Timeline for When must one communicate denial of a shortcut?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 6, 2017 at 14:31 | history | edited | doppelgreener |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 20, 2015 at 16:49 | vote | accept | Rainbolt | ||
| Jan 15, 2015 at 23:03 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackBoardGames/status/555862784270139392 | ||
| Jan 15, 2015 at 22:42 | comment | added | Waterseas | @Rainbolt And that is the correct time to call a judge. | |
| Jan 15, 2015 at 20:14 | comment | added | Rainbolt | @bengoesboom That is a good point. Calling a judge is always the right choice, but in my experience players often correct the game state on their own when it is as trivial as undeclaring an attack. However, I have seen bullies reply "But I already declared my attacks. It's too late." and that is when I see judges called over to correct the situation. | |
| Jan 15, 2015 at 19:42 | comment | added | bengoesboom | The reason I said this is not valid is that it was not proposed. Anthony's opponent moved past any sort of proposal directly into acting, preventing Anthony from ever acting when he would have priority. At this point, the game state has reached a state (presumably Nathan passing priority in the "declare attackers" phase) in an invalid way. To correct the game state, you should call a judge. | |
| Jan 15, 2015 at 16:13 | answer | added | Waterseas | timeline score: 10 | |
| Jan 15, 2015 at 15:53 | comment | added | Rainbolt | @Hackworth Exactly. The end result is that Nathan is/isn't required to spill information about his hand. | |
| Jan 15, 2015 at 15:50 | comment | added | Hackworth | Is this question about Nathan hiding information from Anthony? I could envision a situation where I don't want to interrupt my opponent immediately because I don't want to reveal unecessarily that I have some instant effect I could play in response to his attack. | |
| Jan 15, 2015 at 15:45 | comment | added | Rainbolt | Just to be clear, proposing a shortcut and acting on it by turning your creatures sideways are two different things. The proposed shortcut was valid. The actions taken in addition to that by Anthony were sloppy and would be reversed if the shortcut was denied. | |
| Jan 15, 2015 at 15:43 | comment | added | Waterseas | @bengoesboom This is a perfectly valid shortcut. | |
| Jan 15, 2015 at 15:43 | comment | added | diego | @ikegami I'm aware, thus why I didn't mention calling a judge in my answer, but I'm assuming that is bengoesboom's reasoning | |
| Jan 15, 2015 at 15:42 | comment | added | ikegami | @diego, A list of predefined shortcuts doesn't make other shortcuts invalid. | |
| Jan 15, 2015 at 15:41 | comment | added | diego | @ikegami Probably because it isn't defined in the MTR as a default shorcut | |
| Jan 15, 2015 at 15:39 | comment | added | ikegami | @bengoesboom, How so? | |
| Jan 15, 2015 at 15:32 | answer | added | diego | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jan 15, 2015 at 15:30 | comment | added | bengoesboom | In competitive REL, this is not a valid shortcut. Anthony should call a judge. | |
| Jan 15, 2015 at 15:22 | history | edited | Rainbolt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 49 characters in body
|
| Jan 15, 2015 at 15:17 | history | asked | Rainbolt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |