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 - Jeebus

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 48
1
I don't know how best to phrase it instead, but I think you should avoid the phrasing "play X as a Treasure".  When Crown first appeared on the scene, some people got confused about how it worked (primarily when played with Storyteller) because they thought in terms of playing it as an action or playing it as a treasure, instead of thinking in terms of playing it in a particular phase and then doing what it told them to do in that phase.

Perhaps "play X (because it is a Treasure)" might be an alternative phrasing.

I definitely thought about that, but I thought that it was better to just go for the most straight-forward wording. You can play a Treasure, so you choose X as that Treasure. Hopefully the people who were confused about that (if they read this thread) know how it works now.

EDIT: Well, I changed it now anyway. :)

2
This wording seems more restrictive than the wording for Coffers or Villagers, which simply say that they can be spent in the appropriate phase. I took it to mean that you can't pay off debt in the middle of playing a Treasure. But then the ruling is instead that it can be done at any time in B2.

3
This is a summary of how it works with Coffers and Debt. If I'm mistaken or missing something, I'd appreciate feedback.

B1 = the first part of the Buy phase (play Treasures; spend Coffers tokens at any time)
B2 = the second part of the Buy phase (buy things; pay off debt before or after each buy EDIT: at any time)

Capitalism or Scepter:
Play Black Market in B1 - you can spend Coffers tokens in the middle. You can't pay off debt.
Play Storyteller in B1 - you can spend Coffers tokens in the middle. You can't pay off debt.

Innovation:
Buy and play Black Market in B2 - you can't spend Coffers tokens (you would have to do it in B1). You can't pay off debt in the middle, only before you buy the BM or after you've completely resolved the BM. EDIT: You can pay off debt in the middle.
Buy and play Storyteller in B2 - you can't spend Coffers tokens (you would have to do it in B1). You can't can pay off debt, as above.

Capitalism pluss Innovation:
Buy and play Black Market/Storyteller/Crown and as a result play Black Market (being a Treasure) in B2 - as above, you can't spend Coffers tokens or pay off debt. but you can pay off debt.
Buy and play Black Market/Storyteller/Crown and as a result play Storyteller (being a Treasure) in B2 - as above, you can't spend Coffers tokens or pay off debt. but you can pay off debt.

4
Rules Questions / Re: Capitalism and Black Market
« on: November 15, 2018, 07:01:33 pm »
To me it has always made sense* that Black Market works the way it does with playing Treasures and buying, and with Empires it makes sense that you can't buy from the BM deck when you're in debt.

As Donald said, the rule about playing all your Treasures before you buy cards, is a rule about timing. Although it's phrased with a "cannot", it's not meant as a prohibition. It just means that first you play any Treasures you want, then you buy any cards you want, in that order.

It's like the rule that you play your Treasures in your Buy phase: Effectively it tells you that you can't play them in your Action phase, but it's not meant as a prohibition. It's a timing rule. It just means that there are no rules allowing you to play Treasures in your Action phase. So if a card tells you that you can, you can.

The rule about debt, on the other hand, actually prohibits you from buying anything when you're in debt. It has nothing to do with timing or phases. There is nothing about this rule that signals that it matters what or when you buy, or how or when you accrue debt. If there's ever a card that lets you take debt in return for VP tokens in your Night phase, I'll expect these debt tokens to also prevent all types of buying.

* "always" meaning for the number of years that I've been aware of the two parts of the buy phase, which I've also included in my rules document

5
Rules Questions / Re: Not enough cards with Border Guard
« on: November 13, 2018, 06:00:18 pm »
However, Lantern says "it takes all 3" in parenthesis; which suggests that it's not a rule change but an explanation.

Parenthesis doesn't necessarily mean that it's just an explanation. Look at Prince, or even Bureaucrat. Without the text in parenthesis, those cards would work differently.

6
Rules Questions / Not enough cards with Border Guard
« on: November 13, 2018, 01:07:05 pm »
I assume that if you don't have enough cards to reveal 2 (or 3 with Lantern), then you can't take Lantern or Horn?

7
Rules Questions / Lose track rule in published rulebooks
« on: November 12, 2018, 07:44:48 pm »
I've noticed that Dark Ages is still the only rulebook that mentions the lose track rule. The 2nd edition Dominion rulebook has no mention of it either. Despite this, several cards are being released that rely on the rule to function, for instance Cargo Ship and Innovation. It seems that players without Dark Ages will have no way of knowing how several of these interactions work without looking online. Any thought on this?

8
Rules Questions / Re: A Couple of Buy Phase Clarifications
« on: November 12, 2018, 06:19:23 pm »
I should have mentioned "literal-minded programmer types" when I was arging against the awful "Possession lets you take other players' -$1 token" ruling.  :P

9
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance and Border Guard
« on: November 12, 2018, 06:05:43 pm »
I'm not sure if the conclusion has to be that Border Guard's ability is modified.

Lantern must have an implicit "instead of", otherwise it would mean that you reveal 5 cards and discard 3 cards when you play Border Guard. So Lantern must have the implicit text "Instead of revealing 2 cards and discarding 1, your Border Guards reveal 3 cards and discard 2".

This could be seen as a shape-shifting thing. But it could just as easily be seen as an Enchantress-like replacement: "Instead of doing A, do B" kind of implies that whenever you would do A, you do B instead.

The difference here is that even if your "instead of" wording, it doesn't involve "when you play". It doesn't matter if it has an "instead" or not. It matters if it has a "when you play" or not.

Yes, with "when you play" (meaning "when you would play") there would be no question. I'm just saying, as it is, I think it's possible to interpret it both ways, since the text doesn't explicitly say how it works.

But, Envious has the same wording as Lantern, and in another thread I just found, I was pretty sure that Envious shapeshifts other cards. :P I don't think Donald has ever weighed in on Envious though (probably because it doesn't matter in practice). But going by wording alone, Lantern, Envious and Coppersmith should all be shapershifters or not.

10
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance and Border Guard
« on: November 12, 2018, 04:19:49 pm »
I'm not sure if the conclusion has to be that Border Guard's ability is modified.

Lantern must have an implicit "instead of", otherwise it would mean that you reveal 5 cards and discard 3 cards when you play Border Guard. So Lantern must have the implicit text "Instead of revealing 2 cards and discarding 1, your Border Guards reveal 3 cards and discard 2".

This could be seen as a shape-shifting thing. But it could just as easily be seen as an Enchantress-like replacement: "Instead of doing A, do B" kind of implies that whenever you would do A, you do B instead.


11
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance and Border Guard
« on: November 12, 2018, 03:52:26 pm »
This ruling actually has another consequence: If you play a Border Guard that isn't yours, it's not affected by your Lantern.

Play Throne Room on Band of Misfits, choose Embargo. Play Band of Misfits from the trash, choose Border Guard. Lantern doesn't affect it, since it's not yours anymore.


12
Regarding Innovation: Will Villa and Ironworks lose track if you use Innovation's effect?

Ironworks: Ironworks doesn't try to move the card after it is gained, so loose track doesn't really apply. All it does is determining the card's type(s), which should not normally be a problem, but I assume there might be edge cases where it is. So if it is a Band of Misfits that Innovation plays as a Mill, Ironworks will see it as Victory-Action; same if it copies an Island.

If you play BoM as Island, it's set aside and reverts to Bom before Ironworks checks it, right?

13
Rules Questions / Re: Fleet extra turns
« on: November 10, 2018, 06:17:09 pm »
Then I have this tentative description:

After end-game is triggered, all players who have bought Fleet gets an extra turn. The active player (the last player to take a regular turn) gets their Fleet turn last. Otherwise normal turn order rules apply: Any extra turns already in queue (from Outpost, Possession or Mission) - which would otherwise not be played - are played, starting with the active player. So are any extra turns produced during this extra round. Each player can order their extra turns. When the last Fleet turn has been played, the game ends and no more extra turns are played.

14
Rules Questions / Re: Fleet extra turns
« on: November 10, 2018, 02:18:22 pm »
Maybe Donald can settle what exactly happens.

Alice, Bob and Clara all buy Fleet. Alice plays Possession. Bob possessed by Alice triggers end-game. In what order do the Fleet turns go? The rulebook says: "The extra turns go in order starting with the next player after the one that just took a turn." Does that mean it's Clara, Alice, Bob? Or does the game extend normally with 1 round - Bob, Clara, Alice?

15
Rules Questions / Re: Fleet extra turns
« on: November 10, 2018, 02:16:29 pm »
It's not different, which is why it's possible to think of it that way without changing any rules. But it does mean that you no longer need to worry about "extra" turns. Rather than count the number of turns each person took, and then subtract the ones that counted as "extra", you simply look at who was the start player, and where in turn order did the game end. I mean, that's what people do in reality; no one is actually counting turns IRL.

I feel like it would have been much better to have this conversation in person, because I think there are some basic misunderstandings.

You're right that players don't have to count turns, but I never suggested that they do. But when the game ends in a player's extra turn from Possession, we can't just check where that player is in turn order. We need to specifically disregard that extra turn.

If Fleet turns count as extra turns, it means we can disregard them at the end of the game (and so just check where the game-end triggering player was in turn order, just like you said). If Fleet turns don't count as extra turn, it means we need a special extra rule to say that we should still disregard them when doing that. You can't simply look at who was start player and where in turn order the game ended, because that would include the Fleet turns. You need that extra rule. That's all I was saying.

Quote
Like Donald said, the rule book does say that the turns count as extra turns. But I don't see why it's an either/or between that and creating an extra round.

Because if we count them as extra turns, we can't follow your 3-point model of extending the game with 1 round. The reason is that per normal rules the game-ending player would get their extra turn first, which is not how Fleet is supposed to work. So then we do need to add the extra rule that the game-ending player gets their Fleet turn last, and we don't need the extra rule that turns in the final round dont't count for tie breaker.

Quote
Fleet says there's an extra round, but that doesn't mean you need to start with player B. You don't just immediately end the current round because Provinces ran out, and then start the new, extra round. Instead, because the game is one round longer than normal, you keep going with the current round, and go exactly 1 more round; as in each player gets a final turn (but only players with Fleet, and those turns don't hurt you in the tie breaker).

So to try and diagram this; looking at a game with Fleet that only lasted 4 normal rounds. B buys the last Province on turn 4, and everyone bought Fleet.

Your latter case (not what happens):

Round 1: A, B, C, D
Round 2: A, B, C, D
Round 3: A, B, C, D
Round 4: A, B
Round 5: A, B, C, D

That does not follow my latter case at all. My cases were about Possession turns, and the latter one was in accordance with your explanation. I was saying that with Possession turns, it actually does matter if we add extra turns or extend the game with an extra round. I was thinking that extending the game with 1 round would mean that the game continues with the next player who would normally have a turn if the game hadn't ended (so player B in Ingix's scenario):

Round 4) A, B, C, D, E, F
Round 5) A, [B poss. by A], [C poss. by B*], B, C, D, E, F
Round 6) A

But I guess we could still follow the Fleet FAQ literally ("The extra turns go in order starting with the next player after the one that just took a turn"), and then it would be player D. The problem with that is that, following your preferred model, we get a round that doesn't follow normal turn order:
Round 4) A, B, C, D, E, F
Round 5) A, [B poss. by A], [C poss. by B*], D, E, F
Round 6) A, B, C

*triggers end-game

16
Rules Questions / Re: Fleet extra turns
« on: November 09, 2018, 04:02:07 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),...

I actually thought about asking this, but I forgot.

The question is what's the correct Fleet round turn order in this scenario. Does Fleet create extra turns, with a special rule that the player who triggered end-game comes last? Or does Fleet create an extra normal game round (whose turns still don't count for tie breaker), as GendoIkari suggested? In the latter case, the Fleet turns would start with B. In the former case, they would start with D. Only Donald can answer this.

17
Rules Questions / Re: Fleet extra turns
« on: November 09, 2018, 03:49:53 pm »
I agree with that way of thinking. It's just too bad that the Fleet turns count as extra turns, not as normal turns. If they had counted as normal turns, (1) and (2) would be a clean way of explaining it without the need for (3).

Well I've never thought of the tie-breaker as actually caring about the number of turns a player took. Even if it's worded that way. What it cares about is 1) Where you sit in turn order; and 2) If the game ended part of the way through a round.

Why is that different? If Alice starts and Bob ends the game, and they tie, the tie isn't broken. But if Alice has a Fleet turn and not Bob, Alice will get one more turn, and also the round (the extra Fleet round) ends part of the way through.

18
Rules Questions / Re: Fleet extra turns
« on: November 09, 2018, 12:11:12 pm »
I agree with that way of thinking. It's just too bad that the Fleet turns count as extra turns, not as normal turns. If they had counted as normal turns, (1) and (2) would be a clean way of explaining it without the need for (3).

19
Rules Questions / Re: Wine Merchant and Pageant
« on: November 09, 2018, 09:52:37 am »
Just remember to discard your Wine Merchants first!

20
Rules Questions / Re: Fleet extra turns
« on: November 09, 2018, 09:45:59 am »
Ok, the way I interpret it is the following.

As Ingix concludes, Fleet turns don't follow the normal turn order rule. If the normal rule applied, the player who triggered end-game would actually be the first to take a Fleet turn: That player is the active player, and extra turns are taken in turn order starting with the active player. So the Fleet FAQ introduces a special rule (unfortunately not stated on the card) that Fleet turns start with the next player after the player who triggered end-game.

Given that someone has Fleet, the game continues normally after end-game is triggered, except that no more normal turns are played, only extra turns. All extra turns follow normal turn order rules, except that the end-game-triggering player gets their Fleet turn last.

So if there are extra turns in wait (Outpost/Mission/Possession) when I trigger end-game, I play my extra turns first, then the next player plays their extra turns including the Fleet turn, and so on. (Any further extra turns generated are added to the mix of course.) As normal, each player can order their turns, including Fleet turns. As soon as the last Fleet turn is played, the game is over - no more extra turns are played, not even for the current player.

21
Rules Questions / Re: Fleet extra turns
« on: November 05, 2018, 05:52:59 pm »
Fleet extends the game but Outpost etc. do not. When the last player with Fleet finishes their Fleet-given turn, no more Outpost etc. turns happen.

This doesn't answer the other question though... do Outpost/Mission turns happen between the last normal turn but before the Fleet turns?
Yes... just like it says in the rulebook.

It doesn't say that in the rulebook. It says that Outpost turns can happen in between Fleet turn, so as a result of a Fleet turn. The question was what happens to Outpost turns before the first Fleet turn - after the game ends "for the first time".

And, do Fleet turns count for tie-breaker (unlike Outpost/Possession/Mission turns)?

22
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance + Capitalism, an irrelevant question.
« on: November 05, 2018, 03:47:31 pm »
Per Jeebus's reply, do we know this? I can see it gong either way. Capitalism refers to a card's "text"; while Inheritance refers to the "abilities". We know that the text is what normally grants abilities; but in this case it is something different granting the abilities. Is "gains the abilities" literally "adding the text"?

Right, I see what you mean. I guess it isn't totally clear, but I would think that's the intention. Otherwise we have a new division, between a card's abilities and its text. It would certainly be cleaner if they are always the same thing.

On that note, I wonder why Capitalism says "with +$ amounts in their text" instead of "giving you +$". When I think about it, it makes a difference for a card like Salvager when you trash a $0 cost card.

23
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance + Capitalism, an irrelevant question.
« on: November 05, 2018, 12:58:57 pm »
Yes, your Estates gain the abilities and types of the card. "The abilities" means the instructions on the card.

24
Rules Questions / Fleet extra turns
« on: November 05, 2018, 12:51:40 pm »
1) I gather from the FAQ that these count as "extra turns"? The card itself says "extra round of turns". This matters for tie breaking.

2) If I play Outpost and end the game, I normally won't get the Outpost turn. But what if I have Fleet? What if I don't have Fleet but someone else does? The rules don't say either way, but since they don't mention it, it kind of implies that I don't get the Outpost turn. On the other hand, the explanation for why Outpost doesn't give you a turn after the last Fleet turn, says that Outpost doesn't keep the game going after it ends. Well, Fleet does keep the game going, so that would imply that an Outpost played before the game ends would happen (whether I have the Fleet or someone else does).

25
Rules Questions / Re: Disciple on Band of Misfits
« on: November 02, 2018, 07:03:31 pm »
I think some of the misunderstandings about Lose Track stems from this - the idea that the reason you lose track is that you donít know where the card is. But thatís not what the rule says. It just says you canít move it if it was moved by something else.


It's not what the rule says, but it is why the rules exists. Donald has said that the Lose Track rule exists because it's possible to literally Lose Track of a card. Inn-Watchtower is a good example.

He has said that the rule is needed because you could literally lose track. I'm not sure if that's the only reason. If it were, why not just have a rule that a card is lost track of if you don't know its exact location? It seems that the rule also exists to try to avoid situations where cards could move in unexpected or conflicting ways, for instance that Mining Village jumps out of the trash. There is another recent thread about how Lose Track could have been different, and it's about these situations, not just dealing with the rare situation where you literally lost track.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 48

Page created in 0.117 seconds with 18 queries.