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

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks

« on: October 13, 2019, 03:48:49 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.

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?

2

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks

« on: October 13, 2019, 02:27:58 pm »

I hate to say it; but the Command type is really reminding me of the Substance keyword from MTG. I’m 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.

You're a far better game designer than I (granted that's not saying much since I'm not in any way, shape, or form a game designer!), but I did suggest simply adding "may" to Band of Misfits, which to me would be a simpler and cleaner solution.

3

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks

« on: October 13, 2019, 09:50:15 am »

I hate to say it; but the Command type is really reminding me of the Substance keyword from MTG. I’m not sure it seems good to just invent a new keyword in order to make certain cards work like this.

4

Rules Questions / Re: Multiple things happening at the same time

« on: October 11, 2019, 02:34:05 pm »

Indeed, neither GendoIkari or I* knew

*Yeah, I'm rebelling against the standard US usage of using "me" here. I just can't bring myself to write "me knew", even though I'm pretty sure it's considered correct.

Pretty sure that putting I instead of me here is correct.

I guess I was thinking about sentences like "Me and Lucy when to the movies", which I think are more common than "I and Lucy...". I thought I read somewhere that it was considered okay, but I'm probably wrong.

"Me and Lucy" might be more common, but it's definitely wrong.

5

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: October 11, 2019, 10:28:30 am »

Did Donald X ever come up with a term for those basic type of effects?

Here is an edit based on the above. I changed the wording, and limited it to the first action played per turn.

Instead of "once per turn on the first action you play"... try "the first time you play an action card during each of your turns" a la Citadel.

6

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks

« on: October 11, 2019, 01:32:18 am »

It feels like Necromancer should be a Command card. Even though it’s not involved in the infinite loops, it just seems like it should be for consistency.

7

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: October 10, 2019, 07:17:05 pm »

I don’t think the wording on Holy Relic works like you want. As worded; I see no reason why all of those bonuses wouldn’t be added to every card. 0+1=1; so a card that gives 0 cards would give 1 instead. I don’t know a good wording that does what you want though.

8

General Discussion / Re: Speedrunning

« on: October 10, 2019, 06:20:28 pm »

https://clips.twitch.tv/PricklyBusyEndivePogChamp

Poo giving me and my friend a hard time for drinking water instead of alcohol, lol. It was an awesome event!

9

General Discussion / Re: Speedrunning

« on: October 09, 2019, 05:48:56 pm »

I’m here!

10

Rules Questions / Re: Multiple things happening at the same time

« on: October 09, 2019, 01:37:21 pm »

According to Donald's explanation in the previous thread where he floated this idea, you cannot react after everyone has passed. Initially in that thread I thought that you could. My point now is that it's not clear which is the case.

If so then it basically follows the same as MTG rules. In MTG, if the active player chooses not to act; he knows that he is risking not being able to act at all (during the current step; which it like the current timing-window in Dominion). If he wants to do something after the other player does something, he has to hope that the other player does something. Whereas the non-active player has more control; he knows that passing means not allowing the active player to do anything.

11

Rules Questions / Re: Multiple things happening at the same time

« on: October 09, 2019, 01:19:53 pm »

My concern would be avoiding a situation where players A and B both wish to do something, but they both wish to do it after the other player has done it. It sounds like these rulings may be able to lead to such a situation. Or, if player A "passes", and then player B "passes", is it now too late for player A to go ahead and do the thing? Or can he decide that he wants to do it now that player B has passed? Of course, if he can, then play B also can afterwards.

Magic defines these things clearly; if player A passes, then he doesn't know if player B will also pass or not. If player B then passes; he knows for sure that it means that neither player will get to do the thing. But if player B then does a thing, player A will get another chance.

To use a simplest possible Dominion example.... player A plays an attack. Player B has Moat but does not reveal it. Player C also does not reveal a Moat. Can player B now change his mind as a result of seeing that player C didn't reveal a Moat, and reveal his Moat? If this is allowed; then it seems like there could be a "stalemate" of events where both players wish to see what the other player does before making his decision.

12

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks

« on: October 07, 2019, 09:52:30 am »

I am curious about your general opinion on this, though. Did you notice it before announcing the errata? Do you have an opinion on how it should be handled if it actually comes up?

I didn't notice it. If the mandatory loop comes up in a game, I recommend berating the player who intentionally set up the board to get that interaction. I recommend not setting up those boards. If one of the non-mandatory loops comes up randomly, well I mean, are they your friend? They still need a 4th thing e.g. Training token to make a profit from it; if the board has such a thing, do the loop and have a story to tell. If there's no token there's no point.

There is another loop that can come up, where a player just sits there pretending to think. You can get multiple players involved - everyone just passes without playing or buying cards. The game never ends. You need solutions for this for many games, separate from me and Dominion. I'm not here to solve social problems for you.

These two paragraphs are missing the point. A Training token wouldn’t help you here because once this loop begins; you can’t choose to end it. You could have $1000 to spend and 50 buys; but you couldn’t win because you can’t ever get out of your action phase.

The problem people are talking about isn’t someone being a jerk by choosing the same pointless time wasting thing over and over. That always existed with Moat, and is easy to solve; tell the person to stop. Here; you can’t tell them to stop; the game rules don’t allow them to stop.

I don't think I've missed anything. What you've missed is that the sentence about the Training token is specifically referring to non-mandatory loops, as I mention right ahead of it. I already covered the mandatory loop a few sentences earlier.

It's possible I will do something to "fix" the loops, but for me the entire point is getting rid of the non-mandatory loops, which could conceivably come up in real games, though the ones that accomplish something are pretty rare. Internet outrage at hypothetical mandatory loops is simply misplaced. You'd have to set it up to have the experience.

You're right, I missed the switch from mandatory to non-mandatory between sentences.

I don't think anyone in this thread was having an issue with non-mandatory loops. Aside from things like Moat, ever since Villa, Dominion has had a few different ways to "go infinite". These are just interesting combos that get you a cool win if you manage to pull them off. Sure you don't want them to be really easy to do so that the game just becomes "first player to play BoM if in certain Kingdoms automatically wins", but generally these types of combos are no different than "first player to get a hand of KC+KC+Bridge+Bridge+Bridge wins" type games.

13

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks

« on: October 06, 2019, 08:07:11 pm »

Is there any philosophical objection to saying that you go through the loop an infinite number of times in a finite amount of time, and then it ends? I think if something like this happened IRL, that’s what I would rule.

Sure, why not? Have the first step of the loop take one second, and then have each subsequent step take half the time of the previous step. You've now gone through the infinite loop in 2 seconds!

Of course, if the infinite loop involved something like the journey token (if that is possible to construct), then we would have a problem. My personal idea for that case is that the journey token becomes burnt out, and you will never be able to get a face-up bonus from any journey token card for the rest of the game.

14

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks

« on: October 06, 2019, 03:50:50 pm »

I am curious about your general opinion on this, though. Did you notice it before announcing the errata? Do you have an opinion on how it should be handled if it actually comes up?

I didn't notice it. If the mandatory loop comes up in a game, I recommend berating the player who intentionally set up the board to get that interaction. I recommend not setting up those boards. If one of the non-mandatory loops comes up randomly, well I mean, are they your friend? They still need a 4th thing e.g. Training token to make a profit from it; if the board has such a thing, do the loop and have a story to tell. If there's no token there's no point.

There is another loop that can come up, where a player just sits there pretending to think. You can get multiple players involved - everyone just passes without playing or buying cards. The game never ends. You need solutions for this for many games, separate from me and Dominion. I'm not here to solve social problems for you.

These two paragraphs are missing the point. A Training token wouldn’t help you here because once this loop begins; you can’t choose to end it. You could have $1000 to spend and 50 buys; but you couldn’t win because you can’t ever get out of your action phase.

The problem people are talking about isn’t someone being a jerk by choosing the same pointless time wasting thing over and over. That always existed with Moat, and is easy to solve; tell the person to stop. Here; you can’t tell them to stop; the game rules don’t allow them to stop.

15

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks

« on: October 05, 2019, 03:06:00 pm »

Online the program could just not allow the combos to come up randomly. For a tournament IRL, if that's too taxing, you can just not play with those cards. They have errata, maybe some people won't know it, hey a good reason to leave out Possession too.

Is the excitement of Golem hitting Band of Misfits so important that this stuff is actually a superior option to tossing "may" onto the card?

I don't follow. I don't see how Golem hitting BoM is relevant, and "may" only gets rid of the mandatory loop.

The mandatory loop will not happen unless someone wants it. You have to set up the board for it, then buy Inheritance with the idea that that's what it's getting you. Making it non-mandatory doesn't fix anything there; you set it up because you want to do it.

Golem is one of the few situations where having “may” causes the card to act different. In most situations where you don’t want the effect, you just don’t play the card.

Making it optional makes it no different from revealing Moat infinitely. You can still choose to do an infinite loop; but you aren’t stuck in it forever once you start it.

16

Other Games / Re: Temporum rules

« on: October 03, 2019, 09:38:41 pm »

If you have Detective in play, and no cards in hand when Neolithic Renaissance triggers; do you draw 3 or 4 cards?

Detective says when you have no cards in hand and draw, draw and extra card.

Neolithic Renaissance says each player draws until they have 3 cards in hand.

Depends on if the draw from Neolithic is one at a time or not it seems.

This is answered in the rulebook: "Detective: This doesn't help when you draw up to 3 cards via Neolithic Renaissance; you draw one card, draw an extra card due to Detective, draw another card and now you are at 3 cards and stop."

Thanks! I tried looking in the rulebook but missed it. That’s how we guessed it would work.

17

Other Games / Temporum rules

« on: October 03, 2019, 08:09:34 pm »

If you have Detective in play, and no cards in hand when Neolithic Renaissance triggers; do you draw 3 or 4 cards?

Detective says when you have no cards in hand and draw, draw and extra card.

Neolithic Renaissance says each player draws until they have 3 cards in hand.

Depends on if the draw from Neolithic is one at a time or not it seems.

18

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Another Duration-Reaction-Attack

« on: October 03, 2019, 09:24:50 am »

Oh yeah, I didn't think about that. I can get rid of that clause so that the card doesn't have a wall of text anymore.

Enchanter
$4
Action-Attack-Duration-Reaction
+1 Card
At the start of your next turn, +1 Action, +$1.
Each other player exchanges an Action card from their hand for a Pig (or reveals a hand with no Action cards).

Looks much cleaner.

I would go with "or reveals that they can't", because it's possible that they have an action card in their hand but can't do the exchange anyway (if their only action card came from Black Market, for example).

19

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks

« on: October 03, 2019, 09:09:27 am »

In the world described, you don't have a choice. The only Action card in the supply costing less than BoM is Estate, so you have to play BoM as Estate.

Ah, that's quite different then... this is nothing like KC+Goons+Masq either.

A simple fix would be for new BoM to say "you may".

20

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks

« on: October 02, 2019, 01:37:10 pm »

Another infinite combo:
1. Inherit BoM
2. Play BoM or Estate (which plays BoM)
3. Play Estate from the Supply with BoM
4. Repeat

This doesn't work?  Estate is a 2$ Action Victory that reads "play an action card from the supply that costs less than this, leaving it there", so you play a Poor House from the supply, then you are done.

Nope—Estate now causes the set-aside BoM to be played, which has its normal cost.

I see now, there are two erratas to take into account.

These errata seem to violate the idea that a 3 card combo that locks out the gamestate isn't acceptable (KC-Goons-Masquerade), then?
Ferry, BoM, Inheritance.
Opponent is on the play and connects Treasure Maps immediately or gets some other insurmountable lead.
Ferry BoM, Inherit BoM, there are no 2's (pretty common), play an Estate, the game cannot ever end, no impact on my win-loss-draw record.

Doing this by itself is no different than simply revealing a Moat infinitely when an opponent plays an attack. If you also have some sort of Adventures token on a pile, then you can use this to get an infinite amount of resources and buy out the game in a win.... which is no different than any other infinite loop that exists using Villa, etc.

The KC-Goons-Masq thing wasn't an issue of locking the gamestate.... using it wasn't just a way of infinitely delaying taking an actual turn. It made it so that one player could continue to play as normal; slowing building towards a win, while the other player could no longer take any turns.

21

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

« on: October 01, 2019, 04:17:04 pm »

Hireling + Citadel + Coin of the Realm

Why yes, I will have a ridiculously large hand at start of turn, thank you.

What does CotR have to do with that?

22

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Weekly Design Contest Thread

« on: October 01, 2019, 10:53:05 am »

My submission:


Abomination
$2 Action - Attack - Reaction - Curse
-1VP
+2 Cards, +1 Buy. Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand discards a card.
---
When you discard this other than during Clean-Up, you may trash this instead.


A Moat-like attacker you want to get rid of eventually. Happily, it's vulnerable to its own attack.

Recommend removing the type "Curse"; it only adds rules confusion with things like Witch any other Curser... the rules don't define if you would be able to gain this when told to gain a Curse. There's a reason that Curse is the only card in Dominion with the type Curse.

23

General Discussion / Speedrunning

« on: September 29, 2019, 11:59:43 am »

So Grand Poo Bear, one of my favorite streamers, does a tour type thing called speedrun sessions where he goes around the country and hosts a speedrun event. Next week he’s coming to Charlotte and I’m going!

Super excited to get to meet both Poo Bear and Barb; 2 streamers whom I watch a lot. Andy of Link to the Past Randomizer fame will be there also.

It’s a 2.5 hour drive on a Wednesday night. The things we do for fandom lol.

24

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks

« on: September 29, 2019, 11:07:49 am »

About the new "stop-moving" rules. Read literally, since it doesn't mention keeping or losing track, it now seems that a card that is moved and then put back, CAN be moved. This would be a change from the old lose-track rule. For instance Prince a Duplicate; start of turn it goes to the Tavern, then call it that same turn, Prince sets it aside.

I don't think Prince-Duplicate is an example of that though. A called Duplicate is not actually in play, so it hasn't really returned to its previous state.

A called card is definitely in play exactly the same as a regular card you played this turn. This matters for Peddler’s cost among other things.

25

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Replacement for Royal Seal in Prosperity

« on: September 27, 2019, 09:34:38 am »

If the topdecking was mandatory it wouldn't be strictly better than silver.

That actually feels like an interesting card.