing that any conditions are being met, by optional triggered I mean any ability that you can choose to use at the moment a certain condition is met.
I also chose the wording "in that location" so it includes things in fortresses or on characters (although I'm not sure if it matters for anything)
-
Is there a difference between activating an artifact and using an artifact?
Most artifacts state how and when they can be uses. Once per turn, once per game, upon activation, ect.
Because I use an artifacts ability, does that me I activate it? only when the cost of using the ability includes the activation of the artifact. For ex. I am Creator states upon activation the ability may be used. However this is not in all cases.
Therefore my line of thinking would include that I may use Gifts before I decide to use my artifact activation step in the Prep Phase.
Maybe we should have Bryon relook at this conclusion and see if he still feels the same way?
-
We already have two elders agreeing on this. I don't believe any further discussion is necessary.
-
We already have two elders agreeing on this. I don't believe any further discussion is necessary.
Gabe, in my post I did point out that I also agree with the ruling based on the rules we currently have. However, the question had been asked that, if there was a situation of a mandatory trigger, would the artifact have to remain active. As no one had an example, it was (rightly) dismissed. Now that we do have an example, can we just have a 'yea' or 'nay' ruling on that part? Not a discussion, just a 'the current rule is...' so that when this thread is referenced in the future due to a similar situation all threads were resolved?
Again, I think it would be best to have a separate artifact phase, but that's changing the game up quite a bit. And as the current rules read, I would say that Mayhem with RBD up would require RBD stay active, but we should have that ruled definitively (since it can, and will, be used by a conniving mind in the future and we should have a response).
-
Here's the way artifacts should work. At begining of prep phase artifacts deactivate. Then you just do your prep phase in any order. However if this is the case CWD/Lampy/other things can be interacted with differently than the PTB most likely intend. The outcome of this ruleing effects quite alot.
-
...can we just have a 'yea' or 'nay' ruling on that part? Not a discussion, just a 'the current rule is...'
It's rarely that simple. ::)
ChristianSoldier did a fine job of explaining how it works.
-
...can we just have a 'yea' or 'nay' ruling on that part? Not a discussion, just a 'the current rule is...'
It's rarely that simple. ::)
ChristianSoldier did a fine job of explaining how it works.
But...we could really use an actual ruling on this, since it does matter ;)
And I reread what ChristianSoldier posted, and now I'm confused. Because it seems like he's saying that the artifact does not count as activated if it does not have an optional ability that had triggered, which also seems to go against the established rules regarding artifacts remaining active for a turn in which they are activated.
Are you saying that the ruling would be that if RBD were up and an opponent used Mayhem, the owner of RBD could activate a different artifact?
-
The way I see the ruling is, once you have chosen to use an optional activated or triggered ability on an artifact you have in effect chosen to use that artifact as your active artifact in that location for the turn.
This is in addition to normal activation stuff, so in the case of Gifts of the Magi if you use its optional trigger ability or in the case of Holy Grail, if you use the convert you have chosen to use the artifact, whereas if your opponent uses Mayhem while you have Rain Becomes Dust active (and have not done anything regarding artifact activation yet) you may later choose to deactivate it.
If an artifact was activated (as in flipped up) on your turn it is still activated and you've used up your activation for the turn whether or not it has an optional ability.
So to answer your question to make myself as clear as possible (although possibly somewhat verbose)
Are you saying that the ruling would be that if RBD were up and an opponent used Mayhem, the owner of RBD could activate a different artifact?
Assuming it was active from a previous turn yes you could activate a different one.
-
Egads! Ever since the game went to 'phases', it is pure nonsense that characters return from set-aside in the prep phase after being triggered to return in the upkeep phase. If they're not returned during upkeep phase, the next most logical time to return them is after discard phase base on terminology of 'turn'.
Don't make me bang my head again!
-
Egads! Ever since the game went to 'phases', it is pure nonsense that characters return from set-aside in the prep phase after being triggered to return in the upkeep phase. If they're not returned during upkeep phase, the next most logical time to return them is after discard phase base on terminology of 'turn'.
Don't make me bang my head again!
I'll be honest... I have always played/ruled that abilities that trigger from the return of Set-Asides take place in the Upkeep Phase. That just makes more sense to me. I didn't intend to break any rules.
-
Egads! Ever since the game went to 'phases', it is pure nonsense that characters return from set-aside in the prep phase after being triggered to return in the upkeep phase. If they're not returned during upkeep phase, the next most logical time to return them is after discard phase base on terminology of 'turn'.
Don't make me bang my head again!
I'll be honest... I have always played/ruled that abilities that trigger from the return of Set-Asides take place in the Upkeep Phase. That just makes more sense to me. I didn't intend to break any rules.
It is a common misconception that I didn't even know was wrong until a few years ago (and I've been playing since 98). I think the original logic was that the only thing that should happen during the Upkeep Phase is the addition of counters. However, we now have several cards that perform special abilities during Upkeep, so it seems as if that is no longer true. There are several reasons why it is beneficial to return your characters later in your prep phase, but probably the most common one is to use cards that can remove obstructions to your drawing before returning your Heroes from Pentecost or First Fruits for example. So maybe a change would be helpful against speed. Something to consider at least.
-
The way I see the ruling is, once you have chosen to use an optional activated or triggered ability on an artifact you have in effect chosen to use that artifact as your active artifact in that location for the turn.
This is in addition to normal activation stuff, so in the case of Gifts of the Magi if you use its optional trigger ability or in the case of Holy Grail, if you use the convert you have chosen to use the artifact, whereas if your opponent uses Mayhem while you have Rain Becomes Dust active (and have not done anything regarding artifact activation yet) you may later choose to deactivate it.
If an artifact was activated (as in flipped up) on your turn it is still activated and you've used up your activation for the turn whether or not it has an optional ability.
So to answer your question to make myself as clear as possible (although possibly somewhat verbose)
Are you saying that the ruling would be that if RBD were up and an opponent used Mayhem, the owner of RBD could activate a different artifact?
Assuming it was active from a previous turn yes you could activate a different one.
Okay, hopefully you can see my point from all of that when I say that there is some inconsistency. We are treating cards differently based on whether the benefits obtained were optional or mandatory. The benefits/effects still occurred, regardless of the type of ability, and we don't have similar situations in other cards. Based on the earlier discussions in this thread and the way the ruling was worded, as well as previous rulings, it would be consistent and sensible to have the artifacts remain active for the entire turn in the case I supplied.
Gabe has (I think?) stated his support for the idea that only optional artifacts would remain active, but does Prof U (who as Gabe mentioned was the second Elder to rule) share that? His post does not address the possibility of mandatory artifact use, and I ask because it does appear that it would change the rulings we have.
-
does Prof U (who as Gabe mentioned was the second Elder to rule) share that?
I'm just not seeing how this really affects the game at this point. The example of someone playing Mayhem while their opponent has RBD turned on doesn't make any sense, because only a moron with lack of sleep playing a tournament at 3:00 in the morning would do such a thing*. So I'm having a hard time thinking of any time that your opponent would choose to give you a "mandatory benefit". As long as it doesn't truly affect the game I prefer to leave the status quo ruling. If someone can come up with a REALISTIC example of how this could affect the game, I would certainly be willing to revisit the ruling.
* - In case people don't get this, I did that at a tournament last summer :)
-
Can your opponent use your Iron Pan's discard ability during prep phase?
-
Can your opponent use your Iron Pan's discard ability during prep phase?
I assume so, but again I don't think this is a problem. If I'm about to discard a fortress to get rid of Iron Pan, I'm going to ask my opponent first if he's leaving it on for another turn. No need to discard my fortress if he's going to turn it off anyway.
-
If your opponent does, an optional SA on your artifact was activated during prep phase outside of your control; that's essentially the mandatory case we were discussing. Does that mean that artifact was chosen for you? That is a very feasible scenario that'll see a bit of use if it locks your opponent into an art.
Sometimes it's useful to get rid of a fort (ie: WOP vs Goliath). Sometimes you want to get rid of Iron Pan before your opponent discards all your forts. There are tons of reasons to discard a fort.
-
If your opponent does, an optional SA on your artifact was activated during prep phase outside of your control; that's essentially the mandatory case we were discussing. Does that mean that artifact was chosen for you? That is a very feasible scenario that'll see a bit of use if it locks your opponent into an art.
You answered your own question already. The Artifacts controller didn't use the ability (therefore choosing to have the Artifact active), the opponent used it.
Can we let this dead horse be already?
-
So in the Mayhem/RBD scenario, who is using the RBD ability?
Can we let this dead horse be already?
Prof said he'd reconsider his opinion if someone provided a more realistic example than Mayhem/RBD. I don't think it's fair to say trying to do so is "beating a dead horse."
-
If your opponent does, an optional SA on your artifact was activated during prep phase outside of your control; that's essentially the mandatory case we were discussing.
I agree with Gabe that the current ruling is that players are free to do prep phase options in whatever order they choose. I'd like to see it stay that way unless there is a good reason to change it. This example of discarding Iron Pan is NOT a good example. There is nothing wrong with making sure that your opponent plans to keep Iron Pan active before discarding your fortress. It doesn't change anything. So I'm still waiting for an example that would make me want to reconsider the current freedom that players have.
Prof said he'd reconsider his opinion if someone provided a more realistic example than Mayhem/RBD. I don't think it's fair to say trying to do so is "beating a dead horse."
Perhaps Gabe has already thought through all the artifact interaction scenarios and discovered that there aren't any REALISTIC situations where it is necessary to revisit this decision. You are are welcome to keep suggesting them, but don't get mad at Gabe for feeling like it is a useless endeavor.
-
We're towards the end of the game and I've been droughting my opponent. He has his offense, which doesn't rely on battlewinners, set up, and when I don't draw any souls, he decides to play Mayhem despite me having RBD up, because he needs me to draw souls, and it's worth it to him. There's your realistic scenario.
-
We're towards the end of the game and I've been droughting my opponent. He has his offense, which doesn't rely on battlewinners, set up, and when I don't draw any souls, he decides to play Mayhem despite me having RBD up, because he needs me to draw souls, and it's worth it to him. There's your realistic scenario.
FWIW, I did that once.
However, I think Gabe would simply say this:
The Artifacts controller didn't use the ability (therefore choosing to have the Artifact active), the opponent used it.
Which still seems like a silly and convoluted distinction. It'd be much simpler to simply say your artifact becomes deactive at the beginning of your turn, and you may activate a new (or the same) artifact immediately (before your opponent has the chance to play dominants). This would obviously change things quite a lot, primarily CWD, but it's probably for the better, IMO.
-
We're towards the end of the game and I've been droughting my opponent. He has his offense, which doesn't rely on battlewinners, set up, and when I don't draw any souls, he decides to play Mayhem despite me having RBD up, because he needs me to draw souls, and it's worth it to him. There's your realistic scenario.
This is also NOT a realistic situation. If I am in that situation, I would again wait until my opponent decided whether to leave RBD turned on. I'd rather not throw away 6 cards if he's going to turn it off, and there's no downside to waiting until whatever point in his prep phase he decides what his artifact will be for the turn. In fact, I would hope that he would put down some more cards first so that he is shuffling less cards into his deck and increasing the chance of him drawing a LS when he draws 6.
-
I would say "I haven't decided yet." And then proceed with my preparation phase. If you didn't play Mayhem, I'd push a character into battle and begin the battle phase.
-
We're towards the end of the game and I've been droughting my opponent. He has his offense, which doesn't rely on battlewinners, set up, and when I don't draw any souls, he decides to play Mayhem despite me having RBD up, because he needs me to draw souls, and it's worth it to him. There's your realistic scenario.
This is also NOT a realistic situation. If I am in that situation, I would again wait until my opponent decided whether to leave RBD turned on. I'd rather not throw away 6 cards if he's going to turn it off, and there's no downside to waiting until whatever point in his prep phase he decides what his artifact will be for the turn. In fact, I would hope that he would put down some more cards first so that he is shuffling less cards into his deck and increasing the chance of him drawing a LS when he draws 6.
People make mistakes, and that doesn't make this scenario any less realistic. You yourself have accidentally made the mistake of playing Mayhem with RBD up, at a regional tournament no less, so you can't just say it's not realistic and dismiss the argument, when it quite clearly is.
-
Prof said he'd reconsider his opinion if someone provided a more realistic example than Mayhem/RBD. I don't think it's fair to say trying to do so is "beating a dead horse."
Perhaps Gabe has already thought through all the artifact interaction scenarios and discovered that there aren't any REALISTIC situations where it is necessary to revisit this decision. You are are welcome to keep suggesting them, but don't get mad at Gabe for feeling like it is a useless endeavor.
First, to your point that no one would do the stupid move, I did it twice on purpose at Nats in T2MP and nearly won because of it instead of having 0 chance to win. It was very strategic, and in no way moronic ;)
Second, Chris took one of my examples. One of the best examples, honestly, but let's continue to more:
You have SOG/NJ (which I know because I play U+T of course), and I have one soul out and am nearly decked (hence, of the top 3 cards, almost certain to be a soul). This seems to happen in a lot of games, so very realistic so far. Now, you just drew, but the odds of you redrawing SOG and NJ off of Mayhem is very low. Taking the gamble and knowing that my FBTNBProphetsWhatever can get through your non-existent defense (let's say we're playing T1), I play Mayhem to take the hit. VERY reasonable, and VERY realistic, showing that it can and will happen (considering I've done this, it makes sense).
Prof U, I never said that players shouldn't be able to activate abilities whenever they want. I support the ruling as it stands that artifacts cannot be deactivated when used.
However, it is more consistent that you cannot benefit from an ability without that card being active. No other card type has anything similar where I can gain its benefit without the normal cost per the rules (in this case, forcing my opponent to discard his draw but not having to keep the card active). It is not consistent with the rules we have now, nor is it consistent with the ruling that mandatory abilities cause artifacts to remain active.
You answered your own question already. The Artifacts controller didn't use the ability (therefore choosing to have the Artifact active), the opponent used it.
The opponent did not use it, at all. The opponent's card activated the trigger, but it was still the artifact's controller's card. If Simon the Zealot is active and Given over to Egypt is used, Simon protects deck because it is the opponent's ability. It is still the opponent that is the originator, regardless of the owner of the card that triggered the ability.
This is also NOT a realistic situation. If I am in that situation, I would again wait until my opponent decided whether to leave RBD turned on.
You wait until he puts cards down and decreases his deck size, then in my SOG/NJ example you'd lose on the odds. It is realistic.
-
Perhaps Gabe has already thought through all the artifact interaction scenarios and discovered that there aren't any REALISTIC situations where it is necessary to revisit this decision. You are are welcome to keep suggesting them, but don't get mad at Gabe for feeling like it is a useless endeavor.
That is not a good basis for making rules, first of all mistakes can be made, and if they are rules may be needed for weird situations. Secondly some games get to points where a move that normally seems bad is actually the best move (Redoubter already mentioned one, but you shouldn't feel limited to examples that have happened, just because you can't imagine one doesn't mean it won't happen) and I'd much rather have rules in play before the situations come up than have to make rules on the spot.
But I am also in agreement with my own ruling, which would allow Rain Becomes Dust to be deactivated after your opponent uses Mayhem (assuming it was already active) And as Prof U has said, rarely will it matter regardless of which rule we take.
-
I would say "I haven't decided yet." And then proceed with my preparation phase. If you didn't play Mayhem, I'd push a character into battle and begin the battle phase.
This is illegal slap-jack, and should NOT be allowed in a tournament. You have to give a person a chance to respond to turning on an artifact (ie. playing DoN, or in this case discarding a fortress) before entering battle phase.
People make mistakes, and that doesn't make this scenario any less realistic.
I know people (including me) make mistakes. But I am also not inclined to change the rules and add restrictions on everyone because of people making mistakes. It is better to leave the freedom for everyone and simply let people deal with the consequences of their mistake. If I play Mayhem while you have RBD up from the previous turn and before you announce what you're doing for your artifact this turn, then too bad for me. I lose my cards, and you still have the freedom to choose what to activate. I'll learn my lesson and the next time I'll wait until you declare what artifact you're using.
I still see no realistic good reason to limit people's freedom during prep-phase to either force them to do artifacts first or to force them to leave an artifact active because of their opponent's action.
-
I still see no realistic good reason to limit people's freedom during prep-phase to either force them to do artifacts first or to force them to leave an artifact active because of their opponent's action.
So basically we are in agreement. My point was that I wanted to make sure there was a ruling, I was less concerned on what the ruling was. However the ruling that I like appears to be the same one you say, which is basically using optional abilities makes the choice to keep the artifact active and not mandatory ones.
-
I would say "I haven't decided yet." And then proceed with my preparation phase. If you didn't play Mayhem, I'd push a character into battle and begin the battle phase.
This is illegal slap-jack, and should NOT be allowed in a tournament. You have to give a person a chance to respond to turning on an artifact (ie. playing DoN, or in this case discarding a fortress) before entering battle phase.
I did not deactivate or activate an artifact, so there's no response to respond to, and I allowed for plenty of time to play dominants if you want to (similar to somebody giving time if your opponent wants to play SoG/NJ before you drop Mayhem, so they can't say "I was going to play SoG/NJ anyway" when they clearly weren't).
Consider this. I do my prep phase all casual like, and you, not wanting to reveal you have a dominant in your hand, decide to wait to see if I deactivate my artifact. I begin pushing a hero into battle, and you, holding me in my prep phase, ask if I am leaving my artifact up.
Here's the problem. I shrug my shoulders at you*. If I take my hand off my hero, it's the battle phase, and the artifact is in effect. If you play a dominant, I can then take my guy back to the territory and activate another artifact, and then resume pushing the game into the battle phase.
*As I should. As it's still preparation phase, I can still decide to do artifacts at a later point, as my example dictates. There's no time between the prep and battle phases.
Main point here is that I don't have to answer your question if I don't want to.
-
There's no time between the prep and battle phases.
That is true. However there is time after activating an artifact for an opponent to respond to that action. And it does make a difference in this case. For instance, if you have Holy of Holies up, I can play DoN during your prep phase to discard it, but it cannot be negated. By doing it during your prep phase though, then it will not carry over to battle phase. If you slap-jack your way into battle phase without giving me a chance to play DoN, then as a judge I would allow your opponent to play DoN before you enter battle. You could then re-decide which hero you wanted to attack with, but you would not be able to activate a different artifact because you had already picked one and caused your opponent to use up their dominant.
-
There's no time between the prep and battle phases.
That is true. However there is time after activating an artifact for an opponent to respond to that action. And it does make a difference in this case. For instance, if you have Holy of Holies up, I can play DoN during your prep phase to discard it, but it cannot be negated. By doing it during your prep phase though, then it will not carry over to battle phase. If you slap-jack your way into battle phase without giving me a chance to play DoN, then as a judge I would allow your opponent to play DoN before you enter battle. You could then re-decide which hero you wanted to attack with, but you would not be able to activate a different artifact because you had already picked one and caused your opponent to use up their dominant.
I really don't want to repeat my exact example again, but I guess I'll have to explain it a bit clearer.
I'm NOT activating an artifact--there's an artifact that was already active from the previous turn. I am NOT slap-jacking my way. I am giving you plenty of opportunity, and you can play DoN if you want--I've basically said I'm going to start a battle--but I will get to activate another artifact, because I did NOT activate or deactivate an artifact this turn, and as long as it's the prep phase, I can decide to deactivate or activate an artifact at a later time. An artifact is not picked unless it's been activated that turn or it's the battle phase. During prep phase it can always be switched if it was activated from a previous turn.
Let's suppose it goes this way:
"I'm about to move on to my battle phase."
"Is that the artifact you're leaving active?"
"I'm about to move on to my battle phase. If you play a dominant in the prep phase, I may change how I finish my prep phase."
"Well, I'm not playing a dominant until you decide if that's the artifact you're leaving up."
"Well, I'm not deciding if that's the artifact I'm leaving up until you decide you're playing a dominant."
"Well, I'm not playing a dominant..."
You get the point. It creates a stalemate...neither have to make a decision. The only decision that has to be made is when the battle phase begins, and pushing a hero out (even after this idiotic conversation) will begin that battle phase and is certainly not slapjack, considering I even told you that you can play a dominant if you so choose.
-
Westy, you're wrong. If they ask "are you done with your artifact activation phase" and you can either be done with it, currently in it, or not done with it. There is no superposition. Even if you didn't change artifacts, you activated the one you left up. EG: Leave Captured Ark up and it gets a counter, even if it didn't shuffle anything.
If you're done with it, they can play whatever before your battle.
If you're not done with it, you cannot complete your prep phase and therefore can't start a battle phsae.
If you're currently doing it, then you need to activate an artifact (even if it's the one you have up.) Then, after you're done, they can play whatever.
-
Westy, you're wrong. If they ask "are you done with your artifact activation phase" and you can either be done with it, currently in it, or not done with it. There is no superposition. Even if you didn't change artifacts, you activated the one you left up. EG: Leave Captured Ark up and it gets a counter, even if it didn't shuffle anything.
I agree that Captured Ark should have to get a counter, but I hold that counter is only added when you are done with your preparation phase--when you've decided by game rule not to deactivate it. So long as preparation phase is still going, you haven't technically made that decision (unless you choose to for whatever reason). So yeah, it's a superposition
But if there was a verbal declaration (not simply just pushing a hero into battle) of being done with the preparation phase before the beginning of the battle phase, that would be just as much a superposition. Even if you can go back and do the things you can do multiple times during prep phase, you're adding something that simply isn't in the diagram of a turn at this point.
Also, is this what you're saying: By asking your opponent if they are done activating artifacts, they are are forced to make a decision.
That's totally fine if I do understand you correctly, but IMO, non-actions (not deactivating or activating an artifact) shouldn't have to be declared. Actions (playing a dominant, activating an artifact) should (or rather are by physical placement of cards)
EDIT: Just read your edit. That makes more sense, but I don't like that your battle phase doesn't start until you're done with you're prep phase. I view the transition as immediate.
-
This is getting into elder territory... My posts are just sayin' it how I think it is (and if it's not - how it should be) - not what I've been told by elders.
I agree that Captured Ark should have to get a counter, but I hold that counter is only added when you are done with your preparation phase--when you've decided by game rule not to deactivate it. So long as preparation phase is still going, you haven't technically made that decision (unless you choose to for whatever reason). So yeah, it's a superposition
No, it's only added when you're done with your artifact phase. Your artifact phase is just part of your prep phase. This is just how I think it should work, so I suppose an indirect consequence of this would be that you can never from from art phase to battle phase. You'd go from art phase to general prep phase (eg: you could put down characters) and then to battle phase, even if you don't use the general prep phase.
But if there was a verbal declaration (not simply just pushing a hero into battle) of being done with the preparation phase before the beginning of the battle phase, that would be just as much a superposition. Even if you can go back and do the things you can do multiple times during prep phase, you're adding something that simply isn't in the diagram of a turn at this point.
What? If you say "Imma rescue in a sec", you're just declaring your intention of finishing prep phase and entering battle phase. You don't enter battle phase until you attack with the hero.
Also, is this what you're saying: By asking your opponent if they are done activating artifacts, they are are forced to make a decision.
No, they've already made a decision (1 - They've already completed art phase, 2 - They're still in art phase, 3 - They still need to complete art phase.) Asking you of it forces you to inform me of that decision.
-
This is getting into elder territory... My posts are just sayin' it how I think it is (and if it's not - how it should be) - not what I've been told by elders.
But if there was a verbal declaration (not simply just pushing a hero into battle) of being done with the preparation phase before the beginning of the battle phase, that would be just as much a superposition. Even if you can go back and do the things you can do multiple times during prep phase, you're adding something that simply isn't in the diagram of a turn at this point.
What? If you say "Imma rescue in a sec", you're just declaring your intention of finishing prep phase and entering battle phase. You don't enter battle phase until you attack with the hero.
First off, yeah, I'm on the same lines and am basically done saying my side of things because I'm kinda repeating myself. A lot.
Intention of finishing prep phase and finishing prep phase is different. If my opponent plays a dominant after the declaration, I'm still in prep phase and should be able to do whatever I haven't done yet...nothing has actually changed with a declaration.
-
Again, just clarifying that I'm not an elder and these are just my opinions.... so the skimmers don't assume I've heard it ruled this way...
I think you're missing my point. Artifact activation phase is one segment of prep phase. You cannot complete prep phase until you complete artifact activation phase (you may deactivate an artifact, activate one, keep one active, or choose to have none active.)
If you complete artifact phase and declare you intend to finish your prep phase and your opponent plays a dominant, you can't go back to artifact activation phase. You've already completed that and you only get one a turn.
If you don't complete artifact phase, you can't enter battle anyway.
-
Again, just clarifying that I'm not an elder and these are just my opinions.... so the skimmers don't assume I've heard it ruled this way...
I think you're missing my point. Artifact activation phase is one segment of prep phase. You cannot complete prep phase until you complete artifact activation phase (you may deactivate an artifact, activate one, keep one active, or choose to have none active.)
If you complete artifact phase and declare you intend to finish your prep phase and your opponent plays a dominant, you can't go back to artifact activation phase. You've already completed that and you only get one a turn.
If you don't complete artifact phase, you can't enter battle anyway.
This is also the way that I see it.
-
That's essentially allowing your opponent to manipulate how you make your turn by forcing you to pick artifacts whenever they ask. Having a psuedo-section of a phase that can be taken whenever is sloppy and has no precedent.
-
That's essentially allowing your opponent to manipulate how you make your turn by forcing you to pick artifacts whenever they ask. Having a psuedo-section of a phase that can be taken whenever is sloppy and has no precedent.
How can that be used for manipulation? If you haven't decided what you want to activate, you just say you haven't started your artifact activation sub-phase.
-
That's essentially allowing your opponent to manipulate how you make your turn by forcing you to pick artifacts whenever they ask. Having a psuedo-section of a phase that can be taken whenever is sloppy and has no precedent.
How can that be used for manipulation? If you haven't decided what you want to activate, you just say you haven't started your artifact activation sub-phase.
Which goes into the debate about having to vocalize every time I'm about to leave a phase. If I have to say, "I'm taking my artifact phase now," then it should either be a phase before or after the prep phase, or it should have a specific place within the prep phase (again, either at the beginning or the end).
-
A - I suggested earlier that I'd be fine just saying it when people ask. Dunno what others think.
B - You always have to vocalize every time you're about to leave discard phase.
My importantly, that doesn't answer my question.
-
I agree again with Sauce. If you ask me what art I've picked, and I don't know yet, then I'll just tell you I haven't decided yet. You're not forcing me at all. You're just asking for me to let you know when I am done picking.
I suppose you could say that you are forcing me to pick an artifact (or choose to not have one active) during my prep phase at some point. However, the rules already say that, so you're really not doing anything.
And no you don't ALWAYS have to vocalize when you're done with your prep phase. Most of the time you'll turn on an artifact that does something, so it will be obvious that you finished picking an artifact. And most of the time your opponent is not waiting to play DoN, etc. so they don't care anyway. This really won't come up too often, but when it does having better communication is a good thing.
-
We will never get the community to start saying "I'm leaving this artifact up" and pausing for 2 seconds before starting the battle phase. The only time this will ever, ever come up is when someone has an issue with it, and in the meantime, it's a pointless step. I don't believe it's fair to anyone to have this rule that will only be enforced when a specific player wants it to be enforced.
-
We will never get the community to start saying "I'm leaving this artifact up" and pausing for 2 seconds before starting the battle phase. The only time this will ever, ever come up is when someone has an issue with it, and in the meantime, it's a pointless step. I don't believe it's fair to anyone to have this rule that will only be enforced when a specific player wants it to be enforced.
Actually this is like how both MtG and Yugioh do their phase changes. You always have a chance to activate cards before a phase change happens in MtG and Yugioh (it usually goes with priority) and while Redemption doesn't have a rule like that, the rule in redemption is that you can't rush through phases without giving your opponent an opportunity to play stuff. So this artifact thing is already a rule, it just that since it rarely comes up it is still there.
-
the rule in redemption is that you can't rush through phases without giving your opponent an opportunity to play stuff. So this artifact thing is already a rule, it just that since it rarely comes up it is still there.
I still say it isn't rushing through a phase. I could spend 5 minutes in the prep phase, and you have those 5 minutes to play dominants if they want, I just don't decide whether I want to activate another artifact or not. I shouldn't have to say "I'm leavin' it active", I should just be able to continue at my own pace because it's my turn.
But whatever. If that's the way you're ruling it, fine, but it seems lame to have to declare whether you're activating or not.
-
the rule in redemption is that you can't rush through phases without giving your opponent an opportunity to play stuff. So this artifact thing is already a rule, it just that since it rarely comes up it is still there.
I still say it isn't rushing through a phase. I could spend 5 minutes in the prep phase, and you have those 5 minutes to play dominants if they want, I just don't decide whether I want to activate another artifact or not. I shouldn't have to say "I'm leavin' it active", I should just be able to continue at my own pace because it's my turn.
But whatever. If that's the way you're ruling it, fine, but it seems lame to have to declare whether you're activating or not.
I personally think you should have to declare when you are moving to your battle phase so I can play a card at the end of your prep phase but before the battle phase starts, which would eliminate the need for that rule, I'd also like to have some kind of priority to eliminate slap jack altogether. But I doubt that will happen.
-
We will never get the community to start saying "I'm leaving this artifact up" and pausing for 2 seconds before starting the battle phase.
Actually we have gotten the community to start saying "my initiative?" before playing an enhancement in battle over the last couple years. It only takes less than a second, and it prevents slap-jack complaints. I'm not saying that everyone has to say that they're leaving an artifact up every turn. I'm just saying that you have to let your opponent respond to your artifact choice before going into battle. Therefore if your opponent asks to be made aware of when you have finished choosing your artifact, then you should honor their request.
-
I announce phases AND initiative, and I generally allow my opponent to reverse any mistaken plays.
Gosh, I miss playing. :-\
-
Therefore if your opponent asks to be made aware of when you have finished choosing your artifact, then you should honor their request.
There's an important distinction I want to make here. I'm not arguing that I shouldn't respond if my opponent asks me about my artifact "phase," I'm arguing that it shouldn't have to be vocalized every time I'm in the middle of my prep phase. Having a system like that isn't conductive to formal, competitive gameplay, because of the types of scenarios that we've talked about already.
-
We will never get the community to start saying "I'm leaving this artifact up" and pausing for 2 seconds before starting the battle phase. The only time this will ever, ever come up is when someone has an issue with it, and in the meantime, it's a pointless step. I don't believe it's fair to anyone to have this rule that will only be enforced when a specific player wants it to be enforced.
Actually this is like how both MtG and Yugioh do their phase changes. You always have a chance to activate cards before a phase change happens in MtG and Yugioh (it usually goes with priority) and while Redemption doesn't have a rule like that, the rule in redemption is that you can't rush through phases without giving your opponent an opportunity to play stuff. So this artifact thing is already a rule, it just that since it rarely comes up it is still there.
I believe you should have a chance to respond to any action your opponent declares. If thats not a rule in this game, it should be, especially moving from one phase to another.
Here we go per REG:
Redemption® Rulebook > Diagram of a Turn
Overview
The following phases are performed each turn, even if nothing is actively done on a particular phase. A response is allowed between every separate phase.
I also like the freedom to perform the steps of my prep phase in any order, however I am afraid that one day this may not be the case as with the order of abilities.
-
Dominants are powerful enough. You shouldn't be able to sit on them until you've rules-lawyered your opponent into a bad position. If it's legitimate for the player with DoN to say, "no, go back to your prep phase, I want to play DoN" after having had plenty of time to do so, it should be legitimate for the other player to say "since you've brought me back into my prep phase, I'm now activating an Artifact."
-
If it's legitimate for the player with DoN to say, "no, go back to your prep phase, I want to play DoN" after having had plenty of time to do so, it should be legitimate for the other player to say "since you've brought me back into my prep phase, I'm now activating an Artifact."
I disagree. A player should have the opportunity to DoN the artifact that a player activates for a turn. It is unfair to play DoN on an artifact that you think is active, and have your opponent then turn on a 2nd artifact.
However, if one player says "go back to your prep phase, I didn't have a chance to play DoN", then it is legitimate for the other player to say, "since you destroyed my artifact, then when we go back to battle phase I am attacking with a different hero."
One player responds to the active artifact, and the other player responds to it disappearing. That is fair.
-
I disagree. A player should have the opportunity to DoN the artifact that a player activates for a turn. It is unfair to play DoN on an artifact that you think is active, and have your opponent then turn on a 2nd artifact.
However, if one player says "go back to your prep phase, I didn't have a chance to play DoN", then it is legitimate for the other player to say, "since you destroyed my artifact, then when we go back to battle phase I am attacking with a different hero."
One player responds to the active artifact, and the other player responds to it disappearing. That is fair.
There should be some disagree of risk in deciding whether to play DoN or not. I agree that rushing through a phase to try and gain an advantage is unfair, but if you're sitting there for five seconds before you start a battle, your opponent should be forced to make a choice. Allowing a player to say "No, go back, I wanted to do something" when they had every opportunity to is not fair.
-
Saying a player had a choice to do something because you sat there for '5 seconds' is ambiguous at best. Saying a player simply has the chance to respond to a change of phase is a whole lot easier to nail down and actually do in practice.
-
I propose that "must have a chance to respond" should only apply in cases of rushing. If you've had ample opportunity to play a Dominant throughout an entire prep phase, you don't get to decide once your opponent's done to suddenly go back.
alternately (and the better option)
There need to be actual rules, rather than just guidelines, for the playing of cards. Especially with regard to priority. Rather than just having a bunch of bottom-up rules about when you can override Mayhem and with what cards, if we make a priority rule we'll have across-the-board consistency, and while we're at it we can make specific time limits for initiative.
-
Dominants are powerful enough. You shouldn't be able to sit on them until you've rules-lawyered your opponent into a bad position. If it's legitimate for the player with DoN to say, "no, go back to your prep phase, I want to play DoN" after having had plenty of time to do so, it should be legitimate for the other player to say "since you've brought me back into my prep phase, I'm now activating an Artifact."
This is actually how it is played in other card games.
However, if one player says "go back to your prep phase, I didn't have a chance to play DoN", then it is legitimate for the other player to say, "since you destroyed my artifact, then when we go back to battle phase I am attacking with a different hero."
Maybe you should ask if its ok to enter Battle Phase before you attack? If yes then this shows declaration that opponent passes priority doesnt want to play anything else.
-
We already have a rule that both players have to agree to move to battle resolution (unless a card does it), so why not have a similar situation in the prep phase. After you are done all your actions during the prep phase you have to give your opponent a chance to play cards (dominants and activate abilities on cards already active), then you can move your hero into battle.
Alternatively after you finish, your opponent gets a chance, then you get another chance, until everyone finishes and the hero moves into battle. This would give you a chance to respond to your opponents response and so on. However since only a handful of cards can actually be used on your opponents prep phase (and most of them are dominants) I don't think it will usually go back and forth more than twice, and even that will probably be a rarity, this would interestingly enough also stop your opponent from Mayheming you after you draw but before you can put anything down (assuming I am right in remembering dominants can't be played in Draw and Upkeep phases).
-
Sure, there are only a handful of cards, but there are 7 of them in every single deck.
-
Sure, there are only a handful of cards, but there are 7 of them in every single deck.
Son of God and New Jerusalem can be played then, but will almost never have an impact. In most cases Christian Martyr, Burial and Angel of the Lord will be played in battle. Grapes of Wrath can only be played during battle. There are only rare cases of when Guardian will be played on your opponents turn (assuming it is even in the deck), Falling Away can be used during your opponents prep phase, but it will usually only be because they drew it (something like Gifts being triggered or a territory class enhancement) or they just deactivated Lampstand and in either case it will usually not cause a major change in what your opponent is doing. Nobody plays Doubt or Glory of the Lord (and if they do again there is likely no difference in prep phase actions), and while Harvest Time might have slightly more play, is usually played on your own turn.
So that basically leaves rare cases that have an impact on your opponent and Mayhem and Destruction of Nehushtan. So while everyone has 7 cards (or possibly more in T2) that can be used at that time in their decks, in the majority of cases only 2 matter most of the time.
There may be a few special cases (and I admit weird situations come up) but my point is this will usually not make too much back and forth during the "end of the prep phase".
-
There may be a few special cases (and I admit weird situations come up) but my point is this will usually not make too much back and forth during the "end of the prep phase".
Which is exactly why establishing any kind of back and forth at the end of the prep phase is, to me, pointless.
-
There may be a few special cases (and I admit weird situations come up) but my point is this will usually not make too much back and forth during the "end of the prep phase".
Which is exactly why establishing any kind of back and forth at the end of the prep phase is, to me, pointless.
Actually I was referring to special cases where there is a bunch of back and forth. That was the game has rules to determines who can play their cards when without having to resort to slap jack or the "tie breaker" rules we have now. This would actually decrease confusion and give players a good way to know who "wins" when one person wants to play Son of God for the win and the other wants to play Mayhem for example. This would also allow judges to better figure out who should get a win when both players draw Son of God off their Mayhem draws and have 4 souls each (or 6 in T2), rather than having to deal with Slap Jack or giving the Mayhem player the advantage (I think)
-
Personally, there are two changes I'd like to see:
1. Abilities triggered in Upkeep phase occur in Upkeep phase.
2. The Battle phase starts with artifact activation.
-
Personally, there are two changes I'd like to see:
1. Abilities triggered in Upkeep phase occur in Upkeep phase.
2. The Battle phase starts with artifact activation.
I agree with both of these wholeheartedly. I believe the first will help reign in speed a little bit, and the latter just makes more sense to me.
-
Personally, there are two changes I'd like to see:
1. Abilities triggered in Upkeep phase occur in Upkeep phase.
2. The Battle phase starts with artifact activation.
That actually makes a lot of sense to me. I would likely support both changes.p
Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
-
Agreed. Two simple changes that clear up a lot of hurley-burley.
-
Personally, there are two changes I'd like to see:
1. Abilities triggered in Upkeep phase occur in Upkeep phase.
2. The Battle phase starts with artifact activation.
This could work, it would power up the CBN artifacts, since you wouldn't be able to DoN them before the battle starts (well you could but your opponent could activate a different one), but it would be a little funny when you activate Burial Shroud in your battle phase only for you to not attack, but again that's not really a problem, just means that you have a battle phase without a battle.
Of course just having a separate artifact activation phase either before or after the prep phase would accomplish the entire second part without changing the battle phase while still keeping the CBN artifacts the way they are (being able to get rid of them before battle starts, unless you had dealing with artifacts the only thing that can happen)
-
Wait, I read that as the prep phase starts with artifact activation, which I would prefer, partially for the reasons that Christian Soldier mentioned, partially because doing it at the beginning of the prep phase will continue to reign in speed.
-
I propose that "must have a chance to respond" should only apply in cases of rushing.
But this is entirely what I'm talking about. Each player should have a chance to respond to their opponent activating (or choosing to leave active) an artifact. Once a player decides which artifact to turn on (or leave on), then their opponent must be given a chance to respond to that decision before rushing on to Battle Phase.
-
I propose that "must have a chance to respond" should only apply in cases of rushing.
But this is entirely what I'm talking about. Each player should have a chance to respond to their opponent activating (or choosing to leave active) an artifact. Once a player decides which artifact to turn on (or leave on), then their opponent must be given a chance to respond to that decision before rushing on to Battle Phase.
What you're proposing is that, if a person waited 30 seconds between their last action and entering the battle phase, but didn't say "I'm leaving up my current artifact," as soon as he put forth a character, his opponent could then cry foul and insist he wanted to play a dominant. At some point, there has to be a degree of risk, and I see no reason not to nerf dominants a bit.
-
This is why there should be some declaration of intent. You just waiting 30 sec. and then taking an action is sneaky.
-
This is why there should be some declaration of intent. You just waiting 30 sec. and then taking an action is sneaky.
Isn't this a strategic game? Isn't the whole point of the game taking risks and hoping for the best? Why shouldn't my opponent have to make a calculated decision over whether they should play DoN on my CwD or not? As long as I'm not rushing through the phase so they don't get a chance to, I see no reason why they shouldn't have to take a risk.
-
A response is allowed between every separate phase.
-
A response is allowed between every separate phase.
I play announcing every action. I say "Battle Phase" my opponent can respond with playing a dominant before the battle phase continues.
Not sure if this would work in "this" game but the game I used to play had what was called "The Stack" ...it made a lot of things simpler and there was no room for questioning when something went off. Believe it or not it made games a lot faster too.
Lets say your opponent plays a Mayhem and you have Son of God in your hand waiting to draw NJ. You could respond by playing the Son of God. The stack works this way:
Mayhem was played
You respond with Son of God
Your opponent surprises you with a Falling Away targeting a lost soul in your land of bondage.
Falling Away activates first then Son Of God than Mayhem. The last card played activates first. (Top to bottom)
Like I said I don't know if this would work...
-
This is why there should be some declaration of intent. You just waiting 30 sec. and then taking an action is sneaky.
Declaration of intent is really dumb, IMO. My opponent shouldn't know what I'm about to do until I do it. He had plenty of time to DoN the artifact, but chose to wait to see if I'd activate a different one. I didn't. He shouldn't get a chance to go back.
But that's just my thoughts on things. I think it'd be much simpler to have an artifact phase by itself, either before the beginning of the preparation phase or just before the battle phase.
A response is allowed between every separate phase.
No, it's not. There is no time between phases, they are fluid. You can only play cards in a specific phase.
[The Stack...]
Abilities must complete before another ability can activate.
-
Declaration of intent is really dumb, IMO. My opponent shouldn't know what I'm about to do until I do it. He had plenty of time to DoN the artifact, but chose to wait to see if I'd activate a different one. I didn't. He shouldn't get a chance to go back.
But that's just my thoughts on things. I think it'd be much simpler to have an artifact phase by itself, either before the beginning of the preparation phase or just before the battle phase.
A response is allowed between every separate phase.
No, it's not. There is no time between phases, they are fluid. You can only play cards in a specific phase.
I copied this from the online REG under the rulebook but its not in the 10th edition rulebook or the PDF REG so im not sure what to think. I value your opinion and knowlege of the game Westy so I'm a little confused as to what to think.
-
Odd. They don't list that in the diagram of a turn.
-
Even if it's confirmed that that's how it is, I think it should be changed.
-
Redemption® Rulebook > Diagram of a Turn
Overview
The following phases are performed each turn, even if nothing is actively done on a particular phase. A response is allowed between every separate phase.
Draw Phase – You draw three (3) cards and add them to your hand. Lost Souls are placed in territory. For each Lost Soul you place in your territory, draw another card.
Upkeep Phase – You must change counters if needed.
Preparation Phase – You may perform any number of these actions in any order. Actions may be repeated unless a limit is stipulated:
ect ect
-
Time between phases causes even more problems.
Example. You go through your preparation phase, and then give your opponent a chance to respond. He chooses to Mayhem you. Yet now you can't go back to your preparation phase--you already finished it. That just seems, well, lame and unstrategic.
Regardless, I also still hold that it's more strategic to not let your opponent know what you're doing. There's a difference between drawing three and throwing a hero onto the table and drawing three, putting characters down, doing other prep stuff, and then entering battle. Your opponent has had plenty of time to decide if he wanted to DoN your artifact, and he didn't. That was his choice.
The game would flow a lot more and waste less time if the phases were fluid, IMO.
-
Redemption: The game where you declare the battle phase, and then you declare it a second time.
-
My opponent shouldn't know what I'm about to do until I do it.
I'm not asking for that. One player doesn't know whether their opponent is going to turn on a new artifact or leave the old one up for another turn. They don't need to know ahead of time. However AFTER their opponent chooses to activate a new artifact or leave the old one up, THEN they should have the opportunity to do something about it.
What you're proposing is that, if a person waited 30 seconds between their last action and entering the battle phase, but didn't say "I'm leaving up my current artifact," as soon as he put forth a character, his opponent could then cry foul and insist he wanted to play a dominant.
Again, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that if a player wants to play DoN on the artifact that their opponent is choosing for the current turn, that they should have the ability to do that. If a player specifically tells their opponent to let them know when they have chosen their artifact, that already gives an advantage to their opponent because now they know that there is a DoN in their opponent's hand. That's the risk you take by asking to be informed. However if you ask to be informed, then your opponent MUST give you the chance to respond to their choice of artifact.
-
Why exactly is making your opponent make a strategic choice, rather than hand them an opportunity with zero risk, a bad thing?
-
I think it would be better practice to declare you are entering the battle phase:
Prep Phase: Do stuff.
Me: "Battle phase?"
U: "Sure."
Battle Phase: Hero enters battle.
or it could be...
Prep Phase: Do stuff.
Me: "Battle phase?"
U: "In response to your battle phase, I Destruction your Gifts."
Me: more prep phase stuff. "Battle phase?"
U: "In response to your battle phase, I play Mayhem."
Me: more prep phase stuff. "Battle phase?"
U: Sure.
Battle Phase: Hero enters battle.
Why exactly is making your opponent make a strategic choice, rather than hand them an opportunity with zero risk, a bad thing?
It's better than just slapjacking a hero into battle without giving the opponent a chance to respond to your actions.
-
It's more strategic and less complicated if you don't have to ask 3 times. Rushing isn't an issue...you have to let your opponent play cards too. If you rescue before your opponent gets a chance to play a dominant, than you slow down and go back (similar to drawing Guardian before playing Mayhem). But that shouldn't mean there's no chance to go back to the preparation phase. There shouldn't be phases between the phases, and as it stands, there are currently 10 phases. That's just dumb.
Or we could simply ban all dominants.
-
How is that possibly less convoluted than what we're suggesting?
-
I think it would be better practice to declare you are entering the battle phase:
Prep Phase: Do stuff.
Me: "Battle phase?"
U: "Sure."
Battle Phase: Hero enters battle.
or it could be...
Prep Phase: Do stuff.
Me: "Battle phase?"
U: "In response to your battle phase, I Destruction your Gifts."
Me: more prep phase stuff. "Battle phase?"
U: "In response to your battle phase, I play Mayhem."
Me: more prep phase stuff. "Battle phase?"
U: Sure.
Battle Phase: Hero enters battle.
Why exactly is making your opponent make a strategic choice, rather than hand them an opportunity with zero risk, a bad thing?
It's better than just slapjacking a hero into battle without giving the opponent a chance to respond to your actions.
Exactly.
-
Again, it's NOT slapjack. They could have played a dominant at any time during a 30 minute long preparation phase. If I choose not to do my artifact phase, then they suffer the consequences.
-
There shouldn't be phases between the phases, and as it stands, there are currently 10 phases. That's just dumb.
It's actually not phases between phases. It's the same phase. Again- your opponent should have a chance to respond to your actions, and thats not even the case unless you have some ability that lets you. Except for this rare instance that no one even seems to know about...
How is that possibly less convoluted than what we're suggesting?
It's better than just slapjacking a hero into battle without giving the opponent a chance to respond to your actions.
Again, it's NOT slapjack. They could have played a dominant at any time during a 30 minute long preparation phase. If I choose not to do my artifact phase, then they suffer the consequences.
Again, A response is allowed between every separate phase.
-
We should just legislate phases out of the game. They are confusion waiting to happen.
-
Again, it's NOT slapjack. They could have played a dominant at any time during a 30 minute long preparation phase. If I choose not to do my artifact phase, then they suffer the consequences.
Pretty certain you have to 'do' your artifact activation, even if you leave the same one up. Trying to not acknowledge it is just deceptive gameplay and bad sportsmanship.
-
Pretty certain you have to 'do' your artifact activation, even if you leave the same one up.
Exactly. And you have to allow your opponent to respond to that choice.
-
The argument I'm making is that discourages strategic play, and isn't conductive of seamless turns and gameplay. Regardless of what the status quo is, I still think it should be changed, preferably if we simply stuck the artifact phase at the beginning of the turn, which would help stunt speed decks a bit.
-
I think beginning the battle phase should be a part of the preparation phase so the phases are fluid. I don't understand how else I move from the preparation phase to the battle phase otherwise.
-
The argument I'm making is that discourages strategic play, and isn't conductive of seamless turns and gameplay.
Aren't we actually here because of the whole slapjack/rushing phases/priority response mess in the first place? Failing to see how this is seamless gameplay. I'm not a fan of things that yield unclear situations and are open to different interpretations, which is where Dominants are firmly grounded. Clear intent of what you're actually doing on your turn, albeit ever so slightly more time consuming, creates streamlined gameflow with little room for ambiguous gameplay. Although I was a big fan of the whole rule change about being free to do anything in however order you wish during your prep phase, I must agree an actual absolute Artifact activation phase was the better way to go.
-
The argument I'm making is that discourages strategic play, and isn't conductive of seamless turns and gameplay.
Aren't we actually here because of the whole slapjack/rushing phases/priority response mess in the first place? Failing to see how this is seamless gameplay. I'm not a fan of things that yield unclear situations and are open to different interpretations, which is where Dominants are firmly grounded. Clear intent of what you're actually doing on your turn, albeit ever so slightly more time consuming, creates streamlined gameflow with little room for ambiguous gameplay. Although I was a big fan of the whole rule change about being free to do anything in however order you wish during your prep phase, I must agree an actual absolute Artifact activation phase was the better way to go.
Here's the way I describe it with declaration.
During the preparation phase: "Can I go onto battle phase?"
Still preparation phase: "Is that the artifact you're going to leave up?"
More preparation phase: "If you allow me to go to battle phase, yes."
Yeah, preparation phase: "Then I will DoN it."
Because we're still in prep phase: "Okay, because I haven't done my artifact activation yet, I'll activate XYZ. Now can we go to battle phase?"
"Sure."
It's conditional on the action they take, not on the passiveness you have. If there is time between phases (which I think is stupid), then this is obviously not the case. If there isn't (so the phases are fluid), then I don't see how this is complicated.
The alternative:
During the preparation phase: "Can I go onto battle phase?"
Still preparation phase: "Is that the artifact you're going to leave up?"
More preparation phase: "If you allow me to go to battle phase, yes."
Yeah, preparation phase: "Well, is it or isn't it?."
prep phase: "That depends if anything else happens."
You get the phase..."I won't let anything else happen until you decide."
Obstinant prep phase "Well, if you're going to do something, I'll obviously switch, but until then, I'm going to assume I can proceed."
Same phase "no. Decide now, are you or aren't you?"
Phasing talk "Why are you forcing me into a decision"
I'm really done with this: "Because I can."
-
Seems good to me.