Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Rules Questions => Topic started by: laurilokki on July 08, 2018, 12:04:26 pm
-
Is this a bug on dominion.games that you don't gain an imp with a dplicate? It prompts you to take your duplicate from the reserve, but it doesn't give you an imp for doing that. I can't figure out why you shouldn't get one, and at least it shouldn't prompt you to take the duplicate if you can't (it won't when you're gaining province for 8 )
GAME ID where this happens: 16180951
-
cards only gain from the supply unless otherwise specified. So, what happens is that Duplicate is called, then goes to the supply to find an Imp--but can't find one there, so does nothing!
-
It seems I was wrong. Thank you for correcting me.
-
No problem! It is a bit counterintuitive--but Dominion is a game that operates under pretty strict rules to avoid craaazy situations. And rules for gaining is one of them.
-
In my opinion, there should be an autoplay for this. One that’s on by default.
-
at least it shouldn't prompt you to take the duplicate if you can't (it won't when you're gaining province for 8 )
Gaining a card costing up to $6 that is not in the supply: you may call Duplicate, even though doing so won't achieve much.
Gaining a card that does not cost up to $6: you may not call Duplicate.
That'll be why it asks in the case of Imp, but not of Province.
-
Note that there are edge cases where you do want to call Duplicate when gaining an Imp, for example to get it in play to power up your Horn of Plenty.
-
Would be cool if the note changed to something like: “You May... call a Duplicate (you won’t gain anything)” to make clear what’s happening here, or a line in the log saying “Gaining X Failed (Not In Supply)”.
-
Would be cool if the note changed to something like: “You May... call a Duplicate (you won’t gain anything)” to make clear what’s happening here, or a line in the log saying “Gaining X Failed (Not In Supply)”.
I think the latter option is best.
I'd rather have the log better explain what happened according to the rules than start down the road of warning players of unintended consequences.
-
Would be cool if the note changed to something like: “You May... call a Duplicate (you won’t gain anything)” to make clear what’s happening here, or a line in the log saying “Gaining X Failed (Not In Supply)”.
I think the latter option is best.
I'd rather have the log better explain what happened according to the rules than start down the road of warning players of unintended consequences.
Why?
-
Would be cool if the note changed to something like: “You May... call a Duplicate (you won’t gain anything)” to make clear what’s happening here, or a line in the log saying “Gaining X Failed (Not In Supply)”.
I think the latter option is best.
I'd rather have the log better explain what happened according to the rules than start down the road of warning players of unintended consequences.
Why?
Well, if you go with the former option, you have to decide on a case-by-case basis when to warn a player and when to not. Most people might agree that calling a Duplicate for no gain is worth warning a player, but there are so many other things where it might not be as obvious.
-
Would be cool if the note changed to something like: “You May... call a Duplicate (you won’t gain anything)” to make clear what’s happening here, or a line in the log saying “Gaining X Failed (Not In Supply)”.
I think the latter option is best.
I'd rather have the log better explain what happened according to the rules than start down the road of warning players of unintended consequences.
Why?
Well, if you go with the former option, you have to decide on a case-by-case basis when to warn a player and when to not. Most people might agree that calling a Duplicate for no gain is worth warning a player, but there are so many other things where it might not be as obvious.
It would be kind of friendly to have such warnings, but it would surely just get confusing/annoying and there would be cases where it is not clear which is the 'expected' behaviour and which is the one to warn about. Eg when Upgrading a Copper, would you have a warning saying "(you won't gain anything)"? What about Upgrading a Copper with a Highway in play: "(you won't not gain anything)"
On the other hand, Lord Rattington might find all sorts of warnings quite helpful.
Chapel: "Confirm Trashing (your score will decrease by 24VP)"
Vault/Torturer: "Confirm Discard (if you keep choosing this you may start to feel like rage quitting)"
-
Would be cool if the note changed to something like: “You May... call a Duplicate (you won’t gain anything)” to make clear what’s happening here, or a line in the log saying “Gaining X Failed (Not In Supply)”.
I think the latter option is best.
I'd rather have the log better explain what happened according to the rules than start down the road of warning players of unintended consequences.
Why?
Well, if you go with the former option, you have to decide on a case-by-case basis when to warn a player and when to not. Most people might agree that calling a Duplicate for no gain is worth warning a player, but there are so many other things where it might not be as obvious.
It would be kind of friendly to have such warnings, but it would surely just get confusing/annoying and there would be cases where it is not clear which is the 'expected' behaviour and which is the one to warn about. Eg when Upgrading a Copper, would you have a warning saying "(you won't gain anything)"? What about Upgrading a Copper with a Highway in play: "(you won't not gain anything)"
On the other hand, Lord Rattington might find all sorts of warnings quite helpful.
Chapel: "Confirm Trashing (your score will decrease by 24VP)"
Vault/Torturer: "Confirm Discard (if you keep choosing this you may start to feel like rage quitting)"
I don’t see why “you won’t gain anything” when upgrading a Copper would be bad, or some kind of dangerous slippery slope at all. You don’t need “you won’t not gain anything” when you would gain something; just the absence of a note saying you wouldn’t. I’m really missing your point here.
-
You don’t need “you won’t not gain anything” when you would gain something; just the absence of a note saying you wouldn’t. I’m really missing your point here.
My point is that in order to provide warnings, you have to second-guess what the player was expecting would happen, and in many circumstances that is tricky.
Suppose I've got used to Upgrading Coppers just to trash them and gain nothing; that is what I expect to happen when I Upgrade a Copper.
But then I have a turn with a Highway in play and Upgrade a Copper, and it turns out that I'm forced to gain an Estate; that is the unexpected thing that I would like to have been warned about.
-
You don’t need “you won’t not gain anything” when you would gain something; just the absence of a note saying you wouldn’t. I’m really missing your point here.
My point is that in order to provide warnings, you have to second-guess what the player was expecting would happen, and in many circumstances that is tricky.
Suppose I've got used to Upgrading Coppers just to trash them and gain nothing; that is what I expect to happen when I Upgrade a Copper.
But then I have a turn with a Highway in play and Upgrade a Copper, and it turns out that I'm forced to gain an Estate; that is the unexpected thing that I would like to have been warned about.
You don’t have to do any of that; you’re reading way father into it than you have to. If the card says you gain something and you actually don’t, you say that you didn’t gain anything. You don’t automatically also have to go to the second order case of “what if the card says you gain something, but I think the user knows they won’t, but they actually will this time?” You can just ignore that case, as it is covered by the part where you actually gain something, which follows the text of the card.
It’s really a simple premise (if not a simple implementation): if a card says you’ll do something and you don’t end up doing that, say that it didn’t happen.
-
It’s really a simple premise (if not a simple implementation): if a card says you’ll do something and you don’t end up doing that, say that it didn’t happen.
I have no problem with the suggestion that the log could clarify that something didn't happen, and why.
Originally you gave two suggestions:
Would be cool if the note changed to something like: “You May... call a Duplicate (you won’t gain anything)” to make clear what’s happening here, or a line in the log saying “Gaining X Failed (Not In Supply)”.
I am against the former and pro the latter.
I am agreeing with the views expressed by Cave-o-sapien and GendoIkari that warning players in advance of unintended consequences would be awkward.
-
This is somewhat related to this thread: http://forum.shuffleit.nl/index.php?topic=2936.0