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: Minor note about new printings

« on: October 26, 2020, 02:04:33 pm »

- Noble Brigand has been rephrased so that it has a dividing line before the when-buy ability. To get the text to fit on the card, it says "do its attack"; this means, do the above-the-line part except for the +$1.

Noble Brigand: Action - Attack, $4
+$1
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes a revealed Silver or Gold you choose, discards the rest, and gains a Copper if they didn't reveal a Treasure. You gain the trashed cards.
----------
When you buy this, do its attack.

Why??

I like the other tweaks, but I don't see the point of this.

It makes perfect sense. Like other on-gain/on-buy effects it is separated by a dividing line. Even more important, in our playing groups it happened more than once that we forgot this ability because it was hidden in a wall of text.

It's definitely going to cause more confusion about whether you can react with Moat etc. to buying Noble Brigand.

I agree with this, and I also think it will cause more confusion about things like "can you react with Moat when a player plays Minion for +". It's been a good thing that "attack" in Dominion has been clearly defined as "a card that has the type 'attack'." It's not "a thing you do that hurts other players" or "an ability that feels like an attack". With this change, Noble Brigand suddenly introduces a new use/definition for the word "attack". A usage that players have to rely on intuition to know the meaning of.

I have mixed feelings about "attack" in a card text. Of course everybody recognize what the "attack" of a card is. But until now "attack" was defined just as card type. The attack itself were some orders beginning with "each other player" and so by principle not different then orders for the player of the card. Especially in translation processes we have had troubles until the printer grasped the difference between type and orders other players have to do.

So will there be an additional rule about "attack"? Or will this problem get tackled by Noble Brigand's FAQ only?

Additional problem: The attack is the revealing and trashing by the other players. The gaining of the trashed cards is in seperate sentence and as such not recognizable as part of the attack.

2

Rules Questions / Re: Fleet extra turns

« on: May 01, 2019, 03:34:57 pm »

The card says "there's an extra round of turns just for players with this". I take the card text to mean that there is an extra round consisting of just turns for Fleet players. I interpret "just for players with this" to refer to the turns, not the round.

Quite funny. Just what i think.

So it does not mean an extra round just for Fleet players. This is evident when you think of what that would mean, as others have pointed out: All non-Fleet players have to participate in this round, or they couldn't even receive a Curse from Witch. (This is also heavily implied in the FAQ, because it says that non-Fleet players don't sort their cards and count VP until the end.)

To all, who seem to think that i want to exclude non Fleet player from the Fleet round totally: quite contrary i was always without doubt and said so that they still participate, just only they should not get any turns.:

Wow. That baffles me. I have had thought, that a player without Fleet would do nothing (except any "each player" or "each other player" or "the player to your left" effects).

So there is an extra round of Fleet turns. The card says or implies nothing about other extra turns, but the FAQ does. It says that other extra turns can happen in between.

Yep, agreed (and never said otherwise). In that point the FAQ does just what it should do: explaining what implicitly is included. The Fleet turn does not have any known restrictions laid on, so that implies i can play Outpost or buy Mission.  And if there are no other objections (e.g. i got possessed before i played Outpost) i get and execute those extra turns. And thats what the FAQ says.

On the other side the FAQ does not explicitly say non Fleet player get extra turns, which it should if that were true because of the then obvious conflict with "players with this".

Only players with Fleet get Fleet turns, but that doesn't mean that the other extra turns only apply to players with Fleet.

That contradicts your own words from above.

3

Rules Questions / Re: Fleet extra turns

« on: May 01, 2019, 05:46:05 am »

To be clear: I see Donald's ruling and reasoning and accept it so far (after all he is the author and as such master), play it IRL so and explain it so to other players. But still i find it counter-intuitive because it does things not written.

Normally, if you play Outpost, you get an extra turn. If the game ends, you don't get that extra turn. Outpost doesn't stop the game from ending; it only gives you an extra turn if the game is still going.

Fleet actually stops the game from ending. So Outpost turns get to happen. Same with Possession and Mission.

I have no problem with them to happen.
I have a problem they happen for every player.
I have a problem they happen not for last player (if it is not the same triggering Fleet).
I have a problem that i can't find any hint why Fleet should get executed the way ruled here.

I try it this way:

• Gain a card. Simple order. I want to grab Followers. But wait, there is written in the rulebook "If no pile is specified, gaining is restricted to supply." (probably not that wording, but that meaning) So a order is confined by a rule.
• (instead of to your discard pile) No doubt, the gained card does not visit.
• (+1 Action has no effect if it's not your turn.) That should be self-evident, but let us make it clear for the ignorants also.

So there are (at least) three ways to accomplish things otherwise not in scope.

Back to Fleet: After the game ends, there's an extra round of turns just for players with this. Nothing else. No bracketed text. No italicized text. Nothing additional about it in the rules of rulebook. From FAQ we get to know only that other extra turns happen and the last player with Fleet does not get other extra turns. No explicit statement about non-Fleet-players.

So as average player i am stuck with generale rule "do exactly as written, nothing more, nothing less". I would deduct from FAQ i can generate extra turns by Outpost and Mission (if i am not the last Fleet-player) during my Fleet turn and if the player to my left hand has also Fleet i can posses him/her/them (if i am not the last Fleet-player).

Nothing at all indicates that players without Fleet do extra turns. How should the average player (or a translator) guess that? ... just for players with this. seems simple and straightforward. I don't know of a rule which could enlarge that specified group. Without knowledge of this thread tasked to write a FAQ i would have written

• players without Fleet get no turns during Fleet round. Especially can't such player get possessed.
• players with Fleet execute other extra turns pending from before Fleet round or initiated in Fleet round as usual.

Hey, Donald wrote something sounding just so:

Fleet doesn't create extra turns; it creates an extra round of turns, and then only some people participate in it. That's how I read it.

bold by me

So how comes it to the ruling non-Fleet-players extra turns get executed? (Rhetoric. I see the way.) To be more precise: how can it get reasoned other than by "Donald said so here"? I mean it is not that somebody presented his interpretation of a whacky text and Donald explained wether it is correct or why not. If there would be some italicized text on Fleet like (player without this execute extra turns until last player-with-this's turn) i would happily bow to it and Donalds ruling about it. Again to be clear: I see Donald's ruling and reasoning and accept it so far, now play it IRL so and explain it so to other players. But still i find it counter-intuitive because it does things not written.

Now last player: the ruling he/she/they get no extra turns seems reasonable. At first. Fleet extends the game by a round so the player triggering Fleet get a chance to play extra turns otherwise forfeited. (Of course in my interpretation he/she/they get that chance only if he/she/they is also Fleet buyer.) So that would not change last turn condition. But what about if the Fleet triggerer has not bought Fleet? Then the last Fleet player get hit by the rule which is written at least in FAQ. Personally i find it unfair compared with other non-Fleet-triggering players – i would prefer a ruling saying "if last Fleet player did not trigger Fleet he get extra turns generated in that Fleet turn also." (Possession can't get executed since my interpretation forbid extra turns by non Fleet players.) But still it is a reasonable ruling. I am not happy with it, but i comply to it. Bad luck for last player.

4

Rules Questions / Re: Fleet extra turns

« on: May 01, 2019, 05:17:15 am »

I was mostly confused by the phrasing "i can order to play Outpost and buy Mission", which sounds like the possessor is making the decision directly to have the possessee play Outpost. I guess GendoIkari's edge-case works.

Yes, that was my intention. Was thinking of king making. But Golem + Herold have higher probability.

5

Rules Questions / Re: Fleet extra turns

« on: April 30, 2019, 02:01:16 pm »

If I understand it, his confusion was actually thinking that if you didn't buy a Fleet, the game is completely over for you, so you can't have any extra turns. But your right-hand opponent playing a Possession grants you and extra turn, even though the game has ended for you.

Exactly.

If any player has bought Fleet, there will be a Fleet round after the game would normally end. Only players with Fleet get a normal turn in this round. Otherwise it is exactly as if the game is extented for one normal round.*

That i will propose for translated FAQ.

In that sense in a possessed turn during Fleet round i can order to play Outpost and buy Mission and so give a player without Fleet additional turns also.

6

Rules Questions / Re: Fleet extra turns

« on: April 30, 2019, 04:33:30 am »

I assume Possession works only if the left player has bought Fleet, correct? It does not skip similar Masquerade players which did not buy Fleet?

If Alice plays Possession and ends the game normally, she will Possess Bob - as long as somebody has bought Fleet. First Bob gets a turn (Possessed by Alice), then all Fleet-players get a turn, starting with Bob and ending with Alice.

If Alice ends the game normally, and then Bob plays Possession on his Fleet turn, Bob Possesses the next player - as long as there are more Fleet turns. If Bob is the last Fleet player, he won't Possess anybody, because the game (Fleet round) ends immediately after his Fleet turn. If Alice plays Possession on her Fleet turn, she will not Possess anybody, because she is the last player.

Wow. That baffles me. I have had thought, that a player without Fleet would do nothing (except any "each player" or "each other player" or "the player to your left" effects). But when they still do an extra turn contrary to Fleet wording "turns just for players with this" then what with Outpost or Mission triggered in that possessed turn?

7

Rules Questions / Re: Fleet extra turns

« on: April 29, 2019, 03:41:15 pm »

Wait, so if I am the last player in turn order who bought Fleet, my Outposts are worthless, but the Outposts of other players aren't?

Yup. At first that sounds arbitrarily unfair; but it’s the same as the rules without Fleet. If you are the last person of a regular game to take a turn; your Outpost on your final turn is worthless. And with Fleet; you may have turned your normally worthless last-turn Outpost into an extra turn before Fleet round begins.

Do i interpret correctly that the player triggering end condition get extra turns triggered in that same turn, then the other players with Fleet get their "normal" turns plus possible extra turns, but the ending player gets only their "normal" turn without extra turns triggered during that?

8

Rules Questions / Re: Fleet extra turns

« on: April 29, 2019, 03:28:53 pm »

I assume Possession works only if the left player has bought Fleet, correct? It does not skip similar Masquerade players which did not buy Fleet?   

9

Rules Questions / Re: Playing a card + Throne Room

« on: July 22, 2016, 12:02:26 pm »

The card doesn't go back to your hand. "Play a card" doesn't carry with it "put it in your hand first."

What i thought. Thanks Donald.

10

Rules Questions / Playing a card + Throne Room

« on: July 22, 2016, 11:55:38 am »

In the combination of the general rule / definition

To play an Action, the player takes an Action card from his hand and lays it faceup in his play area. ...

with the FAQ

You pick another Action card in your hand, play it, and play it again.

one can deduct, that the picked card return to hand to get played the second time.

I am pretty sure somewhere exists a statement by Donald, that a card played by Throne Room and its variants does not return to hand, but i can not find it in the forum nor the wiki. Since also the rules or the FAQs do not explicitly say either, i seek confirmation, which is correct.

11

Dominion World Masters / Ranglistenturnier D-63179

« on: April 12, 2012, 04:03:28 am »

Ranglistenturnier zur Deutschen Dominion Meisterschaft 2012 am 1. Mai ab 14 Uhr in 63179 Obertshausen

Intrige, Seaside, Blütezeit
6 Runden Zweiertische im Schweizer System
gleiche Starthände

Weitere Infos dominion-rlt-rheinmain.de