Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: RTSmaniac on April 20, 2011, 10:17:33 AM
-
Hero attacks, EC blocks.
I SoG shuffler for a block and we agree my EC dies.
Opponent plays Harvest Time.
Do they get the LS?
-
I would say that your opponent would have to lay Harvest Time beffore the Evil Character gets Discarded, because when the Evil Character gets discarded the battle would be over, right?
-
Hero attacks, EC blocks.
I SoG shuffler for a block and we agree my EC dies.
Opponent plays Harvest Time.
Do they get the LS?
If it is decided that the EC is discarded by the numbers, then nothing else can happen until after the battle ends. So your opponent cannot use HT to rescue the LS.
-
This is a great question. I honestly don't know. If you can't Harvest Time, why? If an opponent can play Burial, why can't a player play Harvest Time?
-
You can play HT, but you cant rescue the soul.
-
Two players agreeing that the EC dies means that the battle has been conceded and Battle Resolution has already begun. An EC that dies by the numbers is only discarded in Battle Resolution.
Using Burial to avoid giving up a Lost Soul means that the battle has not been conceded and Battle Resolution has not begun.
I think this is a matter of being consistent with how we handle the end of battle. If a blocker intends to use Burial after realizing he can not win the battle, then Burial would have to be played before the EC is discarded.
-
This is how it has been ruled in the past. This was an in game question from last night. Usually instead of trying to teach someone mid game, (most of the time they think Im just trying to win) I will post on it to show them the answer.
-
If a blocker intends to use Burial after realizing he can not win the battle, then Burial would have to be played before the EC is discarded.
This is exactly correct in the case where an EC is discarded by the numbers (which was RTSManiac's example). If the EC is discarded by a special ability (say the hero plays AoC), then the blocking player can still play Burial after the EC is discarded.
EC discarded because of numbers is the definitive signal that the battle is over.
EC discarded because of SA does *not* signal that the battle is over.
I know YMT and the Maniac know this, but it is worth re-iterating for any players who haven't run into this question before.
-
Interestingly, the rulebook specifies that the ECs are discarded by the numbers first, then dominants can be played to prevent the rescue. If you only read the rulebook, the question of why one dominant can be played while another can't would be valid, except for the word "prevent," which most players would probably blow off as old wording (even though Harvest Time was released before the 10th Anniversary printing of the rulebook).
-
On a related note, I am of the opinion that this ruling should have a bit of flexibility (grace?) in MP games--particularly in instances where a player is not aware that discarding the EC means that no dominants can be played.
For my part, I always try to emphasize to less experienced players that they should always make it clear that "I can do nothing else to stop the rescue" before discarding their EC and/or surrendering the LS.
-
On a related note, I am of the opinion that this ruling should have a bit of flexibility (grace?) in MP games--particularly in instances where a player is not aware that discarding the EC means that no dominants can be played.
On a related note, I am of the opinion that this ruling should be done away with completely. It is very confusing to new players and is one of the very few rules in the game that places strict legalism above fun and fellowship. Seriously, if a player has Burial in his hand what benefit is served by not allowing him to play it after he discards his EC by the numbers? Quite simply--none. Not one little bit.
-
There is massive benefit to allowing a character to die by the numbers, then playing Burial or CM.
-
I'm not sure I agree with "massive" but there is definitely an advantage. Whether that advantage is something of greater significance than doing away with the legalism is certainly worth discussing IMO.
-
There is massive benefit to allowing a character to die by the numbers, then playing Burial or CM.
Would you be willing to elaborate on what the benefit is over simply playing the card before you die? To make it easy for me, let's pick a simple case... I have a single Lost Soul available and my EC is being killed outright (i.e., not a mutual destruction situation). What advantage would accrue to me discarding my EC and then playing Burial as opposed to playing Burial before discarding my EC?
I am not arguing--I just don't see any massive benefit.
-
If you are being killed by a good enhancement and can't do anything about it, then what lets you play a dom before you get discarded? That's just like letting the dom be able to interupt the battle?
-
If you are being killed by a good enhancement and can't do anything about it, then what lets you play a dom before you get discarded? That's just like letting the dom be able to interupt the battle?
If you are getting killed by a good enhancement you *can't* play a dominant before you get discarded. In that case, however, you are allowed to play a dominant after you are discarded. The above discussion applies only to playing dominants when your EC is being discarded by the numbers.
-
Mutual destruction, play Great Image. Opponent decides to take the hit instead of Negating because he gets the Soul anyway. EC dies, too late to Negate now, Burial is played. This situation goes for pretty much any mutual destruction situation, especially WS+TD. This is the biggest and most advantageous situation. Also, opponent CTB's his EC, you have CM. Let his EC die by numbers, then CM.
-
Mutual destruction, play Great Image. Opponent decides to take the hit instead of Negating because he gets the Soul anyway. EC dies, too late to Negate now, Burial is played. This situation goes for pretty much any mutual destruction situation, especially WS+TD. This is the biggest and most advantageous situation. Also, opponent CTB's his EC, you have CM. Let his EC die by numbers, then CM.
So the benefit is for the most part limited to mutual destruction (where I had the option to play a card and chose not to) and CtB (where I have already made the decision that my EC is nothing more than cannon fodder)? OK, I'm not sure that I would call that a massive benefit--given that the vast majority of by-the-numbers deaths have nothing to do with mutual destruction or CtB or any of the other specialty cases where any of this matters--but it is an advantage. (I would also point out that making you have to think about whether or not to play a negate because I may or may not hold a dominant would add yet another bit of strategy, which I think would make the game better over-all. The CtB doesn't really add in this way, because burning the CtB ability is far worse than losing or not losing an EC.)
So here is my beef...Every single player early on learns that you can dom-block after being discarded by SA, and (I am guessing at numbers here) 100% of those players draw the conclusion that you can dom-block after being discarded. (Seriously, the first time you play a CM after a new kid plays AotL, does anyone spend any time explaining to the new kid how CM wouldn't work if the EC was discarded by the numbers?) This will color how they play--they would waste their enhancement in the mutual destruction situations for example--which gives yet another built in advantage to the player who has run into this before. And, of course, it always seems to come to a head at a tournament when the players loses a block and wastes a defensive dominant.
Anyway, I understand what the ruling is. I understand why it is ruled the way it is. I just disagree that it is a particularly useful rule, especially since it has an extremely technical basis and no one knows the rule until they get burned by it
-
Also, opponent CTB's his EC, you have CM. Let his EC die by numbers, then CM.
You do know that you cannot play the dominant, to stop the ra, after you have decided to be killed btn right?
-
@ Hobbit, Of course I know that, but have you been following what this thread is about?
@MJB, it's not extremely technical. There would be no basis for the EC being discarded if the battle weren't over. What you're suggesting is a return to bottom-up rules rather than the mechanisms and top-down rules that have been slowly improving Redemption for the past few years. If you haven't entered battle resolution, what caused the EC to die?
-
@MJB, it's not extremely technical. There would be no basis for the EC being discarded if the battle weren't over. What you're suggesting is a return to bottom-up rules rather than the mechanisms and top-down rules that have been slowly improving Redemption for the past few years. If you haven't entered battle resolution, what caused the EC to die?
The EC was discarded because he died BTN. So? I guess I don't understand why you feel it is inherently top down to rule that the last EC exiting battle in a BTN situation and only a BTN situation necessarily force the start of Battle Resolution. Couldn't it be just as top-down to claim that battle resolution triggers whenever the last EC is removed from battle (like it does for the death BTN case) or that it ends whenever both players agree that the battle has ended (which is how it works in every case other than death BTN)?
Like I said I understand why it works the way it does. My plaint is that there is no way by simply playing the game you would ever figure this out on your own (especially since it works exactly opposite in all of the common situations you will experience) so it biases each game in favor of the elite who happen to know the rule.
-
@ Hobbit, Of course I know that, but have you been following what this thread is about?
I was trying but these statements confused me.
There is massive benefit to allowing a character to die by the numbers, then playing Burial or CM.
This is the biggest and most advantageous situation. Also, opponent CTB's his EC, you have CM. Let his EC die by numbers, then CM.
I didn't see how this is massively advantageous if my opponent gets the lost soul.
-
I think you and Pol are on the same page. Those situations currently don't create an unfair advantage because of the rules. Pol is stating that if we changed the rule, so we started allowing Dominants to be played after a character is discarded by the numbers, then the situations he's describing would occur.
-
I think you and Pol are on the same page.
Agreed. Hobbit, Pol is saying that if you did change the ruling so you could play dominants after discarding an EC by the numbers that such a change would provide a massive benefit to the defense (and he is providing examples of why this would be so). For this reason and apparently "top-downedness" he doesn't think the ruling should be changed.
I am claiming that I don't see the advantage from such a change as being all that large and--more importantly--it would accrue to all players equally. My reason for preferring the rule be changed is that I feel having btn discard act differently than the other battle outcomes in the game (which is what we have now) you are choosing to preferentially advantage the more experienced players who least need the benefit.
-
ok my feelings by giving advantaged players benefits you actually encourage people to work harder to learn the advanced parts of the game to gain the benefits its a motivation to become better just my feelings
-
I agree with Emjaybee83, it seems unnecessarily inconsistent. I really think we are reading into the intentions of the player to much. As Matt has said before their is no distinguishable advantage that a new player can see from playing something like burial before or after the evil character has been place in the discard pile therefore he arbitrarily chooses one. Usually this choose is to place the evil character in the discard pile first either because he was overwelmed by the defeat or because he was simply impulsive.
I remember playiing it the other way before this rule came out. I actually preferred it the other way becasue it was in a way a check for choose the blocker (which was an NPE concept at the time). The chance at a lost soul while still sacrificing and evil character is a fair trade.
With that being said, I think it best to keep the rules the same. Instead it would be nice, since this is a confusing ruling for the little ones, for everyone to be obligated to extend grace in these situations. For example if the person just throws his evil character away let him but it back in battle and say if you want to play a dominant you have to play it before he dies. I would hate to see someone at a high level tournament, in type 2 multi, rescue for the win or for some monumental soul count in which he chooses the kid to block with an ec not his own and the kid discard the ec before any one has a chance to play a dominant. On a side note is there anything a judge can do to not let a good type 2 multi deck in the tournament? Forexample the bad figs deck. It seems to me that there should be somecheck since anyone can qualify for nationals. Perhaps the best way is to have them take a multi palyer startegy course that would consist of a documentary or something. Is it possible to make that a requirment for newr player planning on playing any multiplayer catagory?
-
I wish