If you really want you can still play a rated previews game by creating your own table.
Is anyone else having trouble purchasing Nocturne? I can't find an option to buy it in the store. The only options I seem to get are buying the Gold and Silver subscriptions even though my Gold subscription is current to 4-Jan-18 ... I'm sure I must be doing something wrong but I can work out what. Frustrating.
Do the developers plan on fixing Lord Rattington someday? ’cause it keeps playing retardedly.the pledgeApparently not.
Turn 7 - Lord Rattington
L plays a Butcher.
L trashes a Copper.
L gains a Stonemason.
the turn
Turn 17 - Lord Rattington
L plays a Stonemason.
L trashes an Estate.
the prestige
Turn 17 - Lord Rattington
L plays a Stonemason.
L trashes an Estate.
L gains 2 Curses.
1) Is this a worthwhile endeavor? If so, is the blog the right place for it, given that this would be primarily about online etiquette? Would this be better suited to the ShIt forum?An article of the sort would be useful, especially for new players.
QuoteHowever, resigning in games with more than two players is not encouraged; you will take a greater ratings penalty than if you had simply played the game through and lost.
I believe this should say "more than two human players". If I'm playing a three-player game with you and a bot, there shouldn't be (and, I assume, is not) any additional penalty for resigning.
Also, it seems to systematically spend all the Spoils it has in hand, even those it doesn’t need to spend.
That's usually a good idea, actually. It's good to get rid of those stop cards.
Yes, it is minimalism, but great?"fixed"
Functionality has been minimally implemented, I'll give them that.
Yes it's great minimalism isn't it.
My deck has two cards.
My -1 Card token is on the deck.
I play Smithy.
What happens?
A.
1. would draw 3 cards
2. remove -1 Card token
3. would draw 2 cards
4. draw 2 cards
B.
1. would draw 3 cards
2. reshuffle
3. remove -1 card token
4. would draw 2 cards
5. draw 2 cards
C. I can decide.
He'll still be adventuring in our hearts.
Unpopular Opinion Potion: Philosopher's Stone is my favourite Alchemy card because it doesn't cause me to sit through hours of my opponents chaining actions.
Just hours of them counting their deck and discard every time they play it.
My friends are generally capable of remembering the number they just counted when they play two Philosopher's Stones. Some are even clever enough to say "Well, they were worth $4 last turn, so i guess you trust me when i say i can afford a Province with these two".
What i didnt see and i hope i will never encounter: A slow play bot. That would be pretty efficient.
Just buys copper and plays them 5 sec pre time-out. Ends up gaining more and more copper -> 25 min turns.
Now you have to 3pile/province all by yourself.
Who cares about what cards think? Cards can't think!
I can think, my opponent can think and we can both come to the conclusion that it's the very same Fortress using the power of observation.
We could put a sticker on the front of the card to be able to track it and once it's back in the play area, see if it has that sticker and remove it; which it does.
I know that lately the rulings have been going in the other direction, but I don't think it's very helpful to be so precise when it's not needed.
Your opponent can't verify it's the same Fortress (excluding edge cases with an empty or visible hand, only 1 copy, never discarding cards, etc). Only you can. You could have had another Fortress. I think it's less about it being the Same Exact Card and more about how it could have not been the same card and in the cases where that is possible there isn't a way to verify that information. So for consistency it applies to all situations.
The official rule is this:QuoteIn rare circumstances an effect may try to move a card that is not where that effect expects the card to be. In those cases the card does not move - the effect has "lost track" of the card.
So here the card is Fortress, the effect is Prince's "setting it aside again when you discard it from play", the place it expects the card to be is the play area. We can fulfill all of these conditions, so I would expect that Prince is able to set Fortress aside again.
I would argue that whatever happens in the meantime is irrelevant as long as you can find the exact card that you initially played with Prince and are able to set it aside again.
However, a lot has been written both by Donald and others about how lose-track applies to these kinds of things, so I'm not exactly sure what the ruling would be, I can only argue about what I think would make the most sense.
What are your other options?So it just now occurred to me that you should be able to Transmogrify something into a Watchtower, and then reveal that Watchtower to respond to the gaining of itself?Yes.
I just tried it on MF and could not reveal the Watchtower. Is it a bug?
I mean uh. I make the rules and not them. Them programming it any which way isn't going to convince me of anything.
So it just now occurred to me that you should be able to Transmogrify something into a Watchtower, and then reveal that Watchtower to respond to the gaining of itself?Yes.
- it's Java right?) could create their own bots. 
Wrong board?Sorry. Which one should I have posted it in?
Welcome to the forum, by the way!Thanks.
