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 ... 43 44 [45] 46 47 48
1101
Goko Dominion Online / Re: Am I in the correct place?
« on: September 12, 2012, 10:15:03 am »
Okay, thanks! Strange that I need to be approved yet again. It's where I'm told to post bug reports, and they approved me as a beta tester, so...

1102
Goko Dominion Online / Am I in the correct place?
« on: September 12, 2012, 09:40:03 am »
I got into the beta yesterday. But when I go there, it's totally empty of players.

When I go to the feedback forums, there is just one forum there ("Board Games") and I can't access it. Yes, I have registered on the forums. Is this the correct URL?: http://funsockets.ipbhost.com/

Is this the right URL for the game site?: http://beta.goko.com/games/

1103
Rules Questions / Re: Need confirmation about Embargo + IGG
« on: September 12, 2012, 09:15:57 am »
"When two things happen to a player at the same time, that player picks the order to do them."

The only examples I can think of when this happens to a not-current player, is Reaction cards. You can choose which order to resolve your Reaction cards when another player plays an Attack for instance. Can anyone think of other examples?

Actually I can answer my own question here.

Another player plays Saboteur and hits your Cultist, which you are now forced to trash. You have Market Square in your hand. Cultist says "When you trash this, +3 Cards" and Market Square says "When one of your cards is trashed, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, gain a Gold" so you choose which one to resolve first. Lets say there are less than three cards left in your deck after trashing the Cultist. This means there will be a reshuffle when you draw the 3 cards. So if you reveal Market Square before drawing the cards, the Gold will be shuffled in (along with the Market Square itself).

As a side note, the cards costing less than $3 that were set aside by the Saboteur before hitting Cultist, won't be shuffled in, and neither will the card you can gain from the Saboteur attack (costing $2 less than the Cultist). You are reshuffling in the middle of resolving the Saboteur attack. You choose what card to gain after you draw your 3 cards.

1104
Rules Questions / Re: Alchemist/Scheme interaction
« on: September 11, 2012, 04:33:28 pm »
Man, this bug was really annoying now. It probably didn't cost me the game, because I was doing badly anyway, but it really hurt, so who know if I could have won without it. With lots of Schemes and Alchemists in play, and the other player's Jester, I did not want to leave any Alchemists on top of my deck after drawing, since he could Jester them and there were still Alchemists in supply. But isotropic of course wouldn't let me put my Alchemists first so that I draw them all, which means I had to just forget about using my Schemes.

Yeah, I know, isotropic of course won't be updated anymore. Still, this is probably the worst bug I've seen, so strange that i survived this long.

1105
Rules Questions / Re: Need confirmation about Embargo + IGG
« on: September 10, 2012, 07:44:55 pm »
After reading Donald's posts in this thread: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4535.new it seems that what I've been saying here isn't correct. Since pseudo-Embargo resolves when you gain the card and IGG also resolves when you gain the card, you get to order them.

I buy an Embargoed Noble Brigand: I get to decide if I gain a Curse or attack the other players first. But of course the other players resolve Noble Brigand's attack in turn order.

Though in the case of "I trash an Urchin, you reveal a Secret Chamber", I have to do Urchin first.

1106
Hmm, I see I need to reword the FAQ that was quoted in the original post. This isn't quite as straight forward as I thought it was.

1107
Dominion FAQ / Re: Dominion Lingo Dictionary
« on: September 09, 2012, 10:35:17 pm »
Generally every post starting a new thread should avoid all abbreviations on first mention of a card. If a later post introduces a new card to the thread, that card shouldn't be abbreviated either.

Another thing is that it's actually generally much easier to read a post that uses full names of cards, so I would say that the time you save by using an abbreviation is probably not more than the aggregate time people who read your post waste by reading it slower, or even looking up abbreviations.

1108
Rules Questions / Re: Need confirmation about Embargo + IGG
« on: September 08, 2012, 09:31:48 am »
But do the embargo token and the buy effect of pseudo-IGG count as 'one ability' or 'multiple cards resolving at the same time on your turn'?

Yeah, actually I see that the first quote doesn't completely answer this hypothetical case, and neither does the second quote. Embargo and IGG are obviously multiple cards resolving at the same time on your turn, and IGG is a card that affects multiple players. So actually the second quote (from Seaside) seems to contradict what we've been saying. It's correct though if the third quote (from Hinterlands) supersedes the second one. Here's more from that passage:

"When two things happen to a player at the same time, that player picks the order to do them. [...] When two things happen to different players at the same time, they happen in turn order, starting with the player whose turn it is."

This is more general, and it's chronologically the latest ruling. According to this pseudo-Embargo's on-gain Curse would go to you no matter what. This rule is also consistent with posts from Donald like this: http://boardgamegeek.com/article/5224530#5224530. It's unfortunate that the rule from Seaside makes this unclear though.

Are you sure about this? I thought "gain a Curse and a Copper" was to be interpreted as 'gain a Curse and then a Copper'.

You're right. See here: http://boardgamegeek.com/article/6893644#6893644

1109
Rules Questions / Re: Overgrown Estate & Market Sqare
« on: September 05, 2012, 07:46:44 pm »
..Revealing the Reaction is part of its ability.

Good point. I guess the way I suggested would need a special rule.

1110
Rules Questions / Re: Overgrown Estate & Market Sqare
« on: September 05, 2012, 01:04:13 am »
If you were allowed to draw a card before revealing a market square, but weren't allowed to reveal the freshly drawn market square, there would be an awkward accountability issue.  Who's to say that you didn't just draw that market square that you're revealing?

Right, and as I understand it that's the reason the rule is the way it is.

However, that could be resolved by requiring that all reactions need to be triggered (revealed) before resolving any ability. Then you would have to reveal your Market Square first and then choose in which order to resolve Market Square's ability and Overgrown Estate's ability (and not being able to reveal any more Market Squares you might draw). Having this rule would also mean that you couldn't do the Secret-Chamber-draws-a-Moat trick. But of course, the preceding is not the correct rule! Rather, revealing a Reaction immediately resolves it, and you can do that before or after resolving other concurrent abilities. (Just restating it to not confuse things.)

1111
Rules Questions / Re: Need confirmation about Embargo + IGG
« on: September 05, 2012, 12:49:24 am »
First, resolve all concerning the current player, current player chooses the order of resolving of all abilities affecting him.
Then, resolve all concerning the next player, current player (?) chooses the order of all resolving abilities.
and so on.

No, each player chooses the order of the abilities happening to himself. Of course Donald has stated this in forums, but going by officially published rules it's not stated explicitly until Hinterlands.

First of all, I wasn't entirely accurate that the explanation about Witch that I quoted was the earliest statement that concurrent abilities happen in turn order. This is from the base game rules:

"If an ability of a card affects multiple players, and the order matters, resolve that ability for each affected player in turn order, starting with the player whose turn it is."

So that answers the hypothetical "when-gain Embargo" and IGG case. The next thing, several concurrent abilities for one player. This is given in the Seaside rules:

"If multiple cards resolve at the same time on your turn [...], you choose what order to resolve them. A card that affects multiple players during your turn still resolves in player order, affecting you first if it affects all players and then proceeding clockwise."

But this doesn't address several concurrent abilities for a player who isn't the current player. Who chooses then? The Hinterlands rules make it explicit that the rule from Seaside applies even when it's not your turn:

"When two things happen to a player at the same time, that player picks the order to do them."

The only examples I can think of when this happens to a not-current player, is Reaction cards. You can choose which order to resolve your Reaction cards when another player plays an Attack for instance. Can anyone think of other examples?

1112
Rules Questions / Re: Need confirmation about Embargo + IGG
« on: September 04, 2012, 05:37:55 am »
Yes, I and if I play Witch in a four player game, with one Curse left, I don't get to choose what player gets the Curse. It's the player to my left. This is from the rule book of the base game.

"If there aren't enough Curses left to go around when you play the Witch, you deal them out in turn order starting with the player after you."

So that's probably the earliest statement of that rule.

1113
Rules Questions / Re: Need confirmation about Embargo + IGG
« on: September 03, 2012, 07:57:14 pm »
Even if Embargo's Curse were when-gain, the buying player would get the Curse. All the gain effects (from Embargo and IGG) would be at the same time, which means they're resolved in turn order starting with the current player.

1114
Rules Questions / Re: Overgrown Estate & Market Sqare
« on: September 03, 2012, 07:31:06 pm »
The way I'm thinking about it (and have phrased it in the FAQ on BBG) is like this:

Triggering a Reaction (e.g. by revealing it) means you immediately resolve it. If the event that grants you the option of triggering the Reaction, also triggers other abilities (including other Reactions), you don't trigger the Reaction before you actually want to resolve it.

Cool that this rule is now relevant for more than the Secret Chamber/Moat scenario. :)

http://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Complete_and_All-Encompassing_Dominion_FAQ

1115
Rules Questions / Re: Farmland & Overgrown Estate
« on: September 03, 2012, 07:10:28 pm »
I don't think so, no. Farmland says "When you buy this, trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly $2 more than the trashed card." So first you trash, then you gain, that's the order things happen. OE says " When you trash this, +1 Card." So when you trash it, you get a card; since the trashing happens before the gaining, you draw the card before the gaining.

True. OE's ability happens "when you trash this", which mean immediately upon trashing it. While - as ftl said - Farmland (when buying it) has two instructions: First trash a card, then gain a card.

1116
Dark Ages Previews / Re: Dark Ages online
« on: September 02, 2012, 05:40:44 pm »
If you're that antsy to play it online, go sign up for the beta.

Man, I wish it was that simple. I signed up on goko.com several weeks ago, still haven't heard anything.

1117
Rules Questions / Re: Counterfeit Questions
« on: August 31, 2012, 03:21:40 am »
Mandarin and Silver are already in play ($5 on the table)

D'oh! Forgot that the cards you listed were in play somehow.

1118
Rules Questions / Re: Dominion Complete Annotated Rules FAQs
« on: August 31, 2012, 01:49:40 am »
I have now updated the Complete and All-Encompassing Dominion FAQ with everything from Dark Ages.
As before I've looked through all posts by Donald to find any rulings or special explanations.

http://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Complete_and_All-Encompassing_Dominion_FAQ

1119
Rules Questions / Re: Possession Turn Order
« on: August 31, 2012, 12:11:04 am »
I see that my FAQ was referenced earlier in this thread, but I'm kinda sad it didn't lead to the correct resolution of the problem. If you guys look in section 21. Clarifications and errata under "Possession", you will find an item that says the following:
  • Clarification: If Outpost or Possession is played on a Possession turn, and another turn is in queue to happen (from a card played before this turn), follow 19.4 Timing of several concurrent abilities. As stated there, in between turns the player who last had a turn is considered to be the current player, but if that player was Possessed on that turn, the Possessor still makes decisions for that player between turns (such as whether to play an Outpost turn or Possession turn first).
http://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Complete_and_All-Encompassing_Dominion_FAQ

There is also a source, which is probably the ruling AJD was looking for.

1120
Rules Questions / Re: Counterfeit Questions
« on: August 30, 2012, 09:12:03 pm »
2x Inn, Watchtower, Menagerie, Laboratory, Mandarin, Silver in play. In hand: 2x Counterfeit, 2x HOP
Play Counterfeit
--Play Counterfeit #2
  --Play HOP: Gain Mandarin.  Silver, both Counterfeits, and the HOP return to the top of the deck.
  --Play (virtual) HOP: Gain Inn, shuffle deck.
    --Game cannot find HOP for Counterfeit #2 to trash.
--Play (virtual) Counterfeit #2
  --Play HOP #2: Gain Mandarin.  HOP returns to top of deck.
  --Play (virtual) HOP #2: Gain Duchy. Game cannot find HOP that would trash itself.
    --Game cannot find HOP for Counterfeit #2 to trash.
  --Game cannot find Counterfeit #2 for Counterfeit #1 to trash.
Buy Province.  Actions are discarded.

It's a bit ridiculous, but yeah, I think that can really be the only ruling...

Seems right, except how could you afford a Province? Didn't you only produce $3? Maybe you meant to play the Silver first, but you're still $3 short.

1121
Rules Questions / Re: Durations and cleanup
« on: August 30, 2012, 08:53:19 pm »
Yep. Also check out my FAQ, that explains that and gives sourced examples of what that means in practice: http://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Complete_and_All-Encompassing_Dominion_FAQ

1122
Rules Questions / Re: Remaking, Developing and Farmlanding Potion Cards
« on: August 30, 2012, 08:48:37 pm »
The potential misunderstanding, which the grid thing doesn't adress (I think), is based in grammar.

"A card costing exactly [1 coin] more"
This is the intended reading. It answers the question "How much more can the card cost?"

"A card costing [exactly 1] coin more"
This is the wrong reading. It answers the question "How many more coins can the card cost?"
A cost of $4 is after all one more coin than a cost of $3P.

It's not readily apparent that the second reading is wrong. But if you think about the consequences it might be, because it wouldn't only mean that you could upgrade a $3P into a $4: you could also upgrade a $2 into a $3P!

1123
Rules Questions / Re: Inn and Masquerade
« on: August 30, 2012, 08:14:57 pm »
You can only gain stuff from the supply (or trash), not from other players directly.

Not sure if that's a rule, but it seems like there are no current cards that let you gain directly from another player, no.
You can gain from supply, from trash, or from a pile like Prizes, Madman, Spoils... So any "communal" pile basically.

1124
Dark Ages Previews / Re: Band of Misfits rules questions
« on: August 30, 2012, 11:22:37 am »
You get to gain 2 cards costing up to 5 and you trash the BOM-as-feast after gaining the first one. Then you get to pick another card to play twice. Then you trash the BOM-as-TR and gain a card costing 6.

Is that right?

Seems right to me. The only difference from straight Procession:TR:Feast is that you gain a $6 card because of how Procession on BoM works (which is in the FAQ).

The Throne Room doesn't look into the trash to make sure Feast is still a Feast.

How can you tell?

The Throne Room doesn't know that's where the Feast should be; the Throne Room just moved the Feast to in play, and so would expect to find it there.

This seems to be the common misunderstanding of the lose-track rule again. Feast not being where TR expects it to be just prevents it from moving it, nothing else. I think that maybe the term "losing track" is causing the confusion. What's really happening is that TR is telling you to move it from one specific place to another specific place. You can't since it's not in the first specific place. Then TR is telling you to follow the instructions on the card. Since you know where the card is and can see the instructions, you can.

Following the discussion onward after my first post here, I found the intuition of some of us is so radically different than another some of us. It all boils down to what "play a card twice" means. To some of us (including myself) it is talking about a physical card; to some others it is talking about the text of a card. To some of us (including myself) the feasibility of TR-Feast is reasoned by trashed-card-is-still-a-card; to some others it is reasoned by I-remember-the-card.

Could I call the split of us "matter group" and "memory group"?

I think that could be right. Then I would be part of "matter group".
What almost seems to contradict that is that BoM as Feast works at all, since by the time you get to "gain a card costing up to $5" it's not a Feast anymore! Still it's clear that once you play the card, you have to follow all the instructions. But I do think that "this", "it", "the card" etc. always refer to a physical card in Dominion. For instance, it's the reason a wording like "while this is in play" makes any sense.

1125
Dark Ages Previews / Re: Band of Misfits rules questions
« on: August 29, 2012, 06:18:33 pm »
Okay, so you try to play BoM while it's in the trash. The two things happen, then you play it as Feast for instance (could be anything). But when does the set-up effect happen? Doesn't it actually happen before you even get to playing it, so that it never becomes Feast? Remember, the effect was set up before play, and will trigger the instant the card is not in play. If that is the case, then you never get to play it as Feast. It will still be played, but as a straight BoM, which does nothing (same as playing BoM with no card cheaper than it in supply). I think this is the correct way of looking at it.

My point is that the card doesn't have to "be" Feast for it to be played "as" Feast. The "play... as" and "until it leaves play" clauses are two in-principle independent effects.

I see. Well, now we're getting into exactly what Band of Misfits does again. Partially you have to think about the intention of the card to understand how it works. That is partially what I did to figure out that it had to trigger before-play and then set up an effect to happen when it's no longer in play.

So does the first effect actually mean that it's played as a Feast without necessarily being a Feast? The second effect then would actually do two things: It makes the BoM a Feast and it sets up the effect to turn it back to a BoM. Remember also that the first effect makes you play it "as if it were" the chosen Action card. It's not just the card text that's followed: the whole card is copied, including name, types and cost. (If you were to play the Feast as an Attack card it would trigger an Urchin in play for instance.) So it seems pretty clear to me that the part in the second instruction that says that BoM "is that card" clarifies how the first instruction works, i.e. playing the BoM-as-Feast means it is a Feast. Although the second instruction does set up an effect, I don't think the two instructions are wholly independent of each other.
[EDIT: Donald has actually said the same thing, in this thread! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4083.msg87477#msg87477]

Having read the entire thread I don't see why there is such an issue here. I think it would be really sad if some kind of special ruling was deemed necessary, the situation does not seem so complex.

Perhaps you can make a compelling argument that you don't get to BoM-Feast twice, or that when you Procession-BoM you don't get to replace your trashed BoM with a $6 action. However, I really cannot see that it is intuitive to play that way. Firstly, and by my count most importantly, I do not think it is in the spirit of the cards played to deny the second Feast - it seems counterintuitive

Actually I think this might be the most complex card interaction I've seen so far in Dominion.

I do agree with you that it's in the spirit of the card that it lets you BoM-Feast twice with TR, and it's probably the intuitive interpretation for most people. However that you get a $6 Action with Procession-BoM is not so apparently intuitive for everybody, but in any case it's covered in the FAQ.

Anyway, it was important to me that it wasn't only intuitive, but that it was according to known rules about Dominion, not least of all because I maintain a FAQ on BGG where I try to include all known rulings.

So if you TR on BoM as mining village, you would gain 4 coin if you selected the "trash this card for 2 coin" option both times.  Is that correct?

No, the point of the current ruling is that Throning a BoM-as-Feast or BoM-as-Mining Village, is the same as Throning a Feast or Mining Village.
[EDIT: Okay, this was answered.]

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45] 46 47 48

Page created in 0.1 seconds with 19 queries.