Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Kor on March 07, 2019, 09:50:43 PM
-
So what happens if the game gets caught in a loop neither player will end?
-
So what happens if the game gets caught in a loop neither player will end?
Can you give a specific example?
-
So what happens if the game gets caught in a loop neither player will end?
Can you give a specific example?
Player A: Attacks with generic hero. Has You Will Remain active.
Player B: Blocks with Messenger of Satan>Scribe>Proud Pharisee. Has 2 copies of Unsuccessful (Poc2) in hand and keeps placing beneath deck, drawing the other and ending the battle as a stalemate.
-
I'm guessing the situation would resolve itself based on the current score.
-
So what happens if the game gets caught in a loop neither player will end?
Can you give a specific example?
Player A: Attacks with generic hero. Has You Will Remain active.
Player B: Blocks with Messenger of Satan>Scribe>Proud Pharisee. Has 2 copies of Unsuccessful (Poc2) in hand and keeps placing beneath deck, drawing the other and ending the battle as a stalemate.
I'd rule the onus is on the attacking player to try a different attack or move on with their turn. If no new information is being gained then doing the same attack over and over is just stalling the game.
-
So what happens if the game gets caught in a loop neither player will end?
Can you give a specific example?
Player A: Attacks with generic hero. Has You Will Remain active.
Player B: Blocks with Messenger of Satan>Scribe>Proud Pharisee. Has 2 copies of Unsuccessful (Poc2) in hand and keeps placing beneath deck, drawing the other and ending the battle as a stalemate.
I'd rule the onus is on the attacking player to try a different attack or move on with their turn. If no new information is being gained then doing the same attack over and over is just stalling the game.
Both players are equally responsible for the perpetual turn, so to put the onus of resolving the situation only on the attacker is unfair.
At this point a judge should get called over to verify the state is as described. The judge can ask both players if they intend to keep playing this same series of steps for the remainder of the game. If they both say they do--end the game immediately with the current score as if time had been called. If one player states they would like to change their action, ask them how many times they want the current situation to play out, artificially bump the game state to what it would be after the given number of cycles has completed and have the players play on.
-
I'd rule the onus is on the attacking player to try a different attack or move on with their turn. If no new information is being gained then doing the same attack over and over is just stalling the game.
Both players are equally responsible for the perpetual turn, so to put the onus of resolving the situation only on the attacker is unfair.
If the blocker has a guaranteed block, how can he/she be punished for using that same block over and over?
(Also, it should be noted that the only way a player can attack an infinite number of times is to have a generic hero to attack with)
In an actual game's reality, if one player is losing, it's up to that player to do something different. Logically, if the turn never ends, they have a 0% chance of winning, but if it does end, they have a small chance of winning.
Even if that means not attacking when you are down or not using your "End the battle" ability to get a guaranteed block.
If the players are tied, they can do whatever they want.
-
Player A: Attacks with generic hero. Has You Will Remain active.
Player B: Blocks with Messenger of Satan>Scribe>Proud Pharisee. Has 2 copies of Unsuccessful (Poc2) in hand and keeps placing beneath deck, drawing the other and ending the battle as a stalemate.
Proud Pharisee only allows the immediate play of Unsuccessful once, right? So it's not really part of the unending-ness of the situation?
-
Player A: Attacks with generic hero. Has You Will Remain active.
Player B: Blocks with Messenger of Satan>Scribe>Proud Pharisee. Has 2 copies of Unsuccessful (Poc2) in hand and keeps placing beneath deck, drawing the other and ending the battle as a stalemate.
Proud Pharisee only allows the immediate play of Unsuccessful once, right? So it's not really part of the unending-ness of the situation?
Proud Pharisee is generic, so you can use it each battle.
Edit: but it says once per turn, so you are right!
-
You can replace Proud Pharisee with Weakness+Plagued with Diseases. Situation was more the point than the specific cards.
-
Josh I am not sure if you are agreeing with Kevinthedude's position (always force the attacker to advance the game state) or my position (both players have the responsibility to either advance the game or suffer the consequences).
Let me just quote the section of what you wrote that I completely agree with and was the main reasoning behind how I suggested this be ruled...
In an actual game's reality, if one player is losing, it's up to that player to do something different. Logically, if the turn never ends, they have a 0% chance of winning, but if it does end, they have a small chance of winning.
Even if that means not attacking when you are down or not using your "End the battle" ability to get a guaranteed block.
In reality if I were ever called in to adjudicate this, I would probably tell both players to play T2 where such silliness is not possible. ;)
-
In reality if I were ever called in to adjudicate this, I would probably tell both players to play T2 where such silliness is not possible. ;)
How is this not possible in T2?
-
Josh I am not sure if you are agreeing with Kevinthedude's position (always force the attacker to advance the game state) or my position (both players have the responsibility to either advance the game or suffer the consequences).
Let me clarify, I am not saying that the attacker is responsible to advance the gamestate in every scenario. I am merely saying it is my evaluation of this exact scenario that the attacking player is stalling and needs to move on. I don't know if it's possible to make a bulletproof policy that applies to every situation so in the rare care that something like this happens in a tournament I believe the judge should rule which player 's behavior counts as stalling, if either, on a case by case basis.
-
Both players are equally responsible for the perpetual turn, so to put the onus of resolving the situation only on the attacker is unfair.
At this point a judge should get called over to verify the state is as described. The judge can ask both players if they intend to keep playing this same series of steps for the remainder of the game. If they both say they do--end the game immediately with the current score as if time had been called. If one player states they would like to change their action, ask them how many times they want the current situation to play out, artificially bump the game state to what it would be after the given number of cycles has completed and have the players play on.
I agree with the first part, but I don't think the game should be artificially advanced. One player's acknowledgement of how soon that they intend to break the loop gives unfair information to their opponent. If either player states they do intend to break the loop, then the game should proceed as normal. While this type of situation probably falls in the "NPE" category, I'm confident that currently the situations are rare enough they won't be an issue.
-
In reality if I were ever called in to adjudicate this, I would probably tell both players to play T2 where such silliness is not possible. ;)
How is this not possible in T2?
I was thinking about experience credit, which dooms most cyclical attacks in T2. In this case it probably doesn't apply.