Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Daniel TS RED on December 27, 2010, 01:59:54 AM
-
Do you have to have inish for doms, or is it just whichever dom is played first. For example:
ra with Tribal Elder + King Amaziah and choose King Pekahiah to block and follow up with Aotl on him.
Your opponent would like to play grapes before your aotl, does he have inish to play that, or is it first dom out wins?
-
Dominants do not and never have needed initiative.
-
That's true and not true. If he had played Grapes within less than a second of you playing AotL, a good judge would rule in his favor. The first Dominant played wins if it's quite obvious which dom was played first (provided a player was technically allowed to play a dom), but if it's close, the person who took the last action gets precedence. In this case, that would be your opponent. Through a quirk in the rules, blocking is considered to be the blocker's action, even if the EC was put in battle by the attacker's SA, giving him the right to play Grapes before you play AotL, provided he plays it within the gray area of immediately.
-
Pol is correct.
-
Dominants do not and never have needed initiative.
Exactly. Almost... I mean-
You make a RA with a hero, and then they block with an EC/ w a SA. Now, you cant AOTL the EC until the EC's SA happens. The special abilities on charactars come first before you can play a dominant on them .
EX: You make a RA with Asahel. Your opponent blocks with nebuchadnezzar. Before your can AOTL Nebb. His SA happens first. :)
-
So then by that explanation, the opponent would have been allowed to play grapes. It was bang/bang. I was first with aotl, but grapes was very very close, not even a couple of seconds went by. Ok, so is this ruling used in ROOT and all tournies across the board?
-
Yes...IRL, if there's any doubt about which card hit the table first, the tie goes to the player with the last action (blocking player who plays Grapes in this case). The other player is allowed to pick up AotL as well.
RTS is a bit trickier because if both players immediately play the doms, it will show up on their respective screens as each of them having played first.
-
So then by that explanation, the opponent would have been allowed to play grapes. It was bang/bang. I was first with aotl, but grapes was very very close, not even a couple of seconds went by. Ok, so is this ruling used in ROOT and all tournies across the board?
This is still not universal. Realize that the blocker has the "right" to play his dominant first, regardless of which dominant hit the table first. But this is an unwritten rule that may not be enforced during an actual tournament, based on the host's awareness (and practice) with such a rule.
It's more of a guideline than a rule. Arrrrrr!
-
YMT is correct that this hasn't been written yet in the REG or rulebook. But Guardian is also correct that it is the right way to rule it. I'm pretty sure that ROOT and all high level (read States or above) would rule it that way.
-
So then by that explanation, the opponent would have been allowed to play grapes. It was bang/bang. I was first with aotl, but grapes was very very close, not even a couple of seconds went by. Ok, so is this ruling used in ROOT and all tournies across the board?
This is still not universal. Realize that the blocker has the "right" to play his dominant first, regardless of which dominant hit the table first. But this is an unwritten rule that may not be enforced during an actual tournament, based on the host's awareness (and practice) with such a rule.
It's more of a guideline than a rule. Arrrrrr!
YMT and Guardian are saying two DIFFERENT things here. The "right" Guardian speaks of to play a dominant first is only a way to break a tie (where there is disagreement over which dominant hits the table first). YMT is actually describing there being initiative to play doms. YMT's statement that the blocker gets the "right" to play their dominant first even if the other person's dominant hit the table first contradicts the rulebook that says that dominants can be played at anytime (except that they cannot insert themselves within another special ability that has not yet completed).
YMT is correct that this hasn't been written yet in the REG or rulebook. But Guardian is also correct that it is the right way to rule it. I'm pretty sure that ROOT and all high level (read States or above) would rule it that way.
I haven't seen it ruled this way at either Bryon's or my tournaments, so if Prof is correct and it is being ruled this way at other tournaments, then it would be nice to make it a written rule instead of an unwritten rule that there is initiative for dominants.
Do we really want to allow the blocker to be able to wait and see that the other player is playing their dominant to be able to decide that they now want to play theirs and the other player has to pick their dominant up so that the blocker gets to play their dom first? It doesn't seem fair to let the blocker see the other player's strategy revealed then get to decide to play their dominant.
Mike
-
I'm only going by what I've heard. I thought we were trying to eliminate slap jack.
My point was that most hosts would likely rule "first come, first served." If there is a presumed tie, then (and only then) would any other possibilities be considered. If there is no unwritten initiative for dominants, then how exactly do you decide? In effect, Guardian and I are saying the same thing. FWIW, I'm not talking about asking for initiative.
-
I believe that having a definitive way to resolve a dispute when both players think their dominant hit the table first is a must. But it should only be for resolving a dispute. As a host, I would first determine if there is a clear concensus of other players or people who were watching the game as to which was first. If there is no consensus or I felt that the only other opinions could be biased, then the "is responding to their own previous action" determination makes logical sense.
I don't think there should be initiative for dominants. When one player CLEARLY played their dominant first, theirs is first. I don't want one player's dominant on the table and the other player's dominant still in their hand and the player with the dominant in their hand says "I want to play my dominant now and I have the 'right' to play mine before yours". This isn't slapjack. Redemption is an intellectual game and if someone is intellectually quicker and has better strategy, we shouldn't undo that with initiative for dominants. (this being said by someone who is usually the one thinking "Oh. You're playing that dominant? I wish I had thought to play my dominant before yours!")
Mike
-
Redemption is an intellectual game and if someone is intellectually quicker and has better strategy, we shouldn't undo that with initiative for dominants.
The fact that we ask for initiative at all contradicts this philosophy. Clearly there is already a mechanism in place to offset the "intellectually quicker" player. If no such mechanism is in place for dominant vs. dominant, then the "intelligently quicker" player should win every time. In any case, a perceived tie must be resolved, and that resolution comes from a predetermined mechanism. There is dominant initiative, and if there wasn't, then we would have problems. I have seen these problems first-hand at a State tournament, and I hope we can get past them with written rules in the future.
Understand that we are talking about situations that are close, rather than ones that are obviously not close.
-
There is dominant initiative, and if there wasn't, then we would have problems.
Understand that we are talking about situations that are close, rather than ones that are obviously not close.
Which is it? If we have initiative for dominants, then it is ALWAYS used, not only when there is a dispute.
If it is just for resolving a dispute over who went first, then it is not:
regardless of which dominant hit the table first.
Redemption is an intellectual game and if someone is intellectually quicker and has better strategy, we shouldn't undo that with initiative for dominants.
The fact that we ask for initiative at all contradicts this philosophy. Clearly there is already a mechanism in place to offset the "intellectually quicker" player. If no such mechanism is in place for dominant vs. dominant, then the "intelligently quicker" player should win every time.
I was only speaking regarding initiative for dominants. Initiative to block or play enhancements has always been part of the game. But initiative for dominants hasn't been. People are trying to determine if it should be added, so that there isn't a dispute over slapjack situations. I agree it's a good idea to have a resolution to slapjack, I just don't agree that we should favor one player's strategy for dominant use over another player's when there clearly wasn't a slapjack situation.
Mike
-
Which is it? If we have initiative for dominants, then it is ALWAYS used, not only when there is a dispute.
This I would agree with, however I do not think you are truly interested in my opinion.
If it is just for resolving a dispute over who went first, then it is not:
It isn't? If we are resolving a dispute, then whose hit first is irrelevant, is it not?
I was only speaking regarding initiative for dominants. Initiative to block or play enhancements has always been part of the game.
Really? Back in 1997?
People are trying to determine if it should be added, so that there isn't a dispute over slapjack situations. I agree it's a good idea to have a resolution to slapjack, I just don't agree that we should favor one player's strategy for dominant use over another player's when there clearly wasn't a slapjack situation.
Slapjack is relative, just like many things. If my hand is in motion, but the card is still in my hand, some would say that this is not slapjack, since my card was still in my hand.
Frankly, I support whatever makes the game more fun for everyone, rather than just the "intellectually quicker." I also do not like having experienced players take advantage of upstart players. "Dominant intiative," like "asking for initiative" allows an opportunity for every level of player to succeed. I will continue to support rule changes that allow this to happen, regardless of the negative impact it may have on the elite players, who would likely win even with the rule changes.
-
This I would agree with, however I do not think you are truly interested in my opinion.
I am interested in your opinion, which is why I asked. I could not determine for sure what your opinion was because you seemed to me to be alternating between 'we should have initiative for dominants', but then saying it is only in the disputed situations. I am simply stating MY opinion that I would rather not have initiative for dominants, but that's just my opinion. My main goal in discussing it is that their should be an official decision so that we can all get behind that decision and agree that tournaments will be judged the same way everywhere. I don't think unwritten rules make for fun and fellowship for anyone.
Really? Back in 1997?
I didn't even know about Redemption back in 1997! Ever since I learned the game (six or seven years ago) there has always been initiative for blocking and for playing enhancements. Was there really a time in the game when it wasn't definitive who got to block or play the next enhancement?
I also do not like having experienced players take advantage of upstart players. "Dominant intiative," like "asking for initiative" allows an opportunity for every level of player to succeed. I will continue to support rule changes that allow this to happen, regardless of the negative impact it may have on the elite players, who would likely win even with the rule changes.
I also don't like having experienced players take advantage of upstart players. But, how do you come to the conclusion that the blocking player is always the elite or experienced player? What about when the player who played their dominant first is the newer player? Then the experienced elite player is the one who explains to them that even though the newer player played their dominant first, the elite player actually gets to override that because they are the one responding to their own action when there was no dispute over who played the dominant first?
I don't like dominant initiative because it gives the advantage to one player or another based soley on an arbitrary criteria like which side of the battle they are on, or which seat they have at a multi-player table, etc. Additionally, it can allow one player to have to reveal their next move but then their opponent gets to evaluate the effect of that move and then make a dominant play that gets to take effect BEFORE the play that was just revealed.
Mike
-
I didn't even know about Redemption back in 1997! Ever since I learned the game (six or seven years ago) there has always been initiative for blocking and for playing enhancements. Was there really a time in the game when it wasn't definitive who got to block or play the next enhancement?
Initiative has always been determined the same way, but the inability to play dominants before SAs complete and "asking for initiative" are modern rule changes. Dominant initiative would fit more into those modern precedents. Clearly you can not play a dominant whenever you want (as you stated earlier), at least not with it having the effect you intended.
I also don't like having experienced players take advantage of upstart players. But, how do you come to the conclusion that the blocking player is always the elite or experienced player?
I never said anything about the blocker being that player. Dominant initiative is determined by who played the last card.
What about when the player who played their dominant first is the newer player?
This would rarely be the case against an elite player.
I don't like dominant initiative because it gives the advantage to one player or another based soley on an arbitrary criteria like which side of the battle they are on, or which seat they have at a multi-player table, etc. Additionally, it can allow one player to have to reveal their next move but then their opponent gets to evaluate the effect of that move and then make a dominant play that gets to take effect BEFORE the play that was just revealed.
I still don't see how you got all of this from me saying, "regardless of which card hit the table first." In a dispute, each player is going to say that theirs hit first, when clearly one of them is going to be ruled against.
-
I never said anything about the blocker being that player. Dominant initiative is determined by who played the last card.
I was referring to the example in the first post of the thread. But if you say that Dominant initiative is based on who played the last card, then who would get the initiative? Would it be the player who played the last card? If so, this would be the opposite for who gets initiative with enhancements but would be consistent with the "responding to own initiative" dispaute resolution that we have now. If it is the player who did not play the last card, then it would be consistent with initiative for enhancements, but opposite of the "responding to own initiative" dispute resolution. Also, how would the "last card played" initiative for dominants work in multi-player games where one of the players who wants to play a dominant isn't even one of the players involved in the current battle?
This would rarely be the case against an elite player.
But there are very few elite players. It happens a lot between experienced (but not elite) players and newer players. I've had many occurrences against me where a newer player plays a dominant. Once I know they played that dominant, if there was dominant initiative, half of the time I'd get to make them pick up that dominant because I'd have the dominant initiative. In that case, it would hurt the newer player. And in my experience, there are far more cases like this than there are cases where both players think they played a dominant first. I just don't think it should arbitrarily favor one player over the other when who played first is not in dispute.
If you have dominant initiative, then dominants become nothing more than multi-color good or evil enhancements.
I still don't see how you got all of this from me saying, "regardless of which card hit the table first." In a dispute, each player is going to say that theirs hit first, when clearly one of them is going to be ruled against.
I got this because "regardless of which card hit the table first" includes the cases where it is undisputed who played the dominant first. I see changing those undisputed cases to "who played the last card" or other schemes as arbitrarily favoring one player over the other with respect to dominants. I would prefer to only create a new rule for the disputed cases.
Mike
-
I would prefer to only create a new rule for the disputed cases.
This seems to contradict the rest of your post, but I will simply agree with you, since that is all I was saying in the first place. To be clear, we need to create the rule, and then put it in writing.
Enjoy the rest of your holiday. ;D
-
I've had many occurrences against me where a newer players plays a dominant. Once I know they played that dominant, half of the time I'd get to make them pick up that dominant because I'd have the dominant initiative. In my experience, there are far more cases like this than there are cases where both players think they played a dominant first.
Excellent! So in your opinion, making this a rule will further reduce slapjacking. I agree with the analysis and am glad to have you supporting making dominant initiative a rule in all cases rather than just in disputes of who played first. Hopefully more players will get on board with this initiative to remove what is the last major rule flaw in Redemption.
-
Apparently I somehow miscommunicated my position. My position on this has always been that a rule that predetermines which player gets to play a dominant first should only be used for slapjacks where the players cannot agree which one hit the table first. If there is no dispute who played the first dominant, then the first one played goes first.
Mike
-
Wait, so you are, in fact, pro-slapjack and not in favor of implementing a rule that's already in effect in some situations that would further remove slapjacking from the game?
-
This thread can be summed up in 2 word: "Wait,What?"
-
I agree with mjwolfe. First of all, making a rule for "dominant initiative" is going to be a greater help to more experienced players who would actually understand what exactly it means and the ramifications it can have on the game. Secondly, taking advantage of someone who "tips their hand" (when they quickly played a dominant in response to an action) by deciding that you want to play your dominant first is both unfair and unsportsmanlike in my opinion.
The rule for "dominant initiative" should only apply in cases where both players demonstrated clear intent to play a dominant in response to a given action such as:
Player A blocks Player B. Player A plays Grapes immediately upon placing his EC in battle and Player B plays AotL immediately upon the EC entering battle.
Player A and B both have 4 Redeemed Lost Souls and both have Son of God in hand, but there are no Lost Souls on the table. Player A draws a Lost Soul and both players play Son of God.
These are the scenarios in which the dominant initiative rule should apply. If Player A plays a "draw 3" card during the battle phase and happens to draw SoG/NJ, but has not decided if he wishes to play them at that point, and meanwhile Player B plays Mayhem, Player A should not have the opportunity to insert SoG/NJ before Mayhem.
I believe that scenarios such as those would cause more disputes between players and definitely more headache for judges.
-
Secondly, taking advantage of someone who "tips their hand" (when they quickly played a dominant in response to an action) by deciding that you want to play your dominant first is both unfair and unsportsmanlike in my opinion.
It is unsportsmanlike for an experienced player to throw down a CtB hero, pull in opponent's EC, and AotL the EC before a mediocre player even knows what happened, partly because they did not know the SA of the CtB hero in the first place. I always read the SA of my cards when I play them, out of fairness to my opponent. However, from my experience, many players do not, especially during a tournament that they really want to win. In those cases, winning becomes everything, at any cost.
Kids need time to think. Most elite players are "intellectually quicker" than younger or senile players because of age. Some players are just nervous. Without proper rules in place, Redemption will be fun only for aggressive smart people.
-
Kids need time to think. Most elite players are "intellectually quicker" than younger or senile players because of age. Some players are just nervous. Without proper rules in place, Redemption will be fun only for aggressive smart people.
I understand your heart here Tim, and I appreciate it. However...But there are very few elite players.
So most games of Redemption are played by average players against other average players. Therefore the fun remains :)
As for this thread, I'll try to summarize:
1 - If there is a dispute as to whose dominant was played first, then the player responding to their own action gets priority.
2 - If there is NOT dispute as to whose dominant was played first, then the first dominant gets priority.
3 - YMT and Pol would like dominants to always have to follow rules of initiative, but this is NOT currently the rule.
4 - mjWolfe and Guardian would NOT like dominants to always have to follow rules of initiative, and this IS currently the rule.
-
1 - If there is a dispute as to whose dominant was played first, then the player responding to their own action gets priority.
2 - If there is NOT dispute as to whose dominant was played first, then the first dominant gets priority.
3 - YMT and Pol would like dominants to always have to follow rules of initiative, but this is NOT currently the rule.
4 - mjWolfe and Guardian would NOT like dominants to always have to follow rules of initiative, and this IS currently the rule.
Good can we make sure that these get codified into the REG in some form? Whether or not we think the rules for redemption should be changed, we currently have many people not even sure what the rules even are at this moment.
-
1 - If there is a dispute as to whose dominant was played first, then the player responding to their own action gets priority.
2 - If there is NOT dispute as to whose dominant was played first, then the first dominant gets priority.
+1
-
Alas, it seems the last major bad rule in Redemption will continue.
-
So most games of Redemption are played by average players against other average players. Therefore the fun remains :)
For the record, I have not found this true in tournaments, of which I have attended or hosted in five different states. 90% of those tournaments have one person who wins every open category of every tournament. My younger players end up quitting.
Is that how "fun" works in your state?
-
For the record, I have not found this true in tournaments, of which I have attended or hosted in five different states. 90% of those tournaments have one person who wins every open category of every tournament. My younger players end up quitting.
I attended one of you tournaments in Florida, and it seemed to me that all the people there had a good time. I admit that you have Josh in your local playgroup, and that he is a great player, and probably wins most of the time. But he is also makes games fun even if you're losing, so I doubt that anyone quits on account of him.
I think that as with any game, there will always be a fair number of people who pick up the game, play it for a bit, and then drop it. But there are also those who stick with it, and who become those elite players after a while. As for my personal hosting experience, it is a bit skewed due to being at a school, and therefore all my players leave after they graduate. However, I have players who come to just a few meetings, others who play for a year, and a few who have played now for several years.
As for tournaments I've attended, there are some players who I've been seeing at tournaments for about 5 years (CrustPope, uthminister, SoulSeeker, Rod Stewart, Jonathan Pequinot, Jacob & Josiah Stroh, Allen Collins & his daughter Rebeccah, Steven Shiers, Caleb, etc.) and many of them would only be classified by most people as average players. But they enjoy the game, and we have a lot of fun playing together. Winning is definitely NOT everything, at least not in OH/KY.
-
I am thankful that your experiences have been so positive. I have nothing more to say publicly on this subject.
The rule regarding "dominant tie intiative" is now written and can now more consistently be enforced. I will leave my support for a more universal "dominant initiative" active with the hopes that it will someday be reconsidered.
-
For the record, I have not found this true in tournaments, of which I have attended or hosted in five different states. 90% of those tournaments have one person who wins every open category of every tournament. My younger players end up quitting.
Is that how "fun" works in your state?
I agree that is not much fun for the majority of people. One way to fix that problem is to not allow players to play every open category. Even if you have very small numbers, run T2 and T1 events side by side so that there will be more winners overall. There's nothing wrong with having 2 people for T2 2P or just 3 for T2 MP. Also, having a Type A option for inexperienced players can also help--Type A is probably the biggest reason that we have kept so many of our younger players here in Minnesota despite having several big names who consistently win T1 2P.
-
"I admit that you have Josh in your local playgroup, and that he is a great player, and probably wins most of the time."
Well when my friends went to play josh at Tim's tournament he was using table of showbread incorrectly and it was ruled incorrectly, which most likely lead to his ability to win easily. He was using table of showbread to play enhancements over and over again when they should of been discarded. I would love to play josh sometime as I am a national leader in type 1 two player by points and I know the rules.
-
Out of curiosity, who are you? I'm looking over the RNRS lists, and since you're from Florida I'm guessing you're Jonathan Majus, am I correct? Unfortunately RNRS points means nothing until the big hitter tournaments of the summer - Sure its cool to have some district wins and be up there in points, but as far as calling yourself a national leader, that may be overstepping it a little, not to mention lifetime points a far more important stat in my book.
-
I looked at this years list and I'm wondering why I'm not listed.... I've gotten one second place finish and the rest have been first, I do believe.
I demand my 5 points >:c >:c >:c >:c >:c. Unless one was a district, which I'm too lazy to check.
-
I'm sure he's a very good player - I never said that he wasn't - I said that calling himself a national leader was overstepping it. I'd love to play him sometime - I'm sure that he'd probably show me some tricks.
EDIT: Looks like CS deleted his post - Ah wells, I'll leave this one here just so that no one can misconstrue my previous post as calling Johnny a bad player.
-
Hehe, easy now... I understand you don't know Jonny, ....
More importantly, I don't know Jonny, and yet he is making accusations about rulings at my tournaments. I do not remember anyone asking me to rule about Table of Showbread. If there was ever a question about how Josh was playing a card, then that should have been brought to my attention by a means other than a public forum months after the alleged infraction. It is even more disappointing that the accusations are being made by someone who was not at the tournament.
Please PM me the situation you are referring to so that I will know what to look for next time, assuming that Jonny's interpretation of the official rule is even correct in the first place.