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 ... 41 42 [43] 44 45 ... 101
1051
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks
« on: October 13, 2019, 06:02:15 pm »
TR can play a card from the trash (a trashed Mining Village), so it works without moving the card. Necromancer flipping a card does not constitute movement; the card is still in trash.

I get why you say that Scepter could end up needing something to limit it, but I think calling it a Command card is not the way to go.

In answer to your question, Donald has ruled that Scepter can't play a Royal Carriage that was played and called on the same turn. Same with Duplicate.

1052
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks
« on: October 13, 2019, 05:20:01 pm »
I had mentioned this in the discord, but does Scepter qualify as a Command type? The only reason it doesn't loop is because it can't play itself due to being a treasure and no other command cards can play it. Effectively, Scepter treats the play area as an "infinite supply". If ever a card was released that can replay a treasure in play or that can put Scepter's abilities on an action, a loop would be created.

Maybe it's better to cross that bridge if it ever gets there, but I do want Scepter to get recognition as a potential problem card that in its current form limits (albeit narrow) design space.

Command cards seem to be cards that override the default rule of moving the played card into play. If Scepter is a Command card, then all kinds of cards should be, like Royal Carriage and even Throne Room and Vassal.

1053
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks
« on: October 13, 2019, 04:13:32 pm »
So now that there is a new type, I have a suggestion for all five cards, because I think it would be better and cleaner if they worked the same way.

As I said earlier in this thread, I think they should all say non-Duration, or we can just live with the lack of tracking for these cards. But since Donald is obviously going to stick to the special tracking rules for these cards, I think it would be better to make them all consistent.

The new rule ("2. Tracking for the former shapeshifters") mentions all cards - Band of Misfits, Overlord, Inheritance, Necromancer and Captain - but actually doesn't currently apply to the last two, since they already say "non-Duration" and so cause no tracking problem. This rule also presents the challenge (mentioned earlier) of defining which cards it applies to without including cards like Throne Room. This can be fixed with awkward wordings.

My suggestion is to add the Command type to Necromancer, and change Inheritance so that Estates also get the Command type; and then drop "non-Duration" from Captain and Necromancer. Now all five cards work the same way, they can play Durations with the exact same tracking, and they can't play each other. And the tracking rule can simply refer to "Command cards".

1054
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks
« on: October 12, 2019, 08:32:34 pm »
But the official FAQ already included a note that an Inherited Estate was still worth 1 VP, so surely that would've guaranteed anyways that it wouldn't take the Inherited card's VP value?

The FAQ said that because of the "non-Victory card" clause on the card. Without that clause, the FAQ couldn't have said that without contradicting the actual card.

1055
Rules Questions / Re: Multiple things happening at the same time
« on: October 11, 2019, 12:45:09 pm »
Indeed, neither GendoIkari or I* knew

*Yeah, I'm rebelling against the standard US usage of using "me" here. I just can't bring myself to write "me knew", even though I'm pretty sure it's considered correct.

Pretty sure that putting I instead of me here is correct.

I guess I was thinking about sentences like "Me and Lucy went to the movies", which I think are more common than "I and Lucy...". I thought I read somewhere that it was considered okay, but I'm probably wrong.

1056
Rules Questions / Re: Multiple things happening at the same time
« on: October 11, 2019, 10:33:48 am »
To me it just seems really odd to interpret the rule quoted from the rulebook above to mean what Donald is saying. Saying that you can do the abilities - mandatory and optional - in any order, to me heavily implies that you do them all. (Of course you can choose to not do an optional one.) In addition, as I said in the previous paragraph, how exactly this is supposed to work is not clear at all from anything written except as explained by Donald in the previous thread about this. Why not think that after everyone passes you can shout out and say "actually I want to React"?
I don't think that would work; there has to be a way we know that everyone is done considering doing something.

I don't agree - we would still know when everyone is done. As we both agree, normally we don't need to go in turn order or say "pass". If someone thinks the order matters, we go in turn order. In those cases, we have to ask each player in turn what they want to do, and each player might pass. In those cases we know when everybody is done: it's when the last player says that they're done or says "pass". At that time anybody could say, ok then I want to use my reaction.

There is no reason to think, just given this new rule, that it makes a difference whether everybody passed or not. Indeed, neither GendoIkari or I* knew to interpret it that way. My point is that we need a special rule to say which interpretation is correct, and that makes this new rule more complicated and non-intuitive than the old one.

EDIT: Ok, I see that technically, if we allow new reactions after everybody passed, it would mean an infinite loop of re-asking everybody. But I really don't think most people would analyze it that deeply and then conclude what the rule is just based on the theoretical consequences.

*Yeah, I'm rebelling against the standard US usage of using "me" here. I just can't bring myself to write "me knew", even though I'm pretty sure it's considered correct.

1057
Rules Questions / Re: Multiple things happening at the same time
« on: October 10, 2019, 01:53:18 pm »
I'm looking at the other thread and the different scenarios we were discussing. With this new rule, how do mandatory abilities get resolved? If you play an Attack card with a +1 Card token, do you have to draw a card before anybody reacts? Or can you wait and see if someone wants to react, then draw? (If so, everybody then has another chance to react of course.) This matters in a hypothetical situation (which you brought up in the other thread) where another player's reaction to your attack could create a mandatory thing for you. Would you do it or is it too late?
If there's a mandatory thing, you do it. If there are both mandatory and optional things and someone wants to do an optional thing, if they are first in turn order they go first.
So is the answer that it's too late?

It also matters with Fool's Gold and Road Network. You could trash a Fool's Gold and then draw the Gold with Road Network, or first draw and then gain a Gold. With the old it rule, it was clear: The first player has to decide what they want to do, and then do it all; then it's the next player.

But with the new rule, what happens? Let's say I'm first. I decide to trash a Fool's Gold first (before Road Network). The next player then says, I also want to do that. Ok, then we go in turn order. I trash mine, the next player trashes theirs. Then I do my Road Network draw?

1058
Rules Questions / Re: Multiple things happening at the same time
« on: October 10, 2019, 11:28:00 am »
But how you interpret these rules when it comes to multiple players with reactions (or "optional things", since Urchin is included) has clearly not always been the same, since you ruled the other way in the past. And in 2016 decided to keep it like that.

I'm looking at the other thread and the different scenarios we were discussing. With this new rule, how do mandatory abilities get resolved? If you play an Attack card with a +1 Card token, do you have to draw a card before anybody reacts? Or can you wait and see if someone wants to react, then draw? (If so, everybody then has another chance to react of course.) This matters in a hypothetical situation (which you brought up in the other thread) where another player's reaction to your attack could create a mandatory thing for you. Would you do it or is it too late?

1059
Rules Questions / Re: Multiple things happening at the same time
« on: October 09, 2019, 01:34:27 pm »
According to Donald's explanation in the previous thread where he floated this idea, you cannot react after everyone has passed. Initially in that thread I thought that you could. My point now is that it's not clear how this works from anything written, and you really need a specific rule to explain it.

1060
Rules Questions / Re: Multiple things happening at the same time
« on: October 09, 2019, 12:57:27 pm »
What I think Donald is trying to say is this:

There are two rules in play here. The first is that reactions go in turn order. The second is the "keep reacting if time hasn't passed" rule.

His ruling appears to be that, after going through turn order, and the trigger for the reaction hasn't passed (in this urchin/diplomat case, playing an attack), a person who chose not to react the first time, or who still has the reaction, can change their mind and choose to react due to the latter of the two rules, starting a new turn order of decisions regarding reactions to the trigger.

Well, the second rule is not only about Reactions.

In the basegame rulebook, these are the only rules about the turn order of abilities or effects:
Quote
When two things happen to different players at the same time, go in turn order starting with the player whose turn it is. For example, when a player plays Witch, the other players gain Curses in turn order, which may matter if the Curses run out.

When two things happen to one player at the same time, that player picks the order to do them, even if some are mandatory and some are not. This can come up with expansions.

In Intrigue, an additional rule can be derived from the description of Diplomat (earlier Secret Chamber). This rule implies that you can still react with a Reaction card as long as you are in the "window" of reacting. This is the rule you are referring to. This rule has since been extended, through various card descriptions, into a rule that I formalized earlier in this thread: "Resolving an ability can change conditions in the game so that another ability is actually triggered from the same "event" that triggered the first ability. The new ability is added to the pool of abilities that are triggered from the same "event" and waiting to be resolved." Donald gave an example with Hireling in this thread. There seems to be nothing to imply that these are two different rules, one for reactions and one for other abilities.

I assume the difference implied by Donald is only this: Reactions (and Urchin) are optional, while the other abilities are not. His thinking seems to be that since Reactions are optional, you have not given up your chance to use them just because you passed on your turn to react, as long as we are still in the "window". However, you only get a second chance if someone else reacted. I don't actually understand why this specifically gives you a second chance, when you don't get a second chance after everybody passes and we are still in the "window".

To me it just seems really odd to interpret the rule quoted from the rulebook above to mean what Donald is saying. Saying that you can do the abilities - mandatory and optional - in any order, to me heavily implies that you do them all. (Of course you can choose to not do an optional one.) In addition, as I said in the previous paragraph, how exactly this is supposed to work is not clear at all from anything written except as explained by Donald in the previous thread about this. Why not think that after everyone passes you can shout out and say "actually I want to React"?

1061
Rules Questions / Re: Multiple things happening at the same time
« on: October 08, 2019, 10:59:33 pm »
I looked at the rules and some cards and I think my ruling is consistent with them. "If we both want to do something we go in turn order" doesn't imply "if you want to do something because someone later in turn order did something, now it's too late." You didn't want to do something; then you did, and it's still time for doing it.

Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but where do the rules talk about "if the players want to do something"? The only thing I can find is "things happening to the players, whether mandatory or not". That implies that you react based on the fact that it happened to you, not based on the fact that someone else reacted. I really don't understand how you can get the interpretation you're saying - at least based on the section I quoted.

1062
Rules Questions / Re: Multiple things happening at the same time
« on: October 08, 2019, 07:10:50 pm »
Online players will at least be presented with an Urchin that matches the old rule, not the new one. I'm not sure if there are other discrepancies. EDIT: Yes, there are. You said, "Online players will be faced with what the program does, and will not mind getting to use their reactions." That is not the issue. The issue is that they will not get the option to react again after the next player already reacted. In the example in this thread, B will not get to react with Diplomat again online. So the core issue of this question will be different online.

I do think that many players, not the most casual ones, but the ones that visit BGG, which are a great many, have read this ruling through the years. It has been asked several times after all, and 2010 was a while ago. This is the main reason why I think it's a bad idea.

The new rule does add more rules, because it concerns optional abilities (I gather), which are not mentioned in rulebooks as having any specific timing. Actually the opposite is stated: "When two things happen to one player at the same time, that player picks the order to do them, even if some are mandatory and some are not."

To me this actually seems to heavily imply that optional abilities are timed just as mandatory ones.

As I said in the other thread, the new rule is not needed to prevent players from saying "no Moat for you" (which was your main concern in that thread). Players will not do so in any case. Likewise, the old rule is not needed to prevent players from endlessly reacting to each other. Players will not do so in any case. The rule is only needed to clarify what happens when someone wants to react because of someone else reacting, such as in the original BGG thread from 2010 or in the OP in this thread. In those cases I'm certain that most players will not find that the rulebook supports the new rule. I would think that they either think it's strictly in turn order once (as seen above), or they have no idea and either house-rule it or look it up online.

1063
Rules Questions / Re: Multiple things happening at the same time
« on: October 08, 2019, 05:56:37 pm »
Well, as I stated in the other thread, I think it would be better to stick with how everybody who has ever looked up that rule since 2010 has played it. The rulebooks also imply it, not exempting "optional effects" or Reactions from the turn-order rule.

Nobody blocks players from revealing Moat or using other Reactions because of the existing rule. The question is rather, can I wait to see what you do before I use my Reaction, as in the example in the original BGG thread.

Changing this rule also opens up the question about the timing of Urchin: Can you now reveal it after other players have reacted to your Attack?

1064
Rules Questions / Re: Multiple things happening at the same time
« on: October 08, 2019, 10:54:18 am »
2) When multiple players can react, can I react then wait to see whether an opponent reacts and then react again? In other words does the time to reveal reactions happen in turn order and then finish after the last player, or can we continuously react until the trigger finally gets resolved? for example, A plays an attack (let's say witch). B has 6 cards in hand including an urchin and wants to really hurt C. B reacts with a diplomat (keeping the urchin and diplomat). C has 5 cards in hand and reacts with diplomat. B realizes his urchin won't hurt C anymore and wants to react with diplomat again to change up his hand. Can he do it?
Yes, at the point at which B decides "oh now I want to react," that's something B wants to do, and the rule is we go in turn order. If A decided "wait I will do something too," A would go ahead of B.

As far as I know, this has not been the official ruling. And it's not implemented like this online. Rather each player has to finish reacting when it's their turn, and then it's the next player, until everybody has gotten one chance. If it worked the way you say, if you gain IGG with Watchtower in hand, you get to decide whether to trash/topdeck the IGG before your opponents gain a Curse, and then (if you didn't) you get to decide again after. At least it doesn't work like that online. EDIT: Actually it is supposed to work that way with IGG/Watchtower no matter what, and it's wrong online.

You did say the same thing in this post: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4535.msg591442#msg591442. A few posts later you said that this ruling was tentative and someting to consider. It turned out that you had ruled otherwise several times before (namely that everybody only gets one shot at reacting). The conclusion in that thread was the original ruling still stood until further notice.

1065
Rules Questions / Re: Multiple things happening at the same time
« on: October 08, 2019, 10:41:30 am »
Great. 2 people answered and they disagree on everything except the secret chamber q.  :D.

Just for the record my guess for q1 is A2.

Q2 and small Q2 I'm uncertain (I could see either way).

I'm wondering if there any concrete rulings on these (would love links if you've got them) or if these are just your gut opinions.

There are lots of concrete rulings by Donald, in threads such as these. He has ruled on all these things before though. (And some of these questions, such as effects in turn order starting with the current player, is actually stated in the rulebooks, as Ingix quoted.) You might find the rules document I made helpful, link in my sig. It includes all the timing rules.

Something that is implied in this thread, but not explicitly stated, is an addendum to the rule about several abilities that trigger at the same time. As stated, each ability is resolved by the player it affects (and then ordered by that player if s/he has several). The addendum is about an ability such as Embassy's Silver gaining, that says "each other player". This ability is resolved by the player it addresses, so the player gaining Embassy in this case. That's why, in Ingix's example, the player gaining Embassy decides the order of "you may exchange it for a Changeling" and "each other player gains a Silver". (When s/he chooses "each other player gains a Silver", this of couse creates a "gain a Silver" effect for each other player, which is resolved by each player in turn.)

Another thing, that I don't think is part of any of your questions, but which Donald addressed, is that an ability can cause another ability to be triggered without actually triggering it. In all the examples with Ambassador, Embassy, Changeling and Eavesdropper, a new ability was triggered directly from the resolution of an ability. In those cases, the new ability interrupts that resolution, as has been explained. But resolving an ability (which was triggered by some "event") can change conditions in the game so that another ability is actually triggered from the same "event" that triggered the first ability. In that case, the two abilities are "happening at the same time". The new ability is added to the pool of abilities that are triggered from the same "event" and waiting to be resolved. (There could be several.) First you finish resolving the current ability. Then you decide which of the pending abilities to resolve next, etc.

Donald's example of start-of-turn abilities with Hireling is a perfect example. The "event" is here "start of turn". Another classic example is Moat and Diplomat/Secret Chamber. Another player playing an attack is the "event", which triggers your Diplomat. Resolving the Diplomat causes the Moat to enter your hand. The Moat reaction is now added to all the possible abilities you could resolve from this "event" (along with reacting with the same Diplomat again if you kept it in your hand).

(I prefer calling things that trigger "abilities". An ability can consist of several effects. "Each other player gains a Silver" is a triggered ability. When you resolve it, a Silver gaining effect happens for each player in turn order. Each of those effects could trigger other abilities. This is also important because once you start resolving an ability, you always finish resolving all of its effects.)

1066
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks
« on: October 07, 2019, 04:50:32 pm »
People just shuffle all those cards back into their deck then. It's even worse than just setting them aside.

How is this different than for instance Travellers?

1067
Dominion General Discussion / Re: ThunderDominion Card List Results, 2019
« on: October 02, 2019, 10:24:34 am »
One trick is to just buy more THs. When you buy the second TH after drawing your deck, it's more like it costs $2 instead of $5 thanks to the gold it gains. The next one kinda costs -$1, because now you have two golds that together give $6.

I don't think this is an accurate assessment unless you keep overdrawing. If you're going to include the effect of the Golds in your deck so that each TH is cheaper, you have to also consider that Gold is a stop card. So if you you're not overdrawing, the second TH is +2 cards instead of +3 cards, and the third one is +1 card.

I nevertheless agree that TH sometimes is very good and makes for an explosive finish kind of like Procession cam do. Other times the trashing and Gold is mainly a drawback. How good TH is is more kingdom dependent than most terminal draw.

1068
Dominion General Discussion / Re: ThunderDominion Card List Results, 2019
« on: October 01, 2019, 12:08:11 pm »
This is the most wrong list, I think. Shepherd is too high. Necromancer is too high. Cobbler is too low. Idol is way too low. I think Fool is too low (but I might be overestimating it).

1069
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks
« on: September 29, 2019, 11:01:43 am »
i thought that was the whole point of haunted woods
It must have been completely pointless before Nocturne then.

(Not saying that there are any reasons to change it.)

1070
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks
« on: September 28, 2019, 03:02:53 pm »
Yeah, only with the extreme corner case of getting unlimited $ with a combination of Champion and Diadem.

1071
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks
« on: September 27, 2019, 04:52:36 pm »
The rule for BoM is not a rule to learn in general; it's specific to the former shapeshifters. BoM will have a long FAQ; again the card was a mistake but I have to handle it.

Right, hopefully the specific rules for BoM will be much less than before, and I'm pretty sure that will be the case. (Although in my rules document I have to somehow include all the rules for the former versions too. :( )

1072
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks
« on: September 27, 2019, 02:35:34 pm »
Distant Lands was also useless with BoM and Overlord previously, because you would have put your BoM/Overlord on your Tavern mat, removing it from play and changing it back to BoM/Overlord, thus meaning that you remove a BoM/Overlord from circulation for no benefit whatsoever.

You're right, I was confusing BoM with Inheritance ("yours" vs. "in play"). Also, there are many more cards that are now gimped a lot of course, namely all the ones that say "while this is in play". Also Herbalist.

1073
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks
« on: September 27, 2019, 02:30:20 pm »
Lastly, I'm not a fan of the new rule for tracking these cards. It seems to be a regression to the confusion of former rules for tracking TR + Duration and TR + TR + Duration.

Now we have very different rules for TR + Duration and BoM + Duration. TR is simple and clean, it stays as long as the Duration stays. But with BoM, we have to look at when the Duration or TR would have been discarded.

Also, this rule only applies to BoM, Overlord and Inheritance. Captain and Necromancer already don't work with Durations. So it's a special rule for only 3 cards. I think it would be better to add "non-Duration" to those cards, or just live with the lack of tracking.

1074
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks
« on: September 27, 2019, 02:03:29 pm »
2. Tracking for the former shapeshifters

These rules apply to all of the cards that play cards without putting them into play: currently, Band of Misfits, Overlord, Inheritance, Necromancer, and Captain.

Other cards do that too, like Throne Room (with Mining Village for instance). Of course you are listing the cards, but since there can be more in the future, I think it would be better to be more specific so that Throne Room etc (or future similar cards) can't be included. So it's not just cards that play cards without putting them into play, but cards that tell you to play a card without moving it into play (or something like that).

1075
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion 2019 Errata and Rules Tweaks
« on: September 27, 2019, 01:56:21 pm »
Obv. some of those "useless" things have use, e.g. Mining Village when what you want is a village; and Knights are now scary with former shapeshifters, not useless at all.

Knights were in the wrong list! I meant to include them with the cards that are now super-good, like Tragic Hero.
Yeah, those other cards are not useless, it was just a shorthand, maybe not the best term to use. But an important use of them is not available.

I'm pretty sure using Replace as the example here doesn't work, since it top-decks the Skulk.
This is a real example. Replace first gains the card to your discard pile; you stop and gain a Gold for Skulk. Then Replace tries to topdeck Skulk. Previously it couldn't, now it can.

Whoops. Forgot that Replace doesn't gain to your deck.

Pages: 1 ... 41 42 [43] 44 45 ... 101

Page created in 0.08 seconds with 18 queries.