Author Topic: Responding to Your Own Action and Mayhem (Read 2132 times)

Chronic Apathy · « **on:** March 20, 2012, 12:22:06 AM »

I think it's been well-established that when you draw during your draw phase, you're allowed to play dominants before your opponent can play Mayhem. However, there's dispute over how much time you have to play dominants, how many, what kinds and under what circumstances, etc.

For instance, both players have Guardian of Your Souls out and I draw Falling Away. Can I play it right away, knowing my opponent will play Mayhem any second? What if I think my opponent is going to Mayhem so I start dumping doms right after I draw. Is that allowed? Furthermore, what if my opponent jumps the gun and plays Mayhem right away (or announces Mayhem upon draw)? Am I allowed to play doms then? I think we need clarification in this area.

Redoubter · « **Reply #1 on:** March 20, 2012, 12:32:11 AM »

I know many people have different opinions on this. I've always been one to, if I draw something I want to play (or if I search, as in the case of Birth Foretold), I immediately announce what my intentions to respond to my own actions are. I don't think there's ever been a situation where someone has said I couldn't when I've pursued this option.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #2 on:** March 20, 2012, 12:39:55 AM »

The responding to your own action thing is pretty well established, but there are two things to keep in mind.

#1 - it only applies if dominants hit the ground at basically the same time
or
#2 - if your opponent played TOO fast without giving you a chance to play because of physical issues (ie. you hadn't even had a chance to put down your shuffled deck down and play your NJ that you just got from Stone Pillar at Bethel, before your opponent plays Mayhem).

So for instance if you had Falling Away in your hand for a long time, and your opponent had GoYS in play for a long time, then they card has been useless for a long time. If you draw your cards and then play the FA because your opponent is about to play Mayhem, then I wouldn't be very inclined to sympathize with you claiming that your opponent didn't give you a chance to play the FA after you drew, because you could've played it long before then. However, if you just drew the FA, then it would make sense that you would get rid of it right away, and therefore I would sympathize with you.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #3 on:** March 20, 2012, 12:40:56 AM »

The rules aren't about sympathy, with all due respect.

lp670sv · « **Reply #4 on:** March 20, 2012, 12:45:45 AM »

The main problem I have with the responding to own action on drawing is that it's too easy for people to just manipulate it. Say my opponent and I are both drawing off of my mayhem, he draws his 6 faster than me and throws down mayhem, unsatisfied with his hand. At about the same time I finish drawing and start looking at my hand and notice SOG/NJ. I had no intention of playing it at that time, but I don't want to lose it without getting my souls so I play it using responding to own action as the precedence. There's nothing my opponent can do. Technically I just cheated, but there's no way to prove it.

Redoubter · « **Reply #5 on:** March 20, 2012, 12:49:39 AM »

Quote from: lp670sv on March 20, 2012, 12:45:45 AM

The main problem I have with the responding to own action on drawing is that it's too easy for people to just manipulate it. Say my opponent and I are both drawing off of my mayhem, he draws his 6 faster than me and throws down mayhem, unsatisfied with his hand. At about the same time I finish drawing and start looking at my hand and notice SOG/NJ. I had no intention of playing it at that time, but I don't want to lose it without getting my souls so I play it using responding to own action as the precedence. There's nothing my opponent can do. Technically I just cheated, but there's no way to prove it.

My problem with this is that if he throws down Mayhem before you can look at your hand or shuffle and put down your deck (#2 that Prof pointed out), then they cannot just throw it down before you can respond to your own Mayhem. That's how I'm reading the posts in all similar threads, Prof's post, and just the courtesy you'd want afforded back to you in the other situation.

lp670sv · « **Reply #6 on:** March 20, 2012, 12:56:14 AM »

The problem resides in how long the "respond to own action" period lasts. To me if I see my opponent look at his hand and not immediately motion to grab a card, it's over. To other's they get a couple seconds. And what if that card they were motioning for wasn't a dom? Now they got to play a card that I didn't want them playing, but I gave them the grace period thinking it was a Dom. and if i play it before all that then they can suddenly decide to play doms they had no intention of playing until they found out they had to shuffle them away.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #7 on:** March 20, 2012, 01:01:45 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on March 20, 2012, 12:49:39 AM

That's how I'm reading the posts in all similar threads, Prof's post, and just the courtesy you'd want afforded back to you in the other situation.

This is correct, and is also the right thing to consider, and that is courtesy. Redemption is not Slapjack, and it shouldn't be. It is a strategy card game, and giving your opponent the chance to have a moment to think about things is the right things to do.

Yes, that does present the possibility that your opponent MIGHT abuse the system to play more of their dominants than they normally would. However, in that case they are also playing them sub-optimally (because if it were optimal, then they normally would anyway). Trust your opponents to be fair, and treat them with consideration.

lp670sv · « **Reply #8 on:** March 20, 2012, 01:09:13 AM »

Since when is cutting off your opponents moves NOT part of strategy? Optimal play doesn't matter that much if they get two more souls. 2 souls is 2 souls. If they pop my uzzah in territory that still takes away my auto block. If they bury a ls thats still one less I have to rescue. Just because it's not optimal doesn't mean it can't potentially cost me the game on them suddenly changing their mind when I play Mayhem.

Master KChief · « **Reply #9 on:** March 20, 2012, 01:19:42 AM »

I really wish Redemption would ditch this archaic 'slapjack resolver' and just move to more streamlined mechanics like, oh, i dunno...priority/chains/stacks?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #10 on:** March 20, 2012, 01:23:46 AM »

Quote from: Master KChief on March 20, 2012, 01:19:42 AM

priority/chains/stacks?

How is a priority stack going resolve 2 cards of the same type (dominant) hitting the table at the same time?

Master KChief · « **Reply #11 on:** March 20, 2012, 02:45:42 AM »

Turn player always retains priority to respond to their own action first before passing it to their opponent. Which is primarily what Redemption wants to be when it comes to these slapjack-only scenarios, but a whole lot messier. 'Intention' should never be a factor when trying to play/resolve effects.

Jmbeers · « **Reply #12 on:** March 20, 2012, 03:45:35 AM »

but are people really going to enjoy drawing, looking at there cards, and then saying "you may play a Dom now sir" X times

(X = every single time you draw a card??????)

nobody will like it, the process would be slow and annoying.

Praeceps · « **Reply #13 on:** March 20, 2012, 07:41:54 AM »

Give them three to five seconds. If they haven't decided to play their Dom by then they are either A) Not planning to play a Dom or B) Not used to playing as fast as you do. If the former, well, too bad for them they had their chance. If the latter, well, either you will likely know this about them already and be willing to work with them if it's a friendly match, or in a competitive match, them's the breaks. It's not fun, but it IS part of the game and you don't get better by getting to take back every bad decision you make.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 20, 2012, 09:24:36 AM »

Quote from: lp670sv on March 20, 2012, 12:56:14 AM

The problem resides in how long the "respond to own action" period lasts. To me if I see my opponent look at his hand and not immediately motion to grab a card, it's over. To other's they get a couple seconds. And what if that card they were motioning for wasn't a dom? Now they got to play a card that I didn't want them playing, but I gave them the grace period thinking it was a Dom. and if i play it before all that then they can suddenly decide to play doms they had no intention of playing until they found out they had to shuffle them away.

You could always ask them if they are going to play a Dominant. Sure that will give away your secret plan--especially if you only ask prior to playing Dominants--but at least there can be no disagreement then. The problem is that if a judge gets called over and he sees multiple Dominants laying on the table and both players claiming they played as expeditiously as possible--the player who was responding to his own actions is going to win the dispute. My feeling is if I am going to lose the argument anyway, why not just ask and avoid all the recriminations?

Almost every experienced player I know asks, "Do I have initiative?" when they have a character in battle specifically to allow their opponent to play CM or AotL if they want. All of the players who don't ask have gotten bitten by a wasted Dom

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #15 on:** March 20, 2012, 09:54:05 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on March 20, 2012, 09:24:36 AM

Almost every experienced player I know asks, "Do I have initiative?" when they have a character in battle specifically to allow their opponent to play CM or AotL if they want. All of the players who don't ask have gotten bitten by a wasted Dom

I love the reverse effect - making your opponent waste a dominant.

You have initiative but can't do anything. You start pulling a card out of your hand saying, "Do I have initiative?" Your opponent thinks you have a way around their awesome hero, so they play a dominant.

I could see the same happening with the "Are you going to play a dominant?" Always ask it right after they finishing drawing, especially if they are smirking.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #16 on:** March 20, 2012, 09:56:31 AM »

My Sabbath Breaker has been AotL'd far more times than I've had a Grey battlewinner in hand, simply by asking for inish.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #17 on:** March 20, 2012, 10:08:52 AM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on March 20, 2012, 09:56:31 AM

My Sabbath Breaker has been AotL'd far more times than I've had a Grey battlewinner in hand, simply by asking for inish.

Oh I know, sometimes you can ask for initiative as a bluff to make them burn a dominant.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #18 on:** March 20, 2012, 10:49:50 AM »

We've been needing to move responding to action away from a tiebreaker and into a bona fide rule for a long time now.

Also, if you're trying to slapjack and your opponent gets a drop on you, it's your own fault. In a game I was playing with the new rules, I had D3 and gotten the LS's my opponent needed to win. I put them down and he threw SoG/NJ, but I hadn't redrawn yet, so I got to redraw and play Mahem knowing he had SoG and NJ.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #19 on:** March 20, 2012, 10:59:52 AM »

Quote

Turn player always retains priority to respond to their own action first before passing it to their opponent.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #20 on:** March 20, 2012, 12:15:29 PM »

Quote from: RTSmaniac on March 20, 2012, 10:59:52 AM

Quote
Turn player always retains priority to respond to their own action first before passing it to their opponent.

The question is how to prevent the abuse of this in tournament play from both sides of the table.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #21 on:** March 20, 2012, 12:26:55 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on March 20, 2012, 12:15:29 PM

Quote from: RTSmaniac on March 20, 2012, 10:59:52 AM
Quote
Turn player always retains priority to respond to their own action first before passing it to their opponent.

The question is how to prevent the abuse of this in tournament play from both sides of the table.

Dominant caps should help.

Master KChief · « **Reply #22 on:** March 20, 2012, 01:08:46 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on March 20, 2012, 12:15:29 PM

Quote from: RTSmaniac on March 20, 2012, 10:59:52 AM
Quote
Turn player always retains priority to respond to their own action first before passing it to their opponent.

The question is how to prevent the abuse of this in tournament play from both sides of the table.

Its pretty much what it defaults to anyways in tournament play. As in Pols example, his opponent jumped the gun, and he got punished for it. In a slapjack situation it will always go to the player who claims he was responding to his own action last if brought to a judge, so why not just make it a hard rule and avoid all the headaches? Its too hard and frankly unnecessary to try and make a case for 'intention'.

News:

Author Topic: Responding to Your Own Action and Mayhem (Read 2132 times)

Chronic Apathy

Lamborghini_diablo

Chronic Apathy