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 - dane-m

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Rules Questions / Re: Citadel and Captain
« on: September 14, 2021, 02:22:40 pm »
Before the new rule for playing cards, how does this interaction work? You play Captain, and next turn you play a Smithy in the supply, leaving it there, then Citadel replays it - and puts it into play? Meaning that the Smithy is now yours without you having gained it?

After the rules change, I guess it's very similar. You play Captain, and next turn you choose a Smithy, but instead of Captain playing it, Citadel plays it and puts it into play, and then plays it again. You get the Smithy.

Am I missing something?
Isn't this essentially the same as the situation that has existed with Throne Room from the very start, i.e. the second play of the card doesn't cause it to be put into play if it's not already there?

Rules Questions / Re: Simple Rules Questions
« on: September 05, 2021, 12:55:30 pm »
If you play an emulator such as Band of Misfits, which then plays a Treasure Map, you can't trash the Treasure Map from the supply, so you will fail to gain 4 Golds.

I dont understand, why i'm trashing the Map from the supply? BoM is in play, emulating Map, so the emulated Map tells me to trash itself and another Map from my hand? Do i missunderstand an emulator?
The first instruction on Treasure Map is "Trash this and a Treasure Map from your hand."
The second instruction is "If you trashed two Treasure Maps, gain 4 Golds onto your deck."

BoM has played a Treasure Map that is in the Supply, so when that Treasure Map tries to trash itself, it fails to find itself where it is expecting to, namely in play.  Therefore the Treasure Map in the supply does not get trashed, so you have not trashed two Treasure Maps, so don't satisfy the condition for gaining 4 Golds.

Dominion Articles / Re: Dominion is getting worse with each expansion
« on: August 26, 2021, 10:56:44 am »
Speaking as an old person, Dominion is more fun now than it was a decade ago, although it's less addictive.
I occasionally get to play against someone who will play only with the base set.  I can say with some confidence that if that were all that I could now play with every time, I would find Dominion a lot less addictive than I do.

In recent times I've played plenty of games online with interesting kingdoms, plus several that had 'boring' kingdoms, but even those were interesting in the sense that they required me to think about how they had to be tackled.  I even appreciate the occasional slogging match in which everyone's deck get filled with Curses and Ruins because there's no trashing.  I wouldn't want to be in such games too often, but I think I'd miss them if they never cropped up.  I suppose to some extent I want to have to answer the question "Is this a kingdom for which building an engine is sensible?" before moving on to the question "What's the best engine?"  That might be a reflection on the fact that I'm far from the world's best engine builder!

Dark Ages Previews / Re: Procession/Pillage ???
« on: May 20, 2021, 01:03:57 pm »
And to add some context, the reason that Pillage's wording was changed is because Overlord (and Band of Misfits) changed their wording in a way that would have made one-shot cards like Pillage and Embargo much more powerful, because you could play Overlord to play Pillage from the supply, and not have to trash the Pillage at all. This made it necessary to add "if you did" to Pillage to prevent it from being too easy to play every turn.
I think Necromancer caused a problem even before Overlord and BoM were changed.  I vaguely remember one game in which a trashed Pillage got played very frequently.  Or maybe it was a trashed Death Cart that got played frequently.  If my recollection is correct, then it was Necromancer that inspired the changed wording for Pillage and Death Cart, and the subsequently revised Overlord and BoM were merely beneficiaries of the change.

Trusting my memory of events might, however, be unwise!

Sometimes if I am getting beaten badly I decide Im just not in the mood and would rather roll the dice on getting matched with someone I have a better chance against.
The trouble with that is that when I'm having a bad day, I get beaten by a whole series of opponents. ☹

Alas bad days have been more common than good ones of late.

From the phrasing of the question I'm assuming that you used the King's Court to play the Hireling three times in a previous round.

The King's Court and Hireling do indeed count towards the number of Action cards in play in the current round, but that's just two Action cards in play, not three or four.  There's an important difference between Action cards in play and the number of Actions played.

The KC and Hireling count as two Action cards in play in both the round in which they were played and all subsequent rounds.  Well, just so long as you don't use Bonfire on them!

The KC and Hireling made a total of four Actions played in the round in which they were played, but zero in all subsequent rounds.

Quite a few cards care about the number of cards in play, but I think Conspirator is the only card for which the number of Actions played in the round is significant.

But is there no "in-built" option to limit your table to only allow friends to join it? On most other online boardgame platforms, there is. I'd like to play Dominion online with a friend without having to "jump through loops" like this to set up a "private" table...
Alas there isn't a built-in option.   A 'Create private table' option would be nice, set to create a table with maximum privacy, which the player could then relax to whatever extent was appropriate once the table was created, a task that could be done at leisure rather in the rush that's currently needed to stop players turning up a newly created table (I'm astonished how quickly some do).  But in the (potentially infinite) meantime at least there are the workarounds and the (to me seemingly impolite) Kick option to get rid of interlopers.

Lord Rattington's trashing choices leave something to be desired. Final decks:

10 Coppers, an Estate, a Duchy, 10 Goons, 10 Worker's Villages, 6 Chariot Races, 5 Imps, 3 Recruiters and 5 Covens

Lord Rattington:
9 Curses and a Junk Dealer
Admittedly the bot junked a lot of stuff it shouldn't have (it always does with Junk Dealer), but my guess is that those Curses only came out of Exile near the end of the game.

i reacts with a Black Cat.
i plays a Black Cat.
i draws 2 cards.
<My own addition: Why doesn't "e gains a Curse" go here?>
i discards 4 Black Cats.
Curse pile empty?

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: March 20, 2020, 01:37:25 pm »
This is probably more of a Publisher than Designer question, but do you think they'll ever be a way to get physical copies of the 2nd edition changed cards and / or errata'd cards without having to buy complete sets?
There's no plan for this so far; I don't imagine interest would be high enough.
Two possibilities occur to me, though maybe printing issues would rule them out:
  • Make the relevant individual cards available through BoardGameGeek, just like promos.  Start by trying just one card (e.g. Band of Misfits) and if that proved there was sufficient demand, gradually work through the others, doing the ones with the most significant changes first.
  • Make all individual cards available postally from RGG.  That would also be a boon for anyone who has been cursed by damaging a few cards in a set, e.g.  by spilling a drink over them, and wishes to replace them because currently they don't have a ghost of a chance of not recognising the damaged cards when shuffling their dec k.

As a matter of interest, how would people tend to interpret "Reveal the top card of your deck. You may play it if it's a Treasure or Action. Otherwise, discard it."?  Just curious.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: March 12, 2020, 02:03:43 pm »
Small Castle could be "trash this or a castle from your hand and gain a castle."

That would allow a hand of Small Castle and KC to gain three Castles, I think. It would also mean Necromancer on a trashed Small Castle would let you gain a Castle (with no other Castle in hand).
Based on more recent cards "Trash this or a castle from your hand to gain a castle." would maintain the current behaviour.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Menagerie Previews 3: Exile
« on: March 04, 2020, 12:54:14 pm »
After having played with the cards, I think stockpile is actually incredibly strong. It's like opening silver but better, with a buy, doesn't junk your deck, and you can turn it into payload later.
It's particulary strong against Lord Rat as there's no pressure on the pile!

Just in case anyone else ever suffers a similar problem...

It turned out that the 'Ignore Boards Options' in my profile had changed such that some boards were being ignored that shouldn't have been.  I'd not deliberately changed that part of my profile (I'd even forgotten that it existed), but maybe there was some other way (e.g. a shortcut) that I could have done so accidentally.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Menagerie Previews 1: 5 Cards
« on: March 03, 2020, 03:06:39 am »
You can convert Villagers at any point in your Action phase, which includes between drawing the card for Snowy Village and then having +Actions turned off. This specific question isn't in the FAQ.
Huh. So if you have a ton of Villagers due to Recruiter or Acting Troupe, than you can work around Snowy Village's Action denial?
Only by converting them before Snowy Village turns off +Actions, i.e. you'd need to know (or guess) at that stage how many more Actions you're going to want to play during your turn.  After Snowy Village has turned off +Actions you're still free to convert your Villagers, but you won't get any +Actions for them!

I've experimented with deleting the cookies from the site, but that hasn't cleared the problem.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Menagerie Previews 1: 5 Cards
« on: March 02, 2020, 08:23:03 am »
How about discarding cards during another player's Clean up phase?
At one time there was a scenario in which Outpost could be discarded in another player's clean-up phase, but I think that went away with the second edition.

Whenever I click on "Show unread posts since last visit" I'm being told that there are no unread topics found since my last visit, even when there are (for example Donald's Menagerie preview and the various replies).  I think this behaviour started within the last week or so, i.e. I'm fairly sure that I recently checked successfullt for unread posts.  Anyone got any idea what could be causing it?  If it's relevant, I selected the permanently logged-in option back when I first started using the forum.

I'll try to sort out the confusion.
Perhaps we could encourage Donald to add an edit to his original post so that the revised ruling will be obvious to newcomers to the thread.

I realized that there is a way that the new rule makes a difference with existing cards!

Play Throne Room + Fishing Village. Gain Mandarin; via Capitalism the Fishing Village is topdecked. Play Vassal.

According to Donald's new rule, the Vassal doesn't stay in play and neither does the Throne Room. With just existing rules, we know that the Fishing Village is the same card, so the Vassal would stay in play (and I actually think the Throne Room would too).
That also means that the rule that I suggested wouldn't be functionally equivalent to Donald's, and hence would be inferior (since I think it's desirable to make the answer to the question "Is it the same card?" as simple as possible).  To be functionally equivalent it would have to be widened to something like "Any card played in a turn is not the same as any card removed from play earlier in the turn."

Dane-m, I agree with you about the unfortunate result of saying that a card gained from the trash can be "that card". But as Donald said, it's not relevant anymore since he decided to add a new rule. The rule, inspired by Ingix's post, is that cards that are lost track of (according to the lose-track rule) can't be "that card". (I hope that phrasing is accurate.)
After some more thought I've realised why (or perhaps more accurately 'another reason why', given that I'd failed to notice the change of ruling) I had been struggling to understand the discussion.  In thinking of the application of the lose-track rule (or rather whatever that rule is now called I've not yet managed to reprogram my memory to call it by its new name) I had incorrectly been considering only instances in which that rule had already mattered for some other reason, rather than thinking in terms of 'This card would have been considered to have been lost track of, therefore it can no longer be "that card."'

Why don't I like the result that comes from Donald's argument?  Mainly because it causes an obscure corner case to make life difficult for both Stef and the company implementing the standalone app, but also because in some circumstances it could make life difficult in a ftf game.
I think you must not have read the whole thread. The way I ended up ruling it, life is not difficult for anyone ever.
No, I did read the whole thread, but like I said in a previous post, I rather lost track of the discussion during the back-and-forth between you and Jeebus (and Ingix) and finished up even more confused than Jeebus was (at least at one stage) about whether you'd changed your original ruling.  I think my confusion arose because even after you'd done so, there was still a lively debate about the grounds for having done so, which I misinterpreted as being a debate about the merits or otherwise of changing the ruling.

The cleanest way to do Bonfire is just, trash up to two Coppers from play. You are almost always trashing Coppers, and they aren't Duration cards. Putting tokens on cards to remember to do things later is in no way clean.
If you do ever change Bonfire, I think the suggestion that one or two people made of "Trash up to two non-Duration cards from play" would be preferable.  Necropolis is often fine material for a Bonfire, and there are other cards that can outlive their usefulness in one's deck, so having some flexibility in what Bonfire can trash seems desirable.

I was not arguing from the standpoint of being in favor of the result. My argument (as I stated in my last post) was that the result follows from the existing rules, so there's no need for an extra rule. Thief is fundamentally different from Graverobber.
Yes, I realise that (and for what it's worth I tended to agree with your argument).  Nonetheless the result that came from your argument seems preferable (for reasons that I shall explain below) to the result from Donald's argument, so I was looking for a ruling that would give the same result that Donald might feel was simple enough to be acceptable.

Why don't I like the result that comes from Donald's argument?  Mainly because it causes an obscure corner case to make life difficult for both Stef and the company implementing the standalone app, but also because in some circumstances it could make life difficult in a ftf game.  I'll explain the latter first.  There's no problem if the player is happy for the card gained from the trash to be the same as the one that was trashed earlier in the turn.  If, however, they want it to be different, they have to root through the trash to find another one, assuming of course that there is one (there might not be).  Some games have large trash piles.

Now consider the programming overhead required.  It probably goes something like this:
Code: [Select]
If card being gained from trash has the same name as one trashed earlier in the turn
  If there is more than one card with this name in the trash
    Ask the player if they want the same card or a different one
    It's the same card
  End if
  This is not the same card as one played earlier in the turn
End if
Plus of course there's the extra code required when Vassal or Herald play a card.  It all seems rather OTT for an obscure corner case.  If a gained card were ruled to always be different from any card that had left play earlier in the turn, the programming overhead would disappear.

I rather lost track of the discussion in this thread during the back-and-forth between Donald and Jeebus (and Ingix).  Having now read through the thread again, I've come to the conclusion that this is the critical point...
I have to make a ruling for, in what circumstances is a card no longer "that card." I need this because we can actually lose a card while still caring if it's "that card." In particular if it's shuffled into a deck we've lost it; so, a card shuffled into a deck is no longer "that card."

Trashing a card can't mean "it's no longer that card" because then Thief wouldn't work. Putting it onto your deck can't mean it's no longer that card, because rulebook rulings say you can e.g. buy Nomad Camp and then trash it with Watchtower.

In practice we can totally know if we have the right card; and if we aren't sure which physical card is which that doesn't matter, I can say, "I take the one that's the same one" or "I take a different one." In these situations that never come up. But, shuffle it into a deck and man, we don't know and there's no way out (except now this ruling).
One other possibility would be to rule that any card gained in a turn is not the same as any card removed from play earlier in the turn (even if players know otherwise).  I think that would achieve the result that Ingix and Jeebus were in favour of, while being a simple rule to state.  But would it cause any unwanted side-effects?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5

Page created in 0.087 seconds with 19 queries.