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.

276

Rules Questions / Re: Capitalism and Black Market

« on: November 14, 2018, 10:59:04 am »

As far as I understand, that has been the meaning of the rule. The difference between that interpretation and the literal interpretation of the rulebook didn't exist before Renaissance.

I think of those 2 sub-phase of the buy phase as 1. generate money, and 2. spend money. That aligns with the other activities one can do in them: Spending Coffers in sub-phase 1 and paying off debt in subphase 2.

277

Rules Questions / Re: Not enough cards with Border Guard

« on: November 13, 2018, 01:18:06 pm »

That is the obvious interpretation for me.

278

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Judge how much better or worse the Dutch mistranslated cards are

« on: November 13, 2018, 05:31:15 am »

1. Gladiator - How the actual f*** did they screw up translating a number? All they had to do was NOT change it. Seriously.

Probably for a similar reason that some online cards had incorrect coin amounts (I think I remember the Russian Horse Traders). While everything else is text, the coin symbol needs to come from somewhere else, and it probably needs to be layoutet differently and then the number needs to applied on top of it. So instead of just "one text", you have 3 sources that make up the final appearance: the normal text, the coin symbol and the number on top of the coin symbol. At least that's how it works online at the moment. It's easier to make a mistake if that "1" on the coin symbol stands alone, instead of in context of the whole sentence.

Also note that Gladiator has 2 coin symbols with numerals, so what probably happened is that somebody looked at something, wondered why it said "1" when it should say "2", only thinking about the first part, and changed it. Of course, that doesn't excuse that later stages did not find the error, but let me guess: There were no or only minimal later stages.

279

Rules Questions / Re: Star Chart and Inn

« on: November 12, 2018, 04:30:15 am »

Then, can I look through my deck to choose which card to pick?

No; only the cards shuffled.

Which means "Yes", because you are shuffling the cards in your deck as well.

280

Rules Questions / Re: Star Chart and Inn

« on: November 12, 2018, 04:23:54 am »

@neonJP: To be clear, we are talking about the card to pick for Star Chart. You cannot look at your deck while searching and selecting/revealing Action cards from your discard pile.
You look through whatever you are supposed to shuffle. In Inn's case, that is your deck plus whatever Action cards you selected from your discard.

281

Dominion: Renaissance Previews / Re: Pssst.... (Eager anticipation) When's it shipping?

« on: November 11, 2018, 08:07:41 am »

... but if you hate it so much that you can’t handle it, just stop buying the future expansions game.

That's actually very good advice, with the amendment "... until you have reports from players that have actually bought that expansion about the qualitiy of it in various different ways you care about." Buying things "unseen" has risks, that have materialied this time.  I have no idea if treating the current Renaissance box as defective has any kind of hope of being recongized by whatever consumer protection law exists where it matters for the original complainer.

282

Dominion: Renaissance Previews / Re: Renaissance Previews #5: Fair, Silos, Citadel, Star Chart, Sewers, Innovation

« on: November 11, 2018, 07:36:19 am »

Yes, that comment about BoM as Island from me was incorrect. Didn't think it through.

283

Rules Questions / Re: Fleet extra turns

« on: November 09, 2018, 01:04:14 pm »

One thing to remember is that the 'would have ended the game if not for Fleet'-turn might be a Possession turn, so the active player is not necessarily the one whose' turn just happened. In a six player game with players A-F, A possesses B, then B (while possessed by A) possesses C, then C (while possessed by B) 'ends the game'. At this point the "active player" is IMO still A under the previous rules, as we are waiting to handle all the extra turns created after A had their last regular turn (where they played Possession on B).

The (I think) intended Fleet turn order is however D,E,F,A,B,C (whoever of them has Fleet). So I think in addition to what whas said before, the active player position needs to shift from A to C. Or maybe it doesn't need to shift with the current card set, as there is no way for A or B to get an extra turn (except Fleet) in the scenario I presented; extra turns are either for oneself (Outpost, Mission) or the next player (Possession). So since we have special rules for Fleet turns already, they may be skipped and the game would continue with extra turns by C, then extra turns by D (including Fleet, if applicable),...

284

Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance and Border Guard

« on: November 08, 2018, 09:51:11 am »

AFAIK there was no such ruling. What trivialknot refers to is their idea that the token effects should become part of the card, which would then imply that for the +$1-token Capitalism would apply to the cards with that token and then to Estates that inherit such cards. Of course I may have misunderstood their argument.

285

Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance and Border Guard

« on: November 08, 2018, 09:44:39 am »

The rulings about Enchantress and Adventure tokens (the token effect happens even under Enchantress) also point to the result that the token effect does not become part of the card.
Enchantress is also a good comparison in wording, as it also affects what happens to another card when it is played. From the difference in style it would support SingleTee's argument that Lantern works differently.

Fundamentally, we are at the point of copy cards in Magic for the first few editions. There are a few, most interactions about them are ruled on, but as more and more new effects happened, it became unclear how it all worked under the hood.

We have one card that modifies what happens when another card is played (Enchantress). We have one Event that modifies the text (or only the abilities?) of other cards (Inheritance). A decision has to be made how Lantern works, possibly in either of the above ways. If the old ruling is upheld, which suggests the "modifies what happens when another card is played" approach , the question about the interaction of Lantern and Enchantress needs to be answered. As discussed during online testing, the only reasonable answer to that seems to be that Enchantress' effect prevails, but again there should be a way to arrive at this answer by applying some rules.

286

Rules Questions / Re: A Couple of Buy Phase Clarifications

« on: November 08, 2018, 03:42:03 am »

I'd also like to add that I don't see the horrible consequences if Merchant's Guild/Spices suddenly allowed you to spend the Coffer tokens they produce right now. Sure there may be a situation with many buys and several Guilds that allow buying more cards, but you still have to generate the buys first.

The "first treasure playing, then buying cards" order makes sense to balance cards like Grand Market or buying Mint.

287

Rules Questions / Re: A Couple of Buy Phase Clarifications

« on: November 07, 2018, 06:59:31 pm »

The Buy phase rules come down to "you can play Treasures until you buy a card." 

If you start from that premise, of course you arrive at the conclusion that after a Black Market buy in your buy phase you cannot play Treasures. It is just this premise that is IMO incorrect, based on one sentence that summarizes what has been described earlier in the rules and is used out of context. The context being that the process of 'normal buys' is being described, how they happen etc.

We have the bad situation that wordings that were (probably) made before Capitalism existed are now interpretable in different ways. I don't think either one is good or bad or leads to broken situations. A consistent interpretation of 'buys' would be good, of course, with consistent consequences, as Gendolkari notices.

288

Rules Questions / Re: A Couple of Buy Phase Clarifications

« on: November 07, 2018, 04:33:04 pm »

It's not that I think your interpretation is clearly wrong, it isn't. It just that you quoted one sentence, that is summing up 4 paragraphs of buy phase explanation, IMO out of context. The first two of those paragraphs start with

> First you can play any number of Treasure cards from your hand, in any order....
> Then, you can buy one card, costing as much as you have or less....

I think this is a strong indicator for a conceptual division of the buy phase (though not explicit, agreed). Also the sentence you quote says "You cannot go back and play more Treasures..." If you played a Black Market during the Buy phase, there would be no 'going back', as you never left the part where you play Treasures. Again, in the context of a base Dominion rulebook that just two paragraphs before feels necessary to say that "Buying cards does not use up Treasure cards; you still have the cards." it should be a possible interpretation that the sentece you quote refers to the normal buying in the buy phase.

289

Rules Questions / Re: Scepter + Storyteller/BM

« on: November 07, 2018, 10:27:20 am »

I'd say you should be able to. Playing a card is lengthy process that definintely has started at that point. To me that means you "have played" the ST/BM.

290

Rules Questions / Re: A Couple of Buy Phase Clarifications

« on: November 06, 2018, 04:46:17 pm »

The key point is that Coffers/Villagers can be transformed in their respective phases (with restrictions for Coffers based on buys). Of course this is not explicitely told on each and every Action or Treasure. So it stands to reason that indeed you can can, during the execution of a buy-phase Storyteller or Black Market, transform tokens from the Coffers into coins. That's because you are now in your buy phase!

The Renaissance rulebook spells this out:

> Cards say "+1 Coffers" to mean, add a token to the Coffers side of your mat. A token there can be removed in your Buy phase, before buying anything, for +$1.

A very literal interpretation of that is that if you played Black Market in your buy phase and bought something with it, you *cannot* transform tokens anymore in that buy phase! Of course, it can be argued that this refers to the 'normal' way of buying, but Dominion has shown time and again that definitions stand, even if they later turn out to have previously impossible consequences.

291

Rules Questions / Re: Fleet extra turns

« on: November 06, 2018, 07:05:14 am »

So basically the Fleet turn of the player who triggered Fleet is special. It isn't taken into account which (extra) turn the next is and doesn't compete with for example that player's Outpost/Mission turns that already exist. This special treatment ends once another player has had a turn.

292

Rules Questions / Re: Fleet extra turns

« on: November 06, 2018, 04:25:20 am »

To put it another way; Fleet only kicks in when the game ends. By the time the game has ended, it's reasonable to think that you must have already dealt with any Outpost turns (and those rules say that such turns are dealt with by never happening). So it takes a special ruling like this to conclude that any player having a Fleet causes a last-turn Outpost to now work.

The way I see it, Fleet does not 'reopen' an already ended game, it implicitely changes the rules on when and how a game ends. What were previously absolute game ending conditions now become conditional ones. If no player has bought Fleet, they still end the game immediately. If a player has, Fleet generates one or more exrtra turns, that mix with other extra turns, either already existing or created later.

What irritates me at the moment is that the rulebook explicitely calls out the order of the extra fleet turns. Normally the rules handle this already, so I'm unsure if this is a restatement of the normal rules for extra turns, made under the assumption that the turn triggering fleet was a non-extra turn, or something new. It isn't the 'normal way' either, as after the 'game ending turn' normally any extra turns for that player would come first, while the intention is obviously that that player is last in the Fleet turns (if they have bought it at all).

Test case: 2 player game, my oppoennt has bought Fleet, I haven't. I play Possession and buy the last Province, so Fleet kicks in when this turn ends and creates an extra Fleet turn for my opponent. Now there are 2 extra turns for my opponent: 1x Possession, 1x Fleet.
Is opponent able to choose the Fleet turn first, thus ending the game before I get to possess them? I think they should, but I'm not sure.

293

Dominion: Renaissance Previews / Re: Capitalism Questions

« on: November 05, 2018, 06:09:07 pm »

Teacher is affected by Capitalism. The same question came up for Dominion Online and Donald answered affirmative.

294

Rules Questions / Re: Fleet extra turns

« on: November 05, 2018, 01:26:41 pm »

1) Good question, I would suspect that they are normal turns for tie-breaking purposes.
2) The game continues if at least one player has bought Fleet, so any Outpost turns or Donations or Mountain Passes still happen. I think the answer to the first question will be important to determine the order of those turns.

295

Dominion: Renaissance Previews / Re: Pssst.... (Eager anticipation) When's it shipping?

« on: November 05, 2018, 12:32:45 pm »

It doesn't use the word "reveal", so it doesn't count for Patron.

296

Dominion: Renaissance Previews / Re: Fun or interesting combos with Capitalism

« on: November 05, 2018, 11:19:21 am »

They become Treasures (if the inherited card becomes one). The effect of Inheritance is supposed to give them text in my understanding. And IIRC Donald at least agreed on the outcome. One other argument is that the set aside card becomes a Treasure, so the Estates copy that independly of them being directly affected by Capitalism.

297

Dominion: Renaissance Previews / Re: Pssst.... (Eager anticipation) When's it shipping?

« on: November 05, 2018, 11:03:25 am »

Right. I'm looking at it from the point of view: Which cards need to be tested to be sure they work with the Patron effect? And then Shepherd comes in again.

298

Dominion: Renaissance Previews / Re: Pssst.... (Eager anticipation) When's it shipping?

« on: November 05, 2018, 10:47:03 am »

Well since someone will do it eventually, here are all the cards that can reveal Patron (tell me if I miss any).

Removed (5): Scout, Spy, Thief, Saboteur, Tribute
Dominion (1): Bandit
Intrigue (4): Shanty Town, Wishing Well, Courtier, Patrol
Seaside (2): Ambassador, Cutpurse
Alchemy (3): Apothecary, Scrying Pool, Golem
Prosperity (3): Loan, Rabble, Venture
Cornucopia (5): Fortune Teller, Menagerie, Farming Village, Harvest, Hunting Party
Hinterlands (4): Crossroads, Oracle, Noble Brigand, Inn
Dark Ages (11): Poor House, Vagrant, Sage, Ironmonger, Wandering Minstrel, Knights, Mystic, Pillage, Rebuild, Rogue, Madman
Guilds (5): Doctor, Advisor, Taxman, Herald, Journeyman
Adventures (2): Magpie, Giant
Empires (6): City Quarter, Royal Blacksmith, Patrician, Chariot Race, Gladiator, Grand Castle
Nocturne (6): Raider, Will-o'-Wisp, Ghost, Bad Omens, Famine, War
Renaissance (4): Border Guard, Seer, Villain, Piazza
Promo (2): Black Market, Envoy
Total: 63 cards

Dominion: Bureaucrat
Seaside: Pirate Ship
Prosperity: Mint (with Capitalism)
Nocturne: Shepherd

299

Dominion: Renaissance Previews / Renaissance live on Dominion Online

« on: November 05, 2018, 10:26:37 am »

Renaissance has gone live on Dominion Online. Unfortunately, the SuffleiT forum is down with a non-trivial problem, so any questions you have I'll try to find and answer here.

300

Rules Questions / Re: What does Enchantress and Royal Carriage do?

« on: September 30, 2018, 11:51:12 am »

It's always hard to answer such questions when there is only one card that does a special thing (Enchantress).

The way I see it, "after playing" is after the effect has resolved, which usually means after following the cards on-play instructions, but maybe something else happened when Enchantress is involved. I don't know why you think that a card under Enchantress was not resolved, the resolution consisted however not of following the cards on-play instructios, that was replaced by samething else.

The real formal problem, as you noted, is the cards that try to do something after (for a better term) an Attack is 'announced', but before it resolves.