Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Rules Questions => Topic started by: DooWopDJ on February 21, 2019, 11:22:43 am
-
I just discovered a 'rule' about Ruins and Knights that is not clear on why it is in place?
Knights "... Keep it face down except for the top card..."
Ruins "... face down with the top card face up..."
Since the top card 'covers' the card underneath, and once the top card is removed (buying/gaining), the next card is then would be immediately (?) turned faced up?
Why not keep all of these cards 'face up', because it is 'covered' by the top card. And because the face down card would be 'revealed' (even if it is eventually turned back face down, it has 'now' been 'revealed' so why not always allow the card under the top card to be revealed immediately when the top card is taken?
This may somehow be due to the 'Ambassador' rule "... If you reveal a card which is part of a Supply pile with differently named cards, such as Ruins or Knights, you can only return two cards to the supply pile if they have the same name. Other players will only gain cards with that name....'
But not to get off onto a different topic, but it seems to be related, this Ambassador rule is not clear in the FAQ section as I think I remember seeing something somewhere about you cannot return the card to the supply for Knights (because you'd never match the top card's name), and you could only return the top card to the Ruins if it 'matched' (but I cannot find this reference at the moment. But despite that fact. The Ambassador's ruling is kind of wishy-washy (IMHO), as you COULD return to the Ruins pile (IF) the current pile has at the time the Ruin card that would be returned to the Ruins pile?
-
"Face down" here seems to mean that you can't inspect the pile, and so the cards are flipped (so you won't accidentally look at them).
Ambassador can return Knights to their pile; it's always the Knight's supply pile, as the randomizer card says.
Did I miss anything?
-
I think the Ambassador rule you are thinking of is that although you can return Ruins (or Knights, for that matter) to the supply with Ambassador, Ambassador only causes players to gain Ruins of the same name as one you returned. So if you are playing with 3 or more players, and you return a Ruined Village to the supply, then there is a Ruined Village on top, so the player who is next in player order gains a Ruined Village. But then the card underneath the Ruined Village might be a Survivors, so the other players doesn't gain a Ruins, because Ambassador wants them to gain Ruined Village.'
Edit: You did mention that rule, I just didn't read through your post carefully enough. Never mind.
-
This was actually just discussed yesterday in this other rules thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19530.0).
There are 2 reasons for it.
1) It would be easy to accidentally see a card other than the top card if they were face up. When you take the top card, you can easily nudge the pile so that they aren't perfectly stacked. You would have to be super careful when taking a card to not accidentally show more cards.
2) You are allowed to count cards in supply piles, but if they were all face up, counting them would basically automatically let you see them.
-
This was actually just discussed yesterday in this other rules thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19530.0).
There are 2 reasons for it.
1) It would be easy to accidentally see a card other than the top card if they were face up. When you take the top card, you can easily nudge the pile so that they aren't perfectly stacked. You would have to be super careful when taking a card to not accidentally show more cards.
2) You are allowed to count cards in supply piles, but if they were all face up, counting them would basically automatically let you see them.
Excellent replies once again. I kind of thought that option 1 would be 'a reason' but my opponents tend not to 'cheat' so I did not give it justice, but I can see how that would be a benefit. So I guess we have playing a 'variant' for the last 10 (or 5 years...LOL).
I never really 'knew' this 'counting allowed' as a rule. We have just assumed that it was 'allowed' because it is too easy to see when there is only 1 or 2 cards left, so why not allow players to 'see' what other cards are 'left'.
-
I never really 'knew' this 'counting allowed' as a rule. We have just assumed that it was 'allowed' because it is too easy to see when there is only 1 or 2 cards left, so why not allow players to 'see' what other cards are 'left'.
Yeah, if you weren't allowed to count, it would be awkward because you could stare at the pile and get a pretty good feel for how many cards are in it, without really counting them. Although, that issue does exist currently with the rule that says you can't count the cards in your discard pile.
-
The game Bruges has a good solution for the issue of accidentally seeing cards. The backs of cards are different as well as the front, and it's important that a player doesn't accidentally see the back of the card that is second-from-the-top. But the cards only differ along the top border. So the solution is to provide a little cardboard card holder, and you put the cards in facing a specific direction. That way, if you accidentally see an extra card, you will only see the bottom of it, where it is the same for all cards.
(https://thegameofwife.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/dscn5432.jpg?w=300&h=225)
-
There are 2 reasons for it.
1) It would be easy to accidentally see a card other than the top card if they were face up. When you take the top card, you can easily nudge the pile so that they aren't perfectly stacked. You would have to be super careful when taking a card to not accidentally show more cards.
2) You are allowed to count cards in supply piles, but if they were all face up, counting them would basically automatically let you see them.
Also you will want to read the top Knight, and pick it up without thinking, and there's the next Knight for all to see.
-
Hhelibebcnofnena wrote the correct rules for Ambassador. The rules are exactly what the card says. You put up to 2 copies from your hand to the supply pile. So if you want to return 2, they both have to have the same name (of course also matching the one you revealed). Then each other player gains a copy from the supply; again this means the same name.
-
Well I understand the need to limit the 'peeking' and 'counting' rules, but I would have solved them them
1) The peeking issue is resolved by a) so what if the 'next' card is revealed. The cards are not significantly different from one another (for both Knights and Ruins) and doubt it would significantly change the outcome of a card selection b) I rarely have an issue with cards sliding around to 'reveal' the next card c) since it is 'possible' (although unlikely) to replace the Ruins cards with Ambassador, then there is an opportunity to have the next card 'temporarily' replaced, and thus temporarily revealed
2) The counting issue is resolved by requiring users to 'count' face down. If players are going to 'cheat' by this method, they they are going to cheat no matter what rules you put in place.
With that said, I guess most people play with a variant and rarely turn these 2 piles face down.
-
Well I understand the need to limit the 'peeking' and 'counting' rules, but I would have solved them them
1) The peeking issue is resolved by a) so what if the 'next' card is revealed. The cards are not significantly different from one another (for both Knights and Ruins) and doubt it would significantly change the outcome of a card selection b) I rarely have an issue with cards sliding around to 'reveal' the next card c) since it is 'possible' (although unlikely) to replace the Ruins cards with Ambassador, then there is an opportunity to have the next card 'temporarily' replaced, and thus temporarily revealed
2) The counting issue is resolved by requiring users to 'count' face down. If players are going to 'cheat' by this method, they they are going to cheat no matter what rules you put in place.
With that said, I guess most people play with a variant and rarely turn these 2 piles face down.
1) I disagree... looking at something like the Knights list that was just recently posted; there's a big difference in power level between Dame Josephine and Sir Bailey. If Dame Josephine is on top, and you know that Sir Bailey is the next card in the pile, it changes the strategy of whether or not to buy Dame Josephine significantly.
2). This isn't about cheating; it's about making it easier for players to do something they are allowed to do without accidentally doing something they aren't allowed to do. Carefully picking up the pile, flipping it upside down, and then counting them all sounds like more work than just flipping over the new top card each time the old top card is gained.
I doubt that most people use the proposed "variant", because it's simply not that much work to do it the way the rules say. The amount of effort you would save by not having to flip a card each time a card is gained is all lost by having to be extra careful each time you gain a card.
-
I agree about Knights, but for Ruins I have definitely always just kept them face-up, while telling people to try to not reveal the next one. That usually works out, and it would almost never matter anyway if one was accidentally revealed.
-
I've always just kept both piles face up, I didn't even realize that this was in the rules. Never had any problems that I can remember.
-
I'm in the keep-Knights-face-down-but-don't-care-enough-about-Ruins camp.
-
I've always just kept both piles face up, I didn't even realize that this was in the rules. Never had any problems that I can remember.
I did realize this was in the rules, but I always keep both piles face up as well. It's never made any difference.