Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

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.

1

Rules Questions / Re: "in play" on Royal Carriage

« on: July 19, 2018, 03:06:32 pm »

But it is not that simple. In general the rule cannot be "you cannot call Royal Carriage on a card that has left and re-entered play": I can Procession a Fortress and then play that Fortress again. It has left and re-entered play. Noone would doubt that it is eligible for Royal Carriage. So the real question is: since when should the card I want to replay not have left play? The natural answer to which seems to be: Since it was last played. But, behold: The Estate in majiponi's example has not left play since it was last played (which was by the other Estate-Crown), so that does not seem to be the rule. So what is the rule?

This is what my second response in this thread was about. It's a question about English, not about Dominion. "Are you still in play" works the same was as "are you still at work"? There's an implied duration in the question. It's not "since it was last played", because you will ALWAYS "still be" where you "last went".

I believe the natural reading is, as mentioned in my other reply, "has it not left play since it was put into play by the same act of playing it that was referred to by the 'directly after you finish playing an Action card'?"

In other words, Royal Carriage refers to "playing an Action card". The moment that action card was played is the start of your duration. If it left play since then, you cannot call Royal Carriage.

The "act of playing it that was referred to" doesn't always put it into play. In the simple situation, you can Throne a card, play it a first time, play it a second time (without putting it into play again, because it's already in play), and then call Royal Carriage. So it has not left play since the act of playing it that triggered Royal Carriage was initiated, but that act of playing it didn't put it into play.

(The same is the case in the scenario in the OP, except that it's in Sally's play area when that happens.)

That's fine; my idea doesn't depend on the act having put it into play. What matters is if it left play between that act and now. (Left play includes never having been in play, like with Throne Room + Feast).

So... this implies that in the OP scenario majiponi can call Royal Carriage?

2

Rules Questions / Re: "in play" on Royal Carriage

« on: July 19, 2018, 02:18:24 pm »

But it is not that simple. In general the rule cannot be "you cannot call Royal Carriage on a card that has left and re-entered play": I can Procession a Fortress and then play that Fortress again. It has left and re-entered play. Noone would doubt that it is eligible for Royal Carriage. So the real question is: since when should the card I want to replay not have left play? The natural answer to which seems to be: Since it was last played. But, behold: The Estate in majiponi's example has not left play since it was last played (which was by the other Estate-Crown), so that does not seem to be the rule. So what is the rule?

This is what my second response in this thread was about. It's a question about English, not about Dominion. "Are you still in play" works the same was as "are you still at work"? There's an implied duration in the question. It's not "since it was last played", because you will ALWAYS "still be" where you "last went".

I believe the natural reading is, as mentioned in my other reply, "has it not left play since it was put into play by the same act of playing it that was referred to by the 'directly after you finish playing an Action card'?"

In other words, Royal Carriage refers to "playing an Action card". The moment that action card was played is the start of your duration. If it left play since then, you cannot call Royal Carriage.

The "act of playing it that was referred to" doesn't always put it into play. In the simple situation, you can Throne a card, play it a first time, play it a second time (without putting it into play again, because it's already in play), and then call Royal Carriage. So it has not left play since the act of playing it that triggered Royal Carriage was initiated, but that act of playing it didn't put it into play.

(The same is the case in the scenario in the OP, except that it's in Sally's play area when that happens.)

3

Rules Questions / Re: "in play" on Royal Carriage

« on: July 19, 2018, 07:25:48 am »

Thank you. I was not sure whether Estate3 was "still" in play, since it hadn't moved since I had played it as the second time, which may cause Royal Carriage to be called.

It hasn't moved since Sally played it, but it has moved since you played it.

Sally could use a Royal Carriage on Estate3.

Now this has me wondering... if through a series of weird stuff like above; what if you re-played the Estate? Is it still the case that 's not "still in play" because it has left play and re-entered play?

If it left play and got replayed, it's not "still in play" from the first time you played it. However it's "still in play" from the 2nd time, and so you could Royal Carriage that, to do what that does.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't that the scenario majiponi is asking about to begin with?

No, in the OP, the other player plays the Estate the second time, not the player who originally played it.

Huh? I'm not following. In the scenario, majiponi crowns Estate3. The second time he plays Estate3, it's in Sally's play area, but majiponi is definitely playing it a second time at the point.

4

Rules Questions / Re: "in play" on Royal Carriage

« on: July 18, 2018, 09:54:57 pm »

Thank you. I was not sure whether Estate3 was "still" in play, since it hadn't moved since I had played it as the second time, which may cause Royal Carriage to be called.

It hasn't moved since Sally played it, but it has moved since you played it.

Sally could use a Royal Carriage on Estate3.

Now this has me wondering... if through a series of weird stuff like above; what if you re-played the Estate? Is it still the case that 's not "still in play" because it has left play and re-entered play?

If it left play and got replayed, it's not "still in play" from the first time you played it. However it's "still in play" from the 2nd time, and so you could Royal Carriage that, to do what that does.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't that the scenario majiponi is asking about to begin with?

5

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Why I'm quitting Dominion for the foreseeable future (not satire)

« on: July 10, 2018, 04:22:27 pm »

"Over" refers to physical location, not quantity.

This is false; it also often refers to quantity.

"Nauseous" means it makes people sick. If you're sick, you're nauseated.

Nauseous also means 'feeling sick'.

"Steep learning curve" means the OPPOSITE of how people use it. A learning curve shows mastery over time, if it's steep, then mastery spikes in a very short time. What most people mean is a gradual learning curve when they say steep.

I agree with you about what "steep learning curve" means and disagree with you about your thesis that people mean the opposite. What most people mean when they say "steep learning curve" is a situation in which someone is forced to master a lot of knowledge in a short amount of time.

"That" never refers to humans, "who" and "whom" do.

Relative clauses using that frequently refer to humans. (That itself doesn't refer to humans, because in this construction, the word that is not a pronoun and doesn't refer to anything.)

If you're ever thinking about using a semicolon, don't. Just don't. I promise you you don't need it.

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

"Since" refers to the passage of time, it does not mean the same thing as "because."

Both of these are available meanings for since.

A special mention to the fact that, as of 2017, it's technically correct to use "they" and "their" to refer to a single person.

I get it, "his" and "her" aren't perfect, inclusiveness, empathy, post-modernism yay!

Still, it was technically incorrect for so long that it trips me up every time I see it.

I have literally no idea what you mean by "technically" here. There's no switch that magically flipped in 2017. They and their have been correctly used to refer to single (unidentified) individuals for centuries, and for single identified individuals of non-binary gender more recently that that, but it didn't just start in 2017.

6

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Why I'm quitting Dominion for the foreseeable future (not satire)

« on: July 10, 2018, 04:15:22 pm »

Example of a written diction error: Let me axe you a question. <Clearly intended "ask"

That's more likely a spelling error, not a "diction" error. That is, the most likely reason somebody would write "axe you a question" is because they pronounce the word ask as "axe" and don't realize that the word is spelled "ask", not because they used the word axe instead of the word ask.

7

Other Games / Re: Codenames etiquette

« on: July 08, 2018, 09:19:35 pm »

The discussion that prompted this was someone was asking if it was legal to say THINK, 4 as a clue to encourage the team to think back on the last 4 clues (or words or whatever he was trying to do; it was a really bad and awkward clue anyway). So very much an invalid clue since the spymaster was intending to convey a meaning not related directly to the words.

But how would the other team know? Say he was saying THNK, 2. Then I challenge it because he's not referring to the words. Only he is because he wanted to have the team guess GROUP and IDIOM. He has to explain that for me to be satisfied and now the game is at a weird state. Some of these clues might not get caught as invalid until later.

Yeah and you can always say, hey, I wasn't using LOVE as a clue for GLOVE because it rhymes, I was using it because... I really like gloves. Or, I wasn't cluing GLOVE, I was cluing some other word, and it's just by coincidence that my team guessed GLOVE which also happens to be one of our correct words. This seems to make "don't use invalid clues" formally unenforceable if someone really wanted to break the rule.

8

Dominion General Discussion / Re: If Iron cards were made today would Night give you buys?

« on: July 04, 2018, 09:02:56 pm »

The categorization on the wiki is roughly in terms of “how important is it for you to know what these are?”

9

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Engines that don't increase handsize

« on: July 01, 2018, 08:35:17 pm »

When I realized that “Msqr” didn’t mean Masquerade I had to back up and reread the paragraph and it made much more sense.

10

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Neat card interactions that were useful in the game you found them in.

« on: July 01, 2018, 12:41:31 am »

Fool / Faithful Hound was a good synergy in a game where my opponent didn’t have a good enough engine to play Fool regularly and take back Lost in the Woods from me. And it’s thematic, too!

11

Rules Questions / Re: summon + death cart vs. summon + nomad camp

« on: June 26, 2018, 07:00:28 pm »

I'm trying to think what would break if the lose-track rule didn't include covering a card in your discard pile, but only moving it from the discard pile. Does that actually cause any issues? I think it's the cover-up part of lose-track that causes the most counter-intuitive rulings.

In order to get the card out of your discard pile, you have to allow for searching through your discard pile, which is not allowed.

Welllll, if you discard a Faithful Hound and four Coppers, technically you then have to search through your discard pile to retrieve the Hound and set it aside. So it's not like there's nothing in the game that implicitly makes you do that anyway.

12

Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Easy Puzzles

« on: June 24, 2018, 03:45:12 pm »

Well I mean you could call 5 Transmogrifies on a hand of 5 Platinums, but I don't know if having a Platinum board, which implies the presence of kingdom cards from Prosperity, counts as "using" other kingdom cards.

13

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Neat card interactions that were useful in the game you found them in.

« on: June 23, 2018, 04:27:31 pm »

I just had a fun time with Governor / Market Square: Use Governor to remodel a Gold into a Province, use Market Square to get the Gold back right away... and unlike with other Gold gainers, you just need one Market Square in your deck to do this multiple times on a turn, if you can redraw it.

14

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Don't bother getting the yellow cards out of the box

« on: June 19, 2018, 11:50:29 am »

I can't help noticing that Nocturne contains more kinds of Treasure than any previous set, as well as plenty of Treasure gainers. That suggests to me that Donald X., at least, thinks Treasures are still relevant.

...Eh?

1. Prosperity contains more different Treasures than Nocturne.
2. Most of the Treasures in Nocturne aren't ones that are competing with other things in the supply for your attention.

I think crj means Heirlooms.

Yes, I know.

2. Heirlooms aren't competing with supply Treasures for your gains; they're competing with Copper for your trashing. The presence of Heirlooms doesn't really say to me "the expansion is recognizing the importance of strategies involving Treasure gaining."

1. Nocturne has seven Heirlooms plus Idol.  Prosperity has eight kingdom Treasures plus Platinum.

15

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Don't bother getting the yellow cards out of the box

« on: June 19, 2018, 11:22:21 am »

I can't help noticing that Nocturne contains more kinds of Treasure than any previous set, as well as plenty of Treasure gainers. That suggests to me that Donald X., at least, thinks Treasures are still relevant.

...Eh?

1. Prosperity contains more different Treasures than Nocturne.
2. Most of the Treasures in Nocturne aren't ones that are competing with other things in the supply for your attention.

16

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Logical Dominion translation?

« on: June 17, 2018, 04:40:12 pm »

I think this thread might be the place to get started:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7489

17

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Fix the worst cards

« on: June 15, 2018, 02:36:04 pm »

So I think Transmute would best look like this:

+1 Buy
Trash a card from your hand. If it’s a...
Treasure: gain an Action costing up to $5
Action: gain a Duchy
Victory: gain a Gold
—-
When you buy this, +1 Buy., and you may gain this to your deck (instead of your discard pile).

Looks like a step into the right direction but as it is nearly as good as Altar it might be too strong.

If it’s too much, you can remove the on buy Buy and maybe add $2 to the cost. The use of Potion in the cost makes it hard to mass a lot of them, and it still takes a long time to get it going much like Altar. Adding $2 to the cost doesn’t change much early once the on-buy Buy is gone, but it does make it harder to tack it on to an existing buy later.

I would probably test it as is first and then adjust it down. I need to resume my dominion tweak project now that I have a printer again.

The 'gain an Action costing up to $5' part also doesn't really fit into the theme of Alchemy -- the only available such cards are Herbalist and Apprentice. Apprentice would be the only one you'd realistically get which could then be used to .. trash the Transmute .. and the Potion.

Alchemy has a "gain an Action costing up to $5" card.

18

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Fix the worst cards

« on: June 13, 2018, 10:32:38 am »

This post makes me want to update my extension to automatically replace "Mute" with "Transmute".

Seriously. And c’mon, “pot”? “Potion” is six measly letters.

And it comes in a bottle.

19

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Only attack once with Legionary

« on: June 10, 2018, 01:06:08 pm »

Who buys more than one Legionary

In decks with Legionary and no good draw, it's sometimes worth running 2 or 3 legionaries to maximize the amount of turns you can keep your opponent discarding. The virtual coin can also be useful in double Tactican or Herald engines.

Indeed, the double-Tactician engine was the situation that originally gave rise to this post.

20

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Neat and potentially useful card interactions

« on: June 02, 2018, 02:02:01 pm »

Unsurprisingly, Castles/Shepherd is a pretty good combo.

21

Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Easy Puzzles

« on: May 18, 2018, 02:00:39 pm »

What is the largest number of differently-named Victory cards you can have in your deck, with none of them worth more than 0 VP? 

I'm gonna guess... 48?

12 each of Duke, Feodum, and either Vineyard or Distant Lands (but not both)
6 Overgrown Estates and 6 Pastures, via ridiculous 6-player Masquerade shenanigans

Differently-named.

Oops.

Okay so 7:
Gardens
Duke
Feodum
Vineyard
Distant Lands
Overgrown Estate
Pasture

22

Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Easy Puzzles

« on: May 18, 2018, 01:08:55 pm »

What is the largest number of differently-named Victory cards you can have in your deck, with none of them worth more than 0 VP? 

I'm gonna guess... 48?

12 each of Duke, Feodum, and either Vineyard or Distant Lands (but not both)
6 Overgrown Estates and 6 Pastures, via ridiculous 6-player Masquerade shenanigans

Differently-named.

Oops.

23

Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Easy Puzzles

« on: May 18, 2018, 12:50:17 pm »

What is the largest number of differently-named Victory cards you can have in your deck, with none of them worth more than 0 VP? 

I'm gonna guess... 48?

12 each of Duke, Feodum, and either Vineyard or Distant Lands (but not both)
6 Overgrown Estates and 6 Pastures, via ridiculous 6-player Masquerade shenanigans

24

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Semi-Interesting Dominion Moments Thread

« on: May 05, 2018, 01:58:17 am »

A plays a Forge.
A trashes a Mercenary.
A gains a Copper.

Had drawn my deck with only $7 in it; then I drew the copper and bought a Province.

25

Rules Questions / Re: Sacrifice and Inheritance

« on: May 04, 2018, 11:44:53 am »

Note that this also means that if you Inherit Fortress and Sacrifice an Estate, you do get both bonuses.