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]
1101
A lot of complex replies to this one. The quoted passage from the FAQ is the clearest explanation, I think. Or maybe like this:

Remodel tells you to trash one card. Then gain a card based on the cost of the card you trashed. If you didn't trash a card, you have no basis for the second part. (So this is an implicit "if you do.")

Forge tells you to trash any number of cards from zero cards and upwards. Then gain a card based on the total cost of the trashed cards. If you trashed zero cards, the total cost is $0.

If Remodel said "Gain a card costing up to $2 more than total cost of the trashed cards" then you would gain a card costing up to $2 when trashing zero cards. The reason is that Remodel now doesn't refer to the specific card you trashed, but the cost of all the cards you trashed, which could either be one (if your hand wasn't empty) or zero (if your hand was empty).

1102
Rules Questions / Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« on: December 06, 2011, 06:31:00 am »
I guess the answer was that this only applies to cards you reveal from your hand, as a special rule. Although I was slightly confused as to why Donald didn't give a clear "yes" to AJD's post.
I addressed this already.
Yes, that reply was what slightly confused me. :)

Dominion has a special case for reactions revealed from your hand, for reasons having to do with how best to handle Secret Chamber. To be precise and clear then these reactions should be phrased differently; they aren't.
AJD said "reactions revealed from your hand" and your more accurate reply stated only Moat and Secret Chamber. But since you're now confirming that it is indeed reactions revealed from your hand, it's all good. Thanks.

1103
Rules Questions / Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« on: December 05, 2011, 10:37:24 am »
I hope Donald weighs in on this one... you seem to have a really good point, and I'm not quite sure what stops Tunnel from doing that. Actually, can't you say the exact same thing about the "When gain" cards? They aren't listed as reactions, but they do react to being gained. So, when you gain Border Village, what stops you from saying "I react to Border Village being gained by gaining Torturer. Now I react to Border Village being gained by gaining a Torturer again."

The wording seems to be the exact same. "When another player plays an attack card." "When you gain this." Both are things you can do "when something happens." Why can you do one of them only once, but the other multiple times?

It's funny, I was also thinking about this a while ago. If you can reveal a reaction from your hand several times when something happens, why can't you reveal a Tunnel several times when discarding it? Then that question becomes: when a card tells me to gain a card a card when something happens, why can't I do that several times? Which leads to: when Goons tells me to gain a VP when I buy a card, why can't I do that several times (effectively gaining infinite VPs)? Which even ultimately means: why can't I do what a card tells me to do several times (even without TR/KC), since the effect of a card is an event that happens when you play it? :)

I guess the answer was that this only applies to cards you reveal from your hand, as a special rule. Although I was slightly confused as to why Donald didn't give a clear "yes" to AJD's post. Does it only apply to Secret Chamber and Moat? I thought it also applied to Trader and Watchtower? As of now I take it Secret Chamber is the only one where it would have a point. But there could be future cards.

1104
Before the change to last 30 days, I had around 1200 games played. Now, after the new change, I have 644. So it's definitely not changed back to the way it was.

1105
If a future card comes out that makes the duration card order matter, then the code can be changed to allow the user to specify the order.
Exactly. We're in agreement on this. That was my point regarding Scheme. It doesn't matter now whether you click none or a duration that won't be cleaned up.

1106
The very fact that it is susceptible to mistakes is why Isotropic should allow it, I think.
Right! This is what I was saying in the other thread. It seems for some/most people it boils down to: it has to be allowed in case the user makes a mistake. So the reason the choice is there (according to this argument) is to trick you.

With multiple durations, you have no choice that results in a different outcome.
Not now, but who knows with future cards? Same as people are saying with Scheme, who knows with future cards -- there might be a case where giving this choice actually matters (except for making the user possibly click wrong). Anyway, the other example is that isotropic, for convenience, doesn't let you choose which card to put on top when you discard, and this does make a difference, however small. (It actually sometimes lists openly all your discarded cards, sometimes none of them.)

1107
Btw, here's another thing that isotropic does wrong for the sake of convenience: It doesn't let you you choose the order to execute previous durations at the beginning of your turn. If it were to follow the rules literally, we should have to click for each and every card. Haven't heard anybody complain about this. The difference of course is that doing it that way would be more inconvenient but not susceptible to mistakes, while the way Scheme is implemented is both more inconvenient and susceptible to mistakes.

1108
Sorry, no of course you're right. I was thinking of Secret Chamber.

1109
It's not always useless to show Moat more than once.

What the card literally says: I'm not at all sure that's such a great reason in this case. But I said a lot about these things (including the Moat comparison) in the other thread, and gave my reasons pretty thoroughly.

1110
Rules Questions / Re: Horse Traders Question
« on: November 15, 2011, 10:28:45 am »
I like this question because indeed it does seem there are two ways to interpret the phrase "Discard two cards":
1) "Discard one card. Discard another card." (the interpretation we do use in Dominion)
or
2) "Discard two cards, and if you can't discard exactly two, consider this operation undoable." -- i.e., the discarding of exactly two cards is itself a unit of action.

But 2) is sorta unintuitive, I think, and in any case not how Dominion operates.
And on the occasions that it does, it specifically does so: it says things like "Discard two cards. If you do, +$3 +1 Buy".
This is still not like Brando Commando was describing. You would still discard one card if you only had one card in hand. The "if you do" part is something else.

1111
I also thought originally that isotropic let me return the duration card, because that's what it said. After trying it I understood that it lets me pick the card but not return it. So the text is misleading. I started this thread about it: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=957.0

I can't really see why there's a need to even give the option of picking these cards, but as you can see in that thread the game designer himself disagrees. (The only valid reason given is that that's what the card literally says.)

1112
Dominion Isotropic / Re: Bug with Scheme and with Inn
« on: November 12, 2011, 10:52:41 pm »
Well 1) perhaps you can understand why making an absolute statement, having it be corrected and saying no really you're right, and then saying "oh yeah I also meant something else too" is not the height of clear communication;
Sure. Since my posts tend to be long, as I mostly cover every contingency and aspect I can think of (which oftentimes people don't bother replying to anyway, as in this thread), sometimes I censor myself if I think that would actually be clearer. Clearly that was not a good call here. At the same time, perhaps you can see why saying that it isn't so, without explaining or giving any examples of what that means, thereby giving me no new information to go on, isn't the height of clear communication either.

and 2) in fact as has been pointed out in this thread already, you can also have a duration card that does not stick around (Tactician played with no cards to discard), and for those situations you easily might want to play and pick one of them (buying Peddler). Hooray for isotropic not doing something stupid like not letting you pick duration cards played this turn!
Okay, then I give in. I was wrong. I just didn't know about that Tactician behavior, and I managed to miss the reference to it in this thread. I read the post about a "philosophical discussion" but not carefully enough to get that it was about actual Tactician behavior. I've always thought that all duration cards stay until the next turn.

Again, an excellent answer is, because that is the way Doug Z. did it, a man who pays for a server so that people can complain about his free implementation of Dominion.

You should switch to complaining about how the commercial version will work. I am betting it will let you pick an action that won't actually be discarded.
Hmm, please don't accuse me of complaining about isotropic. I was merely pointing out bugs or things that are misleading. Lots of people have done the same thing in lots of threads. Are they all complaining and should shut up because isotropic is free? I'm guessing Doug has fixed some bugs because of those threads (or maybe just because people have emailed him directly?), but of course he isn't obligated to do so. But since this had already been done in this forum lots of times, I thought it was okay to do so.

As I've already said, I'm not writing all these posts in this thread because I'm trying hard to get Doug to do anything. I just didn't agree with the reasons given by people in this thread (not by Doug, who hasn't written in this thread) for why the Scheme behavior had to be that way in the first place. I wrote this the last time you accused me of this: "To be clear: I'm not advocating trying to convince Doug to do anything. I'm sure he knows about most of the bugs already -- it seems there are a few of them with the new cards -- and are fixing them as he sees fit. And the things in this thread are, as I noted in my first post, minor. I just took issue with some of the posters' arguments for why Scheme couldn't have been implemented any other way anyway." I meant that then and I mean it now!

Anyway, because of the Tactician behavior, I see that this is not so cut-and-dry, and I admit that it probably has to be the way it now. (Except of course that the on-screen instruction is misleading, and should ideally talk about choosing a card instead of returning a card.)

EDIT: Tried it now, and a Tactician that doesn't discard anything, is actually marked with "old" in the list of choices for Scheme, even though it's played this turn. Interesting. It seems the way isotropic handles this, it wouldn't actually present a problem as far as hiding any "new" durations, since that Tactician isn't included among them. Again: Not saying it's worth it to fix this! Not saying it should be fixed! Not saying it's even remotely important compared to actual bugs! Not saying Doug should fix any bugs if he doesn't want to! Not saying isotropic isn't a great resource for all fans of Dominion! Phew.

1113
Dominion Isotropic / Re: Bug with Scheme and with Inn
« on: November 12, 2011, 08:49:41 am »
Except that there's no additional overhead for the way it is now, because that's the way it is now. This would be a change. Changes require work.
Of course. Man I don't think this was what people were arguing when they were talking about "added overhead". We're talking about why it could or couldn't have been different in the first place. Of course any change requires work.  :P

In fact that is not the case. I will just tell you, Throne Room and King's Court stay in play with the duration cards they were used on. They are not duration cards. This has been brought up in this thread already but there you go. I could not consider a phrasing like "choose a non-duration card" for Scheme because it would have done bad and confusing things with Throne Rooms.
Oh, I didn't suggest that the card text should be different. This was purely about isotropic's implementation.
I'm aware of TR/KC, I just lumped those in with durations that won't discarded in order to not make my posts even longer. (Since nobody brought them up after that one time, I assumed everybody else did this too.) I just assumed those would be marked "new" and "old" as well.

It also seems very weird to me that the ones who are saying isotropic should not behave differently on this, because it would add overhead and it's not isotropic's job to make that call for you, are all okay with adding the the "?!" warning..? This would also involve changing isotropic in a similar way, and most certainly add overhead. And then isotropic would pretty much make that judgment call for you anyway.
A ?! would be a way to help players not make a mistake. Not listing cards that Scheme irl actually lets you pick would be depriving you of an option the real game gives you. That is how those things are different. One follows the rules and one does not.
Of course. But I was saying that some people were arguing about two things: added programming overhead, and isotropic making a judgment call it shouldn't make. I don't see why these same people would be for the warning. (Interestingly, you're kinda saying what I've been saying: Clicking the new durations would be a mistake. So we're talking about an option that should be there for the only practical purpose of maybe making the user make a mistake.)

As for the argument that it's strictly correct the way it is now, and that's why it has to be that way. Why? As I've said, isotropic already does several things that are wrong according to the rules, for the sake of convenience. I alluded to this several times, but an example: It doesn't let you choose a card to be visible on top of your discard deck.

1114
Rules Questions / Re: when, exactly, do/don't I shuffle?
« on: November 11, 2011, 09:17:26 pm »
I'll also mention another related feature of isotropic. When you play a card that uses cards from the top of your deck, such as a lookout, the cards are removed from the top of your deck while the action is in progress and put back on top of the deck at the end of the action. This may seem obvious, but I was originally confused by a wishing well that wasn't forcing a reshuffle when no cards were shown left in the draw deck. The last card, the guessable card, had already been taken from the deck even though it hadn't yet been revealed, and it was put back on the deck as soon as I guessed wrong.
Aha! That explains why I've sometimes been confused when looking at the graphic representation on isotropic. (This is actually wrong though, as revealing or looking at cards doesn't technically remove them from where they are, as explained by Donald somewhere on BGG.)

1115
Dominion Isotropic / Re: Bug with Scheme and with Inn
« on: November 11, 2011, 08:48:00 pm »
To be clear: I'm not advocating trying to convince Doug to do anything. I'm sure he knows about most of the bugs already -- it seems there are a few of them with the new cards -- and are fixing them as he sees fit. And the things in this thread are, as I noted in my first post, minor. I just took issue with some of the posters' arguments for why Scheme couldn't have been implemented any other way anyway.

Except that you probably already had the code that told you whether the thing was new or old. Here you would still have to have code to check each card and say "if whatever, don't show it". Okay, not a big deal probably, but it is something you need.
The idea would be that if it was new (which you already know), then instead of putting the word "new" next to it, don't show it in the list. So probably not more overhead than there is now.

Incorrect! In fact there is no simpler way to describe the set of cards that are discarded than those words I just used to describe it in this sentence.
I now realize that Treasures can also not be discarded after playing Herbalist. I do think that when it comes to actions, there are only durations played this turn, as of now.

Going by the thought that there are only newly played durations that will be discarded, there is no judgment. The arguments that it's a judgment call that isotropic shouldn't make for you, are essentially saying that this has to be the way it is for the reason that the user should be tricked into clicking the wrong card. :) The cards are in the list just in case you screw up and click on them.

It also seems very weird to me that the ones who are saying isotropic should not behave differently on this, because it would add overhead and it's not isotropic's job to make that call for you, are all okay with adding the the "?!" warning..? This would also involve changing isotropic in a similar way, and most certainly add overhead. And then isotropic would pretty much make that judgment call for you anyway.

However, the Herbalist thing has made me realize that there are actually other cards that aren't discarded from play during clean-up, even though they aren't actions. But that means there could potentially be other such effects later. In short, I'm not so convinced anymore that this won't happen. (With two expansions left, and only one card so far doing this, Herbalist, I don't think the chances are that high though. But who knows?)

Even if there were cards in the future that let you do something with an action card in play in Clean-up, isotropic could still refrain from showing newly played durations. Isotropic already "helps" you in this way: it lets you play all treasures that won't cause any harm. It even reminds you not to play coppers if Grand Market is available. I'd say that's more of a judgment call made on your behalf.

Also, as I said, isotropic reveals cards when it shouldn't and doesn't when it should, for convenience. Are you guys against this too?

1116
Dominion Isotropic / Re: Bug with Scheme and with Inn
« on: November 11, 2011, 05:47:43 pm »
The key here is that Scheme could have said something like:

At the start of Clean-up this turn, you may choose an Action card you have in play that will be discarded this turn. When you do discard it, put it on your deck.

I think this is functionally equivalent (barring the fact that it doesn't let you choose newly played durations of course), and even if it isn't, it could be tweaked so that it is. This is just to make a point.

Donald has confirmed that the above text was the intention of the card. The reason for the wording was not to have you choose a card first and then check later if it would be discarded. The players know which cards will be discarded, and so does isotropic. It's all cards except the durations played this turn. That's the only exception to the rule. It's not a judgment call. If the card text is as above, there is no "card combination" to analyze. What I'm trying to say is that the card doesn't allow this choice for any reason other than the phrasing happened to allow it. The card text could just as easily have been as above. Then this wouldn't have been a discussion and still everyone would be happy. Isotropic would have to figure out for you which cards you could Scheme!  :o

As for the other argument, that isotropic just has to follow the card text literally no matter what.  ...Wait, is that an argument? Ok then, why?
Isotropic already does other things wrong. It routinely reveals cards when it shouldn't and doesn't when it should. This is so because doing it right would be inconvenient. Exactly.

1117
Dominion Isotropic / Re: Bug with Scheme and with Inn
« on: November 11, 2011, 03:45:59 pm »
This is just simply not comparable to revealing the same Moat multiple times, or letting you trash cards that give no benefits, or letting you play cards in a stupid order etc. Most of these are judgment calls, and from a software viewpoint, would entail adding more functionality to check which options would be good or bad for you. Let's take Forging two Colonies as an example. There are absolutely instances when you want to Forge cards into nothing. We can't expect the software to judge when you shouldn't. And in any case Forging two Colonies does something. It makes a difference in the game.

The reasons for being able to react multiple times are known. In theory isotropic could check whether there could conceivably be any reasons to keep revealing the same reaction, and of not, not offer it. I would say that would actually make the interface better. But first of all, it would mean adding more functionality, which we have no reason to expect, and secondly, it would give the player hints when the option to react does show up. (I think that last part would be a small sacrifice to make in order to make the interface smoother, but I could certainly see other valid viewpoints.)

Choosing a card you can't top deck, on the other hand, does nothing -- not compared to clicking "none". As Donald has confirmed, the reason for the card text is clarity. Not that there might be a case where you would choose a card you can't top-deck. The isotropic software already knows which cards Scheme won't work on (it conveniently marks them "new"), so it shouldn't present them as options distinct from "none".

The very idea that some of you say it should light up with the read ?!, kind of says I'm right. I can't think of any other examples where I would want that introduced, including Forging two Colonies, or playing Banks before Coppers. I'm guessing you all agree on that.

But I concede that in the event there will be introduced cards which you don't know whether you'll discard until later in the clean-up face, this might be necessary. But judging from Donald's reply, this seems very unlikely. And in any event I'm betting that Dougz has had to go back and change the behavior of old cards before when other cards were introduced.

1118
Dominion Isotropic / Re: Bug with Scheme and with Inn
« on: November 11, 2011, 12:36:43 pm »
Yup, as I said I'm aware that it's technically correct. However, even disregarding the misleading wording, why would anyone ever choose a card that won't be discarded? It's the same thing as choosing none. The only way it can ever matter that I can think of, would be if a when-choose reaction would be introduced, and I'm 99.999% sure that will never happen. So I don't understand why the choice is even there.

And I don't agree that it would be wrong to remove it. The reason the card technically allows you to choose any action card, is obviously just for phrasing reasons. It's not because there's a game mechanic that will happen when you choose a card even if you don't discard it.

1119
Dominion Isotropic / Re: Optimizing your level
« on: November 11, 2011, 11:51:54 am »
I'm pretty sure Paralyzed and Horny Toad are the same person. Each of those accounts have been playing the same setup.

Just one comment about banning cards in a tournament. It's pretty common for tournament holders to select the cards for each game, thereby effectively "banning" all the cards that weren't selected. Is this not really Dominion? In fact, in the World Championship at Essen, Donald had personally selected the cards for each of the six rounds. (Possession was one of the "banned" cards! :) )

1120
Dominion Isotropic / Bug with Scheme and with Inn
« on: November 11, 2011, 09:19:28 am »
A couple of minor bugs, or at least wrongly implemented actions.

Inn has the wrong card text on isotropic. It doesn't say to reveal the cards you want to shuffle in, only to look at them. Isotropic follows this, and doesn't reveal them. The actual card text tells you to reveal the cards.

Ok, I just discovered the following wasn't a bug, just very misleading in the user interface. Played a game where I played Lighthouse and Scheme in the same turn. Now you won't be able to top-deck a newly played duration with Scheme. Isotropic says: "optionally return an action card to your deck> Scheme, Lighthouse (new), none".
If I choose "Lighthouse (new)", nothing happens, which is actually correct. The card does say to choose an action card in play, so it's technically correct that you can choose a newly played duration. But I can't see any situation why you would, it would be the same as choosing "none". Also the isotropic instruction doesn't say "choose a card", but rather "return a card", so this seems very misleading to me. Even if you're aware of this "trick" you have to be careful to never click any duration with "(new)" next to it.

Btw, does anyone have the impression that bugs on isotropic get corrected as a result of these threads?

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45]

Page created in 0.172 seconds with 18 queries.