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 - Donald X.

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 212
1
Necromancer being a Command card merely stops you from using e.g. Band of Misfits on it; but that's not some exotic combo that will never happen, it's useful just with those two cards on the board.

Right, in my suggestion it was mainly for cleanness and consistency (including opening up for playing Durations). However, it would stop you from playing BoM, Necro from supply, BoM from trash, and then the same Necro from supply. Not that that would be a problem, but it's kind of a loophole in that it's now the only way to play the same card from supply twice.
No they all do that, e.g. Band of Misfits to play Supply Throne Room to play another Band of Misfits from hand to play the same Supply Throne Room.

But if you were to change Inheritance, which you are considering, then that would also stop a two-card combo, BoM playing Inherited Estate. But I guess your reasoning is that it's more acceptable than changing Necromancer because it would have more potential benefits in terms of stopping loops.
It conceivably has a benefit, plus published Band of Misfits could never play inherited Estate.

2
Making it consistent in the way I suggested would only remove a few interactions (Command cards being able to play Necromancer and Inherited Estate), but would add many more interactions (Captain and Necromancer being able to play any Duration). How can these loud voices complain about that, they should be deliriously happy instead!

As you know, you get a more cumbersome Inheritance, but a less cumbersome Captain (and slightly less cumbersome Necromancer).
I like Captain saying non-Duration. It's not a feature of Band of Misfits that it can play Duration cards; it's something I'm sucking up because I want to be friendly to players. I don't need to be so friendly as to add functionality to Captain.

Inherited Estate being a Command card is not bad, the downside is just having to say that on Inheritance. Again I can keep thinking about that for when Adventures actually gets reprinted. It doesn't feel urgent. Necromancer being a Command card merely stops you from using e.g. Band of Misfits on it; but that's not some exotic combo that will never happen, it's useful just with those two cards on the board.

Originally the changes were going to include this great rule that you couldn't play a card if you'd lost track of it. This was a different fix for majiponi's "I play Estate and don't know what it does" scenario. It seemed like a nice rule all-around. But it meant that e.g. Throning a one-shot would no longer work. At first I thought that was a positive. Throne / Feast was the number one rules question in the early days of Dominion. Surely it was more intuitive if you couldn't do it. But I asked people who wouldn't know, and more thought you could than that you couldn't; it wasn't intuitive either way, but if anything was more intuitive as it is. Further, people learn "do as much as you can" and then those people are much more likely to think you can Throne a Feast. So the change didn't seem so great after all.

But in the meantime, LastFootnote told someone he knew about it, that probably Throne / one-shot would stop working, and that person said, that's it, I'm quitting Dominion. I don't think that's a rational response! And if someone's going to be crazy, it's not like I can hope to appease them. But, maybe this gives you an idea of how strongly people can feel about changes. I changed as little as I could.

3
is this errata coming out because the rumored early 2020 dominion expansion set has cards this is pertinent to?

or is it more bc you're tired of our kvetching about it?
Normally errata would wait for the relevant expansions. Since the cards aren't all in one expansion, I would have said something whenever the first expansion came out. Let's say it was Dark Ages. So, okay Band of Misfits is different, and hey Overlord will match. I would have said.

But, there are people programming a Dominion app. I didn't want them to have to program the old Band of Misfits and then the new one. So they had to have the errata in a timely fashion. And while I don't have a release date for their version, the contract lets them put it out as early as January. So the errata wanted to be out by January, which would be ahead of e.g. Dark Ages being reprinted. So there was no perfect time for it and it might as well happen as soon as I had it. At the same time there's an existing online version (that isn't going away, I mean yes maybe someday but not in January), and it would have the errata.

So, I posted the errata. Then that led to enough online discussion of it that I errata'd the errata.

4
So, I think it's not enough to decide what a Command card is based on if it overrides the default of moving a played card into play. We can be specific and say:

Command cards are cards that, when played, can play another card without moving that other card at all.
The definition is: Command cards are cards with the Command type. It's a word on the bottom of the card, or maybe someday granted by Inheritance. That's what Command cards are. And you can't Moat an Ill-Gotten Gains, if you see what I mean.

The idea is to use this type on the cards that create loops due to not actually putting a card into play when they play something. It's a new thing of course; only recently the only example was Necromancer. But then the idea is to also not have shapeshifters as they are super-confusing and have their own problems. Anyway your definition is nice, it's a good guide to, what will I actually put the word on. But like, the actual rulebook text is just the part of e.g. the BoM FAQ that says, what's that weird word Command mean, and the answer is, some cards like BoM have that word, and can't play each other to avoid loops. I don't need to say there what precisely gets the word; that's not information that does anything.

And my hope is that, just looking at the card, it will at least not seem like a complete non sequitur due to the card being a Command card. It's a Command card, it can't play Command cards, if it could play itself that would be a loop, maybe there's some sense to this. [Yes so far on Inheritance it's just a non sequitur.]

5
I had mentioned this in the discord, but does Scepter qualify as a Command type? The only reason it doesn't loop is because it can't play itself due to being a treasure and no other command cards can play it. Effectively, Scepter treats the play area as an "infinite supply". If ever a card was released that can replay a treasure in play or that can put Scepter's abilities on an action, a loop would be created.

Maybe it's better to cross that bridge if it ever gets there, but I do want Scepter to get recognition as a potential problem card that in its current form limits (albeit narrow) design space.

Edit: in a sense, Scepter presents precedence for protecting against unwanted loops through use of types. There are no simple "Command" loops with Scepter because none of the other "Command" cards can play a treasure, and Scepter is only a treasure. So, Scepter fails to make the "whitelist" of any Command cards by virtue of its type. The "Command" type also allows type to protect from loops, except does so by allowing cards to "Blacklist" Command cards rather than somehow excluding them from another Command card's whitelist.
Scepter is a potential problem, for sure. If I made an Action that replayed a Treasure in play, they'd be a loop. That sounds like a weird card, but it also doesn't make you immediately think, "oh that will cause trouble."

As I've said, each expansion is trying to somehow still have new things. So at some point I tried each of these problematic things that made it out (and of course other things that didn't, e.g. modifying numbers in text). Replaying a card in play is trouble; moving a card from play (Mandarin, Procession, Bonfire) is trouble; playing a card without putting something into play is trouble. At the root of these all, there's this idea that a card in play represents a thing that happened; some situations get a lot safer and saner if I address that at the root... but it's too significant of a change at this point.

It's hard to commit to just not making cards again in any of the problem categories; what will happen is, I've got the idea and everyone loves it and it seems like, some clause is protecting us. And then maybe it is and maybe it isn't. But, a good rule of thumb is, really try not to make any more cards in the problem categories.

6
So now that there is a new type, I have a suggestion for all five cards, because I think it would be better and cleaner if they worked the same way.

As I said earlier in this thread, I think they should all say non-Duration, or we can just live with the lack of tracking for these cards. But since Donald is obviously going to stick to the special tracking rules for these cards, I think it would be better to make them all consistent.

The new rule ("2. Tracking for the former shapeshifters") mentions all cards - Band of Misfits, Overlord, Inheritance, Necromancer and Captain - but actually doesn't currently apply to the last two, since they already say "non-Duration" and so cause no tracking problem. This rule also presents the challenge (mentioned earlier) of defining which cards it applies to without including cards like Throne Room. This can be fixed with awkward wordings.

My suggestion is to add the Command type to Necromancer, and change Inheritance so that Estates also get the Command type; and then drop "non-Duration" from Captain and Necromancer. Now all five cards work the same way, they can play Durations with the exact same tracking, and they can't play each other. And the tracking rule can simply refer to "Command cards".
Rule 2 is there to tell people about the changes; the actual rulebook location for rule 2 would be in each relevant card's FAQ. It wouldn't have a special section in a rulebook because it's not something I want anyone to see unless they are specifically looking up a relevant card. There's no challenge of which cards it applies to, it would apply to the cards that explained it. It's not challenging to me either, it's cards that play cards that aren't put into play. Throne Room for example does not do that; it can fail to put the card into play e.g. when playing a one-shot the second time, but it always tries to put the card into play. I guess we can say, do we count Scepter and Royal Carriage, which only play cards already in play; their tracking is already covered and I wasn't defining new behavior for them.

The problem with consistency here is loud voices on the internet complaining about cards losing functionality. If I were making the cards all from scratch, new cards for new expansions, then I mean I would fix them up every way I could, I would avoid having a phrase like "non-duration, non-command Action" (even though Magic has done that on commons from the beginning, I am just mentioning that due to the injustice of having this be compared to substance) and so on. The direction of "give them a type and exclude it" is not an unreasonable approach, again for the situation of making these cards for the first time ever; it makes sure you don't have a problem. If I get to go further back and do e.g. duration cards and one-shots differently, well in addition to probably doing something like saying, duration cards don't function if they aren't in play (and notating that well), odds are I wouldn't do Band of Misfits, because I would want effects to be tracked better than it can manage.

But, the actual situation is, I made some cards, and have to live with them; even if a future version of Dark Ages replaces Band of Misfits, the card exists and needs rules. And again there are those loud voices. It's no surprise that people don't like to see combos go away, even if they'd never miss them if they'd never had them. The ideal fixes are ones that change as little as possible.

Thus, not adding Command to Necromancer, which didn't need it. For Estate, that's more borderline, and I can reconsider it when actually reprinting Adventures. Putting the type on Estate is cumbersome on the card text, but adds extra protection, as demonstrated by, if we drop "once per game" then you can Inherit something and then Inherit Estate, which is bad.

Similarly I initially thought Band of Misfits would get non-Duration. People were happier with that not happening. We have tracking for that situation and so it doesn't say non-Duration. In the best of all possible worlds, I just don't do the card; in the weird nightmare world where I have to do Band of Misfits but get to change it before it goes to print, and can't just make it e.g. "choose one: village or smithy or something," well, I would consider non-Duration. I'm not in that world, I'm in this one, where people are used to Band of Misfits working on Duration cards and would be sad if I took that away.

I do agree that it would be nice if the rules could just mention Command cards.

To sum up! It would be nice if the cards all fell into line more; they don't because I care more about the players being happy than about the cards being their prettiest.

7
I may have missed it, but I didn't see people complaining about the loop; only about the mandatory loop due to the fact that it created a hole in the rules where there was no correct defined behavior. Did people complain about this one more than they do about infinite Moat, or the various infinite Villa shenanigans?
Most of the online Dominion traffic that I know about is on the discord these days, followed by reddit, then f.ds, then BGG. Well not counting variants stuff, I don't read that stuff and so don't know how much of it there is. Anyway if you want to spend more time talking about Dominion, start by checking out the discord.

People do not complain about Moat. I don't have a good mental picture for how much they've complained about Villa; what I chose to store there was memories of people loving Villa. They certainly complained about Captain / BoM.


8
I doubt it'll ever be relevant, but would that mean that, e.g., gold being worth 3 coins also counts as an ability?
Yes, it's just like +$3.

9
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks
« on: October 13, 2019, 02:38:04 pm »
I did suggest simply adding "may" to Band of Misfits, which to me would be a simpler and cleaner solution.
That gets rid of "I hate this mandatory loop" but not "I hate this loop." For me it was never enough.

10
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks
« on: October 13, 2019, 01:27:00 pm »
I hate to say it; but the Command type is really reminding me of the Substance keyword from MTG. Iím not sure it seems good to just invent a new keyword in order to make certain cards work like this.
I was hoping you'd post a better fix; I gave you a lot of time. You let me down, GendoIkari! And however silly I'm being, it's also true; you did have a chance to offer a solution.

My next best fix was to say "printed cost" on these cards; you could only Inherit something with a printed cost of up to $4. I like that fine, but some people screamed that they'd hate that. What fun is Inheritance if it isn't a combo with Bridge? That seems ridiculous to me but multiple people felt that way. Stef's favored approach was to say that a card can't play another card while the first card is already playing it, unless the card to be played has moved. You may be wondering why it refers to both cards and cares about moving and well, that's the only way it could work. It seemed like that was an awful rule to try to make people learn, and that no-one was ever possibly learning it.

The actual fix used minimized the number of interactions lost, and puts the answers right on the cards, once they're actually reprinted. So far the downsides are disappointing you personally, and some people saying, wait why not Necromancer too (it's to not have people sad about lost interactions guys).

I imagine no-one else felt like they had to devote as much time to this as I did, but a bunch of people had the chance, and some of them did chime in, on Stef's playtest discord and my playtesting discord. "You can't play a card you're already playing" was LastFootnote's suggestion. Ingix found lots of edge cases to spoil various approaches. As he noted, it was easy to fix the loops; the hard part was fixing them while not messing up other situations. You say e.g. "You can't play a card you're already playing" and then there's, now you can't Captain to play Throne to play another Captain to play Throne because it's the same Throne you're in the middle of playing, and no-one's ever catching that; or, but wait now I can do the Mandarin thing and lose a Crown in my deck and draw a Crown and not know if it's the same one and so not know if I can play it or not.

Feel free to just ban all of the relevant cards from your games, which fixes all of the issues with no errata needed.

11
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks
« on: October 13, 2019, 01:10:48 pm »
I accept this is a digression, but why is Inheritance once per game? Just to deal with the ambiguity concerning what would happen to the previous set-aside card, or for some aspect of game balance I've never appreciated?
When I first printed out Inheritance, it did not say once-per-game. After some games with it, LastFootnote pointed out that you could e.g. Inherit Dungeon, play an Estate, then that turn buy Inheritance gain and Inherit a non-Duration card. What happens to the Estate? There were a few weird situations like that, and once-per-game got rid of them.

With the new wording, once-per-game protects us from you Inheriting something, then Inheriting Estate.

12
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks
« on: October 13, 2019, 01:38:31 am »
But the official FAQ already included a note that an Inherited Estate was still worth 1 VP, so surely that would've guaranteed anyways that it wouldn't take the Inherited card's VP value?

The FAQ said that because of the "non-Victory card" clause on the card. Without that clause, the FAQ couldn't have said that without contradicting the actual card.

I just took that as a clarification that the victory points weren't part of what changed - it takes on the abilities and types of the chosen card, but not the point value, since it doesn't actually become that card - it's still an Estate, it's just an Estate that can do stuff now.  Is the argument here that the VP are an "ability" which would otherwise have been Inherited?
scolapasta and Jeebus have it right. Inheritance said non-VP because otherwise it would have given you any VP that e.g. Mill and Island had. Whatever cards do is an ability; it's clearer when it's e.g. "1 VP per 10 cards you have," but also applies when it's "1 VP."

13
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks
« on: October 11, 2019, 12:56:03 pm »
So, now every card with the same name has the same ability AND COST, right?

Old rule: I played Quarry via Storyteller, played Necromancer to Zombie-Mason my inherited Estate (cost $0), couldn't gain an Estate (cost $2) from Supply.
Yes; at any given moment, all copies of a card have identical cost / abilities / types.

14
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks
« on: October 11, 2019, 04:45:25 am »
With Inheritance, should Estates gain the Command type as well as the Action type? Iím thinking that would make it more consistent with the other Commands.

One case Iíve thought of where it could matter (no clue if there might be more cases) is if the Inherited cardís pileósay, Conspiratoróhas emptied, but Estates have not. In that scenario, other Commands could still play a Conspirator by first playing an Estate from the Supply. For most Inherited cards thereís no real benefit, but this allows you to draw a starting hand of four Coppers and one BoM, and still get the +1 Card/+1 Action from Conspirator.
For Inheritance I didn't need to put it on both pieces; not being able to set aside a Command card stops the combos. If you e.g. Inherit Village and play BoM to play Estate, well it's like you played BoM to play Village, which you're allowed to do. Making Estates also a Command card felt more complex and it wasn't essential.

For the online version next week, the loops are stopped; any aesthetic benefits I missed out on can be considered further for when the relevant expansions finally get reprinted. But, the message of the loud voices on the internet was, don't kill any card interaction you don't have to, so I didn't.

15
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks
« on: October 11, 2019, 04:39:46 am »
It feels like Necromancer should be a Command card. Even though itís not involved in the infinite loops, it just seems like it should be for consistency.
Necromancer is one of these cards; I didn't give it the Command type because it actually costs something to do that: you might want to e.g. play Band of Misfits to play Necromancer, with no special combo needed. People don't like it when they lose that stuff and I didn't have to take it from them, Necromancer limits how many times you can play it via turning over cards in the trash.

I did make Overlord a Command card for consistency, though it wasn't part of the loops; that cost very little though (you can make it matter by putting e.g. a Training token on BoM).

16
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks
« on: October 11, 2019, 04:37:59 am »
So, are the only "Action - Command" cards in the game currently these ones you just listed? I.e., Band of Misfits, Overlord, and Captain can't play each other but can still play every other card that they used to be able to play before this change?
Yes those are the only ones, yes the three cards can't play each other but can play whatever else.

17
Rules Questions / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks
« on: October 10, 2019, 08:56:35 pm »
*** Update! ***

Did I say that was the errata? There is more errata.

As a result of posting the errata, people have talked about it in forums and things, and the ShuffleiT version has gotten worked on. And this has resulted in two more desired changes. Well I'm counting it as two. And well the cards still won't be printed for months at least, but the online version is changing soon, so here they are.

The first is, when you are told to get a card from your discard pile, if it's not on top, or the card is chosen, you can look through your discard pile to get the card. You don't get to look through your discard pile to take the top card (again unless you're choosing a card from your discard pile). This change is because, well the idea to messing with when you could look in your discard pile was to fix some weird situations, not to add "look through your discard pile" to cards like Watchtower that never had it. In the rare situations where you gain a card and want to use Watchtower and the card is no longer on top, you get to look through your whole discard pile; when it's on top, just take the card like you used to.

The second is, further errata for four cards to prevent loops. You could do things like, play a Bridge and use Inheritance on Band of Misfits and then play Band of Misfits to play Estate to play Band of Misfits to play Estate and it's a loop. The fix here is a type on these cards, that they then don't work with. This affects very little other than getting rid of the loops; Courtier is better with these cards, and if you e.g. have an Adventures token on Band of Misfits and wanted to play Captain to play Band of Misfits (with a Bridge) to take advantage of that, well, now that doesn't work. This fix includes Overlord even though it wasn't part of the loops, just to be safe for the future and because it looks like the other cards and this seems less confusing. And hey it was already getting errata. To avoid "non-Victory non-Command" on Inheritance, I'm dropping non-Victory, which was just there for the old way Inheritance worked.

So:

Band of Misfits: Action - Command, $5
Play a non-Command Action card from the Supply that costs less than this, leaving it there.

Overlord: Action - Command, 8D
Play a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to $5, leaving it there.

Inheritance: Event, $7
Once per game: Set aside a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to $4. Move your Estate token to it. (During your turns, Estates are also Actions with "Play the card with your Estate token, leaving it there.")

Captain: Action - Duration - Command, $6
Now and at the start of your next turn: Play a non-Duration non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to $4, leaving it there.

18
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks
« on: October 10, 2019, 08:56:14 pm »
OP updated as follows:

*** Update! ***

Did I say that was the errata? There is more errata.

As a result of posting the errata, people have talked about it in forums and things, and the ShuffleiT version has gotten worked on. And this has resulted in two more desired changes. Well I'm counting it as two. And well the cards still won't be printed for months at least, but the online version is changing soon, so here they are.

The first is, when you are told to get a card from your discard pile, if it's not on top, or the card is chosen, you can look through your discard pile to get the card. You don't get to look through your discard pile to take the top card (again unless you're choosing a card from your discard pile). This change is because, well the idea to messing with when you could look in your discard pile was to fix some weird situations, not to add "look through your discard pile" to cards like Watchtower that never had it. In the rare situations where you gain a card and want to use Watchtower and the card is no longer on top, you get to look through your whole discard pile; when it's on top, just take the card like you used to.

The second is, further errata for four cards to prevent loops. You could do things like, play a Bridge and use Inheritance on Band of Misfits and then play Band of Misfits to play Estate to play Band of Misfits to play Estate and it's a loop. The fix here is a type on these cards, that they then don't work with. This affects very little other than getting rid of the loops; Courtier is better with these cards, and if you e.g. have an Adventures token on Band of Misfits and wanted to play Captain to play Band of Misfits (with a Bridge) to take advantage of that, well, now that doesn't work. This fix includes Overlord even though it wasn't part of the loops, just to be safe for the future and because it looks like the other cards and this seems less confusing. And hey it was already getting errata. To avoid "non-Victory non-Command" on Inheritance, I'm dropping non-Victory, which was just there for the old way Inheritance worked.

So:

Band of Misfits: Action - Command, $5
Play a non-Command Action card from the Supply that costs less than this, leaving it there.

Overlord: Action - Command, 8D
Play a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to $5, leaving it there.

Inheritance: Event, $7
Once per game: Set aside a non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to $4. Move your Estate token to it. (During your turns, Estates are also Actions with "Play the card with your Estate token, leaving it there.")

Captain: Action - Duration - Command, $6
Now and at the start of your next turn: Play a non-Duration non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to $4, leaving it there.

19
Rules Questions / Re: Multiple things happening at the same time
« on: October 10, 2019, 01:34:52 pm »
But how you interpret these rules when it comes to multiple players with reactions (or "optional things", since Urchin is included) has clearly not always been the same, since you ruled the other way in the past. And in 2016 decided to keep it like that.
I shouldn't just limit myself to what past Donald X. liked; I barely know that guy.

I'm looking at the other thread and the different scenarios we were discussing. With this new rule, how do mandatory abilities get resolved? If you play an Attack card with a +1 Card token, do you have to draw a card before anybody reacts? Or can you wait and see if someone wants to react, then draw? (If so, everybody then has another chance to react of course.) This matters in a hypothetical situation (which you brought up in the other thread) where another player's reaction to your attack could create a mandatory thing for you. Would you do it or is it too late?
If there's a mandatory thing, you do it. If there are both mandatory and optional things and someone wants to do an optional thing, if they are first in turn order they go first.

20
Rules Questions / Re: Multiple things happening at the same time
« on: October 09, 2019, 01:50:13 pm »
To me it just seems really odd to interpret the rule quoted from the rulebook above to mean what Donald is saying. Saying that you can do the abilities - mandatory and optional - in any order, to me heavily implies that you do them all. (Of course you can choose to not do an optional one.) In addition, as I said in the previous paragraph, how exactly this is supposed to work is not clear at all from anything written except as explained by Donald in the previous thread about this. Why not think that after everyone passes you can shout out and say "actually I want to React"?
I don't think that would work; there has to be a way we know that everyone is done considering doing something.

IRL no-one passes and you just shout out that you want to do a thing - if anyone wants to do something, they do it, and we only say "slow down, we need to go in turn order" when specific situations call for it e.g. those Curses running out.

For me the rule has always been (I understand this doesn't help anyone, I'm just explaining my mindset), that when multiple players want to do something at the same time and it matters, they go in turn order. It didn't make the original main rulebook because those cards didn't make it come up. Similarly the rule for if one player has to do multiple things at once wasn't in the original main set rulebook since it didn't apply yet, but was always there in my mind and made it into Seaside; and there was a lose track rule and it was used by the Mining Village FAQ but I didn't manage to get it into a rulebook until Dark Ages. It's reasonable to want the main rulebook to further clarify Reactions, or at least for some rulebook out there to do this.

In the meantime, that's the rule. And then, how I interpret that rule and the card texts for this question is, if something more happens in the window, you can still react.

21
Rules Questions / Re: Multiple things happening at the same time
« on: October 09, 2019, 01:39:55 pm »
I looked at the rules and some cards and I think my ruling is consistent with them. "If we both want to do something we go in turn order" doesn't imply "if you want to do something because someone later in turn order did something, now it's too late." You didn't want to do something; then you did, and it's still time for doing it.

Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but where do the rules talk about "if the players want to do something"? The only thing I can find is "things happening to the players, whether mandatory or not". That implies that you react based on the fact that it happened to you, not based on the fact that someone else reacted. I really don't understand how you can get the interpretation you're saying - at least based on the section I quoted.
You're right, the main set rulebook does not address reactions, just phrases the rule as it applies to Witch.

That's what the rule should be though, when I manage to put it into a rulebook.

22
Rules Questions / Re: Multiple things happening at the same time
« on: October 08, 2019, 07:48:51 pm »
Online players will at least be presented with an Urchin that matches the old rule, not the new one. I'm not sure if there are other discrepancies. EDIT: Yes, there are. You said, "Online players will be faced with what the program does, and will not mind getting to use their reactions." That is not the issue. The issue is that they will not get the option to react again after the next player already reacted. In the example in this thread, B will not get to react with Diplomat again online. So the core issue of this question will be different online.
It's not out of the question for the online version to have differences like this. It doesn't let you endlessly reveal Moat, hooray. But, the intention is to match unless there's a good reason not to. I can mention to Stef that this doesn't match my current ruling, and more people in the development discord can speak up as to any opinions they have. Changes used to be all on a retreating far away horizon, but these days things are actually happening.

As I said in the other thread, the new rule is not needed to prevent players from saying "no Moat for you" (which was your main concern in that thread). Players will not do so in any case. Likewise, the old rule is not needed to prevent players from endlessly reacting to each other. Players will not do so in any case. The rule is only needed to clarify what happens when someone wants to react because of someone else reacting, such as in the original BGG thread from 2010 or in the OP in this thread. In those cases I'm certain that most players will not find that the rulebook supports the new rule. I would think that they either think it's strictly in turn order once (as seen above), or they have no idea and either house-rule it or look it up online.
I looked at the rules and some cards and I think my ruling is consistent with them. "If we both want to do something we go in turn order" doesn't imply "if you want to do something because someone later in turn order did something, now it's too late." You didn't want to do something; then you did, and it's still time for doing it.

23
Rules Questions / Re: Multiple things happening at the same time
« on: October 08, 2019, 06:28:15 pm »
Well, as I stated in the other thread, I think it would be better to stick with how everybody who has ever looked up that rule since 2010 has played it. The rulebooks also imply it, not exempting "optional effects" or Reactions from the turn-order rule.

Nobody blocks players from revealing Moat or using other Reactions because of the existing rule. The question is rather, can I wait to see what you do before I use my Reaction, as in the example in the original BGG thread.

Changing this rule also opens up the question about the timing of Urchin: Can you now reveal it after other players have reacted to your Attack?
As usual I consider casual players and online players. Online players will be faced with what the program does, and will not mind getting to use their reactions. Casual players will be unlikely to check the rules and unlikely to know about a ruling in these forums; from the text of the cards, it looks like you can react, so probably they will think you can.

Maybe there is something you can think of to make me think this is a bad ruling; so far I am not convinced and I like this ruling. I would like the best rules even if I have to suffer through a change, and this change is not much of a change. The ruling is based on looking at the cards and rules, which I especially like, I like rulings that don't add more rules, but just make sense of the texts.

This affects Urchin, sure. If I play Urchin and don't trash it and someone Moats, I can then trash it.

24
Rules Questions / Re: Multiple things happening at the same time
« on: October 08, 2019, 04:52:29 pm »
2) When multiple players can react, can I react then wait to see whether an opponent reacts and then react again? In other words does the time to reveal reactions happen in turn order and then finish after the last player, or can we continuously react until the trigger finally gets resolved? for example, A plays an attack (let's say witch). B has 6 cards in hand including an urchin and wants to really hurt C. B reacts with a diplomat (keeping the urchin and diplomat). C has 5 cards in hand and reacts with diplomat. B realizes his urchin won't hurt C anymore and wants to react with diplomat again to change up his hand. Can he do it?
Yes, at the point at which B decides "oh now I want to react," that's something B wants to do, and the rule is we go in turn order. If A decided "wait I will do something too," A would go ahead of B.

As far as I know, this has not been the official ruling. And it's not implemented like this online. Rather each player has to finish reacting when it's their turn, and then it's the next player, until everybody has gotten one chance. If it worked the way you say, 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. At least it doesn't work like that online.

You did say the same thing in this post: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4535.msg591442#msg591442. A few posts later you said that this ruling was tentative and someting to consider. It turned out that you had ruled otherwise several times before (namely that everybody only gets one shot at reacting). The conclusion in that thread was the original ruling still stood until further notice.
I think it should be, that if you want to use your reaction, you can. If someone else wants to do something at the same time then I have to say who gets to go first (turn order); if no-one wants to do anything then you've officially decided not to do the thing. But other things happening in the same window of time means you still get to decide to do your thing that you previously would have done first if you'd wanted to do it then.

25
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks
« on: October 07, 2019, 05:14:25 pm »
How is this different than for instance Travellers?
The Travellers have that big arrow to desperately try to remind you to exchange them, which sometimes works. But, it's also legal to not return them.

And before someone asks, man we tried that too, back during work on Dark Ages. We tried Band of Misfits as, gain a cheaper card and play it and hey now it's yours. It doesn't have any of the same issues (its issues are in the direction of, how fast do you want the game to be anyway), and lives on as Cobbler.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 212

Page created in 0.152 seconds with 20 queries.