Author Topic: Mutual destruction and not playing cards  (Read 2545 times)

Offline jtay

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
Mutual destruction and not playing cards
« on: May 12, 2009, 12:36:22 PM »
0
This is something I've been thinking about off and on for quite a while now.  I posted a question a while ago about playing cards during battle resolution to change a battle challenge to a rescue attempt at the very last possible instant so it would be impossible for my opponent to regain initiative before the battle was resolved.  Since it was pointed out that the playing of cards passes initiative, I've been wracking my brain for a while trying to come up with a way to achieve this without playing cards, and I think I've come up with a way.

First, a quote from the 10th anniversary rulebook:

Mutual Destruction by Numbers: Both characters in battle are being defeated because of numbers only.  You have initiative and can play any good enhancement of matching brigade.  If you choose not to play an enhancement, you must pass initiative to your opponent.  Your opponent may play an enhancement.  If your opponent chooses not to play an enhancement, he must pass initiative back to you.  If your opponent passes initiative back to you, then you must play an enhancement or the Battle Phase resolves.

Now for the scenario:

My opponent has a soul (or souls) in his land of bondage in a site (or sites).
I have a multicolored site in my territory.
I make a battle challenge any my opponent either blocks voluntarily or he is forced to block.
*NOTE: I do not use the multicolored site at this time.
A mutual destruction by the numbers is reached by whatever means necessary.
I pass initiative to my opponent.
He passes initiative to me.

It is my understanding that sites can be added to battle at any time, so at this point I add my multicolored site to the battle to change it to a rescue attempt.

*The online REG doesn't have a definition for what it means to "play a card," so I assume that it's definition is "to play a card from your hand"; therefore, moving a site from your territory to battle is not considered "playing a card."

Now I pass my initiative, we both die, and the hero rescues the soul.

What do you think?
Epic pouting maneuver!

Offline TimMierz

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4047
  • I can't stop crying. Buckets of tears.
    • -
    • Northeast Region
    • Tim's Photos
Re: Mutual destruction and not playing cards
« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2009, 12:54:22 PM »
0
The closest thing I can find to go against this is the following, from Ongoing Abilities > Miscellaneous > Special Conditions:
"For each battle that is ever a rescue attempt, you are allowed only one chance to block.  If you decide not to block a battle challenge, and the battle later changes to a rescue attempt, you are allowed to present a blocker.  Howe[v]er, once you decide not to block a rescue attempt, you are disqualified from blocking that battle, regardless of any change in circumstances."

This is so that I don't attack with someone, have you decline to block my battle challenge, and then play Harvest Time to get a soul out and immediately get it. What you're doing is in the same spirit, but I don't see it expressly forbidden.

I don't see the addition of Sites to a battle ever referred to as "playing" the site, just placing it in battle. It can be at any time, and I don't believe it has any bearing on initiative.

So in short, it seems like what you're attempting to do is perfectly legal, if sneaky and loopholish.
Get Simply Adorable Slugfest at https://www.thegamecrafter.com/games/simply-adorable-slugfest

Offline TechnoEthicist

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+46)
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
  • My little knight
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Mutual destruction and not playing cards
« Reply #2 on: May 12, 2009, 01:22:55 PM »
0
from the REG definition above, so long as I am allowed to block if defending when you make it a rescue attempt then, its fair game. But its not a free lost soul due to you having access all of the sudden and me being unable to block...

Offline crustpope

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+27)
  • *****
  • Posts: 3844
  • Time for those Reds to SHINE!
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: Mutual destruction and not playing cards
« Reply #3 on: May 12, 2009, 01:48:24 PM »
0
Woudn't the battle be over as soon as initiative is passed by both people, therefore the battle would be over and the battle would be resolved according to what was in battle at the passing of initiative. (i.e. they would both be discarded and no LS would be won)

I think that what you are trying to do is deceptive and unsportmanlike. legal or not, you pull something like this on me and I will call it for what it is a cheap shot and a deceptive play.

If this is how you want to win, that is your business, but I want to earn my victories.
This space for rent

Offline STAMP

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+19)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5014
  • Redemption brings Freedom
    • -
    • Northwest Region
Re: Mutual destruction and not playing cards
« Reply #4 on: May 12, 2009, 01:50:20 PM »
0
Let's look at it from a common sense view.  I can see you have an access site.  I am not going to block a battle challenge just to lose an EC unless I can do some heavy collateral damage or block another way, such as a dominant.

I noticed that the rulebook says the same about stalemate.

Against me (and I can guess other players may agree) you can probably expect I will decline your battle challenge.  If I accept, you're doomed.  If you decide to slide your site into battle after I decline your battle challenge, then the rules allow me to block.

Bottom line, a good player or one that is paying attention will not fall for this "give-me-a-site" trickery.
Final ANB errata: Return player to game.

Offline TimMierz

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4047
  • I can't stop crying. Buckets of tears.
    • -
    • Northeast Region
    • Tim's Photos
Re: Mutual destruction and not playing cards
« Reply #5 on: May 12, 2009, 01:56:27 PM »
0
Woudn't the battle be over as soon as initiative is passed by both people, therefore the battle would be over and the battle would be resolved according to what was in battle at the passing of initiative. (i.e. they would both be discarded and no LS would be won)

I suppose one thing making this situation tougher is that once both players pass once, the battle ends. So the following is not OK:
Attack with Sarah (8/5)
Block with Doeg (6/6)
Attacker passes
Blocker passes
Attacker throws site into battle making it an RA

The battle ended before the site came in.

The following is technically OK:
Attack with Barnabas (4/4)
Block with Doeg (6/6)
Attacker's initiative, plays Courage (2/2), for a total of 6/6.
Blocker passes
Attacker throws access site into battle, passes, wins RA

It's tougher to pull off, but it seems legal.

Get Simply Adorable Slugfest at https://www.thegamecrafter.com/games/simply-adorable-slugfest

Offline jtay

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
Re: Mutual destruction and not playing cards
« Reply #6 on: May 12, 2009, 02:23:16 PM »
0
Woudn't the battle be over as soon as initiative is passed by both people, therefore the battle would be over and the battle would be resolved according to what was in battle at the passing of initiative. (i.e. they would both be discarded and no LS would be won)

I think that what you are trying to do is deceptive and unsportmanlike. legal or not, you pull something like this on me and I will call it for what it is a cheap shot and a deceptive play.

If this is how you want to win, that is your business, but I want to earn my victories.

I would like to make it clear that I have no intentions of ever actually using this technique (even if it is determined to be legal).  I just enjoy scrutinizing this very well designed game to see if I can find any loopholes or unusual combos, since they are few and far between.

Besides, using this technique would be a huge nuisance for both me and my opponent for several reasons:

1.  My opponent would have to be VERY familiar with the rules of the game in order to understand what I was attempting.  If they didn't, I would wind up wasting a lot of my time trying to explain what was going on and maybe have to withstand personal attacks.
2.  If I did this in a tournament, the judge(s) would have to be VERY familiar with the rules.  If they weren't, then it would waste my time and probably wind up with a "no you can't do that" ruling.
3.  I don't like playing "cheap" tactics.

There are, however, those who might get a jolly out of ticking off their opponents with cheap tactics and have more patience than I do to explain what's going on, so I'll leave this one to them to use at their own discretion, again, assuming it is found to be legal.  (woot!  5 commas in one sentence!)


- @ Tim
The quote I provided from the rulebook suggests that three passes must take place before the battle ends, not two.  Granted, the technique can still work, as is represented in your post, but I just thought I'd mentiont that.
Epic pouting maneuver!

The Schaef

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Mutual destruction and not playing cards
« Reply #7 on: May 12, 2009, 02:25:59 PM »
0
Actually, once both players pass, the first player does still have the ability to play a card.  This is something that escaped me for the longest time, but the sequence is pass, pass, you play or the battle ends.

Additionally, I would rule that if a player has initiative and he places a Site into battle, he has just passed initiative.  Initiative goes to the player who did not play the last card, and that would be the opponent.  This also applies to the play of Dominants, etc.

Offline TimMierz

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4047
  • I can't stop crying. Buckets of tears.
    • -
    • Northeast Region
    • Tim's Photos
Re: Mutual destruction and not playing cards
« Reply #8 on: May 12, 2009, 02:28:07 PM »
0
You are correct about the number of passes, and I am wrong. I've only been playing for 13 years, and I don't know how one of the most basic mechanics works...

I'll have to remember it's like the old Nickelodeon show Double Dare. You can Dare, they can Double Dare, and then you can either answer or take the Physical Challenge.

Stephen, do you have anything to back your claim of Sites affecting initiative?
Get Simply Adorable Slugfest at https://www.thegamecrafter.com/games/simply-adorable-slugfest

The Schaef

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Mutual destruction and not playing cards
« Reply #9 on: May 12, 2009, 02:32:42 PM »
0
Quote
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.

You played the last card.

Offline TimMierz

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4047
  • I can't stop crying. Buckets of tears.
    • -
    • Northeast Region
    • Tim's Photos
Re: Mutual destruction and not playing cards
« Reply #10 on: May 12, 2009, 02:34:37 PM »
0
I wish "playing a card," as Mr. Tay said, were defined in the REG. I didn't think that moving the site from territory to battle would count as playing it, especially since several parts of the REG call that action "placing" rather than playing.
Get Simply Adorable Slugfest at https://www.thegamecrafter.com/games/simply-adorable-slugfest

The Schaef

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Mutual destruction and not playing cards
« Reply #11 on: May 12, 2009, 02:38:42 PM »
0
You place a Hero in battle.
I place an Evil Character in battle.
Mutual Destruction.
Who played the last card?

Offline TimMierz

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4047
  • I can't stop crying. Buckets of tears.
    • -
    • Northeast Region
    • Tim's Photos
Re: Mutual destruction and not playing cards
« Reply #12 on: May 12, 2009, 02:41:47 PM »
0
Fair enough. Still, I'd like a definition of "playing a card," especially due to cards like Stronghold in the Desert.
Get Simply Adorable Slugfest at https://www.thegamecrafter.com/games/simply-adorable-slugfest

The Schaef

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Mutual destruction and not playing cards
« Reply #13 on: May 12, 2009, 02:49:28 PM »
0
In a general sense, playing a card means putting it into the Field of Play, especially if it means the special ability gets activated (e.g. Dominants, Artifacts, Lost Souls, Sites).

When talking about the battle, playing a card "in battle" (which maybe that needs to be standardized language) can also mean you put the card into the Field of Battle.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal