Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Quote from: spicynumber1 on July 24, 2011, 03:38:14 PM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on July 24, 2011, 03:11:11 PM

The issue here is a misunderstanding of my original ruling.

This is only part of the issue. The other part, the more important part, was my opponent who is also the judge and host of the event made a ruling in the finals that apparently is not correct which contributed heavily to result of the tournament.

I disagree. RTS was not the judge based upon what YMT was said. He was a co-host and could judge categories that he did not play in, but it sounds like YMT was the main judge, which is how it should have been. It seems like you just didn't call him. Obviously I wasn't there, but I think this is a case of you not calling the ruling authority for teh game in question. It would be akin to playing an elder at Nats and not calling another elder to confirm a ruling just because the elder you are playing made a ruling. You should always second guess it if you aren't sure.


EDIT: Well, YMT didn't contradict, but I think my main point is still somewhat valid.

First of all there was no "clear judge". If I or members from my playgroup had questions would normally ask YMT. When the event started, I overheard YMT thanking RTSmaniac for hosting the event and I interpreted that to mean he had the final ruling on questions. Therefore I accepted RTSmaniac's rulings as the final ruling. I don't see how involving YMT could override the host?

Therefore I accepted RTSmaniac's rulings as the final ruling. I don't see how involving YMT could override the host?

Well, this was your first major Redemption tournament, so your assumptions are logical. Basically, RTS would have had to accept my ruling whether he agreed with it or not. He cannot make a binding ruling in a game he is playing. That is our system of "checks and balances."

I wish things could have played out differently, but unfortunately they did not. The only remaining question is what happens next. That is a decision only for Elders, so further discussion would be unproductive.

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on July 24, 2011, 03:57:12 PM

Because you have most likely never experienced this before (except perhaps in your local playgroup where you guys just figure it out together or whatever), you probably interpreted the host as the judge, and have never seen a host play, because in my understanding YMT graciously hosts and judges but does not participate.

I actually got to play this time. 

This was the first tournament that I played in since 2008.

And I missed it...!!  *Mumbles something about the government making him miss out on so much fun*

Carry On,

-C_S

And I missed it...!! 

You didn't miss much.   

I had expanded my 56-card deck to a 70-card deck to play some games against my playgroup in advance of the tournament. I was not sure I was going to get to play this time, so I shelved the deck still at 70. When I found out that I would be able to play, I just grabbed the deck and went with it. I was wondering why I wasn't getting my cards as quickly as I usually did. 

But it was fun anyway, which is the main goal for me. There were times that I didn't play Falling Away when I could have, since the younger players are so excited about even winning one lost soul in a major tournament. But I was actually very pleased to see my players hold their own against tough decks. I was hoping they would not suffer from a string of 5-0's.

With that said, though, I must admit that I was thoroughly trounced by Rob Anderson's daughter in Booster Draft. She drafted Terrifying Beast, Emperor Nero, and Emperor Claudius. That was just wrong. 

if RTS was the final verdict, obviously he will want to side with himself if possible.

Not true. I have always stated that I would rather play by the rules than win. There was another question that came up in one of our many faced games where i attacked with Susanna and he blocks with Archer shooting my Gabriel (in territory). I play He is Risen to interrupt the archers ability and band in Gabe. It was ruled that Archers ability couldnt be interrupted in this scenerio and Gabe was dead. I didnt argue with the ruling because I believe in the rules more than winning.

I remember the ruling on the multiplayer game and agreed with it b/c of the wording on Satans Seat saying opponent's- not opponents'.

I do not remember any other questions concerning Satan's Seat.

There was another question that came up in one of our many faced games where i attacked with Susanna and he blocks with Archer shooting my Gabriel (in territory). I play He is Risen to interrupt the archers ability and band in Gabe. It was ruled that Archers ability couldnt be interrupted in this scenerio and Gabe was dead.

Can an elder confirm or deny this ruling, please? If I was mistaken I would like to know for future reference. My understanding was that "Interrupt the Battle" only interrupts (1) the removal of the hero(es) in battle (if they get initiative), (2) any ongoing abilities, and (3) the last enhancement (if played by the opponent). Archer's ability did not meet any of these conditions IMO.

Quote from: spicynumber1 on July 24, 2011, 03:38:14 PM

...The other part, the more important part, was my opponent who is also the judge and host of the event made a ruling in the finals that apparently is not correct which contributed heavily to result of the tournament.

This is a very strong accusation you're making in a public forum. I hope you are 100% certain that Clift was both playing in and judging the same event.

As I've stated previously(which you must have skipped?), I was under the impression that hosts have the final ruling. You know I didn't have to post this question and just accepted what is now proven to be inaccurate. I posted this not just for myself but for my playgroup who are going to nat's and need to know as many of the rules as possible.

Complaining about it publicly makes it look as if you're a poor loser and slandering your opponent.

Gabe, please read my previous posts and you will notice my intentions were purely for clarification purposes.
1.) I'm not looking to change the result of the tournament
2.) I have accepted the loss
3.) I wanted a clarification on what happened (ISN'T THIS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE MESSAGE BOARDS?)

I have already received apologies from the judge, so obviously there was some justification to what I was saying despite your distant observations.
This is the ruling area of the message boards which would seem to be the appropriate place to ask questions and I will ask any and all questions I have regarding rules and further confirmation.
I can't understand why you would want to discourage me from finding out the rules (especially when I was right).
I don't ever remember complaining just simply asking for rules confirmations and clarifications.

Gabe,
Not everyone is on the boards 24/7 or have been playing since the dinosaurs roamed.
We all haven't had the luxury to be a playtester and have intimate knowledge of the game and tournament rules.
Some of us, need to find out rulings through the message boards (which is about the only way for me to get proper rulings).

The issue here is a misunderstanding of my original ruling. The ruling I made in the multiplayer game was the scenario mentioned earlier by Alex:

When Player A is attacking Player B, Player C's Satan's Seat has no affect on Player A's hero.

That was it. That was my ruling. In the ensuing revelation, I mentioned that the discard could only happen if the hero had access to the site.

The next day, during T1-2P, there was an apparent misinterpretation of my ruling. I never said that the negate required access to the site, because I know that is not true. I was never called over to the table to make or confirm a ruling during the final game between RTS and spicy. For the most part, I spend my time making basic rulings with the plethora of younger players, rather than between experienced players. This appears to be a case where I was not called over for a ruling question, since there was an assumption that my ruling from the multiplayer game somehow carried over to the two-player game.

Thus the last sentence on my previous post.  the more that was revealed, the more it seems that it happened exactly like this.  That one ruling was confused with another.

Quote from: COUNTER_SNIPER on July 24, 2011, 04:03:52 PM

And I missed it...!! 

You didn't miss much.   

I had expanded my 56-card deck to a 70-card deck to play some games against my playgroup in advance of the tournament. I was not sure I was going to get to play this time, so I shelved the deck still at 70. When I found out that I would be able to play, I just grabbed the deck and went with it. I was wondering why I wasn't getting my cards as quickly as I usually did. 

But it was fun anyway, which is the main goal for me. There were times that I didn't play Falling Away when I could have, since the younger players are so excited about even winning one lost soul in a major tournament. But I was actually very pleased to see my players hold their own against tough decks. I was hoping they would not suffer from a string of 5-0's.

With that said, though, I must admit that I was thoroughly trounced by Rob Anderson's daughter in Booster Draft. She drafted Terrifying Beast, Emperor Nero, and Emperor Claudius. That was just wrong. 

Haha, well, just the same, it would have been nice to see you get in on some games after staying out for so long...  As for booster draft... that's an insane combination right there!!  I feel your pain very much so!  Wow, it looks like I surely missed out on some great opportunities, but hey, when duty calls, it's not always at a convenient hour!

Carry On,

-C_S

Maniac was playing in a close game and misapplied a ruling from multi-player into a 2-player situation.  It was an easy mistake, and Clift has a history of trying to play within the rules.  I don't see fault there either, and another lesson learned.

As I said before, I dont remember this coming up in our game. That doesnt mean that it didnt but I dont recall it happening because im sure if i rescued with someone against a Satan's Seat I would have played a MLaMG to get rid of it, as a matter of fact- the only evil fortress I saw was a protect fort that i did promtly discard with MLaMG!

Concerning the judging and playing in the same event, I didnt even realize this was a problem. (I need to read the host guide again)

1. The Judges and Referees
- Each category will be presided over by a judge who may be assisted by any number of referees as needed. A judge may be required to interpret rules and make other determinations during the tournament. Referees will aid a judge by answering rules questions on the floor.

- Judges and referees are not permitted to play in any of the categories that they are officiating.

- A judge and/or referee may compete in a category that they are not officiating, as long as each category has one qualified judge overseeing it who is not playing.

oops! Usually we have smaller turnouts in my area and there usually isnt a problem with the host playing in the tournament. I guess I wont be playing in the future.

oops! Usually we have smaller turnouts in my area and there usually isnt a problem with the host playing in the tournament. I guess I wont be playing in the future.

If you are having a smaller tournament, sometimes it really makes things more fun for everyone if you play.  I have heard of cases where a host will actually have a "coin" for a judge in these situations.  Basically if a ruling comes up, the most experienced player who is there will tell people what they think the rule is.  The players generally accept that as the ruling.  However, if either player is unwilling to accept this suggestion, then they flip the coin and let it decide what will happen.

Quote from: COUNTER_SNIPER on July 24, 2011, 11:25:37 PM

As for booster draft... that's an insane combination right there!!  I feel your pain very much so!

To make things worse, she also had Chenaniah and Elhanan. 

Quote from: COUNTER_SNIPER on July 24, 2011, 11:25:37 PM

Wow, it looks like I surely missed out on some great opportunities, but hey, when duty calls, it's not always at a convenient hour!

You were missed, but we appreciate your service to our country. If I were in trouble in the ocean or Gulf, then I would have been much happier that you were on duty rather than playing a silly card game. 

It was rigged I say, RIGGED!!!  No, I'm only playing.  I've seen some interesting draws in booster draft so I understand!  You had no chance it seems!

Well, you might prefer I be on duty, but I...  Well, ok, I do like having the opportunity to assist people.

Carry On,

-C_S