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.

101

Rules Questions / Re: Baths, Posession

« on: January 24, 2017, 05:52:27 am »

I don't think there's any rules question for a set-aside card that was set aside by being Trashed on a Possession turn... set-aside cards are always still part of your deck (Haven, Gear, etc). I don't think it even matters who it really was that set it aside; the act of setting it aside doesn't make it leave your deck.

But it is mildly interesting to note this interaction; that cards trashed this, when the game ends on a Possession turn, will end the game set-aside, not end the game in your discard pile.

The point is that it's trashed, so it stops belonging to you. Then it's set aside. The only other ability that sets aside a card that doesn't belong to any player, is Inheritance, I think.

When I first read the final sentence I thought you were making a false statement, but then I read it again and realised that it was in fact a sentence capable of being understood in two ways and I had taken it the wrong way.  I'll explain further just in case anyone else has done the same without realising that the wrong way is false.

"The only other ability that sets aside a card that doesn't belong to any player, is Inheritance, I think." could be read as meaning that Inheritance sets aside a card that then does not belong to any player.  That's the false meaning.  It can also be read as meaning that Inheritance sets aside a card that previously did not belong to any player.  That's the correct meaning.

EDIT: I'm going to retract my comment.  Given that 'that' is used for defining clauses while 'which' is used for describing clauses (though often also used instead of 'that' for defining clauses), my initial reading of "The only other ability that sets aside a card that doesn't belong to any player, is Inheritance" was just plain wrong: "that doesn't belong to any player" defines the nature of the card being set aside, i.e. it's a card not currently owned by any player.

102

Rules Questions / Re: Pirate ship reaction before choose one?

« on: November 16, 2016, 01:01:47 pm »

I just wanted to make sure this is how it should happen.

Someone plays Pirate ship

someone reacts with secret chamber discarding two cards

then the Pirate Ship player can choose attack or money?

is that right?

Yes.  The same applies to all other Attacks that involve a choice, e.g. Minion.

103

Rules Questions / Re: Introducing a new rules document

« on: October 22, 2016, 03:24:35 am »

Some grammar, formatting, and other suggestions:
1) pg. 2, paragraph 1, grammar: "To start playing, you should read chapter I, and the paragraphs..." The comma after the word "and" is unnecessary and ultimately interrupts the flow of the sentence

The reason for the comma was actually to create a pause, to separate  "chapter I" and "the paragraphs in chapter II marked with a golden shield", so that it's clear that "marked with a golden shield" only applies to "the paragraphs in chapter II". Do you still think it's clearer to just drop the comma?

There are some possibilities for getting rid of the comma while still making it clear that "marked with a golden shield" only applies to "the paragraphs in chapter II", but all are a bit more verbose, e.g.

"To start playing, you should read both chapter I and the paragraphs..."

"To start playing, you should read not only chapter I but also the paragraphs..."

104

Rules Questions / Re: Donate / Market Square

« on: October 12, 2016, 02:09:12 pm »

If I Donate, trash a card, discard Market Square, then gain a Gold, neither the Gold nor the Market Square get shuffled into my deck once I'm done Donating, right?

I do believe you're right, which unfortunately means that the group I play in has been getting it wrong because we hadn't read Donate carefully enough.

105

Rules Questions / Re: Overlord + Crown + Black Market + Mint/Mandarin

« on: September 18, 2016, 04:09:45 am »

Assuming I Overlord a Crown to crown a Black Market and buy a Mint or a Mandarin. Is Black Market still played a second time although Overlord has left play and is no Crown anymore?

The BM is indeed played a second time.  Overlord and Band of Misfits do not stop following the instructions of the Action card that they had become simply because they have stopped being it.  Indeed if in your example you had TRed the Overlord, then on the second play of the Overlord (with it now either in the trash or back on your deck and hence once again an Overlord rather than a Crown) you would be free to select any Action card up to a cost of 5 for the Overlord to be and the instructions of that Action card would be followed even though the Overlord immediately reverts to being an Overlord because it is not in play.

106

Rules Questions / Re: Band of Misfits question

« on: August 30, 2016, 11:32:36 am »

I was reading the wiki entry for Band of Misfits, and two of the entries seem to contradict each other:

If you use Throne Room, King's Court, or Procession to play a Band of Misfits card multiple times, you only pick what to play it as the first time; the other times it is still copying the same card. For example, if you use Procession to play Band of Misfits twice and choose Fortress the first time, you will automatically replay it as Fortress, then trash the Band of Misfits

If you use Throne Room on Band of Misfits, choosing to play Band of Misfits as a self-trashing card (for example, Feast), the Band of Misfits will be in the trash after the first play as Feast, meaning it has left play. Throne Room then plays Band of Misfits again (getting token effects again, if there are any), allowing you to make a new choice as to what Band of Misfits should emulate.

In the first example, BoM chooses a card to play as only once. In the second example, BoM can be chosen to be a different card each time.

I want to make sure I understand why these situations are different.
Is the issue that in the first example BoM stays out, and so remains the chosen card on all replays, and in the second example BoM gets trashed between replays, so can reset to something else?

Yes, that's essentially it.  In the first scenario BoM has stayed in play so when TR/KC/etc plays it for the second (or third) time it's still whatever it became on the first play.  In the second scenario BoM has left play so when TR/KC/etc plays it for the second (or third) time it has reverted to being a BoM so follows its own instructions and plays itself as another card.

107

Dominion: Empires Previews / Re: Where did you buy / pre-order Empires? Has it shipped yet?

« on: July 12, 2016, 02:57:04 am »

I'd come myself, except I think my wife might consider my travelling to Germany to play Dominion as grounds for divorce.

Look on the bright side: that would give you more time free for playing Dominion. 

There was a somewhat unusual production error in my set of Empires: only 9 Archive cards but 11 Forum cards.  The fact that the shortage of Archive cards was balanced by an excess of Forum cards (Archive and Forum are the first and last cards in one of the packs) presumably reveals something about how the contents of the set are collated.

Until such time as I receive my tenth Archive card I have temporarily found a use for one of the several blank cards from previous sets.

108

Dominion: Empires Previews / Re: Where did you buy / pre-order Empires? Has it shipped yet?

« on: July 01, 2016, 10:38:59 am »

No sign of it yet on their website...

They have a weekly newsletter (it appears on the website on Friday afternoon, I believe) that announces new releases.  Let's keep our fingers crossed for this Friday.

No sign of it this week, either...

Esdevium's latest newsletter isn't on their website yet, but this morning I received an email from Board Game Extras (which is where I always buy my Dominion expansions from) saying that Empires is being released next week.  That suggests to me that it's going to be announced in the neswletter.  Maybe our long wait on this side of the Pond is nearing its end.

109

Rules Questions / Re: Ironworks and Inheritance/Possession/Watchtower question

« on: June 29, 2016, 10:38:16 am »

questions:
1)If you Ironworks Estate-inherited-to-Village, then reveal Watchtower to trash it , which bonus do you get?
2)If you Ironworks Estate-inherited-to-Village during Possession Turn, then reveal Watchtower to trash it , which bonus do you get?
3)If you Ironworks Estate-inherited-to-Fortress, then reveal Watchtower to trash it , which bonus do you get?

I think the answer to both 1 and 3 is +1 card and +1 action as Ironworks gained a card (which was only subsequently trashed by Watchtower) that had types Victory and Action, but I have to confess that this answer is off the top of my head without stopping to look at the precise wording on either Ironworks or Watchtower.

110

Rules Questions / Re: Pilgrimage/Band of Misfits

« on: June 27, 2016, 08:16:24 am »

Somewhat related rules question.
Say you manage to empty all action supply piles in one turn, then try to play a Misfits. Are you just unable to play it? That seems unusual, I can't think of another dominion card that you actually CAN'T play from your hand when you have an action left. (Sure there are cards you wouldn't want to play, but eh.) 

Or does it go into play as a BoM and do nothing?

It seems to me that it would go into play as a BoM and do nothing because attempting to do as much of its instructions as possible results in doing nothing.

There is of course no need to empty all the action supply piles, merely all those that cost less than BoM.  One could in principle have a kingdom in which this situation existed from the very start of the game.

111

Dominion: Empires Previews / Re: Where did you buy / pre-order Empires? Has it shipped yet?

« on: June 22, 2016, 12:29:49 pm »

No sign of it yet on their website...

They have a weekly newsletter (it appears on the website on Friday afternoon, I believe) that announces new releases.  Let's keep our fingers crossed for this Friday.

112

Rules Questions / Re: Smuggling a BoM/Overlord in play

« on: June 20, 2016, 12:56:53 pm »

Smugglers refers to the card that was gained; it doesn't care at all about what that card is now. It doesn't care what the specific physical card costs now either (if an effect changed the cost of some copies of a card but not others).

Is there a wording difference reason that Disciple doesn't work the same way in regards to gaining the card that was played?

It will be interesting to see what Donald says, but my feeling is that the difference isn't because of wording but because of what Disciple can do.  It can look at a specific card (in the sense of a piece of thick paper) to see what its current identity is.  Smugglers can't.  It can only remember the identity of the card when it was gained.  Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anything in the Adventures rulebook to support my opinion.

113

Rules Questions / Re: Smuggling a BoM/Overlord in play

« on: June 20, 2016, 10:47:04 am »

If I gain a BoM/Overlord and draw it and play it the same turn as a Duration, and then you Smuggle it, you gain a copy of the card it's emulating, right?
I wonder if Dominion Online gets this right.

I can understand your thought processes, but I'm confident that you must be wrong.  Quite apart from the fact that Smugglers says to gain a copy of the card that was gained (as opposed to gaining a copy of whatever the card that was gained is currently emulating), in principle there's no way for players to know which BoM/Overlord is which after the discard pile has been shuffled to become the deck so there's no way to know what the gained BoM/Overlord is currently emulating.

114

Rules Questions / Re: Simple Rules Questions

« on: June 13, 2016, 05:03:06 am »

10. Library skips the -1 card token, and just keeps letting you draw until you have seven cards in hand.

10. Yes.

The Library doesn't merely skip the -1 card token, it removes it (though that might have been what you meant by 'skipping it') unless you already have at least 7 cards remaining in hand when you play it.

115

Rules Questions / Re: Simple Rules Questions

« on: June 12, 2016, 01:09:16 pm »

1. I buy Border Village and gain Bridge.  I can put them on top of my deck in either order (because Border Village's effect is on gain, not on buy).

I think this is already false (so 2 and 3 are as well). I cannot get Border Village on top of the Bridge because of the lose-track rule.

Which is relevant because 'no visiting' does not apply to Travelling Fair:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=15464.msg600712#msg600712

116

Rules Questions / Re: Hypothetical lose-track question

« on: June 01, 2016, 02:27:31 pm »

Magic Mirror (Treasure):
When you play this, you may trash a Treasure from play. If you do, put this into your hand.

What if you use Magic Mirror to trash itself? Can you pick it up out of the trash, or did it lose track of itself? Obviously, if is said "you may trash this from play", it wouldn't lose track. But since it says "a Treasure", I wonder if it does.

I'd vote for it losing track of itself, but I'm far from sure that I can coherently explain why I think that should be the case.

In this particular example it would be unfortunate if the card didn't lose track of itself as it would then be possible to play the same card an infinite number of times.

117

Rules Questions / Re: Disciple on Band of Misfits

« on: May 22, 2016, 05:30:10 pm »

Agree with Reggie. Another question:

When BoM copies a card, does it also get the benefits from a Teacher token from the pile it copies?

I believe the answer is no; BoM isn't "from that pile". Same goes for Inherited Estates.

You're right about Inherited Estates, but (unless my memory is misleading me) wrong about BoM.  Indeed if I recall correctly, the Adventures rules explicitly state that BoM gets the benefit of both tokens on its own pile and tokens on the pile of the card it becomes.  The important difference is that an Inherited Estate is still an Estate, but a BoM played as another card is that card until it leaves play.

118

Dominion: Empires Previews / Re: Empires Previews #1: Debt

« on: May 22, 2016, 09:56:13 am »

Forgive me if it's asked before, but how does Debt interact with Black Market? Does the "can't buy stuff" effect only affect the buy phase or is Black Market overridden?

I think the question was asked before.  I'm pretty sure Black Market is not an exception to the inability to buy, i.e. having debt means one can't buy at all as opposed to can't buy in the buy phase.

119

Rules Questions / Re: Throne variant, BoM, a card which removes itself from play, and Duration

« on: May 21, 2016, 05:23:45 am »

Just in case I'm not the only person who has been having trouble understanding what was going on in these scenarios, I'll explain both the problem I was having and why I shouldn't have been having it.

My problem was that I didn't initially see how BoM was managing to be played as BoM (and hence get to play itself as three different cards) every time by KC.  I coped with the first two because BoM as Embargo has trashed itself so had left play and become BoM again, but I then found myself thinking something along the lines "but Fishing Village doesn't trash itself so how is BoM managing to become BoM again for its third play?"  Only very belatedly did I remember that BoM was of course in the trash after its first play so only ever became another card for an instant. Perhaps if I'd been playing with physical cards I'd have remembered this rather more rapidly.

120

Rules Questions / Re: The One-card Shuffle

« on: May 18, 2016, 01:04:23 pm »

How would most players react to finding the draw pile empty and only one card in the discard pile?  I really don't believe that they would exclaim "Oh no!  There's only one card in the discard pile.  I can't shuffle it to create a new draw pile.  The rules don't cover this situation.  What am I supposed to do?"  Rather I think they'd take the single card from the discard pile, treating that as being a shuffle of the single card followed by drawing it.

Of course they wouldn't think they couldn't create a new draw pile. But the question is whether they think it's because they can shuffle or whether they think that the obvious intent of the rules is that you create a draw pile even if you can't shuffle. A poll with your scenario and a poll with the scenario of the card "While this is in play, when you shuffle your deck, +$1" would yield different results, with more people saying "yes you do it" for your scenario. I assume you agree (even if you think both would have a majority "yes" vote)?

Yes, I think the two polls probably would get different results.  I suspect, however, that if you asked three questions, first for your scenario, then for my scenario, and then for your scenario again, at least some players would switch answers between the first and third because the second would have prompted them to accept the concept of shuffling one card.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, I had been following this discussion for quite a while without being entirely sure which way I inclined, but the scenario I thought of this morning convinced me that for consistency I had to agree that it was possible to shuffle one card.  The jury's still out on whether shuffling zero cards counts as shuffling, but my mathematical leanings cause me to be influenced by whoever it was that pointed out that zero factorial is defined.  Maybe a poll of mathematicians would give a different to one of the general populace!

EDIT: It was Drab Emordnilap who pointed out that shuffling is merely selecting one of the N! possible orderings of N cards.

121

Rules Questions / Re: The One-card Shuffle

« on: May 18, 2016, 04:15:20 am »

What if there was a card that said "While this is in play, when you shuffle your deck, +$1."  Would that trigger when you shuffle a one card deck?  I think almost everyone would agree that it would.

So if your deck is empty and you have one card in your discard pile, and you get +1 Card, people would think that you shuffled (so you get +$1)? I'm not convinced. But this exact scenario (empty deck, one in discard) seems like a very good poll question! I invite you to make it.

Coincidentally this morning I was considering a hypothetical game that contained rules along the following lines (but probably better phrased!)...

At the start of your turn draw a card from the draw pile, having first shuffled the discard pile to create a new draw pile if the draw pile was empty.  If both the draw pile and the discard pile are empty, the game ends.

How would most players react to finding the draw pile empty and only one card in the discard pile?  I really don't believe that they would exclaim "Oh no!  There's only one card in the discard pile.  I can't shuffle it to create a new draw pile.  The rules don't cover this situation.  What am I supposed to do?"  Rather I think they'd take the single card from the discard pile, treating that as being a shuffle of the single card followed by drawing it.

122

Dominion: Empires Previews / Re: Empires Bonus Preview #2: Crown

« on: May 18, 2016, 04:01:58 am »

I might make a house rule for this, just use VP tokens or Coin tokens or Trade Route tokens or Embargo tokens to denote the number of times you played your Durations.

This would of course have a small effect on the power of TR, KC, etc by releasing them in to the discard pile more rapidly when used with a Duration card.

123

Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance and Crossroads

« on: May 16, 2016, 05:53:44 pm »

The first time in a turn that you play an inherited Estate as Crossroads on MF, you don't get +3 actions. This seems correct to me

And is indeed correct.  It's covered in the Wiki (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Inheritance).

EDIT: Aargh!  I've now posted enough times to become a Scout.  I suppose that means that I am now officially useless.

124

Rules Questions / Re: The One-card Shuffle

« on: May 16, 2016, 02:59:51 pm »

I assume they mostly would know the lose-track rule from the Dark Ages rulebook, which doesn't mention shuffling at all (so that makes the question somewhat meaningless after all). It just mentions cards moving and being covered up.

I've been following this discussion and largely leaning towards the "shuffling one card would cause it to be lost track of" opinion without necessarily knowing why that was my gut feeling.  I think I can now come up with an answer with justifies (at least to myself) my gut feeling.

We know that when a card is covered up, it is lost track of even if it is subsequently uncovered (caveat: I can't remember what scenario this applied to, so I might have misremembered the exact details).  We know that the card that is now at the top of the pile is the same one that was there before it was covered up, but the card that was doing the tracking doesn't.  I feel that a similar principle applies to shuffling the deck.  We know that there was only one card in the deck and therefore it has remained at the top, but that is information that isn't known to the card doing the tracking.

125

Dominion: Empires Previews / Re: Empires Bonus Preview #2: Crown

« on: May 16, 2016, 02:43:26 pm »

I'm sad this back-and-forth is in the Crown-thread, because I think it's an awesome card; I love the boldness of finally making that coveted Action - Treasure. Hey you can even draw it with Adventurer and play it as an Action! Magpie can find it and you can use it on another Magpie! It's just great all around and most importantly... fun.

I was surprised that Crown provoked negative reactions as I feel it's a very elegant card in the sense that the rules for it are very simple (it could quite happily have been in the base set), yet it has great potential for novel play features.