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] 4 5 ... 7
51
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.

52
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.

53
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.

54
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!

55
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.

56
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!

57
I've experimented with deleting the cookies from the site, but that hasn't cleared the problem.

58
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.

59
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.

60
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.

61
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."

62
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."'

63
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.


64
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.

65
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
  Else
    It's the same card
  End if
Else
  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.

66
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?

67
Rules Questions / Re: Villa
« on: November 30, 2019, 05:02:54 pm »
When you go back to the Action phase you retain any unused Actions, Buys and $.

68
Rules Questions / Re: Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule
« on: October 21, 2019, 04:17:12 pm »
I had been contemplating suitable wording, but I think Shvegait's approach looks good, so I'll not bother taking my ideas any further.

Incidentally is anyone else dreading playing Urchin followed by another Attack card in an online 4-player game and then having to answer "No" numerous times to the question "Do you want a Mercenary?" because the opponents each have one or more appropriate Reaction cards and all choose to exercise all of them?  I wonder how many times one could be asked the question.  Let's see...

Beggar, Diplomat, Horse Traders and Moat can all react to an Attack being played, so if each opponent had a hand containing one of each, that would make 13 times one would have to answer the question.  And that's before allowing for multiple copies of Beggar or Horse Traders, or for one Diplomat being revealed multiple times.

69
Rules Questions / Re: Multiple things happening at the same time
« on: October 18, 2019, 05:16:27 pm »
Sorry, but I still don't get how mandatory things work with reactions.
I felt like that last post of mine was pretty thorough. I am going to pursue the theory that I actually explained it well enough for other people to get it.
I think I get it, but if so, it's not what I originally understood your ruling to be, so for me it's just as well that Jeebus has kept asking questions!  On the other hand it could be that I don't get it, so I'll explain what I think I've understood it to be...

Let's imagine a 6-player game, just so that we can have players A through F.  It's player A's turn.  Something happens that permits reactions to occur...
  • Player A gets the opportunity to react.  If they have a mandatory reaction they must react (but presumably could do an optional reaction at this stage if there was one?).  If they do react, we repeat step 1.
  • Player B gets the opportunity to react.  If they have a mandatory reaction they must react (but presumably could do an optional reaction at this stage if there was one?).  If they do react, we go back to step 1.
  • Player C gets the opportunity to react.  If they have a mandatory reaction they must react (but presumably could do an optional reaction at this stage if there was one?).  If they do react, we go back to step 1.
  • Player D gets the opportunity to react.  If they have a mandatory reaction they must react (but presumably could do an optional reaction at this stage if there was one?).  If they do react, we go back to step 1.
  • Player E gets the opportunity to react.  If they have a mandatory reaction they must react (but presumably could do an optional reaction at this stage if there was one?).  If they do react, we go back to step 1.
  • Player F gets the opportunity to react.  If they have a mandatory reaction they must react (but presumably could do an optional reaction at this stage if there was one?).  If they do react, we go back to step 1.
  • Reactions come to an end.

70
Rules Questions / Re: Colonnade with new BoM/Overlord
« on: October 18, 2019, 02:12:39 am »
That's certainly my understanding of the new situation.  I suspect there will be numerous other explanations in the wiki that will need updating, not to mention plenty of threads in this forum that are now wrong.

71
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: October 10, 2019, 05:04:02 am »
For the benefit of anyone reading this topic in the future it should be pointed out that its content is now redundant because of http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19893.

72
Rules Questions / Re: TR + Church - is the Wiki wrong
« on: August 07, 2019, 01:55:22 pm »
Oh, of course, silly me.
Your latest version of the wiki looks good to me.  Thanks.

73
Rules Questions / Re: TR + Church - is the Wiki wrong
« on: August 06, 2019, 02:12:40 pm »
Could it be the wiki has it right, but did not say it proper? Should it be more along the line of "you have to do the pick up and trash consecutive for each set"?

While it's true that you aren't allowed to pick up all 6 cards and then trash 2 from your hand, you would need some other weird start-of-turn effects for that sort of thing to matter at all.
I couldn't think of any current situation where it would matter, but I might have overlooked something.

74
Rules Questions / TR + Church - is the Wiki wrong
« on: August 06, 2019, 12:12:13 pm »
The text of Church says "Set aside up to 3 cards from your hand face down. At the start of your next turn, put them into your hand, then you may trash a card from your hand."

http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Church says "If you play Church multiple times such as via Throne Room, keep the set aside cards separate; you may not trash multiple cards from one set of cards."

OK, so "keep the set aside cards separate" makes sense, but I fail to see how "you may not trash multiple cards from one set of cards" can be correct.

At the start of your next turn you first pick up one of the sets of set-aside cards and trash any card that is now in your hand.  Obviously that includes the cards that you have just picked up.  Then you pick up the second set of set-aside cards and trash any card that is now in your hand.  That includes not only the cards that you have just picked up, but also the cards you previously picked up, so demonstrably it is possible to trash multiple cards from one set of cards.

75
Dominion Online at Shuffle iT / Re: Innovation / Skulk interaction
« on: March 16, 2019, 04:28:31 pm »
The Gold covers up the Skulk in your discard pile if you gain it first, and then Innovation doesn't find Skulk where it expects it to be (at the top of your discard pile) and can't move it into play.
Or rather it can't set it aside and therefore the condition to play it isn't fulfilled.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 18 queries.