Cactus Game Design Message Boards

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?

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...

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.

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.

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?

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.

Fair enough. Still, I'd like a definition of "playing a card," especially due to cards like Stronghold in the Desert.