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 - Jeebus

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 54
1
I would say they aren't official anymore. Donald X. has said on BGG (and probably elsewhere too), "I recommend that you stop using the replaced cards". My understanding is that they are no longer part of the Dominion canon, and not worth the trouble ranking. They also weren't ranked in 2017.

Donald has specifically said that they are official and part of Dominion.

2
Dominion Online at Shuffle iT / Re: Dominion Woodcutter Logging Services
« on: February 14, 2019, 02:47:11 pm »
Hmm, I installed this, checked out a log of an old game, then went to start a new game and I immediately lost the game.

3
The graph is not working for me in any browser in Windows 7. Is it supposed to be there?

4
Rules Questions / Re: Complete Dominion rules document
« on: February 07, 2019, 03:29:08 pm »
pg 9: I think it would be better if the paragraph for Fate brought up Will-o'-Wisp. I know you bring it up on the same page with Swamp's Gift, but it may be better if it was all in one paragraph. Even the Nocturne rulebook does this.
I might change this if there's a new version.

Quote
pg 41: Under "cards that let you cheat," you should also mention how Quest doesn't require you to reveal discarded Curses.
Good catch, will add it.
EDIT: Actually, I remember that I already considered but decided against it, because it's so marginal. It's different than Opulent Castle, because with that card there could be information that you in theory don't want to reveal (exactly which Victory cards you're discarding). With Quest there is no such consideration.

Quote
pg 58: Under Fortune you say you can spend Coffers if you played Fortune with another ability. Is that allowed? If my Venture reveals Fortune, I get to spend Coffers?
Yes, correct. The ruling is around here somewhere.

Quote
Also in all of section VI, the Boons written as "Sky's Gift, The" Is this intentional? Cause it just looks weird.
It's intentional, and quite normal in encyclopedias etc. when the entry is not alphabetized by that word ("the", "a", "an"...)

5
Rules Questions / Re: Complete Dominion rules document
« on: February 07, 2019, 12:16:35 pm »
I discovered that half the PDF links didn't work. I'm fixing this now. I took down the file in the meantime. :( Hope it gets approved again soon.

EDIT: New version with fixed links was up 30 minutes ago.

6
Rules Questions / Re: Complete Dominion rules document
« on: February 07, 2019, 09:52:16 am »
The new version is finally finished, which incorporates Renaissance, as well as containing new rulings and many other fixes and improvements.

Complete Rules for Dominion and All Its Expansions

I would appreciate a thumb on BoardGameGeek. But if you don't have an account and for some reason really don't want to create one, you can also find a link somewhere in this thread. ;)

7
Yeah, I see that that's a good solution. The thing is that I wanted to use "differently named", since it's a keyword with a link.

Is this too weird or confusing?

The Action you play has to be differently named from all of the cards you have in play.
"Dig for" a card that is differently named from all of the cards in your hand.


8
Thanks. Yeah, I've been doing too much reviewing and editing.

But what about when you add "of the"? Is "any" still better than "all"?

a card that is differently named from any of the cards in your hand.

9
Dominion General Discussion / Best phrasing? Differently named from all/any
« on: February 02, 2019, 01:40:12 pm »
In my document I have som phrases like this:

The Action you play has to be differently named from any cards you have in play.

But I'm thinking that this is wrong, and it should be "all" instead of "any". Which option is clearer, or is there another option that is better?

10
Rules Questions / Re: playing trashed inherited Estate
« on: January 31, 2019, 12:31:38 pm »
No, you don't draw a card.

The second time the Estate is played, it is just an Estate and it's just a Victory card (not an Action card). So Conspirator counts only 2 played Action cards (including itself).

Whether you played a card or not is open for debate, but currently no cards care about that. But you certainly didn't play an Action card, which Conspirator cares about.

11
Rules Questions / Re: Sauna and Innovation
« on: January 28, 2019, 01:13:41 pm »
It depends what it means to "finish playing an Action card". Maybe it's possible to view it as on Guildhall: you played a Treasure, no matter if it changed later. The process that you finished doing was "playing an Action card".

Another thought is that maybe these cards will have new wordings to match Citadel some day?

Coin of the Realm: When you play an Action card, you may call this afterwards, for +2 Actions.
Royal Carriage: When you play an Action card, if it's still in play afterwards, you may call this, to replay that Action.

But that doesn't help the current situation I guess, unless you rule that this is how they effectively work.

12
Rules Questions / Re: Sauna and Innovation
« on: January 28, 2019, 10:16:28 am »
Ignoring the Diadem case, there's also Feast (yes I know), Treasure Map (unlikely), Farmers' Market. With cost reduction Pillage, Tragic Hero.

13
Rules Questions / Re: Sauna and Innovation
« on: January 28, 2019, 12:33:23 am »
Well, there's also Mining Village, Experiment, Death Cart, Engineer, etc. that you can Inherit. But it still involves Inheritance so I guess it's not different. I doubt there's any way it matters without Inheritance.

14
Rules Questions / Re: Sauna and Innovation
« on: January 27, 2019, 08:08:58 pm »
Also, here's my guesses: yes, you can call Coin of the Realm. Citadel tries to replay it but it has no effect because it's just a vanilla Estate now.

(Actually, what does Throne–Inheritance–Embargo so? I guess Citadel–Inheritance–Embargo does the same as that, but I don't remember what the ruling is.)

It does nothing; playing a plain Estate has no effect. So you're right that Citadel doesn't do anything no matter what. For practical matters it seems that this only matters for Coin of the Realm.

I think my initial question is phrased wrong actually. "When does it trigger" doesn't matter I think. The question is if these cards are like Guildhall, that they only care that you played (or "finished playing") an Action card. It really seems so, especially on Citadel.

15
Rules Questions / Re: Sauna and Innovation
« on: January 27, 2019, 05:32:07 pm »
Thanks for the ruling.

I have a related question. When do Coin of the Realm, Royal Carriage and Citadel trigger?



I'm pretty sure they have the exact same trigger, although it's phrased a bit differently?

If you Inherit Embargo and play an Inherited Estate, it's trashed and is not an Action card. Can you now call CotR or Royal Carriage? Does Citadel replay it?

16
Rules Questions / Sauna and Innovation
« on: January 27, 2019, 02:26:23 pm »
Another question to bother Donald with (sorry). This is something that some of us have mused about before, but it never mattered until now. Champion, Merchant and Sauna say "when you play x". But when do you do it, before or after you resolve the played card?

The one situation I can think of is: Play Sauna; then play Silver, trashing a Catacombs, gaining a Black Market/Storyteller, playing it via Innovation. Now it matters if the Silver has been resolved or not.

We have some groups of...things:

1) Reactions like Moat, plus Urchin - "when you play x, first"
2) Champion, Merchant and Sauna - "when you play x"
3) Adventures tokens - "when you play x, first"

(Excluded here are cards that say "when you play this" (Noble Brigand, Philosopher's Stone, etc.) since that's part of resolving the play ability, not a triggered ability.)

Reactions/Urchin used to say just "when you play x", but still happened before the played card. Then Adventures came along with tokens that said "first", and later 2nd editions of Reactions/Urchin also said "first" to clarify the timing. Presumably Champion, Merchant and Sauna never got this wording because it didn't matter.

Coin of the Realm, Royal Carriage and Citadel indicate that they happen after the played card. But Champion, Merchant and Sauna don't say either way.

So currently we have some things that say "first" and others that don't. This is the same situation as after Adventures came out, and of course Reactions/Urchin nevertheless happened before the played card. Going by this, it would seem that Sauna should too.

On the other hand, the intuitive interpretation for most players would probably be that the Silver produces $2 before you trash a card.




17
Rules Questions / Re: Innovation and Haggler
« on: January 26, 2019, 01:03:50 pm »
Well, I guess I was just saying that there are different ways to interpret the wording, and I'm not sure if the current ruling is the most natural one. But certainly these cards (like Groundskeeper) are different from any other triggering card, so it's not clear.

Given the precedent of cards like Guildhall, I don't think it's out of the question to interpret Groundskeeper the same way: That the "while this is in play" part had to be there at the time you gained the card. With Guildhall the "Treasure" part had to be there at the time you gained the card. If both things ("while this is in play" and "Treasure") are part of the actual trigger, maybe they should work the same in that sense.

18
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Shitty Rules Questions
« on: January 25, 2019, 02:56:00 pm »
If a Landmark just said, "Trash a card", would every card in the game be trashed the instant the game starts?

19
Rules Questions / Re: Innovation and Haggler
« on: January 25, 2019, 02:41:02 pm »
Well, actually your description is how Dominion is supposed to work, as described by Donald before. All below-the-line abilities potentially trigger all the time, which is why they either have to have their scope defined ("while this is in play") or be restricted by when they can be resolved ("reveal this from your hand"). Above-the-line abilities are limited by their implied scope "when you play this", Events imply "when you buy this", Landmarks have unlimited scope, etc.

But, the difference is the model of the "triggering window":

Model 1: Some things trigger, and others might trigger while we're in the window.
Model 2: The one you describe: Everything triggers at the same time and never again.

Dominion is apparently using model 1. But it's not only "while this is in play" abilities that would be affected by adopting model 2. Ghost playing Ratcatcher would indeed work the same, but I don't think Ghost playing Hireling or Prince would, since those didn't trigger before they were played by Ghost. I can't find any other differences though.

So... let's use Groundskeeper as an example of a "while this is in play" ability.

When I'm thinking more about it, it seems like in order for it to work according to the ruling, it's equivalent to "when you gain a Victory card, if this is in play". I mean, I can't find any difference between how this would work and how Groundskeeper is supposed to work. In that case it's more like Basilica than Guildhall.

Basilica - When you buy an Action card, if you have $2 or more left...
Guildhall - When you gain a Treasure...


Only the underlined phrase is the trigger. Basilica first triggers, then we resolve when-buy abilities; and this could make a difference because by the time we get to "if you..." things could have changed. On the other hand, Guildhall only triggers if you gain a Treasure, and we don't check the gained card again. It could be a non-Treasure by the time we resolve Guildhall, but Guildhall doesn't care.

So then Groundskeeper is functionally like this: (A:)  When you gain a Victory card, if this is in play...
Again, only the underlined phrase is the trigger. Viewing it like this, it actually also works in model 2 too, just like Basilica.

We can instead view it like this: (B:) When you gain a Victory card with this in play...
(This is similar to how Urchin is phrased, but we have nothing to compare with there, because nothing interesting can happen in that window.)
In this case it really seems like it would work like Guildhall. That means it wouldn't work according to the ruling, not in model 1 nor in model 2.

So how do we have to interpret it for it to work in model 1 but not in model 2? I guess something like this:

(C:) When this is in play, when you gain a Victory card... which is functionally the same as When you gain a Victory card, when this is in play...

Here we're treating "when this is in play" as a trigger (which is what I alluded to in an earlier post in this thread), giving the card two triggers that both need to happen. It's a bit weird to say that "while this is in play" (the actual card text) is a trigger though; it doesn't seem like something that happens in an instant like other triggers.

So I guess Donald could think either (A) or (C) here. I have to say that I'm starting to think that (B) is the most natural interpretation though, which would agree with your feelings.

20
Rules Questions / Re: Road Network and timing
« on: January 25, 2019, 12:57:01 pm »
Yeah, "the player who orders it" was not a good term to describe it.

Yes, (5) and (6) er effectively the same, but I included it just to clarify that these abilities (Reactions) also work like this.

I see that you kind of already said this in your previous post. The two examples with "When you buy a Silver, each other player..." describe how we have to look at the triggering player to figure out who it's happening to.* And in the other cases we go by who the effect is happening to.

*which works in those examples (and all current cards!), but not in my hypothetical (8). More generally I would therefore say it's better to say that it's the player being addressed, not necessarily the triggering player.


21
Rules Questions / Re: Road Network and timing
« on: January 24, 2019, 03:08:06 pm »
This is how we want it to work. I indicate the player who orders it.

(1) When you do A, do B - you (Haggler)
(2) When you do A, do B, and each other player does C - you (Noble Brigand, Haunted Castle)
(3) When you do A, each other player does B - you (Ill-Gotten Gains)
(4) When another player does A, they do B - the other player (Swamp Hag)
(5) When another player does A, you do B - you (Road Network)
(6) When another player does A, you may do B - you (Moat)
(7) When a player does A, they do B - the player (Embargo, Duchess)

So we see that in every case except (2) and (3), it's the player who ends up doing something. But if we say that "each other player" is done by "you", as GendoIkari suggested, then it's also true for those two cases.

But where does "you" enter the picture in (3)? It's only in the trigger. To know who are doing "each other player", we need to look at the triggering player - unfortunately, because we ignore the triggering player otherwise, most obviously in (5) and (6). I mean, it's still perfectly obvious who is doing it, it just makes the rule harder to phrase.

This rule even works for this hypothetical Reaction:
(8) When another player does A, you may do B, and then each other player does C - you
But here we cannot look at the triggering player to figure out who does "each other player", because it actually says "you" here.

It does not suffice for this one though:
(9) When another player does A, you may do B, and then the other player does C - you
For this we would need to keep the rule about optional abilities. But this kind of thing would probably never exist, because it's directional.

22
Rules Questions / Re: Road Network and timing
« on: January 24, 2019, 02:43:10 pm »
Yes, and I was actually already writing a post about that being a way to solve it. Abilities are ordered by who the effects happen to, and when you are told "each other player", that's an effect happening to you.

This would mean that it isn't exactly the "when you" in Noble Brigand that makes it happen to you.

It would make everything behave the way we expect it. We wouldn't even need the additional rule about optional abilities.

I think there might still be some difficulty in figuring out who the player is who is resolving "each other player" though. Hm...

23
Rules Questions / Re: Road Network and timing
« on: January 24, 2019, 12:54:27 pm »
Maybe this example can distill the problem:

Alice has Inherited Embassy. Bob and Cathy have Road Network.

Alice gains an Estate. Three things trigger: Bob and Cathy gain a Silver (Embassy), Bob draws a card (Road Network), and Alice draws a card (Road Network). Neither of these effects involve Alice.

(1) We go by the triggering player - Alice. Then Alice orders all three effects.

(2) We go by the players it's actually happening to - Bob and Cathy. Then Bob draws a card before Cathy. The problem is that Bob and Cathy can't decide when Embassy should be resolved, since they are two people.

(New version, I deleted the old post.)

24
Rules Questions / Re: Road Network and timing
« on: January 24, 2019, 12:22:02 pm »
I'm not aquainted with the history of all the rulings, but isn't the blatantly obvious difference between buying Noble Brigant and triggering your opponent's Road Network that the former involves an effect that belongs to you (you bought Noble Brigand), while the latter involves an effect that belongs to your opponent(s) (they bought the Road Network)?

I don't think ownership can work (and Donald seems to agree). We would need to define that cube = ownership for Projects, since that's different than cards belonging to you. But then we have Duchess, Landmarks, cards in trash...

25
Rules Questions / Re: Road Network and timing
« on: January 24, 2019, 12:09:08 pm »
I agree that the source of the ability can't be used. In addition to everything you said, you could play a card in the trash, it's not even your card.

When we're ordering those two things, well we are ordering them by the trigger; the effect doesn't provide a way to order them.

Yes, that's how I've been thinking about it to, based on the Noble Brigand / Embargo ruling - quoted above from another thread. But you don't seem to be following this principle when you conclude that Road Network is ordered by Bob.

when you = it's ordered by you
Then it should be:
when another player = it's ordered by another player
Again, to me this means Alice is ordering Road Network when she buys a Victory card.

Anyway I think what makes sense here is to go by the player told to make something happen.

Are you here changing your mind about going by the trigger?

Ok, let's look at "who's being told to do something" (the actual effect) rather than "who's causing it to happen" (the trigger). Again, this is NOT how it should work based on the previous ruling that "when you" by itself means it's happening to you:

Ill-Gotten Gains / Watchtower:
Alice buys IGG. IGG only tells Bob to do something, so in this case Alice has to use Watchtower first, then Bob gains a Curse.

Embargo / Noble Brigand: Alice buys NB. NB tells both Alice and Bob to do something, so then it's unclear who it's happening to. (Of course when we resolve it, it's Alice first, then Bob, but the question is ordering NB vs Embargo.)

Swamp Hag / Haggler: Alice buys a card. Both SW and Haggler tell Alice to do something, great.

Road Network / Haunted Castle: Alice buys HC. Road Network happens to Bob. But HC tells both Alice and Bob to do something, like Noble Brigand.

The way this could work if we want Noble Brigand and Haunted Castle to be ordered by Alice, is that since Alice is involved (she gets Treasures from NB, she gets Gold from HC), it's happening to her. But it also happens to Bob! NB happens first to Bob, then to Alice. HC happens first to Alice, then to Bob. Well... It's Alice's turn, but what if Alice gained HC on Bob's turn? So... it's Alice who triggered it in any case. We're back to looking at the trigger. So then the rule has to be something like, "if an ability happens to several players, it's ordered by the player who triggered it, otherwise it's ordered by the player it happens to". EDIT: I intended it differently than i phrased it. It's more like: "If an ability (also) happens to the player who triggered it, it's ordered by that player, otherwise it's ordered by the player it happens to."

Then I guess we don't need the additional rule about optional abilities, since those always only happen to the "correct" player. Well, unless there's a Reaction like, "When another player plays an Attack, you may discard this. If you do, each other player gains a Curse". Then we need that rule too, otherwise the Attacking player orders the Reaction, an impossibility.

EDIT: This new rule suggestion breaks down with more than 2 players though, like in your example of "When you buy a Silver, each other player gains a Curse" and the same for Copper. Since Alice is not involved at all, only Bob and Cathy, who chooses which one to do first?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 54

Page created in 0.149 seconds with 18 queries.