Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Bearing that in mind, keeping track isn't hard, and there is a hierarchy of abilities in a way. Fortresses and Sites will always beat Artifacts which will always beat Characters which will always beat Enhancements in normal situations just because of how they all work.

I didn't want to go there only because of territory-class enhancements and characters like Judas Iscariot.

That's why I said "in normal situations."

I know. I was just trying to preempt Redoubter's likely response. 

My main point is that there's very little to keep track of ...

I agree. I would think that anyone playing specialty fortresses like Tartaros would be paying more attention anyway.

Besides, Redoubter is still not paying attention. Tartaros specifies when "holder discards (et al)," so which one activated first is irrelevant.   

(except maybe in T2 Multi and if you're playing that, you're asking for punishment anyway!).

Now that's a point we can both agree on. 

because if I control the chump block, I'm the one doing the discarding

Exactly. Two Tartaros will never be in conflict because it's impossible for multiple people to be doing the discarding.

Where is this rule coming from (first question, still not seen, can someone please provide a reference?) and why would you say that Fortresses and Sites always beat Artifacts?  There are plenty of cases when Artifacts would be active longer.

Where the rule is, I can't tell you, and it may not be written anywhere. And given that Artifacts activate every turn and Fortresses only activate once, the only time an Artifact could be active longer than a Fortress is during the turn it was played with respect to any Artifacts already active.

There are a lot of things that need to be You're more than welcome to argue in favor of a chain of hierarchy as opposed to "which was active first," but you're unlikely to gain much traction because people generally support simpler.

You're confusing simple with precise. The current (apparently unrecorded) rule is a simple statement, while your proposition is a list that must be memorized. Granted it's not studying for a Physics final, but when added to all the lists already in existence, it becomes cumbersome for young players. It's way easier to remember "whichever was first."

I'm not arguing against your proposal, just pointing out the obvious argument.

The fact is they won't be able to remember in every case, and if a judge comes over, he needs to be able to give a definitive answer, not rely on players' memories (and of course no one ever recollects differently when talking to a judge...).

It's a pretty easy question for the judge - was the fortress already there?  I would think the players, no matter how young or forgetful, would remember whether a player put Tartaros down in battle before WS. If they did not put it in play during battle, then it will always take precedence over WS (who has to enter battle for his ability to work).

So what I'm getting from this is that Tartaros will take priority over WS as long as it was on the table before WS enters battle correct?

Yup.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on July 04, 2012, 11:25:39 AM

Quote from: Redoubter on July 04, 2012, 10:38:27 AM

The fact is they won't be able to remember in every case, and if a judge comes over, he needs to be able to give a definitive answer, not rely on players' memories (and of course no one ever recollects differently when talking to a judge...).

It's a pretty easy question for the judge - was the fortress already there?  I would think the players, no matter how young or forgetful, would remember whether a player put Tartaros down in battle before WS. If they did not put it in play during battle, then it will always take precedence over WS (who has to enter battle for his ability to work).

I'll admit that in this particular case, but let me ask you this:

I have Throne of David up.  You have Kir up.  I force you to block with Amaziah with my own evil King.  Do I get to play an enhancement first, or do you get to discard my evil King first?  And if your answer is 'whichever was in play first', do you admit that in this case that could actually be a problem?  Fortresses and sites played early in the game would not have their order remembered at all by the end, and this situation could not be judged.

If you post all the abilities, I'll be happy to answer.

I agree that it is important to pay attention, especially if you are using Throne of David or Kir.

Kir is an ability that activates during the block, while Throne is an ability that activates after the block (unless of course Amaziah is brought in later in the battle). I would rule that Kir activates first.

Of course, I may be completely wrong and your isolated example proves your point and causes a total upheaval of the SA activation process. 

I agree that it is important to pay attention, especially if you are using Throne of
Kir is an ability that activates during the block, while Throne is an ability that activates after the block (unless of course Amaziah is brought in later in the battle). I would rule that Kir activates first.

They both actually activate at the same time.  As a character is not considered in battle until they are placed in the Field of Battle and all of their SA complete, Kir is not triggered until a "Block" occurs.  This is the same time that TToD triggers as well.  The act of blocking leads to both going off simultaneously.

I agree that it is important to pay attention, especially if you are using Throne of David or Kir.

Pay attention to what exactly?  The fact that 6 turns ago on my turn, I placed TToD and then on your turn 6 turns ago you placed Kir, so mine should hit first?  I say again, I'm happy to know that if I play you you'd be able to give a judge a card-by-card recap of the game, but I don't trust most players would be able to do that.  And again, this is a case that is impossible for a judge to rule definitively if both players remember differently.  We need to avoid those situations, that's the whole point of rules.

Kir and TToD may be the only example of something in the same tier of typical precedence being in conflict. Frankly, one (rare) example is not enough to convince me that it's too complicated.

This is not the only example.  Kir would be used in more CTB situations where a fortress activates on the block, and if I can find one card that leads to problems, you obviously can't assume there are no more.  Nor can you assume a new card won't lead to a similar situation in the future without being intended.

And again, how is it more complicated to have a set list of abilities that trigger in specific orders?

We have that for SA on characters, or would you rather that we go by the reading on the card?  That's a lot simpler, but it would upset game mechanics if I were to band then do the rest of my crazy stuff.  It would still be more logical (and easier for new players) for us to say "Do everything in the order listed on the card", but we don't.  We instead make everyone remember the order that everything activates.  This is the same situation.  We should not have "Do everything in the order they entered play", but rather an order they activate.  That's the point of rules, to remove the subjectivity of the situation and have a hard-and-fast rule.

We do it for characters.  We can do it for different card types.  It's not that hard.

Quote from: Redoubter on July 06, 2012, 06:50:40 PM

The act of blocking leads to both going off simultaneously.

I disagree with this, but that is for an Elder to decide.

I'm going based on lengthy TToD discussions that led to a general understanding that TToD only triggers after a block completes (character enters and SA finishes), and this is the same time Kir activates.  Neither is able to activate sooner because they have no trigger until that moment.  Pol also seems to agree with this assessment.

If you activate the Throne and you later notice your opponent activate Kir, that would be a good time to remind them that Throne was activated first. If you know that cards will be in conflict, you should mention that before it becomes the problem you are suggesting.

I know it, you know it, but how many more know it?  And even if I know of a potential problem, how often do we play a game and miss one of those?  You're taking the stance that experienced players will always be able to pay attention, where I've seen some do things like shuffle off of a Mayhem while they had Nazareth up.  Well, obviously they should have paid better attention, but that cannot always happen.

In addition, how many tournaments do you go to where every player is experienced, well-versed in the rules, and understand everything to the point that they know the need to see which card hit the table first?  I have been to exactly 0 where every player fit that description.  If they called a judge over, he literally cannot rule on this by the current rules if they don't know what hit first.  We have to remedy that.

I would still like a response as to how this is different from making people activate their SA in a different order than printed on the card.  Everyone has to memorize the order (and a judge can rule definitively if someone doesn't know, as opposed to this case) instead of the 'simpler' and more logical "As they hit the table" rule.  This case is no different.  Instead of a 'simpler' "As they hit the table" rule, we can have an order that they activate.  It is the same situation, same rule type, and allows for exact judging.

We could have a rule that is far simpler than either the "whichever hits the table first" and the defined order of ability types. We could just say something like the turn player decides the order of conflicting abilities...like basically every other card game I've played where the situation can come up.

So in the case of Wandering Spirit and Tartaros, well it would be whatever the turn player picks.

TToD vs Kir (assuming Kir doesn't have some sort of priority due to how its worded) the turn player picks

TToD vs Weakness, same thing.

T2 Multiplayer: a lot less confusion.

Of course this will get the argument, why should my opponent pick which order my cards activate? And honestly, aside from keeping the order that I find terrible (by which enters play first) and a complex set of priority, it's probably the best we can have.

Anyway, its just a rule that includes simplicity with precision, also, since it only matters in a handful of situations it probably won't be too disruptive.