Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Dominants do not and never have needed initiative.

Pol is correct.

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?

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!

Quote from: Daniel TS RED on December 27, 2010, 12:50:24 PM

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 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

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.

Quote from: mjwolfe on December 27, 2010, 06:38:31 PM

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

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 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'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.

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?

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.