Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Rules Questions => Topic started by: TrashT on September 04, 2012, 09:48:35 pm
-
First question pertains to rule 19.4:
When an ability or several abilities happen at the same time to different players, the abilities are resolved in turn order starting with the current player. Between turns, the player who last had a turn is considered to be the current player. When several abilities happen at the same time to the same player, he chooses the order of the abilities.
So let's say you buy a Noble Brigand and that supply pile has an Embargo token. I read that you would gain the Curse before resolving the on-buy ability of Noble Brigand, because it happens to the opponent. But by what logic doesn't it just happen to everyone, including you? After all, you gain some cards as well. This always made sense to me with on-gain effects while gaining a Province and the opponent has Fool's Gold in his hand - all "my" on-gain triggers would resolve before he has to decide whether to trash his Fool's Gold (or so I think.)
Second question is about Hermit. If I discard him from play, and didn't buy anything this turn. I gain a Madman. Can I reveal a Watchtower from my hand to topdeck the Madman? I would think not, since the rulebook just states "discard all cards from play and your hand", which implies that you do it all at the same time. It seems similar to discarding Watchtower and Tunnel to Minion - you cannot reveal that Watchtower to topdeck the Gold, since you discard everything, THEN reveal Tunnel and gain a Gold, THEN draw 4. So far so good - but if that is how Hermit/Watchtower interact, how does Herbalist even work at all? Seems to me like it should be worded similarly to Scheme (At the beginning of your cleanup step, if Herbalist is in play, you may choose a Treasure card in play. When that card is discarded from play this turn, put it on top of your deck.)
So, would anyone please be so kind as to shed some light on all this? :)
-
As far as the Hermit question is concerned, clean-up happens in whatever order you like. That is, you actually discard each card one after the other, choosing them as you go. In most cases this effectively all happens at once because the order doesn't affect anything. But in the case you listed you could decide to clean up Hermit before discarding your hand, which would leave your Watchtower in place to be revealed when you gain your Madman.
I don't really understand what you are asking with the Noble Brigand question. In the scenario you described you gain a curse and a Noble Brigand and also attack the other players who may gain copper or trash treasures or possibly just flip two cards. The order doesn't really matter unless some other thing gets triggered--like maybe you have a Watchtower or someone else has a Market Square. But I have no idea what "after all, you gain some cards as well" is even in reference to, since you are the only player who is definitely gaining anything. I don't really know what you expect to be happening to everyone. No one else is getting a curse if that's what you mean.
-
The "as well" was a bit misleading, sorry about that. My point is: I think it could be relevant in which order those two effects happen. In that case, I was told the Embargo effect would resolve first, because it affects me, whereas the Noble Brigand effect affects my opponent. Given the nature of Noble Brigand's effect though, I don't see the logic behind this - why does it count as affecting my opponent, but not me? Or was I told wrong in the first place?
-
Oh and thanks for clearing up the Hermit/Watchtower issue :-)
-
As far as the Hermit question is concerned, clean-up happens in whatever order you like. That is, you actually discard each card one after the other, choosing them as you go.
This part is incorrect. The cards are discarded all at once; you can choose which goes on top: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1004.msg15441#msg15441
However, I don't know if there is a standard for whether cards in front of you are cleaned up first, or cards in your hand are cleaned up first.
-
However, I don't know if there is a standard for whether cards in front of you are cleaned up first, or cards in your hand are cleaned up first.
I have a vague recollection that Donald X once addressed this issue on BGG, with respect to a fan card, but sadly I don't remember what the response was.
-
So let's say you buy a Noble Brigand and that supply pile has an Embargo token. I read that you would gain the Curse before resolving the on-buy ability of Noble Brigand, because it happens to the opponent. But by what logic doesn't it just happen to everyone, including you? After all, you gain some cards as well. This always made sense to me with on-gain effects while gaining a Province and the opponent has Fool's Gold in his hand - all "my" on-gain triggers would resolve before he has to decide whether to trash his Fool's Gold (or so I think.)
When Noble Brigand attacks, it makes each other player reveal cards and so on. That involves you. But it's not like we can resolve your part of that first - we have to see what cards they reveal to know if you get any. We reveal cards in turn order. The turn order timing rule handles this.
When you buy Noble Brigand, two things trigger on that buying. You pick the order - gain a Curse first, or first resolve the rest of what Noble Brigand says (which turns out to involve the other players in turn order).
Second question is about Hermit. If I discard him from play, and didn't buy anything this turn. I gain a Madman. Can I reveal a Watchtower from my hand to topdeck the Madman? I would think not, since the rulebook just states "discard all cards from play and your hand", which implies that you do it all at the same time.
From the Alchemy rulebook, you discard cards from play in the order you choose, and resolve the effects as they come up. This is different from discarding from your hand, where you discard everything before resolving Tunnel. The reason for the difference is wanting to not bog things down with showing people every card you Cellar.
More explanation for Hermit/Market Square: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/851691/hermit-and-market-square
Edit: Oh and so the answer is yes you can Watchtower the Madman.
-
Makes perfect sense, thanks a lot!
-
When Noble Brigand attacks, it makes each other player reveal cards and so on. That involves you. But it's not like we can resolve your part of that first - we have to see what cards they reveal to know if you get any. We reveal cards in turn order. The turn order timing rule handles this.
When you buy Noble Brigand, two things trigger on that buying. You pick the order - gain a Curse first, or first resolve the rest of what Noble Brigand says (which turns out to involve the other players in turn order).
...So to my surprise, the different rule booklets actually seem to contradict each other on this. For instance, the Seaside rules say:
If multiple cards resolve at the same time on your turn... you choose what order to resolve them. A card that affects multiple players during your turn still resolves in player order, affecting you first if it affects all players and then proceeding clockwise.
But the Hinterlands rules say:
When two things happen to a player at the same time, that player picks the order to do them.... When two things happen to different players at the same time, they happen in turn order, starting with the player whose turn it is.
Donald's ruling above is consistent with the way the timing rules are stated in the Seaside booklet (Embargo and Noble Brigand are two different cards resolving at the same time, so the active player chooses which one resolves first; the go-in-turn-order rule only applies to effects of a single card), but not with the way the rules are stated in the Hinterlands booklet (Embargo and Noble Brigand are triggered at the same time, so the one that affects the current player is resolved first; whether simultaneous effects are triggered by multiple cards or a single card is irrelevant to the rule).
Should we take this as meaning that, of these two contradictory formulations of the rule, it's the Seaside one that we should take as correct?
-
If multiple cards resolve at the same time on your turn... you choose what order to resolve them.
No but wait... multiple opponents' Secret Chambers are multiple cards resolving at the same time on your turn, but obviously you don't choose the order to resolve them in. Aaargh. Now I'm all confused.
-
If multiple cards resolve at the same time on your turn... you choose what order to resolve them.
No but wait... multiple opponents' Secret Chambers are multiple cards resolving at the same time on your turn, but obviously you don't choose the order to resolve them in. Aaargh. Now I'm all confused.
(Or a less obviously-wrong issue regarding the same timing problem: can I wait to see if opponents have Moats / Secret Chambers / Horse Traders / Beggars to reveal before I decide whether I want to trash my Urchin for a Mercenary? Or do I have to trash Urchin or decide not to before everyone else gets a chance to reveal their Reactions? I have no idea now.)
-
If multiple cards resolve at the same time on your turn... you choose what order to resolve them.
No but wait... multiple opponents' Secret Chambers are multiple cards resolving at the same time on your turn, but obviously you don't choose the order to resolve them in. Aaargh. Now I'm all confused.
(Or a less obviously-wrong issue regarding the same timing problem: can I wait to see if opponents have Moats / Secret Chambers / Horse Traders / Beggars to reveal before I decide whether I want to trash my Urchin for a Mercenary? Or do I have to trash Urchin or decide not to before everyone else gets a chance to reveal their Reactions? I have no idea now.)
In the second example, you must wait, right? The reactions are all revealed upon play of the attack. Urchin's ability is triggered after play.
-
If multiple cards resolve at the same time on your turn... you choose what order to resolve them.
No but wait... multiple opponents' Secret Chambers are multiple cards resolving at the same time on your turn, but obviously you don't choose the order to resolve them in. Aaargh. Now I'm all confused.
(Or a less obviously-wrong issue regarding the same timing problem: can I wait to see if opponents have Moats / Secret Chambers / Horse Traders / Beggars to reveal before I decide whether I want to trash my Urchin for a Mercenary? Or do I have to trash Urchin or decide not to before everyone else gets a chance to reveal their Reactions? I have no idea now.)
In the second example, you must wait, right? The reactions are all revealed upon play of the attack. Urchin's ability is triggered after play.
Urchin is "When you play another Attack card with this in play, you may trash this." That's the same timing as Secret Chamber's "When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this."
-
Yeah I think the Urchin upgrade would resolve before other players have the opportunity to react since it affects the player whose turn it is.
-
Donald's ruling above is consistent with the way the timing rules are stated in the Seaside booklet (Embargo and Noble Brigand are two different cards resolving at the same time, so the active player chooses which one resolves first; the go-in-turn-order rule only applies to effects of a single card), but not with the way the rules are stated in the Hinterlands booklet (Embargo and Noble Brigand are triggered at the same time, so the one that affects the current player is resolved first; whether simultaneous effects are triggered by multiple cards or a single card is irrelevant to the rule).
The issue here is just "does Noble Brigand affect the current player." Does it count as one of the things where we use turn order timing. When it says "each other player," it's timed in turn order; when it says "when you buy this," that's you, buying something, and we have you order that vs. other things like that.
-
Yeah I think the Urchin upgrade would resolve before other players have the opportunity to react since it affects the player whose turn it is.
Urchin is trashed before Moats.
-
Hmm, I see I need to reword the FAQ that was quoted in the original post. This isn't quite as straight forward as I thought it was.
-
Urchin is trashed before Moats.
Because of turn order, or because the players can choose to reveal the moat last?
-
Because of turn order, or because the players can choose to reveal the moat last?
Turn order-based timing.
-
Turn order-based timing.
And this is different from the Noble Brigand case where you could choose between simultanous triggers, one of which affected others, because the trigger for Moat is not a card that 'belongs' to you?
So, each time a trigger happens, you resolve any effects that relate to you (such as the urchin trashing or the embargo token cursing), then each other player in turn resolve any effects that relate to them (such as reactions). But because 'resolve the when-gain effect of the card you just bought' is considered to relate to the buyer, the buyer of an embargoed Noble Brigand can choose to resolve that effect first. Did I get that right?
-
And this is different from the Noble Brigand case where you could choose between simultanous triggers, one of which affected others, because the trigger for Moat is not a card that 'belongs' to you?
So, each time a trigger happens, you resolve any effects that relate to you (such as the urchin trashing or the embargo token cursing), then each other player in turn resolve any effects that relate to them (such as reactions). But because 'resolve the when-gain effect of the card you just bought' is considered to relate to the buyer, the buyer of an embargoed Noble Brigand can choose to resolve that effect first. Did I get that right?
I don't want to just say yes because I want to be accurate and don't want to have to focus too much on your exact words. Someone complained once about me not just saying "yes" and well there's my explanation for not doing so.
When two things happen to you at once, you pick the order. When two things happen to different players at once, they go in turn order. That's the basic rule.
For Urchin / Moat, Urchin is "when you play an attack" and Moat is "when someone else plays an attack." They both trigger on the same event. We have to have an order for people to show their Moats, and it's turn order. You could consider this an extension of the original rule - getting to decide whether or not to reveal your Moat is "something happening to you." I am not sure if a rulebook flatly states this. Once you have this then of course Urchin goes first - same trigger, different player, use turn order.
For Embargo / Noble Brigand, two things happen when you buy a card. This creates the question, "does Noble Brigand count as happening to you or what," and my ruling is, yes, just the "when you" part by itself is enough to involve you in it.
-
...
For Embargo / Noble Brigand, two things happen when you buy a card. This creates the question, "does Noble Brigand count as happening to you or what," and my ruling is, yes, just the "when you" part by itself is enough to involve you in it.
Makes sense. Thank you!
-
I'm necroing this thread because I'm really confused by this ruling, after trying to make sense of it. I thought I got it, but now I realize I never did.
The bottom line was that when Alice plays Urchin and Bob has a Moat, Alice has to trash Urchin before Bob reveals the Moat.
But: When Alice buys an Embargoed Noble Brigand, she can choose to resolve Noble Brigand before Embargo.
The reasoning is that Noble Brigand ("when you buy this") affects Alice, but Bob's Moat doesn't. If his Moat affected her too, she would get to choose which should be resolved first (Moat's or Urchin's when-play ability).
But why is Noble Brigand different from Moat?
For Moat, Donald said: Getting to decide whether or not to reveal your Moat is "something happening to you." The idea is that it's happening to Bob, not to Alice.
But that's not the trigger. This is the trigger:
Noble Brigand says "when you buy this". -- "You" in this case is Alice.
Moat says "when another player plays an Attack card". -- "Another player" in this case is Alice.
In both cases the trigger is Alice (not Bob) actively doing something.
So what about "deciding whether or not to reveal your Moat". That's part of resolving the ability.
Noble Brigand: "each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck..." -- This means Bob.
Moat: "you may reveal this from your hand." -- This means Bob.
In both cases Bob does something as part of the resolution, so it seems that both cards entail "something happening" to Bob.
I can only see these two differences:
1) Moat entails a choice for Bob, Noble Brigand doesn't. But nowhere, in the rulebooks or in this thread, is choice mentioned as a distinguishing factor. (Edit: This turned out to be the answer!)
2) The Moat card belongs to Bob, the Noble Brigand card doesn't. But the Noble Brigand doesn't belong to Alice either, not yet.
What am I missing?
-
What am I missing?
I'm not sure and can't focus on the words, but here are two things that conceivably clarify things.
We only care about the trigger, not what it does. When Alice buys Embargo'd Noble Brigand, she has two "When you buy this, black box" triggers. We need to know what order to do them and the rule is Alice picks.
The general rule "when things happen to different players at the same time, go in turn order" is supposed to cover revealing Moat (plus the other things it covers). I see how you can say "that isn't happening to different players" - there are two "When I play this attack" triggers, and one of them is your optional thing (Urchin) and another is another player's optional thing (Moat). But the intention is that those decisions are made in turn order. If it helps you you can add "when multiple players need to make decisions at once, go in turn order."
-
We only care about the trigger, not what it does. When Alice buys Embargo'd Noble Brigand, she has two "When you buy this, black box" triggers. We need to know what order to do them and the rule is Alice picks.
The general rule "when things happen to different players at the same time, go in turn order" is supposed to cover revealing Moat (plus the other things it covers). I see how you can say "that isn't happening to different players" - there are two "When I play this attack" triggers, and one of them is your optional thing (Urchin) and another is another player's optional thing (Moat). But the intention is that those decisions are made in turn order. If it helps you you can add "when multiple players need to make decisions at once, go in turn order."
Ok, I understand the intention. But I don't think I can find the logic that would apply for both these examples and any others that might show up.
If we only care about the trigger, that works for Noble Brigand/Embargo, but as you note, for Moat and Urchin the trigger is just "when I play an Attack, black box". To even know if Alice can choose the order of Moat and Urchin -- to find out if there are decisions that go in turn order -- we have to look in the black box. To me this means that we don't only care about the trigger. (The same is true if Bob has a Moat and a Secret Chamber: He should decide the order to resolve them, not Alice.)
If there was a Noble Torturer -- "when you buy this, each other player discards 2 cards or gains a Curse" -- and Alice buys an Embargo'd Noble Torturer, what's the order? Does she have to gain the Curse first, and then the other players make the decision in turn order?
-
If there was a Noble Torturer -- "when you buy this, each other player discards 2 cards or gains a Curse" -- and Alice buys an Embargo'd Noble Torturer, what's the order? Does she have to gain the Curse first, and then the other players make the decision in turn order?
Alice picks whether to resolve Embargo or Noble Torturer's rule first. When she resolves Noble Torturer's rule, the other players make their decisions in turn order.
When something happens that other players can react to, e.g. playing an Attack, they have to speak up about their interest in doing their thing, and they technically go in turn order. In practice everyone just flashes their Moat; in rare cases you may need to slow down. No-one wants to stop the game so we can see in turn if each player has Moat. Even in a computer version, you don't want to go in turn order; it's slower for no benefit. But that's the rule, the decisions are made in turn order.
-
If we only care about the trigger, that works for Noble Brigand/Embargo, but as you note, for Moat and Urchin the trigger is just "when I play an Attack, black box". To even know if Alice can choose the order of Moat and Urchin -- to find out if there are decisions that go in turn order -- we have to look in the black box. To me this means that we don't only care about the trigger. (The same is true if Bob has a Moat and a Secret Chamber: He should decide the order to resolve them, not Alice.)
Well, no. Moat and Urchin both trigger on someone playing an attack. But even without looking at what they do on the trigger, you can tell that Alice's Urchin goes first. Why? Because it's Alice's turn, and she gets first dibs on all "when an attack is played" triggers. So Alice plays her attack, says "I've got a thing that triggers on that play. It's Urchin. I [trash the Urchin/don't trash the Urchin]. I have no more triggers." Then Bob goes "I might have a thing that triggers on that play. It's Moat. I [reveal the Moat/don't reveal the Moat]." Or Bob goes "I might have things that trigger on that play. I choose to resolve Secret Chamber. Then I choose to resolve Moat. Then I choose to resolve Secret Chamber."
-
Well, no. Moat and Urchin both trigger on someone playing an attack. But even without looking at what they do on the trigger, you can tell that Alice's Urchin goes first. Why? Because it's Alice's turn, and she gets first dibs on all "when an attack is played" triggers. So Alice plays her attack, says "I've got a thing that triggers on that play. It's Urchin. I [trash the Urchin/don't trash the Urchin]. I have no more triggers." Then Bob goes "I might have a thing that triggers on that play. It's Moat. I [reveal the Moat/don't reveal the Moat]." Or Bob goes "I might have things that trigger on that play. I choose to resolve Secret Chamber. Then I choose to resolve Moat. Then I choose to resolve Secret Chamber."
Both Moat and Urchin has a "when an Attack is played" trigger, and Alice triggered both, on her turn. With just looking at the triggers, Alice should get to choose which goes first.
-
As I said, I understand the intention.
(1) Alice plays an Attack, which triggers all when-play-Attack abilities. Alice's Urchin, Bob's Moat, Bob's Secret Chamber, and Cathy's Moat all trigger at the same time. It makes intuitive sense (given the turn-order rule) that the triggered abilities are resolved in turn order.
(2) When Alice buys Embargo'd Noble Brigand, both abilities trigger at the same time. Here it's not so clear (which is why this thread was created in the first place). But the idea is, well Alice triggered both, so it's "her" abilities to order.
The problem is that Alice actually triggered all abilities in (1) too.
Maybe we have to look at the concept of ownership after all. The reason it's intuitive that we go in turn order in (1), is that we think of "Alice's Urchin", "Bob's Moat" etc. So in (2), the Noble Brigand is still in supply, it's just been bought, but going by the rule of Estate ownership for Inheritance, a card is actually "yours" from the moment you buy it, before you gain it. So then it makes sense that it's "Alice's Noble Brigand". But what about Embargo? Embargo isn't even a card really, it's a global rule that says that when "a player" buys a card, he gains a Curse. We could say, since it's a global rule, that it says to each player: "When you buy a card, gain a Curse." But Embargo is still not a card owned by Alice. Also, what if Bob had played a Swamp Hag and Alice buys a Noble Brigand? I assume she would still get to choose whether to gain the Curse first, but in this case the Swamp Hag is actually Bob's card. So card ownership clearly doesn't matter.
Maybe we can look even closer at the triggers. The difference between Noble Brigand's trigger ("when you buy this") and Moat's trigger ("when another player plays an Attack") is who is being referred to. Noble Brigand only talks about "you", and so Alice is both the player who triggers and the player who will be affected. Moat talks about "another player", meaning "a player other than you". This implies that the "other player" (Alice) triggers, but "you" (Bob) will be affected. But what about Swamp Hag and Haunted Woods? If Bob has played one previously, and Alice buys a card, Swamp Hag says to Bob: "when any other player buys a card". This would then imply that Bob is the one being affected, which is wrong (I assume). So this doesn't work either.
The only thing I can find that seems to work, is to define Reaction cards specifically: When Reaction cards trigger, they are resolved in turn order. But how do we define who resolves each card? It has to be either according to who each card belongs to, or according to who each each card addresses (in the trigger). (Since neither Embargo, Swamp Hag or Haunted Woods are Reaction cards, they are always resolved by the player who triggered them.) I think this would cover all interactions, but I'm not sure.
TL;DR: The reason Reactions go in turn order, is just because they are Reactions. That type sets them apart. (Otherwise Swamp Hag would behave wrongly.)
Donald, I don't know if this was your intention, that this is peculiar to Reactions? You did write: "When something happens that other players can react to, e.g. playing an Attack, they have to speak up about their interest in doing their thing, and they technically go in turn order."
-
(1) Alice plays an Attack, which triggers all when-play-Attack abilities. Alice's Urchin, Bob's Moat, Bob's Secret Chamber, and Cathy's Moat all trigger at the same time. It makes intuitive sense (given the turn-order rule) that the triggered abilities are resolved in turn order.
(2) When Alice buys Embargo'd Noble Brigand, both abilities trigger at the same time. Here it's not so clear (which is why this thread was created in the first place). But the idea is, well Alice triggered both, so it's "her" abilities to order.
The problem is that Alice actually triggered all abilities in (1) too.
"Triggered" isn't defined. My mental picture of Moat is that in some sense it "triggers" when another player attacks, but obv. in another sense it does not, in particular other players irl don't even know you have Moat if you don't reveal it, which is a far cry from a trigger happening. And if we don't know you have Moat then how can there be a "trigger" for you not having Moat? If you see what I mean.
In the second case, two abilities uh have to happen, it's at the same time, they need a rule ordering them, there is one.
In the first case, only one ability has to happen - Alice resolving whether or not she's trashing Urchin. The others are all optional. When there's a situation where players can react to something - which should be clear from the cards, e.g. Moat is in this game - and it matters, which it essentially never does, the players do their optional reactive things in turn order.
Donald, I don't know if this was your intention, that this is peculiar to Reactions? You did write: "When something happens that other players can react to, e.g. playing an Attack, they have to speak up about their interest in doing their thing, and they technically go in turn order."
I'm just not being more specific than I have to be. I don't want to say something and have you say "oh but what about this card, it's not a Reaction but falls into this category." Man that card is covered.
-
"Triggered" isn't defined. My mental picture of Moat is that in some sense it "triggers" when another player attacks, but obv. in another sense it does not, in particular other players irl don't even know you have Moat if you don't reveal it, which is a far cry from a trigger happening. And if we don't know you have Moat then how can there be a "trigger" for you not having Moat? If you see what I mean.
I guess you mean "how can there be a trigger for you having Moat" (without the "not".)
Right, if Alice actually was the one choosing the order here, it wouldn't work, because the other players would have to tell her which reactions they have that triggered, before they even decide if they want to resolve them, so that she could say which one goes first etc. Nevertheless, they do trigger (that's why they can be resolved), and they all trigger at the same time (that's why we have rules for ordering them).
So obviously in practice Alice can't order opponents' reactions that they have in their hands, since they are secret. Maybe that's reason enough for saying that in these cases the resolving goes in turn order. It seems to me the only cards that work like this are: Moat, Secret Chamber, Horse Traders, Beggar, Caravan Guard and Fool's Gold. They all trigger on another player doing something. (Watchtower, Tunnel, Trader, Hovel and Market Square all trigger on something you do, so there is no turn order there - you're the only one reacting.) Swamp Hag and Haunted Woods also trigger on another player doing something, but these cards are not secret (and they are not Reaction cards).
I'm just not being more specific than I have to be. I don't want to say something and have you say "oh but what about this card, it's not a Reaction but falls into this category." Man that card is covered.
I don't think there are other cards than the ones I mentioned. But I see what you mean. :)
Just to make sure: If Bob plays Haunted Woods, then Cathy plays Swamp Hag, then Alice buys a card, Alice gets to decide whether to gain a Curse or top-deck her hand first, right?
-
"Triggered" isn't defined. My mental picture of Moat is that in some sense it "triggers" when another player attacks, but obv. in another sense it does not, in particular other players irl don't even know you have Moat if you don't reveal it, which is a far cry from a trigger happening. And if we don't know you have Moat then how can there be a "trigger" for you not having Moat? If you see what I mean.
I guess you mean "how can there be a trigger for you having Moat" (without the "not".)
No I meant not having Moat.
If I don't have Moat, not having Moat isn't a trigger, "now it's time to resolve me not having Moat." And we don't know if I have Moat or not until I reveal this information.
Right, if Alice actually was the one choosing the order here, it wouldn't work, because the other players would have to tell her which reactions they have that triggered, before they even decide if they want to resolve them, so that she could say which one goes first etc. Nevertheless, they do trigger (that's why they can be resolved), and they all trigger at the same time (that's why we have rules for ordering them).
"Trigger" is just not the word I would use (and again is not defined as Dominion jargon).
"When x happens" causes mandatory things that say "when x happens" to "trigger" and become necessary to order for resolution, and then necessary to resolve even if the card with the rule goes away. "When x happens" optional things don't "trigger." They just have a window of time they can be used in.
When multiple things happen, there is the one player rule and the multiple players rule. When there's a window for doing things, there is also multiple player timing - go in turn order.
Just do make sure: If Bob plays Haunted Woods, then Cathy plays Swamp Hag, then Alice buys a card, Alice gets to decide whether to gain a Curse or top-deck her hand first, right?
Yes.
-
"Trigger" is just not the word I would use (and again is not defined as Dominion jargon).
Well, you have used it in this sense in at least the Dark Ages and Adventures rulebooks. You also used it for Tunnel, which is an optional Reaction. Which other word would be better?
"When x happens" causes mandatory things that say "when x happens" to "trigger" and become necessary to order for resolution, and then necessary to resolve even if the card with the rule goes away. "When x happens" optional things don't "trigger." They just have a window of time they can be used in.
To me they are the same, whether optional or not. Your option to do something has to be "activated" by something. For Moat that is "when another player plays an Attack". That "thing" "activates" Moat's reaction ability, which is you getting to choose to reveal it. Before it was "activated", the choice was not there. Also, there can be several abilities "activated" by the same "thing", some optional, some not. Like gaining a Border Village with Watchtower in hand. You can order these (the resolution of them), even though one is optional (to reveal the Watchtower) and the other not. If this "thing" (which is gaining the Border Village) is a trigger for Border Village, it makes sense that it's a trigger for Watchtower too.
To put it another way: "When x happens" causes both mandatory and optional things that say "when x happens" to "trigger" and become necessary to order for resolution.
-
"Trigger" is just not the word I would use (and again is not defined as Dominion jargon).
Well, you have used it in this sense in at least the Dark Ages and Adventures rulebooks. You also used it for Tunnel, which is an optional Reaction. Which other word would be better?
I just mean, I do not wish for someone to think that some extra unstated meaning is tied to "trigger." It's not defined Dominion jargon, it's just a word we're trying to use to communicate.
To put it another way: "When x happens" causes both mandatory and optional things that say "when x happens" to "trigger" and become necessary to order for resolution.
No.
"When X happens" causes mandatory things to happen (including mandatory things with optional parts), and also creates a window for doing optional things. You never need to "resolve not doing" Moat. You could mentally pass on doing it and then change your mind based on something else. In fact I could decide not to Moat, being ahead of Joe in turn order, and then when Joe Moats, decide, wait I want to Moat too then. It's still inside the window for doing these things. It's just that, if Joe and I both desperately want to Moat first, then turn order decides it.
Edit: And, to be clear again, we are talking about super-technical stuff that never matters, that would not be part of an online implementation or real played game of Dominion, except in that super-exotic case you can come up with, and then hooray we know how to handle that.
-
"When X happens" causes mandatory things to happen (including mandatory things with optional parts), and also creates a window for doing optional things. You never need to "resolve not doing" Moat. You could mentally pass on doing it and then change your mind based on something else. In fact I could decide not to Moat, being ahead of Joe in turn order, and then when Joe Moats, decide, wait I want to Moat too then. It's still inside the window for doing these things. It's just that, if Joe and I both desperately want to Moat first, then turn order decides it.
Hmm, I'm struggling to understand this. First of all, as you say, order can matter (e.g. Beggar - and the Silvers run out). So you do need to "resolve not doing" a reaction (sometimes). It's like for Torturer: Each player decides in turn order whether to discard or gain a Curse, and sometimes the order matters. I really don't see your point here.
Second, what about the Border Village/Watchtower example? Are you saying that BV and Watchtower don't both trigger on the same thing happening? What does it mean that BV is a mandatory thing and Watchtower happens in a window? I mean, you get to order them, because they triggered on the same thing, right? I mean, they triggered at the same time.
Or do you mean that Watchtower is different from Moat or Beggar in this sense?
Edit: And, to be clear again, we are talking about super-technical stuff that never matters, that would not be part of an online implementation or real played game of Dominion, except in that super-exotic case you can come up with, and then hooray we know how to handle that.
This would certainly be part of an online implementation of Dominion if I made it, because it goes to the core of how timing works when things trigger for several players. The alternative is to special-case code certain of these cards or interactions. I would make an engine that could incorporate new cards (that don't have entirely new mechanics of course), but more importantly, that would work for interactions between existing cards that nobody thought about yet. There are so many cards now, it's impossible to cover each potentially weird interaction with special-case coding from the get-go.
-
Second, what about the Border Village/Watchtower example? Are you saying that BV and Watchtower don't both trigger on the same thing happening? What does it mean that BV is a mandatory thing and Watchtower happens in a window? I mean, you get to order them, because they triggered on the same thing, right? I mean, they triggered at the same time.
X happens (e.g. gaining Border Village).
1. mandatory things go on a list of things to resolve (e.g. Border Village's rule).
2. either resolve one or do an optional thing (e.g. reveal Watchtower from hand).
2.b. resolving things can add mandatory things to the list; nothing removes list items except resolving them.
3. continue at 2 until there are no mandatory things and no-one wants to do an optional thing.
If multiple players want to reveal Moat and care about the order, they go in turn order. If, after someone reveals Moat, multiple players want to reveal Moat (including ones who passed the first time), they go in turn order.
Moat can be revealed in a window of time, "when an attack card blah blah blah." It can be revealed during that window as long as the window is open. When finally no-one wants to do "when attack" stuff and no-one has to do any, that's when you finally lose the chance to Moat.
-
Probably not relevant, but you can't revela a Moat to a bought Noble Brigand, unless I am mistaken.
-
Probably not relevant, but you can't revela a Moat to a bought Noble Brigand, unless I am mistaken.
No, because they aren't playing the card, they're just using its on-buy effect.
Moat says "when another player plays an attack card".
-
X happens (e.g. gaining Border Village).
1. mandatory things go on a list of things to resolve (e.g. Border Village's rule).
2. either resolve one or do an optional thing (e.g. reveal Watchtower from hand).
2.b. resolving things can add mandatory things to the list; nothing removes list items except resolving them.
3. continue at 2 until there are no mandatory things and no-one wants to do an optional thing.
If multiple players want to reveal Moat and care about the order, they go in turn order. If, after someone reveals Moat, multiple players want to reveal Moat (including ones who passed the first time), they go in turn order.
Moat can be revealed in a window of time, "when an attack card blah blah blah." It can be revealed during that window as long as the window is open. When finally no-one wants to do "when attack" stuff and no-one has to do any, that's when you finally lose the chance to Moat.
Ok, I think I'm starting to finally understand what you're saying now. (I would still say that optional things "trigger" in the sense that the option is now activated, but that's beside the point of what we're talking about, I think. It's just semantics.)
But one question remains. You're talking about "optional things" instead of talking about "Reactions". So this would include an Urchin in play. According to what you're saying, Urchin doesn't go on a list of things to resolve, but can be resolved whenever in the window, right? So then you could trash Urchin after Moats are revealed? But that's not what you said before.
Like this?
Alice plays an Attack with Urchin in play. Alice gets to do optional things first. Does Alice want to trash the Urchin? No. Then Bob gets a chance to do optional things. He doesn't. Now Cathy gets a chance, but Alice can also do optional things now. Cathy discards a Beggar, and says she doesn't want to do more optional things. Now both Alice and Bob can do optional things. Bob decides to reveal a Secret Chamber, and then discard a Beggar. Now both Alice and Cathy can do optional things again. Alice decides to trash her Urchin.
-
I also realize that if you gain IGG with Watchtower in hand, you get to decide whether to trash/topdeck the IGG before your opponents gain a Curse, and then (if you didn't) you get to decide again after. I think it doesn't work correctly online...? Another interaction where this timing could matter.
-
X happens (e.g. gaining Border Village).
1. mandatory things go on a list of things to resolve (e.g. Border Village's rule).
2. either resolve one or do an optional thing (e.g. reveal Watchtower from hand).
2.b. resolving things can add mandatory things to the list; nothing removes list items except resolving them.
3. continue at 2 until there are no mandatory things and no-one wants to do an optional thing.
If multiple players want to reveal Moat and care about the order, they go in turn order. If, after someone reveals Moat, multiple players want to reveal Moat (including ones who passed the first time), they go in turn order.
Moat can be revealed in a window of time, "when an attack card blah blah blah." It can be revealed during that window as long as the window is open. When finally no-one wants to do "when attack" stuff and no-one has to do any, that's when you finally lose the chance to Moat.
Ok, I think I'm starting to finally understand what you're saying now. (I would still say that optional things "trigger" in the sense that the option is now activated, but that's beside the point of what we're talking about, I think. It's just semantics.)
But one question remains. You're talking about "optional things" instead of talking about "Reactions". So this would include an Urchin in play. According to what you're saying, Urchin doesn't go on a list of things to resolve, but can be resolved whenever in the window, right? So then you could trash Urchin after Moats are revealed? But that's not what you said before.
Like this?
Alice plays an Attack with Urchin in play. Alice gets to do optional things first. Does Alice want to trash the Urchin? No. Then Bob gets a chance to do optional things. He doesn't. Now Cathy gets a chance, but Alice can also do optional things now. Cathy discards a Beggar, and says she doesn't want to do more optional things. Now both Alice and Bob can do optional things. Bob decides to reveal a Secret Chamber, and then discard a Beggar. Now both Alice and Cathy can do optional things again. Alice decides to trash her Urchin.
I think it would have been valid for Urchin to have the Reaction subtype to remind you that it can react to something later on.
That being said, the timing of things always starts with the player whose turn it is.
So when it's time for both Moat and Urchin trashing, Urchin goes first.
-
I think it would have been valid for Urchin to have the Reaction subtype to remind you that it can react to something later on.
That being said, the timing of things always starts with the player whose turn it is.
So when it's time for both Moat and Urchin trashing, Urchin goes first.
Yes, Alice gets to do Urchin first if she wants. But as I wrote, if Urchin works like Moat (and other reactions), then Alice can still do Urchin later in the window, after Moat.
-
Like this?
Alice plays an Attack with Urchin in play. Alice gets to do optional things first. Does Alice want to trash the Urchin? No. Then Bob gets a chance to do optional things. He doesn't. Now Cathy gets a chance, but Alice can also do optional things now. Cathy discards a Beggar, and says she doesn't want to do more optional things. Now both Alice and Bob can do optional things. Bob decides to reveal a Secret Chamber, and then discard a Beggar. Now both Alice and Cathy can do optional things again. Alice decides to trash her Urchin.
Close.
I'm not sure why you say "but Alice can also do optional things now." Technically if Cathy passes then Alice *can't* use Urchin; obv. there has to be a way for everyone to pass and to know we're done considering that. Cathy doing something gives Alice another chance to do things.
And when Cathy uses Beggar, it's Alice's turn next, not Cathy's.
This is tentative because it absolutely never comes up and no-one has ever asked. But irl when I Moat, someone else may be all, oh man Moat, yes I have Moat, and they are going out of order, and I would like that to be full-on okay. There will be no "Oh technically I don't get to Moat now? This game sucks."
It looks unremarkable when it's one player. I have a bunch of reserve cards and durations; I have to order the durations and until I move on by playing an Action card you can think I just haven't said yes/no on the reserve cards yet, and when I finally play an Action that includes me saying no to the rest of them. But really there's no way to say no to them; you just don't say yes and then don't have a chance to anymore.
-
First and most importantly: So are you now saying that Urchin works like Moat and Beggar, and not the way you described it initially in this thread? You can trash it after your opponents' reactions? I just want to make sure.
I'm not sure why you say "but Alice can also do optional things now." Technically if Cathy passes then Alice *can't* use Urchin; obv. there has to be a way for everyone to pass and to know we're done considering that. Cathy doing something gives Alice another chance to do things.
Ok, I see. I thought that Bob passing gave Alice another chance. But you're saying that you only get a chance after something actually happens in the game, and "not resolving" something doesn't cut it.
And when Cathy uses Beggar, it's Alice's turn next, not Cathy's.
Right. Alice gets a chance (and Bob too) before Cathy gets to do another reaction.
This is tentative because it absolutely never comes up and no-one has ever asked. But irl when I Moat, someone else may be all, oh man Moat, yes I have Moat, and they are going out of order, and I would like that to be full-on okay. There will be no "Oh technically I don't get to Moat now? This game sucks."
I didn't even consider that optional things work this way before you said it now recently in this thread. I thought all players got one shot at doing any or all their reactions, in turn order. The question was more about why you get to order certain things you trigger (NB, Embargo) but not reactions that your trigger - which you now said is because the reactions are optional.
-
First and most importantly: So are you now saying that Urchin works like Moat and Beggar, and not the way you described it initially in this thread? You can trash it after your opponents' reactions? I just want to make sure.
I will think it over again in uh some days. I am there for the people who have to ask these questions, but they don't affect gameplay and I need to restrict how much time I devote to this stuff.
-
This is tentative because it absolutely never comes up and no-one has ever asked. But irl when I Moat, someone else may be all, oh man Moat, yes I have Moat, and they are going out of order, and I would like that to be full-on okay. There will be no "Oh technically I don't get to Moat now? This game sucks."
I didn't even consider that optional things work this way before you said it now recently in this thread. I thought all players got one shot at doing any or all their reactions, in turn order.
I wondered why I had the strong impression that you only get one chance to do reactions, in turn order. I found this post on BGG (https://boardgamegeek.com/article/4660044#4660044) from 2010:
Normally, no-one cares and we all just flash our Moats in whatever order. If it does matter or someone cares, you go in turn order. Once you are done with your Reactions completely, the next player goes. You don't get a second chance after they're done.
Here's another post from this forum where you say the same thing:
We go in turn order. The first player responds all they want - using Secret Chamber, then Moat, then Secret Chamber again, or what have you. Then the next player responds, and so on. After the last player, we're done - the first player doesn't get another chance.
I think this does affect game play. Sometimes you want to wait with your reaction(s) until you see what other players do (as in the example by the OP on BGG). And previously you've said you can't do that...
-
I think this does affect game play. Sometimes you want to wait with your reaction(s) until you see what other players do (as in the example by the OP on BGG). And previously you've said you can't do that...
If we all want to wait then no-one did anything. Obv. a rule has to cover that but that's what it would be; if everyone passes then for sure no-one gets another chance to do things.
I am liking the idea of "oh wait I have Moat too" not ever ever encountering "yeeha I can rules lawyer you, no Moat for you." I dunno it's a thing to consider.
The only thinking-on-this I have accomplished is, there was this deal with Secret Chamber and Moat, where you get to Moat if you drew it off of Secret Chamber, because there had to be a rule to cover the situation and that was one way to go and I picked that one. That particular bit makes it clear that "when x happens" creates a window in time to do multiple things that have that trigger. The whole, we can order optional and mandatory things, adding mandatory ones that come up and potentially adding optional ones, falls out of that. It does not however require it to be that going around we get another chance if someone does something.
-
So what's the conclusion?
Here's what I would logically conclude: When I play Urchin after another attack and my opponent could reveal a Beggar, there are two things waiting to resolve at the same time. This means I get to choose the order; I could say: "Reactions go first" and wait for my opponents - at which point there is a window for them - or trash first, is that it? And after this window for my opponents closes, they can't resolve after I trashed?
-
So what's the conclusion?
Here's what I would logically conclude: When I play Urchin after another attack and my opponent could reveal a Beggar, there are two things waiting to resolve at the same time. This means I get to choose the order; I could say: "Reactions go first" and wait for my opponents - at which point there is a window for them - or trash first, is that it? And after this window for my opponents closes, they can't resolve after I trashed?
No, you don't get to choose when other players can react. That much is clear.
Either it's turn order, in which case your Urchin is first, then all the next player's reactions, then all the next player's reactions, etc. Nobody gets a second chance after it passes to the next player.
Or, if it's an "open window for all": Every time someone does something (reacts), everybody who still has things to react with gets a chance in turn order, until everybody passes. (It's unclear whether Urchin falls into the category of "reacting", or if it has to be resolved first or not at all.)
I think that's an accurate summary.
-
I am liking the idea of "oh wait I have Moat too" not ever ever encountering "yeeha I can rules lawyer you, no Moat for you." I dunno it's a thing to consider.
Of course I agree that strict turn-order reacting could potentially lead to the above scenario. But as Jeff Wolfe posted in the BGG thread, "Otherwise, you could potentially have an endless loop: I react, you react, I react to your reaction, you react to mine, etc."
But actually I don't think either of these scenarios would happen, except by real dicking players who would always find ways to screw up the game anyway (like revealing Secret Chamber 1000 times). And actually, most people assumed that the rule in rulebooks about things happening in turn order also covered reacting - and even more so because of your previous statements to that effect - and still I don't think "no Moat for you" has really been a problem.
So I'm saying that it's not really the task of the rules to try to prevent that kind of behavior. That means you could still go either way on it, but since it seems that most people who ever looked it up online, and probably most people who just read the rules, assumes that it's strict turn-order reacting, my feeling is that it would be better to keep it that way.
-
Okay, I think I've finally caught up.
The problem here as I understand it is that the opponents' reactions are optional, that was indeed mentioned before.
So once you play your Urchin, there is no indication that two things are trying to resolve at the same time and you don't get to explicitly choose.
All you know is that you just played your Urchin and you could exchange it for a Mercenary.
If Urchin were explicitly typed as "Reaction", I guess it would have the same timing as the other Reactions? In that case it would be clear the active player goes first and his Reaction is part of the same Reaction window as the others.
Right now it's just a card trying to do something and that doing something reveals extra information that the Reacting players might want.
So I guess the only way to resolve this is a specific ruling?
-
The ruling that Donald is giving here seems pretty clear to me. When I play an attack card, there are multiple things that can happen. I can trash an Urchin I have in play, and my opponents can reveal Reactions that say "When another player plays an Attack card". There seems to be some discussion about the timing of these things, and how the "resolve in player order" rule works, but I don't see how those can be misunderstood. I can choose to trash my Urchin, then the player to my left can choose to reveal a Reaction, and then continue in player order.
The new ruling that Donald is suggesting is that this process does not stop until all players pass. This allows the normal way that non-pedantic people play to be legal. (Everyone just does their things in whatever order they happen to do them, and Alice isn't prevented from revealing Moat because Bob already did.) The rules lawyers are also free to halt play and check with each player in turn order every time someone plays an Attack card in a game with Moats in play. It also allows for some theoretical situation where Alice wants to react only if Bob reacts first, which is the biggest change from the way things had previously been ruled.
It seems like a perfectly good ruling change to prevent the rules lawyer garbage that Donald has mentioned, and the only significant change is something that seems incredibly unlikely to happen.
-
It seems like a perfectly good ruling change to prevent the rules lawyer garbage that Donald has mentioned, and the only significant change is something that seems incredibly unlikely to happen.
Sure (if you're talking about the scenario in the BGG thread), but I think it was just as (or maybe even more) unlikely to happen that someone pulled "no Moat for you".
Also, Donald hasn't yet committed to this new suggested ruling, so that's the unclear bit. In addition to how Urchin would work with that ruling.
EDIT: It might be a perfectly good ruling change, but almost everybody (who knows/cares about timing of reactions) already thinks it works the other way.
-
To me, "When another player plays an Attack card" and "When you play another Attack card" are very clearly the same time, so it would obviously be handled in the same way as the reactions are. I haven't seen anything Donald said that would make me believe he thinks differently, but of course I am not him, so I can't be certain.
-
Either it's turn order, in which case your Urchin is first, then all the next player's reactions, then all the next player's reactions, etc. Nobody gets a second chance after it passes to the next player.
I would like to butt into this conversation that I have heretofore ignored to make it known that I support this particular interpretation.
EDIT: Hmm. I can also see the case being made that since you can reveal Moat as many times as you want, it can pass around again once the last player has chosen to reveal Moat or not, but I don't like it. Things still get resolved in turn order; it doesn't matter how many times you choose to reveal Moat, you still have to do so when it's your "turn". Once we're at the next person in turn order, your stuff is over and taken care of.
-
To me, "When another player plays an Attack card" and "When you play another Attack card" are very clearly the same time, so it would obviously be handled in the same way as the reactions are. I haven't seen anything Donald said that would make me believe he thinks differently, but of course I am not him, so I can't be certain.
When the question was asked in the beginning of this thread, Donald said that Urchin has to be trashed first.
-
To me, "When another player plays an Attack card" and "When you play another Attack card" are very clearly the same time, so it would obviously be handled in the same way as the reactions are. I haven't seen anything Donald said that would make me believe he thinks differently, but of course I am not him, so I can't be certain.
When the question was asked in the beginning of this thread, Donald said that Urchin has to be trashed first.
The last thing Donald said was "I will think it over"
I am saying that I think Urchin and Moat have the same timing. If the rule is changed to allow another chance to do optional things after another player has done optional things, I think that Urchin should be treated the same way as the Reactions.
-
Am I missing something? How is this not a complete non-issue? Either you're playing online, or you're not.
If you're playing online, Urchin's ability happens before other players' Moats, because effects that happen in the same time frame go in player order. The server knows which players have Moats, etc., and can enforce this order. There is no chance for you to lose the ability to reveal your Moat, since the game prompts you.
If you're not playing online, this stuff can all happen simultaneously. The exact order just doesn't matter.
-
Am I missing something? How is this not a complete non-issue? Either you're playing online, or you're not.
If you're playing online, Urchin's ability happens before other players' Moats, because effects that happen in the same time frame go in player order. The server knows which players have Moats, etc., and can enforce this order. There is no chance for you to lose the ability to reveal your Moat, since the game prompts you.
If you're not playing online, this stuff can all happen simultaneously. The exact order just doesn't matter.
It's interesting that you would post this, because you're the guy who posted the question in the first place (https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/496867/must-reaction-cards-be-revealed-player-order) regarding reactions and player order, with the Secret Chamber/Pirate Ship example. There Donald said it was strictly player-order, now he's saying differently (or considering it), which changes the very thing you were asking - the very example where, to you, the order mattered. So I guess what you're missing is your own question? ;)
If this is changed, it would change how online implementations should work, provided that we want them to be entirely correct. Probably we don't, because it would stall the game. Probably we don't want online implementations to enforce the "old" rule (strict player order) nor the "new" rule, we just want to let all players at once click their reactions or click "done", until everybody clicked "done". I haven't played multi player online for ages, but I guess that's how it's implemented. (Cases where it matters should be an exception, like Beggar and Fool's Gold. I guess strict player order is enforced then.)
I also guess that online you have to trash Urchin first (unlike how Reactions probably are handled online). I don't know if that should be changed (if Donald rules this way), but it matters very little.
-
The last thing Donald said was "I will think it over"
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. The fact is that Donald first said that Urchin is handled differently than Reaction cards. Then he said he would think it over. You're saying that Urchin should be handled the same (which is fine), and that Donald hasn't said anything that would make you think that he thinks differently than you. That's clearly not the case.
-
It's interesting that you would post this, because you're the guy who posted the question in the first place (https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/496867/must-reaction-cards-be-revealed-player-order) regarding reactions and player order, with the Secret Chamber/Pirate Ship example. There Donald said it was strictly player-order, now he's saying differently (or considering it), which changes the very thing you were asking - the very example where, to you, the order mattered. So I guess what you're missing is your own question? ;)
Bwa ha! I guess my attitudes have changed!
Man, six years. Where has the time gone? Other than into Dominion, I mean.
-
Of course I agree that strict turn-order reacting could potentially lead to the above scenario. But as Jeff Wolfe posted in the BGG thread, "Otherwise, you could potentially have an endless loop: I react, you react, I react to your reaction, you react to mine, etc."
It's already an endless loop with a single player with e.g. Secret Chamber, as you then point out.
But this is a reasonable worry. If Secret Chamber had a visible component, it would actually create a problem. Let's say it was uh "When another player plays an Attack, you may reveal this from your hand, to swap the top card of your discard pile with the top of your deck." As if. Well now I know your card and want to change mine and so on.
The root problem is the ability to use Secret Chamber multiple times. If I had it to do again, all Reactions would be like Horse Traders (with the messy wording covered in the rulebook instead of on the cards). And they were once. But anyway they aren't. So Reactions can't be cumulative, and now this would mean that they couldn't reveal information beyond the presence of the Reaction (which doesn't change and so doesn't cause a loop). It doesn't seem hard to avoid but also I don't want to realize one day that I can't make a particular card because of this.
I don't like the idea of "the official rules" not matching "what everyone does IRL" and "what an online version should do." I mean really, I want to reveal my Moat when I finish shuffling like I do now, and I want the online version to prompt everyone immediately, man let's not waste time.
Aha there is another issue. New mandatory things can be created after a player's shot at doing them has passed. I wonder if there's any way to actually do that. New optional things happen of course. A mandatory thing, well it would be a "while this is in play" paired with playing a card at a weird time, or "this turn" with a weird trigger. Let's say, "When you gain this, this turn, when any player buys a card, they get +1 VP." That doesn't look too real. But uh, I buy Messenger and hand those out; you gained it, it causes a trigger on my Messenger buy; we already finished resolving those, so which way the rules go determines whether or not I get the +1 VP.
So uh. Some stuff to think about.
So I'm saying that it's not really the task of the rules to try to prevent that kind of behavior. That means you could still go either way on it, but since it seems that most people who ever looked it up online, and probably most people who just read the rules, assumes that it's strict turn-order reacting, my feeling is that it would be better to keep it that way.
I think for sure the rules should rule out no-fun situations where possible. But obv. it's 2016 and this has never been an issue.
-
Aha there is another issue. New mandatory things can be created after a player's shot at doing them has passed. I wonder if there's any way to actually do that. New optional things happen of course. A mandatory thing, well it would be a "while this is in play" paired with playing a card at a weird time, or "this turn" with a weird trigger. Let's say, "When you gain this, this turn, when any player buys a card, they get +1 VP." That doesn't look too real. But uh, I buy Messenger and hand those out; you gained it, it causes a trigger on my Messenger buy; we already finished resolving those, so which way the rules go determines whether or not I get the +1 VP.
I'm not getting it, because I don't see the connection between this and the ruling we're discussing. In this scenario there is no optional effect and no reacting.
As far as I understand it, we're still doing "when-buy" for your Messenger. After we're done with everything that follows from handing out the cards (to all your opponents), there is now another "when-buy" ability waiting, or several of them if several players gained that card. Why wouldn't you just get the +1 VP? You're the one who triggered the "+1 VP" effect by buying a card, so it's ordered (and resolved) by you on your turn.
-
What if the online implementation let everyone choose what to do simultaneously, but still reveal and resolved decisions in turn order, even while later players are still deciding. So Al plays Militia, Bob and Diana have Moats in their hand while Cathy doesn't. Bob and Diana both get to decide whether they want to reveal Moat. If Diana knows she does she can just click it (and, depending on the ruling, the game might not tell Bob until he makes his decision), but if she wants to wait to find out what Bob does, she can just sit there until Bob makes a decision and the game shows her. As soon as Bob makes a decision it gets processed, then Cathy automatically chooses not to reveal Moat, then if Diana has already made her decision it gets processed, otherwise she can now think about what happened with Bob and Cathy.
Maybe this is already what it does, I haven't played online in a long time and when I did I hardly ever played multiplayer. But I think it makes the old ruling easy to implement online, and I don't think the old ruling is worth retracting because in cases where it really matters IRL, I think people already do go in turn order. If Cathy reveals her Moat and tells Bob it's too late to reveal his because you do reactions in turn order, well that's ridiculous, because Bob never got a chance to say he wasn't revealing his Moat. She was the one who went out of order, not Bob, so I don't think the rules-lawyering should be an issue.
-
Aha there is another issue. New mandatory things can be created after a player's shot at doing them has passed. I wonder if there's any way to actually do that. New optional things happen of course. A mandatory thing, well it would be a "while this is in play" paired with playing a card at a weird time, or "this turn" with a weird trigger. Let's say, "When you gain this, this turn, when any player buys a card, they get +1 VP." That doesn't look too real. But uh, I buy Messenger and hand those out; you gained it, it causes a trigger on my Messenger buy; we already finished resolving those, so which way the rules go determines whether or not I get the +1 VP.
I'm not getting it, because I don't see the connection between this and the ruling we're discussing. In this scenario there is no optional effect and no reacting.
As far as I understand it, we're still doing "when-buy" for your Messenger. After we're done with everything that follows from handing out the cards (to all your opponents), there is now another "when-buy" ability waiting, or several of them if several players gained that card. Why wouldn't you just get the +1 VP? You're the one who triggered the "+1 VP" effect by buying a card, so it's ordered (and resolved) by you on your turn.
If the rule is "when a trigger happens on my turn, we do all of my stuff, then B's, then C's," and B's thing creates a new effect for the same trigger, then we already did my stuff, so it doesn't happen.
To do the new thing, it would need to be that the rule was "we do all of my stuff, then B's, then C's, but if new stuff shows up for me, here is how to handle it."
-
Aha there is another issue. New mandatory things can be created after a player's shot at doing them has passed. I wonder if there's any way to actually do that. New optional things happen of course. A mandatory thing, well it would be a "while this is in play" paired with playing a card at a weird time, or "this turn" with a weird trigger. Let's say, "When you gain this, this turn, when any player buys a card, they get +1 VP." That doesn't look too real. But uh, I buy Messenger and hand those out; you gained it, it causes a trigger on my Messenger buy; we already finished resolving those, so which way the rules go determines whether or not I get the +1 VP.
I'm not getting it, because I don't see the connection between this and the ruling we're discussing. In this scenario there is no optional effect and no reacting.
As far as I understand it, we're still doing "when-buy" for your Messenger. After we're done with everything that follows from handing out the cards (to all your opponents), there is now another "when-buy" ability waiting, or several of them if several players gained that card. Why wouldn't you just get the +1 VP? You're the one who triggered the "+1 VP" effect by buying a card, so it's ordered (and resolved) by you on your turn.
If the rule is "when a trigger happens on my turn, we do all of my stuff, then B's, then C's," and B's thing creates a new effect for the same trigger, then we already did my stuff, so it doesn't happen.
To do the new thing, it would need to be that the rule was "we do all of my stuff, then B's, then C's, but if new stuff shows up for me, here is how to handle it."
Ok, I see the issue you're talking about. But I don't think your example illustrates it.
The trigger in this example is that you buy Messenger, and then we do all your stuff from the trigger, then B's, then C's. But B and C don't have anything that triggers from that. First there is just Messenger's own when-buy. When we resolve that, all of this happens: You gain a hypothetical card ("Poet"), then B gains a Poet - which triggers Poet's when-gain, then C does the same. Poet's when-gain is that from now on, this turn, whenever someone buys a card, they get +1 VP. Ok, so now we're done with Messenger's when-buy ability. We haven't done any other when-buy abilities yet (and importantly, not for any other player), so we're still resolving when-buy abilities for you. Now there are two other when-buy abilities, both saying that you get +1 VP. (Actually, since you gained a Poet too, there are three, so you're getting +3 VP.)
Trying to think of a scenario that works, but I don't think this can happen with purely mandatory abilities. (See bottom of post for the card abilities.)
(1) Let's say Bob has Lancier in play. Alice plays an Attack, and then discards Food Taster. The thing is that since Lancier's card-being-played ability is not optional for Bob, it works like Swamp Hag. Bob doesn't resolve it, it's resolved by Alice. She gets to order it and resolve it before we get to any of Bob's card-being-played abilities (like Moat). That's how I understand it anyway, from your explanations earlier in this thread. So again there's no question that Alice will get the +1 VP, no matter what the ruling is on ordering things.
(2) Let's go with a scenario with optional abilities too then. Bob has Poleturner in hand. Alice plays an Attack, Bob reveals Poleturner, and Alice discards Food Taster as before. Now - according to the old ruling - by the time Bob chooses to reveal Poleturner, we're done with Alice's card-being-played abilities, so she doesn't get +1 VP. What about the new ruling? By the time we get to optional things for Bob, and he resolves something, Alice could jump in and resolve an optional thing, but does she resolve a mandatory thing like Food Taster? I would say yes she does, she gets the +1 VP, because we're still resolving mandatory things for Alice. With the new ruling anybody can jump in with optional things, but mandatory things go in turn order.
(3) What about a scenario including a mandatory thing for Bob too? ...Actually I was not able to come up with a mandatory card for Bob, and I don't think it's possible. (If it were possible, the outcome would depend on whether Bob revealed Poleturner before or after the mandatory thing.) I thought of Abbot, and Bob having it in play, but actually, since it's mandatory, Alice would be the one resolving it (again, like Swamp Hag). So this has the weirdety of having Alice choose when in the turn Bob gets +1 Coin token, but doesn't create a different scenario for ordering things.
Conclusion: So it seems that with the new ruling, Alice will always get the +1 VP; with the old ruling she doesn't get it if it's from Bob's mandatory thing, just from an optional thing.
Lancier: While this is in play, when another player plays an Attack, he discards one card.
Food Taster: When you discard this, this turn, when you play an Attack, +1 VP.
Poleturner: When another player plays an Attack, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, that player discards down to 3 cards in hand.
Abbot: While this is in play, when another player plays an Attack, +1 Coin token.
-
Ok, I understand the intention. But I don't think I can find the logic that would apply for both these examples and any others that might show up.
Yes I didn't think it through and I'm not sure there's ever a problem. If we only go around once, and you create a mandatory trigger for me, well it's too late, it shouldn't trigger and doesn't.
-
Ok, so it sounds like you're sticking to the old rule for reaction timing, at least leaning that way for now. That also means there is no question about Urchin, it's always trashed before any Reactions.
Donald, I don't know if this was your intention, that this is peculiar to Reactions? You did write: "When something happens that other players can react to, e.g. playing an Attack, they have to speak up about their interest in doing their thing, and they technically go in turn order."
I'm just not being more specific than I have to be. I don't want to say something and have you say "oh but what about this card, it's not a Reaction but falls into this category." Man that card is covered.
I think now that this is only Reactions. Mandatory abilities that are triggered by a player (even if it's another player's Swamp Hag etc), are always resolved by that player. That means there is no way for other players to resolve mandatory abilities that trigger at the same time (from the same trigger). Only optional abilities are resolved by other players from someone's trigger. That only includes Reaction cards. Conclusion: When a player does something, Reaction abilities are the only ones that are resolved by other players. All other triggered abilities are resolved by the player.
Urchin is optional too, but Urchin is always resolved by the player who triggered it. We could theorize about another version: "When you have this in play and another player plays an Attack card, you may trash this...etc" But that card should really be a Reaction, which would mean that the conclusion still holds.
So here's a tentitive summary:
1) When a player does something that triggers several abilities, Reaction abilities are the only ones that are resolved by other players. All other triggered abilities are resolved by the player.
2) Which player gets to resolve a Reaction, is according to which player makes the decision on the Reaction ability (to reveal, discard etc).
3) The old rule is currently still in effect, which means that each player in turn (starting with the current player) resolves all his/her abilities before the next player does (ordered by the player if s/he has several to resolve). You don't get another chance after the next player (but reasonably you only lose a chance to react if there is a point in reacting by player order and you vocally say you won't and then the next player does).
-
Ok, so it sounds like you're sticking to the old rule for reaction timing, at least leaning that way for now. That also means there is no question about Urchin, it's always trashed before any Reactions.
I continue to be busy and have not really thought about it. For sure you can consider that I haven't changed anything until I say I have.
I think now that this is only Reactions. Mandatory abilities that are triggered by a player (even if it's another player's Swamp Hag etc), are always resolved by that player. That means there is no way for other players to resolve mandatory abilities that trigger at the same time (from the same trigger). Only optional abilities are resolved by other players from someone's trigger. That only includes Reaction cards. Conclusion: When a player does something, Reaction abilities are the only ones that are resolved by other players. All other triggered abilities are resolved by the player.
I don't follow you. If I play Witch, each other player gains a Curse, in some order that has to be specified. There is a rule to cover that. Saying that "I played the Witch, I am resolving Witch" is not addressing "what order do the Curses go out."
"Reaction" is just "this is blue so you notice it in certain situations where that seemed important." So no, reactive things aren't limited to Reactions. Consider a version of Lighthouse that was optional. It wouldn't be blue, just as Lighthouse isn't.
I could have made when-gain etc. Reactions; I didn't think of it in time for Mint and then Mint was already out. But the idea there is that the card is involved so you won't miss it (yes people sometimes do). In the case of Lighthouse, you played the Lighthouse. Moat meanwhile has not done anything yet and is not a card being referred to by anything and yet can function from your hand. So, attention is drawn to it with blueness.
-
I think now that this is only Reactions. Mandatory abilities that are triggered by a player (even if it's another player's Swamp Hag etc), are always resolved by that player. That means there is no way for other players to resolve mandatory abilities that trigger at the same time (from the same trigger). Only optional abilities are resolved by other players from someone's trigger. That only includes Reaction cards. Conclusion: When a player does something, Reaction abilities are the only ones that are resolved by other players. All other triggered abilities are resolved by the player.
I don't follow you. If I play Witch, each other player gains a Curse, in some order that has to be specified. There is a rule to cover that. Saying that "I played the Witch, I am resolving Witch" is not addressing "what order do the Curses go out."
Yes, but now you're talking about the effects of the Witch's ability after it's played. I haven't touched on that in this thread. When an effect of a card affects several players, there's of course a rule that we go in player order. But what I've been talking about is triggered abilities (for lack of a better term). When you play Witch, several things can trigger on when-play: Certain Reactions, and Urchin. So I'm talking about ordering several abilities that trigger at the same time, not one ability that affects several players. (The latter is easy. :) )
"Reaction" is just "this is blue so you notice it in certain situations where that seemed important." So no, reactive things aren't limited to Reactions. Consider a version of Lighthouse that was optional. It wouldn't be blue, just as Lighthouse isn't.
I could have made when-gain etc. Reactions; I didn't think of it in time for Mint and then Mint was already out. But the idea there is that the card is involved so you won't miss it (yes people sometimes do). In the case of Lighthouse, you played the Lighthouse. Moat meanwhile has not done anything yet and is not a card being referred to by anything and yet can function from your hand. So, attention is drawn to it with blueness.
Ok. Currently, at least, only Reactions are optional abilities that you resolve from another player doing something. I was thinking that any new card like that would also be a Reaction, to make it clear that you may use it when another player does something. Like the Alternate Urchin example I gave: "When you have this in play and another player plays an Attack card, you may trash this...etc." And Alternate Lighthouse: "While this is in play, when another player plays an Attack card, you may choose to be unaffected by that Attack" - I would have thought both those would be Reactions too, to remind you that you have an optional thing. After all, you can have several cards in play on another player's turn, without them doing anything on that turn. But I guess you're saying no.
I must admit, to me it's an easier rule to say that Reactions are what separates the triggered abilities that are resolved by other players, instead of talking about what is and isn't optional... I mean, you can point to the text ("Reaction") and the color.
-
Ok. Currently, at least, only Reactions are optional abilities that you resolve from another player doing something.
Bishop and Governor say hi.
-
Ok. Currently, at least, only Reactions are optional abilities that you resolve from another player doing something.
Bishop and Governor say hi.
Deciding whether to do something based on another player's play of Bishop or Governor, is not an "optional ability". It's actually just a part of the on-play ability of those cards. As I mentioned in my previous post, this thread has not been about that. It's been about several triggered abilities (i.e. from different cards) happening at the same time.
Governor has an ability (its on-play ability) that happens after you play it. That entails several effects that you do in turn order, some of them affecting other players. There is no question about the timing of these effects. You do them for top to bottom, and any that affect other players go in player order starting with the active player.
Moat has an ability (its "Reaction ability") that triggers when someone else plays an Attack card. Several other abilities can also trigger at the same time. This is about the timing of several abilities that happen at the same time.
Currently, Reactions are the only optional abilities that you resolve when they are triggered by another player.
(This is also why it's easier to just say "Reactions" than "optional triggered abilities", because people will think it's about things like Governor being played.)