Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I agree, hence my comment. I perhaps should have explicitly stated that.

You do not have to, at least not according to the current rules. But it is definitely a good idea, especially if it is a play that you think your opponent may be wanting to make, just so you avoid slapjack situations, which shouldn't really be a part of the game, but are sometimes necessary effects of having a game with dominants.

As an aside, I am curious as to why you can not play the set-aside card directly onto a hero in Kerith Ravine. Wasn't that the point of the "Set-aside enhancements work" sentence in the SA?

I always ask for initiative to play because thats how i was taght to play. From what Ive heard from Tim, thats not the case. In a game we played, he blocked with an EC, waited and then played. I had never seen anyone do that before and I was waiting for him to ask for initiative just so i could say no and play AotL. He said he didnt have to ask and I was like "WELL. new to me."

It makes since when gabe says you dont have to have initiative to play a set aside b/c its in prep phase- but is this a slapjack situation?

continue...

Imo if I don't have to wait for you to slap down your set aside, I shouldn't have to wait for DON on my HG after I convert Saul to Paul and last I knew that was illegal. I remember that signifigant time needs to be given (or just ask) for a dom to be played before the next acting or be willing to undo your move based on a "late" dom (assuming it isn't unresonable)

It just seems like slapjacking to me if you throw down stuff just to keep from getting CM'd or mayhemed or what not. Maybe thats what Darius Decree is for. *shrug*

It just seems like slapjacking to me if you throw down stuff just to keep from getting CM'd or mayhemed or what not. Maybe thats what Darius Decree is for. *shrug*

I think the concept of "slapjacking" being a thing during a phase other than battle is unhealthy. The problem I have is with judges being able to undo perfectly legitimate plays if someone claims "ZOMG SLAPJACK" in a situation that makes it really difficult to determine intent. For example, if someone flips up Four Drachma Coin and the other player has Mayhem, then the first player puts Peter in play and Discards it. The second player could then call a judge over and potentially undo the play after scouting the opponent's strategy by claiming he was going to use Mayhem to stop Peter from entering play. I picked this as an example because you can't say "well just put Peter in play first then" because you then have a problem with player A putting Peter in play, player B waiting to see if the coin is coming, and then having a Judge undo it so he can CM Peter.

In battle, it's still possible to abuse, but much easier to determine (obviously, you're going to want to AotL that Sadducee when you have SoG in your hand). Furthermore, verbal initiative checks are feasible in battle, since few cards get played (comparatively), so that would eliminate the entire issue. There's still a problem with AotL V. Grapes, but that's been solved to give priority to Grapes in the case of a tie (as it should be).

Being able to play faster and making Dominants a bit weaker is good for the game. Therefore, I propose we do away with the entire notion of "giving the opponent time to play Dominants." It's not even in the rules anyway. Instead, we should make brief verbal checks for initiative in battle mandatory (99% of people use them anyway), make the "both players agree" rule apply to the ending of all phases, not just battle (preventing huckster HT or HG moves), and have the prep and Discard phases run like the rules say they should--that is, you can play whatever you're allowed to play whenever you want to play it, and if your opponent manages to slip a Dom in, good for him.

Hey,

So until a ruling is actually made with authority you can be either person.

Your opponent has a right to respond to any action you perform with a dominant or a manually triggered ability as long as they intend to do so immediately upon observing the action taken (with the exception that you can respond to your own action with a dominant or manually triggered ability first).

That is the rule and has been the rule for several years.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

I think what is really being discussed is sportsmanship vs gamesmanship.

Sportsmanship would be allowing a brief pause between actions and plays to allow the opponent the chance to react. I believe CM, AotL, and Grapes are the only times you have to really allow a brief moment for you opponent to play. Sportsmanship would dictate that in the battle you ask for the initiative. Mayhem can be played as an opponent starts to draw. I will even announce that I am playing Mayhem at the end of the draw step to be clear. (The very reason I do this is once I was waiting to see if they drew lost souls, which they did not, and ended up placing a hero down). As for DoN in regards to HG and Gifts...DoN negates them...I fail to see why initiative matters then.

Gamesmanship is what Pol is describing. He is playing within the rules of the game and using them to his advantage. Gamesmanship in Redemption is taking actions before your opponent has the chance to respond. It is playing that enhancement as you block because you have initiative. It is playing a character and a set aside at the same time. The best way to avoid being taking advantage by this person is perform actions as quickly as possible and let them know you need to see and hear each action he does individually and tell him to wait if you need to make a decision so he does not keep on playing.

There is nothing wrong with either styles as far as rules and gameplay is concerned. It is a matter of personality. Sportsmanship is more polite, friendly, and casual. Gamesmanship is ruthless and competitive.

So until a ruling is actually made with authority you can be either person. I play with sportsmanship, because this is a Christian card game I feel that it is the appropriate style for the setting. However, if I know someone is doing the opposite I will not be afraid to take advantage of the rules they are abusing in return though I would rather not play that person if it can be avoided.

This is a gross misrepresentation of my position on so many levels. Rather than picking it apart line by line, I'm just going to say that this is not indicative of my stance, and refer people to read what I actually posted.

But you do take advantage of skipping steps and not allowing your opponent the chance to play a card.

I think if you did a check at the end of each phase you would be fine.

Diagram of a Turn

Draw Step
Current player Draws. Players now have the opportunity to play dominants before the Upkeep Step. Current player would say "I am ending my draw step" Opponent may either take immediate action or ask for a brief pause prior to entering the next step.

Upkeep Step.
Perform all upkeeps. Players now have the opportunity to play dominants before entering the Preparation step. Current player would say " I am ending the draw step" Opponent may either take immediate action or ask for a brief pause prior to entering the next step.

Preparation Step
All current triggers resolve. Opponent has opportunity to play dominants. Current player pauses after each action is completed in this step to allow the possible play of dominants. It is up to his opponent to say "wait" if he requires a moment to make a decision. Current player declares I am ending my Prep Step. Opponent may either take immediate action or ask for a brief pause prior to entering the next step.

It is simply a matter of structure. In the current rules where you do not have to ask you opponent if they are going to perform an action allows for players to take advantage of "quickplaying" and "backtracking"

Pol- I was not trying to sum up your entire stance. But "Being able to play faster and making Dominants a bit weaker is good for the game. Therefore, I propose we do away with the entire notion of "giving the opponent time to play Dominants." " Is not fair to all players. Because if you quickly pick up 3 cards and place a hero in battle almost simultaneously it diminishes the potential of the mayhem I wanted to play.

People like to be able to think. Redemption should not be a game of reaction. We have sports or video games for reactions. This is about strategy. The fact that you would like to not give you opponents to consider a play is not wrong, its just not sportsmanlike.

@Browarod- Sportsmanship and Gamesmanship are not all about attitude. They are about how the game is played.

Sportsmanship-sportsmanlike conduct, as fairness, courtesy, being a cheerful loser, etc.
Gamesmanship- the use of methods, esp. in a sports contest, that are dubious or seemingly improper but not strictly illegal. (playing a character and a set aside before your opponent can react.
 
I think you need to look at the definition of the two terms again.

I am just saying, to use your example of 5 cards being played in order, that after I play each card that they have the time to respond. I am completely for once a card has been played you cannot go back. But the opportunity need be present for me to CM your hero before you set him aside. Once you put that set aside down it must resolve and my opportunity has expired. I do not think it is right to be able to lay down 5 cards one after another without some pause between each.

If I put down a teal hero and wait a couple seconds or ask my opponent for a response and they decline then I play Pentecost there is no reason to go back. They knowingly passed there chance to interact. Why is that so negative?

Whether you like it or not playing cards without giving your opponent a chance to respond is not wrong or illegal. It is just not sportsmanlike which there is no rule for.

If you read my second post you would see that we agree that players can say "wait." Active players need to not rush through their turns so their opponents can at least call for that pause. If you do this you will never have to undo your plays.

Pol and Diest posts both have merit. I think we just need to get used to making sure our opponent doesnt want to respond to any action we perform (with a dominant or a manually triggered ability). I also believe we need to make sure we have initiative to play before just throwing cards on the table(i also perfer verbal checks, Sir Nobody). I know thats kinda hard to do when we dont even know how to play a card ( Im looking at you Judas Plot). If someone is playing a zubulan deck, then heck yea i want any oppritunity i can get to get rid of that dude just as much as my opponent doesnt and we will both make sure that the other doesnt get that chance, especially if we can get the rules to back us up. *sarcasm time* how bout we just say everytime someone throws down a zebby they win? *end sarcasm* Believe me i know what it looks like when my opponent cant do anything to get in my way of a win. Ive seen the heartache and frustration. I also know what it feels like to be put in that position and i completly deserve it. (Kirk) luv u buddy.