Cactus Game Design Message Boards

This should be documented somewhere.  In the REG for now, and rules later.

Those are unrelated cases.

Well, since Artifacts and Dominants aren't played by initiative rules and the issue has to be resolved even when it's not stalemate or mutual anyway, can you explain how they are related?

For those elevated above the tree line (Godspeed, don't laugh):

check for initiative <> evaluating triggers <> players playing dominants

Because each is a different gameplay action.

But if the results for each are:

a = result of initiative check = stalemate/mutual destruction = tie

b = result of trigger evaluation = simultaneous = tie

c = result of players playing doms = hit table at same time = tie

Then a = b = c.

Using consistent logic I would have:

Response to result(a) = Response to result(b) = Response to result(c) = player who did not play last card plays first.

Using that logic for any type of gameplay, we have:

1. gameplay action occurs

2. Result of gameplay action = tie

3. Response to result = player who did not play last card plays first


For you Windows people that would be called Plug-n-Play...or another way to put it is "interoperability standard".

It is too simple to just simplfy these situations down to a simple tie. The nature of the three different scenarios are very unique and require a different way to be handled. If you try to focus on the end result, then yes, I suppose you have a tie. However, I believe it is more important to focus on how you got to the tie, rather than the simple fact that you are at a tie.


edit: yeah, what Shaef said right before I posted 

Well it's highly likely that you'll have your hand on the trigger before I can drop the lost soul and get to my SoG.   

You're right, doms are odd man out.  But I would say that the simultaneous triggers could follow the same logic as initiative.

As I already stated, I agree that under the current rules, GiC gets to go first.  

I also think that Scott has a good point.  As we add more and more cards to the game that trigger simultaneously, these situations will come up more often.  It might make sense to at least consider having cards that trigger or activate in/during battle follow the rules of initiative, even if they're Fortresses, Artifacts, Sites, Lost Souls,etc.  That would be a rule change and would need careful consideration but it might make things simpler for new players to understand and learn the intricacies of the game.  Just something to consider for the next rulebook update or maybe one further in the future.

Just wondering (*as he asks from 20 feet away hiding behind a "tree"*), why can't the Arts/Fortresses follow the dominant rulings?  For Doms, whichever one hit the table first gets to activate first.  So, why can't it be that whichever is activated first (TToD or GiC) gets to complete first, since both are "simultaneous results"?  Obviously, this would make TToD slightly more powerful, as it is ongoing w/o using up an Art. slot whereas GiC does.


I do, though, support the current ruling (of allowing the blocker choose, etc.).  I just think that this ruling would help with "consistency", even later down the road (if more cards like this are made/used).

Just wondering (*as he asks from 20 feet away hiding behind a "tree"*), why can't the Arts/Fortresses follow the dominant rulings?  For Doms, whichever one hit the table first gets to activate first.  So, why can't it be that whichever is activated first (TToD or GiC) gets to complete first, since both are "simultaneous results"?

That works for Fort vs. Art (though you might have to remember if the same GiC was active before TToD came into play), but if the situation comes down to Fort vs. Fort or Art vs. Art, you could run into some problems - especially with younger kids or against ANB decks.