Author Topic: Ununderstandable Mayhem Rule... (Read 7279 times)

theselfevident · « **Reply #50 on:** June 23, 2013, 03:41:33 PM »

in the instance of burial you can announce tap and burial, that's not hard... the point is what if you have sog you draw nj on your 3rd card, you have sog/nj in had already but on your 3rd draw, you bring it to your hand... mayhem: no chance to play those cards... i think its not well thought out personally... announcing your intentions with this would be a lot simpler and fairer to players.

Redoubter · « **Reply #51 on:** June 23, 2013, 03:54:30 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on June 23, 2013, 03:41:33 PM

i think its not well thought out personally

It was thought out, and beaten to death to get the rules we have now. This discussion has happened before, many times, and it will happen again...many times. This thread is pretty much dead at this point, not sure what else can be added. You don't like it, others do or think that a change would do much, and we can go back and forward forever. Truly, we could, and all we would do would be repeat the same points (in relatively the same order).

Chris · « **Reply #52 on:** June 23, 2013, 03:58:46 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on June 23, 2013, 03:41:33 PM

in the instance of burial you can announce tap and burial, that's not hard... the point is what if you have sog you draw nj on your 3rd card, you have sog/nj in had already but on your 3rd draw, you bring it to your hand... mayhem: no chance to play those cards... i think its not well thought out personally... announcing your intentions with this would be a lot simpler and fairer to players.

Fair to which players, specifically?

theselfevident · « **Reply #53 on:** June 23, 2013, 05:08:52 PM »

Quote from: Chris on June 23, 2013, 03:58:46 PM

Quote from: theselfevident on June 23, 2013, 03:41:33 PM
in the instance of burial you can announce tap and burial, that's not hard... the point is what if you have sog you draw nj on your 3rd card, you have sog/nj in had already but on your 3rd draw, you bring it to your hand... mayhem: no chance to play those cards... i think its not well thought out personally... announcing your intentions with this would be a lot simpler and fairer to players.

Fair to which players, specifically?

fair to the individual drawing or if i had it my way the person responding to the opponent... as it stands the player holding the mayhem (or dom) has too much power imo... and if this is a continuous discussion maybe it should be looked at in a different light than just the status quo... the negatives are confusion and inability to react to your opponent, giving them an decidedly unfair advantage, specifically relating to mayhem as it gets both advantages, not just one, and it would not add much if any play time to the game to simply define the init of and attempt to eliminate slapjack. I don't see why its hard to say there are defined phases and during those phases there is priority based on either responding to your own action or (imo a more fair approach) responding to your opponents action and if you pass on your priority, then at least you had the opportunity.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #54 on:** June 23, 2013, 05:23:31 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on June 23, 2013, 03:41:33 PM

in the instance of burial you can announce tap and burial, that's not hard... the point is what if you have sog you draw nj on your 3rd card, you have sog/nj in had already but on your 3rd draw, you bring it to your hand... mayhem: no chance to play those cards... i think its not well thought out personally... announcing your intentions with this would be a lot simpler and fairer to players.

I was under the impression that human action was trying to be phased out of the game along time ago. As of lately with responding to one's own action in the case of a slapjack situation ( this is only in case of a slap jack situation right?, see even I dont know?) I feel like the game and the people who govern it are just trying to create a working system which seems to me is still in progress...

We need a system of set rules. I understand that the elders are always working to accomplish this and that the game has come along way, however in case of a real life situation like Westy was talking about, If my opponent throws down a mid combat mayhem after I take an action (idk draw a card) and then I throw down an AotL, a judge is called over and my opponent argues that it is not a slapjack situation and a judge must rule based on what information he has...wouldnt it be easier to have a better way of ruling than this? Is this all we got? Just thinking out loud...

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #55 on:** June 23, 2013, 05:41:19 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on June 23, 2013, 03:41:33 PM

in the instance of burial you can announce tap and burial, that's not hard... the point is what if you have sog you draw nj on your 3rd card, you have sog/nj in had already but on your 3rd draw, you bring it to your hand... mayhem: no chance to play those cards... i think its not well thought out personally... announcing your intentions with this would be a lot simpler and fairer to players.

Disclaimer: I have not read the whole thread.

The quote above seems to indicate that Mayhem is the problem, rather than dominant order of operations. We've already had to give a first-turn errata to Mayhem.

I think that announcing your intentions will only give your opponent a chance to change their strategy. If you were truly just waiting for SoG/NJ, you would play it immediately anyway, thus the Mayhem would be a slapjack situation. If you draw the cards, with SoG/NJ now in your hand, but you start pondering your next move, then Mayhem should not have to be announced, since it would change the strategy you were obviously undecided about.

If Mayhem is OP, to the extent of changing the course of every major tournament, then we need to ban it. If Mayhem is only a problem when it works against you at pivotal moments in your Redemption career, and not an OP Tournament Bane, then we need to live with our current resolution system.

theselfevident · « **Reply #56 on:** June 23, 2013, 05:54:36 PM »

i mean at the time you are going to instantly play whatever dom in reaction to your own action, just say I am doing this which would equal playing it. Your given priority to play that card, by announcing it you are doing exactly that initiating the process of playing your dom(s) without the need of slapjack... for example... it is the beginning of my draw phase.... I draw and announce "i am going to play a dom..." and play the dom.. not hard or time consuming... its as easy and quick as asking "my init?" and in the instance of battle, if you ask "my init?" you pass priority to play a dom to your opponent and they have the option. Its really not that hard.

lp670sv · « **Reply #57 on:** June 23, 2013, 06:28:34 PM »

The difference is that you don't need the other players permission to play a dom. When you have one, you can play it at any time so long as no other effect is in the process of completing.

theselfevident · « **Reply #58 on:** June 23, 2013, 07:11:15 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on June 23, 2013, 06:28:34 PM

The difference is that you don't need the other players permission to play a dom. When you have one, you can play it at any time so long as no other effect is in the process of completing.

which causes slapjack issues and an unclear ruling basis as RTSManiac pointed out... and in no way do you have to ask permission... I think the status quo is "well we don't really have a better solution..." well there is a better solution as far as rulings, clarity, and fairness of play... my 2 cents

lp670sv · « **Reply #59 on:** June 23, 2013, 07:51:13 PM »

Slapjack issues are resolved by the responding to your own action rule...that is the solution, and outside of RTS is works just fine. The issue is with RTS, not with the rule.

Gabe · « **Reply #60 on:** June 23, 2013, 07:53:46 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on June 23, 2013, 07:51:13 PM

Slapjack issues are resolved by the responding to your own action rule...that is the solution, and outside of RTS is works just fine. The issue is with RTS, not with the rule.

I agree. In face to face games there is not an issue. We're not going to change the rules because they don't work perfectly on an archaic piece of software, even if it is all we have to play on.

theselfevident · « **Reply #61 on:** June 23, 2013, 09:22:05 PM »

Well, I gave my 2 cents in to apparently and continuous debate. In simpler terms: it is what it is regardless of what my opinion or anyone else's is...

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #62 on:** June 23, 2013, 11:30:10 PM »

Right but that doesnt mean we shouldnt talk about it.

Chris · « **Reply #63 on:** June 24, 2013, 03:53:42 PM »

Adding a new layer to this. I have an EC in Tower of Thebez and my opponent has Holy Grail up. Can I remove the EC from ToT and immediately place it in battle before my opponent can announce a Grail or otherwise indicate he's using it, or does he get some kind of a grace period with which to use it?

pilgrim14 · « **Reply #64 on:** June 24, 2013, 06:50:24 PM »

I think that he gets a chance to use holy grail, i'm not sure though.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #65 on:** June 24, 2013, 10:55:58 PM »

I agree that if you move an EC from the Tower to territory, then you have to give your opponent a chance to convert them with Holy Grail before adding them to battle.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #66 on:** June 25, 2013, 09:12:58 AM »

I attack.
Before you declare blocks, I convert your EC.

Korunks · « **Reply #67 on:** June 25, 2013, 12:28:04 PM »

Quote from: RTSmaniac on June 25, 2013, 09:12:58 AM

I attack.
Before you enter your battle phase, I convert your EC...

Then before you enter battle I DoN your Holy Grail.

pilgrim14 · « **Reply #68 on:** June 26, 2013, 05:38:33 PM »

I haven't read the whole thread, but the simple reason why (to me at least) you can't play SoG from your original hand is because dominants are instant and instants can't be paused by another instant.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #69 on:** June 26, 2013, 11:33:05 PM »

wow i just got a -2 on my above post and I know not why?

Prof U's ruling above is correct isn't it?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #70 on:** June 26, 2013, 11:45:08 PM »

Your post isn't exactly punctuated like it is an answer.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #71 on:** June 26, 2013, 11:51:59 PM »

above fixed

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #72 on:** June 27, 2013, 06:58:08 AM »

Quote from: theselfevident on June 23, 2013, 03:41:33 PM

in the instance of burial you can announce tap and burial, that's not hard... the point is what if you have sog you draw nj on your 3rd card, you have sog/nj in had already but on your 3rd draw, you bring it to your hand... mayhem: no chance to play those cards...

Can I ask for a quick recap here (or a pointer to the appropriate thread)?

In the situation above if I immediately went to play SoG/NJ, my big two would take precedence over Mayhem, correct? Wouldn't playing SoG/NJ be in response to your own action (i.e., your draw)?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #73 on:** June 27, 2013, 06:59:48 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on June 27, 2013, 06:58:08 AM

In the situation above if I immediately went to play SoG/NJ, my big two would take precedence over Mayhem, correct? Wouldn't playing SoG/NJ be in response to your own action (i.e., your draw)?

You are correct, from what has been verified here.

News:

Author Topic: Ununderstandable Mayhem Rule... (Read 7279 times)

Chris

Chris