Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Timing with Jocasta and Mr. Sinister

  1. #1

    Timing with Jocasta and Mr. Sinister

    OK so imagine that both players have Jocasta on the field, (which we all know they will) The attacker has 1 life left, the Defender has two life left. The attacker decides why not and uses Nasty Boy's Global. This ends with a tie correct? That is my thought but I have been wrong about every rule in this set so I thought I would ask the residents to confirm or fix, the only reason I even question is that there is a point where players choose, so you know that this would mean that the attacker would choose first, however if I am correct then the damage is done simultaneously and both are brought below zero at the same time, as per something like fireball.

    Am I right? Is this a straight up tie?

  2. #2
    It ends with the active player winning. Nasty Boy resolves two characters have a triggered ability occurring simultaneously - active player resolves his first, the inactive player dies before he can resolve his effect,

  3. #3
    Actually, since Jocasta is a redirect, and the ability resolving is Mr. Sinister's, it WOULD be a tie. The way Jocasta works is she changes the target of the damage, before the damage resolves, and then the damage resolves when it would normally resolve. If it makes things easier for you, think about it as if the Jocastas were instead blocking and attacking each other. My Jocasta and your Jocasta both resolve the damage simultaneously, and we would both die from combat (assuming both Jocastas were 2 attack).

  4. #4
    But "redirect" is still an ability, it's just an ability that is played at times other abilities can't be played.

    Put me in on the "active player wins" side of this debate.

    Nasty Boy's ability is played, both players choose their Jocastas. Nasty Boy resolves, and each Jocasta is assigned their 3 damage. Both Jocastas trigger. Timing conflict - active player resolves first.

  5. #5

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by crambaza View Post
    Nasty Boy's ability is played, both players choose their Jocastas. Nasty Boy resolves, and each Jocasta is assigned their 3 damage. Both Jocastas trigger. Timing conflict - active player resolves first.
    This is precisely how I would interpret it.

    We've also been given no indication from WK that there are anything resembling passive abilities in the game, things that don't trigger and that just happen independent of any potential timing conflicts, as implied earlier with redirects.

  7. #7
    Redirects do not change the source or nature of the effect being redirected.

    Therefore there are not two simultaneous effects, from the two Jocastas.

    There is one, from Mister Sinister.

    Therefore this behaves like Fireball and both players die simultaneously, ending the game in a tie.

  8. #8
    Except that it wouldn't be a tie, as we know from prior rulings that something like this favors the active player and they would win.

  9. #9
    Check the AoU rule book, @Dave .

    They changed the rules about simultaneous player elimination.

    It now results in a tie.

  10. #10
    I don't understand for the life of me why that would be the preferred outcome. Ties should be discouraged in all possible circumstances in a competitive game. Was a justification provided? That is a rule that will be ignored at my store. I'm not usually critical of the rulings but this addition in particular is completely stupid.

  11. #11
    Nope.

    I didn't notice it myself until a couple of weeks ago.

    Then got in to a 'discussion' with someone on Facebook.

    I was adamant that the game doesn't have ties.

    And was quoting from like the AvX rules, just because that's what I had to hand at the time.

    And then they came back with something like "that's not what it says..."

    So I had to pull up the DC PDF rule book, and had to admit I was wrong because I'd not realised they'd changed it.

    So we went back through the rule books and found that the D&D rule book is the first time the change appears.

  12. #12
    Yeah, definitely not playing that way. It makes running tournaments more difficult.

  13. #13
    It's not too bad if you're doing it manually.

    (Just use points)

    But if using the WES system for allocating Swiss pairings...

    Actually, is the WES system even capable of taking tied game results?!

  14. #14
    Don't know. Only tie we've had (same life at time) was before we used the system.

  15. #15
    Jocasta vs Jocasta will result in more ties, I agree with you @Dave , that is s bad with Tournaments, but it may just happen more.

  16. #16
    So, @Dave , I'm curious. What will you do at OPs?

    Just ignore one of the (now) basic rules of the game?

  17. #17
    I'm fine with ties existing in the game as long as the points system for the tournament allows for it.

    I had to reread Jocasta 3 times and then compare her to how other cards are worded. I now agree with Scorpion, the game ends in a tie.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion0x17 View Post
    So, @Dave , I'm curious. What will you do at OPs?

    Just ignore one of the (now) basic rules of the game?
    Store rule modifications are acceptable. If my players don't want ties in those situations then that's what we're doing.

  19. #19
    While there has been a change in the rule book, there has been no rule change in regards to this.

    The Original said this:
    "* Timing Conflicts
    If there is a conflict of timing (e.g., both players want to use an ability simultaneously), the person whose turn it is always resolves their effects first. If simultaneous effects are controlled by the same player, that player chooses the order of those effects.

    This rule will avoid the situation where two people reach zero life simultaneously."

    and has been replaced by this:
    "• Timing Conflicts
    If there is a conflict of timing (e.g., both players want to use an ability simultaneously), the person whose turn it is always resolves their effects first. If simultaneous effects are controlled by the same player, that player chooses the order of those effects."

    The only difference is the last line is removed, which is perfectly okay, because it was talking about the intent behind the rule. It just says "we included the previous rule for reasons". The previous rule has not been changed, so the rules themselves have not been changed. Consider it reminder text.

    The missing line should have never been included in the first place, because it's not a rule. It would be the same as if they included these "intent" sentences after each other rule. That would be a very messy rule book.

    Can you imagine if in the Clear and Draw section, they included a sentence like "We included this rule so you would know to draw dice at the beginning"... Umm, thanks... It's no different than the removed sentence. "we included this rule to avoid ties"... Umm, thanks. The rules are still the same though, so no change was made.

    The other "change" is:
    "WINNING
    As soon as your opponent’s life reaches zero, the game ends and you win!"
    to
    "WINNING
    As soon as your opponent’s life reaches zero, the game ends and you win! If both players would reach zero at the same time, the game ends in a tie."

    with the added sentence to only account for the "fireball" situation (or, if you are old school, the Force Beam on double burst" situation, which was lacking. It is possible, in rare situations, that the game can end in a tie, though not as many situations as players seem to think.

    But, thankfully, the rules in this matter are all still intact. No changes have been made since the game's inception.

  20. #20
    So, the intent of the Timing Conflicts rules are to prevent two people's life reaching zero at the same time.

    But, if two people's life reaches zero at the same time, the game is tied.

    Can you not see the contradiction here, @crambaza ?

    If the former is true the latter cannot be, and if the latter is true the former cannot be.

    However, we know that the latter was added at the same time that the 'reminder' of the former was removed, and, so, we can conclude that the current intent is that the latter is true and the former is not, which is clearly a change to the rules (because what was formerly true about the Timing Conflict rules is no longer true).

  21. #21
    And the square of the hypotenuse of a right sided triangle ...?

    Seriously, I hate ties. They really mess up scoring with a small player base. But if it's in the rules as a part of the game, so be it. (I think why we have so many ties is that we play 2-out-of-3 in a 50-minute time limit. Only once had both players hit 0 life at the same time.)

  22. #22
    I think we are all missing the point of the Tie clause here. The tie clause is there to Incentive a player to win in such a way that doesn't make him also lose. It is a way to force a player to win, without losing 20 hp. This rule, increases the value of that last hp to the point that it isn't something you want to just surrender, because you win by doing it. It adds depth to the strategy and challenge of the game, it doesn't take away from that. In the same way that the 5 turn rule adds a layer of strategy, in an attempt to break ties, the rule that "forces" you to still have positive health after killing your opponent provides constraint on in game decisions.

    Also, it clarifies the simultaneous death situations, and takes a small amount of the burden of going second away from the second player.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion0x17 View Post
    So, the intent of the Timing Conflicts rules are to prevent two people's life reaching zero at the same time.
    I would disagree. Not "prevent", but reduce. Originally, the rules were a bit of a mess, and the designers forgot about the Force Beam situation, that actually can end the game in a tie.
    But, if two people's life reaches zero at the same time, the game is tied.

    Can you not see the contradiction here,
    Nope. The rule is to reduce simultaneous death, but it can still happen.
    If the former is true the latter cannot be, and if the latter is true the former cannot be.
    If you speak in absolutes, sure, but I don't, and we probably shouldn't.
    However, we know that the latter was added at the same time that the 'reminder' of the former was removed, and, so, we can conclude that the current intent is that the latter is true and the former is not, which is clearly a change to the rules (because what was formerly true about the Timing Conflict rules is no longer true).
    Again, I disagree with your conclusion. In stream lining the rules, they took out extra items. We can conclude that since the rules haven't changed, then the rules haven't changed...

    That's the conclusion I support, as do the rules.

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowmeld View Post
    I think we are all missing the point of the Tie clause here. The tie clause is there to Incentive a player to win in such a way that doesn't make him also lose. It is a way to force a player to win, without losing 20 hp. This rule, increases the value of that last hp to the point that it isn't something you want to just surrender, because you win by doing it. It adds depth to the strategy and challenge of the game, it doesn't take away from that.
    That is a very good point.

    And it is a well argued, logical, point too.

  25. #25
    And it's actually convinced me.

    SOMEONE CHANGED THEIR MIND ON THE INTERNET!!!!!!!!!1!!!1111!!!!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •