Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - chipperMDW

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: Today at 01:12:51 am »
The Secret History for Wedding says it used to have a different bonus that you decided not to use until a future expansion. Was that receiving a Boon?

Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: May 18, 2018, 05:20:08 pm »
Hmm, interesting. I'm re-reading that thread. Assuming you were correct (you gain a BoM), isn't it the case that if we go by the interpretation that I wrote (and you agreed on), then it's not using last-known information?

Namely this: Gain a copy of [a card that the player to your right gained on their last turn] costing up to $6.

So the only past information is the names of the cards that your opponent gained (i.e. the names when s/he gained them). That's not something to track, because it's not information connected to a card. It's just something that is taken from the past game state. It's like you said, Treasure Map and Ritual do the same. They don't look at specific cards, but just information from the past game state.

Yeah, I think I see what you're saying. Although it's not so much about what information is remembered as it is about why something is trying to recall it. Smugglers (and Treasure Map and Ritual) are specifically looking for information about a past moment. The last-known information we were talking about earlier in this thread was not meant for things specifically looking for past info, but for things that were actually looking for present info but needed to settle for falling back on past info.

So I think that means Smugglers is not relevant to this thread after all. Never mind!

Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: May 18, 2018, 01:26:29 pm »
Smugglers may be worth mentioning here.

Your right hand opponent gains a BoM, then plays it BoM as Caravan; he gains nothing else on his turn. On your turn you play Smugglers. Do you gain BoM because that's what it was when your opponent gained it? Or do you track the specific BoM and gain a copy of what it is at the moment (Caravan)?

I ask because, in this thread, I asserted that you'd gain a BoM in that situation. I note that this wasn't actually confirmed, so, considering what's been said here, maybe I was wrong about that.

If I was wrong (i.e. you gain a Caravan), then Smugglers also needs to track all gained cards and know what they currently look like. That's useful as an example of something needing to know about a "lost" card for reasons other than playing it.

If I was correct (i.e. you gain a BoM), then Dominion is already using something like last-known information.

Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: May 12, 2018, 12:34:05 pm »
I don't think the other player's card can ever end up in play through this mechanism.
Oh, it surely can!  Suppose your opponent inherited Caravan Guard.  And somewhere in your action chain, after Ambassadoring the Estate, you play an Attack, and your opponent responds by playing several Estates, one of which may or may not have been the Estate you gave to them. 8)

Oh, I see. I misread that part in Violet CLM's post. Neat!

Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: May 12, 2018, 12:11:12 pm »
It's something to think about. We aren't necessarily talking about a Throne Room; an effect could just play a card once, and somehow the card could vanish before being played (e.g. Summon if it didn't say "if you do"). So the rule can't be about what the card was the first time - there may have been no other time. However at some point we knew what card we were talking about, so we can refer to that. It would probably be a confusing rule, though to be fair it covers cases that are confusing any which way. It would be really simple to just not let you play a card without being able to put the physical card into play - like I said, a fine solution for some other game.

(Bolding mine.)

Exactly. Since the rules specify the moment a set of instructions lose track of a card, you can just take the info known prior to that moment. In the Not-Summon situation, the card goes to your discard pile (or wherever it's overridden to go to) and Not-Summon knows where it is and what it looks like at that point. Then a thing happens (e.g. Watchtower or Border Village) and suddenly, from Not-Summon's perspective, the card is gone. Not-Summon still plays the thing it remembers the card looking like last time it saw it.

As I like to point out, the actual problem situation we are talking about is extremely obscure. So, the rules weight it adds wants to be correspondingly tiny.

I understand. I just feel like there's a way to structure the rules so that the "holes" are closed. I think using last-known information would cut off a whole class of weird interaction issues. If it's guaranteed that nothing ever needs to know anything about a card except for what's currently visible or what's remembered about it from the last time it was, then all of this BoM/Fortress/Inheritance/Quarry/Mandarin/Transmute/Procession stuff becomes moot because, no matter where a card gets bounced around during an interaction and no matter what it ends up looking like, the rules already have it covered so that players don't need information they might not have access to. That way, you can design cool, weird things like Inheritance and know that the weird situations they create are fine and already have answers.

I appreciate this new ability to play other people's cards, because it makes the "if it's still in play" wording on Royal Carriage meaningfully distinct from "if you still have it in play." All you have to do is play a card that a different player already has in play, and then you can call Royal Carriage in response to that. Huzzah!

I don't think the other player's card can ever end up in play through this mechanism. (Did it?) In the case described in the OP, the Throne Room says to play the Estate a second time. It has lost track of it, so it can't move it from wherever it is (opponent's discard pile, probably), but it can still produce its on-play effect (which happens to be different from the first time due to belonging to another player at the moment).

Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: May 11, 2018, 10:32:08 pm »
The lose-track change would change Throne / Feast in the original main set; I'm not doing it. People don't know the lose track rule, and the main set rulebook said Throne / Feast worked. For new games this would be a thing to consider; Dominion does not want to mess with that.

I think you can lose track harder and still have Throning Feast work. One way would be to use last-known information for things you lost track of. Throne plays a card in your hand twice. That card's not in your hand anymore after the first play? (Actually true whatever it plays; Feast wouldn't even be a special case.) Ok, just play whatever that card was back when it was in your hand. Throne wants to play an Estate that used to be in your hand but has somehow maybe ended up around the world and in the supply or in your opponent's deck or maybe is still in your hand and nobody really knows for sure where it is? Just play whatever the Estate was when it was in your hand.

There would be complications with BoM, though. The way BoM works now, I guess a Throne would always end up playing it as BoM both times (because that's what it was in your hand) so you'd always get to choose an action to emulate for both plays. If you wanted to change that, maybe you could revert BoM to its old behavior and have it become Feast or whatever as you play it; then Throne would remember it as Feast and play it as Feast twice... which was how that originally worked anyway, I think. (To me, either one of those options seems like an improvement over the current situation where sometimes a Throned BoM is stuck as one card and sometimes it's not.)

Using last-known information would also, I guess, make things like Transmute and Procession work like Ritual and care what stuff looks like just before you trash it, not what it turns into afterwards.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: What is the best knight to inherit?
« on: April 25, 2018, 07:42:56 pm »
10. Dame Josephine

You can't Inherit Dame Josephine.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: A quick Temple tip
« on: April 17, 2018, 11:18:14 am »
This is provided you can spare a card that you feed to the temple and still have $8 for the Province.

Just throw it an Estate.

It's simpler to say "during clean-up, discard all cards you have in play" rather than "during clean-up, check each card in play to see if it's the last turn it did something, discarding them from play."

To clarify, that bit ("last turn it did something") applies only to durations. Possession does stuff past the current turn, but gets discarded on the turn it was played; the Possession FAQ is explicit that this happens, and that it happens because it's not a duration:
Quote from: Alchemy Rulebook
Unlike Outpost, Possession is not a Duration card. It is discarded in the Cleanup phase of the turn you played it.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Scariest art in each expansion
« on: April 03, 2018, 10:09:52 am »
That thing on the First Edition Intrigue box: the one whose head can spin around backwards and is staring right at you.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Playing the new Guilds & Cornucopia!
« on: March 20, 2018, 04:38:39 pm »
Does 2E Cornucopia/Guilds have recommended kingdoms with Alchemy? If so, are they effectively subdivided into Alchemy/Cornucopia and Alchemy/Guilds kingdoms (the way 2E Prosperity and Seaside did it)? And does it have recommended kingdoms using Cornucopia/Guilds alone? If so, do they have 5 cards each from Cornucopia and Guilds? Are there any all-Cornucopia or all-Guilds recommended kingdoms?

If we got A/C, A/G, and C/G, then I think we would at last have recommended kingdoms for all current pairings! And if we didn't get any all-Cornucopia or all-Guilds sets, that means we probably aren't getting an all-Alchemy kingdom (since those are/were all small sets), which would mean we may also have completed the set of recommended kingdoms for the currently released sets!

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: February 19, 2018, 03:07:00 pm »

Yeah, I guess you'd sorta have to do Minion there.

Rules Questions / Re: Enchantress on a Ghosted Enchantress
« on: February 09, 2018, 01:02:24 am »
The part below the line isn't the "instructions" referred to by Enchantress. There's no more in-depth answer.

I meant more why the part below the line doesn't count as instructions. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy that I get VP for Groundskeeper despite the attack, but I don't exactly understand why. I'm guessing it's the same reason that Throne Rooms don't affect anything below the line?

It's not that the text below the line doesn't count as instructions. It's that the text below the line represents instructions to be followed at a time other than playing the card. The rulebook for the 2nd edition of the base set clearly says this.

Enchantress talks about doing something else instead of following a card's instructions when the card is played. It says absolutely nothing about following (or not following) instructions on the card in any other situation, so Enchantress doesn't affect the functionality of the other instructions whatsoever.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: January 08, 2018, 11:10:17 pm »
Will you or have you ever considered putting a question mark or exclamation point in any card-shape-thing text? If so, what would it take?

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Christmas Kingdoms 2017
« on: December 26, 2017, 07:22:56 pm »
Speaking of Masquerade, does your relative sit to your left?

Rules Questions / Re: Pay order mechanics
« on: December 26, 2017, 07:10:01 pm »
Your example doesn't work...
You're right; my example didn't quite do what I wanted. Your fix does.

It's just that all other abilities given on cards have a timing for when they kick in, so this kind of ability would be unique in that sense.
I consider Gardens, for instance, to have an ongoing effect that's always on. But I know we've disagreed in the past about what could/should be described as an ongoing effect.

If it ever matters, we'll find out at that point!

Rules Questions / Re: Pay order mechanics
« on: December 26, 2017, 04:09:12 pm »
I think "would-gain" actually is the correct timing of Nomad Camp and Ghost Town now. They modify the upcoming gain, changing it so that you gain to your deck/hand, but only if you were already gaining to your discard pile, exactly as they say. So these abilities could be ordered with other would-gain abilities like Trader and Possession; it's just that it doesn't make any difference.

Based on its phrasing and on Donald's description (quoted below), I was interpreting "is gained to" as an always-on effect that continually modifies the card's "preferred" gain destination, meaning the effect never needs to trigger at all, and there is no "timing" to speak of. (So if there were an effect that said, "When you would gain a card to your hand, gain a Gold instead," you couldn't reorder that with Ghost Town's effect to decide between gaining it and Gold; you'd just be stuck gaining the Gold.)

(Contrast Champion, which could have just said "you're unaffected by attacks played by other players" and had it be an always-on thing, but instead phrases it as a triggered thing. So if there were an effect that said, "When another player plays an attack, if you're unaffected by it, gain a Gold," you could order the effects so you effectively choose whether to gain a Gold.)

Nomad Camp and Ghost Town specify a not-usual gain-destination.

Cobbler and Armory over the gain-destination of a card and put it somewhere else.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Christmas Kingdoms 2017
« on: December 26, 2017, 03:32:26 pm »
We would need a clarification on what happens if Relatives play Visit.
"If it's not their turn" is supposed to clarify that.
Ah, but when you're taking your relative's turn for them, shouldn't the sense of "you" actually be your relative? (I mean, when it talks about "your hand," it's really talking about their hand.) So playing Visit should have your relative's relative (presumably you, if the symmetric property of relatedness holds) take an extra turn. So infinite turns!

Rules Questions / Re: Pay order mechanics
« on: December 26, 2017, 03:01:36 pm »
Thats why i asked if i try buying GM with debt tokens to take the debt and pay it off with copper in play, and buy GM later. (Without copper in play)
Did i get it right, that we pay coins and potion *before* buying and *debt* after?

It is an illegal move to buy a Grand Market while Copper is in play. You can't even "try and fail." It would be like trying to buy a $6 Grand Market when you only have $3; it's just not something you're ever allowed to do or even attempt to do. So, no, you can't attempt to buy Grand Market with Copper in play just because you want to get the debt for some reason.

One of the "when you buy" effects that always triggers is "gain that card you pointed at".

No, gaining the card is not a when-buy effect, at least not what is normally referred to by that term. It doesn't have the same timing as things that happen "when you buy X"; it always occurs after all those effects. (I suppose you could think of it the one and only "after-buy" effect, though.)

So, correct me, if i'm wrong, each time i play a treasure in buy phase, i check things i can and cannot buy, after i finished playing treasures i choose something to buy from thing i can buy, then coins and potion gets substracted from my count, then i trigger on-buys and everything goes after?

You "check" at all moments the game allows you to buy something (i.e. when it's during your buy phase and you have buys remaining (or when something else like Black Market tells you to buy something) and don't have any debt); in practice, you would wait until you'd played all treasures you were planning to before checking, but you could examine your options after each treasure you play, sure. At the moment you check, in addition to the requirements of the card needing to exist as the top card of a supply pile (or be allowed by Black Market), and you needing to have enough coins and potions to afford its cost, there may be any number of effects (Grand Market, Contraband, Mission, all "once-per-turn" events, Deluded...) that make a certain choice illegal.

When you make a (legal) choice of a thing to buy, you lose the +buy, the coins, and the potions, and you take the debt tokens, all according to the card's cost. (Losing the +buy is actually slightly different from those other things; the others happen any time you buy a card, but losing the +buy is specifically part of normal buying during the buy phase and doesn't occur when buying from Black Market.)

(If the thing you bought was an event, then its effect occurs here. The rest applies only to buying cards.)

Then you trigger "when-buy" effects. (Tax's debt-taking happens here, in contrast to the debt-taking that happens when you buy a card with debt cost.)

Then you would gain a card with the same name that the card you bought had at the time you bought it. (That convolution is required because the when-buy effects may have moved the exact card (see Talisman), so it might end up that you would gain a different individual card than the one you bought. And it may be determined that there is no card that you would gain at this point, like if you bought Sir Martin with Talisman out, in which case no "would-gain" effects would occur here.) Any "would-gain" effects happen here; those include effects on Trader and Possession (but does not include cards like Nomad Camp and Ghost Town stating that they are gained to alternate locations... those just modify how the gain occurs when the gain instruction does not specify a destination, and they cannot be reordered like when-gain effects). If a would-gain effect causes something to happen "instead" of the gain, then the next paragraph gets skipped.

Finally, you gain the card it was determined that you "would gain" in the last paragraph. Again, if a would-gain caused something else to happen instead, you skip this part.

Then "when-gain" effects happen.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Homage to the Best Card
« on: December 22, 2017, 11:37:43 pm »
Yeah, I tried to reproduce the Duplicate bug, but I can't figure out what happened.  I swear it happened and I have no idea how or why.

I guess they'll have to mark it as "Cannot Duplicate" in their issue-tracking system.


(I noticed something while reading that ancient thread, and I don't want to bump it, so I'll just post this stupid conspiracy theory joke here):

Can this be a coincidence...?

If there were an attack card that gave someone a curse every time they bought something during their turn, I would be satisfied.

Quote from: Adventures Wiki Page
Release: April 2015

Quote from: Count Grishnakh's Profile
Last Active: April 14, 2015, 07:08:27 pm

... or did he leave after finally being satisfied that there was a way to properly defend against premature three-piling?

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: December 13, 2017, 02:45:11 pm »
How come many apparently simple potential card names haven't been used yet, when so many more obscure words and phrases have seen the light of day?

Looking back at the outtakes there are a bunch of names like Cavalry, Servant, Battlements, Barbarian, Butler, Poison, Academy, etc. which you were once considering.

Also, statues have been mentioned in the intro text for two expansions now, but we still don't have a Statue, let alone one that comes to life. (-8
The goal is never "make sure I get these simple potential card names used." The goal is always to have names that fit the cards and expansion well. So I mean. There's no mystery here.

As noted Guardian is a statue that comes to life.

But it's not made of baklava, which is only slightly disappointing.


I will explain the joke by directing you to the flavor text for Prosperity.

Hmm, maybe this is a way to make it work: The card you pick has to be one that was gained, i.e. based on the name of a gained card. But the copy of that card has to cost $6 or less. So...

Gain a copy of [a card that the player to your right gained on their last turn] costing up to $6.

Yup, that's where I have my mental parentheses.

It must be more like you're picking a memory of a card they gained at the time they gained it. Similar to what Treasure Map and Ritual look at.
How does the same issue arise with Treasure Map and Ritual?

Play BoM as Treasure Map; trash it and trash a "real" Treasure Map from your hand. You get four Golds because, regardless of what one of those cards looks like now (a BoM), it was a Treasure Map at the time you trashed it, and Treasure map is checking the memory of what the cards were at the time you trashed them.

Inherit Village. Play Quarry; your Estates cost $0. Buy Ritual, trashing your $0 Estate. The Estate stops being yours, so it stops being an action, so it changes to costing $2. But Ritual says "per $1 it cost" (past tense), so it's been ruled that Ritual checks the memory of what the card looked like at the time you trashed it. You get 0VP instead of 2VP.

These examples are in contrast to how everything else works in Dominion: you check what the card looks like right now; you don't care what it looked like at the moment you trashed it or whatever. So, in the case for Ritual above, if you had instead Villa'd back and trashed the Estate with Remodel (which uses present tense), it wouldn't care that what you trashed used to cost $0; the card you trashed now costs $2, so you can turn it into a $4.

(The fact that the rules work as described in the previous paragraph is my Dominion pet peeve. Nothing's broken yet, but it seems liable to create situations that lead to, as you called them, unresolvable tracking issues.)

Some trivia: M:tG has a concept of looking at the "memory" of an object; it's called "last known information." I think I read in an interview somewhere that Donald was somehow the one who proposed that idea.

The tricky part is that they say "a copy of a card..." and the ruling is that what you are picking is the "a card" not the "a copy." You can pick the card even though the copy isn't available.

Of course, you can't really be picking an actual card they gained, not as it currently exists. If they gained a BoM and played it later that turn as Caravan, then (I presume) you can't gain Caravan even though the card they gained happens to currently be a Caravan. (And, in general, you have no way of knowing what the card they gained currently even looks like.)

It must be more like you're picking a memory of a card they gained at the time they gained it. Similar to what Treasure Map and Ritual look at.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9

Page created in 0.122 seconds with 18 queries.