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 ... 54
Rules Questions / Re: Possession question
« on: August 11, 2014, 12:04:23 pm »
I don't think the question has been answered. Both the turns waiting to happen (P2's turn and P3's turn) are Possession turn.
To answer the question, yes this is a "timing conflict". There are two turns happening at the same time. So P2's second turn being Possessed happens first, then P3's turn being Possessed.

Rules Questions / Re: Discarding down to X cards
« on: August 11, 2014, 11:18:42 am »
I think it's more natural to discard one at a time to Militia, given the phrasing; especially considering it lines up with Library etc. This could give you an infinite loop with "when you discard this, +1 card" and well that card doesn't exist. I'd rather not have a special ruling and with no special ruling and nothing in the rulebooks, "discard down to 3" sounds to me like I keep discarding until I have 3 (or fewer dammit). However you don't need to reveal the cards below the top one because somehow the rulebook says this.

Other discards are all at once; but the cards are discarded in a particular order, since, being cards, they have to be.

Yes my proposal for the online version for Militia etc. doesn't work the same way; to be correct it would need a special case for hands with both Tunnel and Watchtower. Or to be safe (in case a future card interacted with this stuff), it should do "down to" discarding one at a time but the others in a lump.

Hmm, I thought you always discarded cards from your hands all at once (although you can choose the order first). See this post:

If you discard one card at a time to Militia, it means you can discard a Tunnel, reveal it, gain a Gold, reveal Watchtower to topdeck the Gold, and then discard the Watchtower as the second Militia card. So is this allowed? To me that would be a little wonky, because then you'd be allowed to do this Tunnel-Watchtower trick with Milita, but not with Minion.

Rules Questions / Re: gain prohibition with Knights
« on: August 11, 2014, 11:03:40 am »
Consider a duration card called Barricade.  While you have a Barricade in play, you cannot gain Curses or Ruins.

If you buy a Poor House while you have a Haggler in play, you follow Haggler's instructions. Because you can't gain Ruins or Curses and the Copper pile is empty, you are not able to do everything Haggler tells you to do.

A more interesting question is this:
What if the Copper pile isn't empty? Can you choose to gain a Curse, and fail to gain it because of Barricade, effectively gaining nothing? Or do you have to choose Copper?

Normally, if a card says, "gain a card costing $4", you're only allowed to choose cards costing $4. You can't choose a card costing $3 and then fail to gain it because it doesn't cost $4. You have to gain a card costing $4 if one is in Supply. You could say the same thing here, you have to choose a card in Supply which conforms to the current restrictions, so you can't choose Curse.

However, since the best wording, and the way Donald explained would be the way to handle this kind of restrictions, is, "when you would gain a Curse or a Ruins, you don't", the answer is clear. You can choose a Curse, and then fail to gain it, effectively gaining nothing.

Goko Dominion Online / Re: Goko Dominion Salvager Discussion
« on: February 04, 2014, 10:41:45 pm »
Recently the after-game log stopped working. The normal Goko log shows up instead. I'm using Chrome on Windows 7. It used to work before.
I tested it now on my old computer, which still runs Windows XP, and for some reason the log works there in Chrome.

Anybody else experience this?

Rules Questions / Re: Procession on a Band of Misfits as a Fortress?
« on: October 31, 2013, 09:49:34 am »
Trash the fortress - it goes back into your hand instead of the trash. Also it revers back to being a BoM.

Except that it's not "instead of". It does get trashed (which can matter), and then moves from Trash to your hand.

Rules Questions / Re: Band of Misfits, no cheaper cards in supply
« on: October 31, 2013, 09:46:04 am »
The question hasn't been addressed so far: The BoM text states how to play a card, not what happens after it's played. (That the infamous TR/KC argument even exists is evicende that something happens at a different time.) This is different from any other action card. Others get played, then do something, BoM does something during getting played and also prevents you from playing it normally. If the "does something during getting played" fails, why can you still play it normally, even though it wasn't allowed before? Merely the rules allowing to play actions taking precedence over action cards' effects overrulings against their own play?

I'll try to explain it, as I see it.

BoM's instructions are best seen as (1) an instruction to choose a card (costing less) before you play the BoM, and then (2) to let the BoM be that card while it's in play.
But even BoM's before-play ability can't be triggered until you actually will play the card. Compare with Trader: "When you would gain a card, you may reveal this..." You have to reveal it before the gain happens, actually before the to-be-gained card even leaves Supply, BUT you're not allowed to reveal Trader unless you were about to gain the card. It's the same with BoM: You have to choose a card before you play BoM, but you're not allowed to do so (or even start following any instructions on BoM) unless you're about to play it. So you've already started the process of playing BoM. So even though you can't choose a card, you will play the BoM. Even letting you get to that first instruction means that you're in the process of playing it. And there is no "if you do" here: Failing the before-play instruction doesn't mean the play itself is cancelled.

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Missing vanilla
« on: July 08, 2013, 12:03:45 am »
That's interesting. I had a feeling when I made this thread that a card like this might be mostly usable in a kingdom with TR/KC and no +actions. But still a terminal with +3 cards and some coins seems kind of interesting. Reducing it to +2 cards was just something I threw in there at the end, but for such a card to have merit it has to be an engine enabler so it must draw 3 cards. Giving +$2 as I also originally suggested seems the most interesting, but the problem could be that it can't be priced in any reasonable way. But I also think "+3 cards, +$1" could have been an interesting $6 card. That Hunting Room exists (a drawer at $6) lends merit to this idea. Neither Rinkworks' old post, Donald or the community tests cover these possibilities.

Hmm, how about something like: "+3 cards, +$2. Each other player may discard a card. If he does, he draws a card." - for $6. It's a great benefit to the other players, maybe too big.

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Missing vanilla
« on: July 07, 2013, 07:15:40 pm »
Comparing terminals:
+2 Cards (Moat) and +$2 (Duchess) are both worth $2.
+3 Cards is worth $4, while +$3 is too good for $5.

Moat and Duchess are not good examples, for obvious reasons. What's clear is that both terminal +2 Cards and terminal +$2 are worth less than $2 - you wouldn't normally even buy a card just doing that. But good point about +3 Cards being worth less than +$3. I'm not sure that +$3 is worth more than $5 though. What the official game says depends on whether you consider Mandarin's topdecking a nerf or not I guess. Horse Traders gives +$3 and a buy, for $4, but you have to discard two of course. But a terminal $5 just giving +$3? In big money with no Smithy you would buy a couple, sure, when you didn't get $6, but you'd rather have Gold so you could buy other terminals (Chancellor or Navigator or whatever).

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Missing vanilla
« on: July 07, 2013, 04:45:09 pm »
Hmm, lots of conflicting opinions. I always thought that generally +1 card was better than +$1. For instance Lab would be a weak $5 cost with "+$2, +1 Action"; just compare with Mystic.

I also disagree that money is better than cards for terminals. Of course it all depends on what else the card does. But +$2 is usually pretty weak on terminals, that's why those terminals always do something else important (like an attack). The few terminals giving +$3 (Harvest, Mandarin) are just pretty weak usually. But there's a huge difference between a terminal drawing 2 cards and one drawing 3 cards.

Obviously pricing "+3 cards, +$2" at $5 (my OP) was way off. But I'm surprised that the consensus on "+2 cards, +$2" apparently is $6 or $7. It seems like a reasonable $5 to me. "+3 cards, +$1" could probably be a $6. And "+3 cards, +$2" would be $7 (or too good to price right).

That Grand Market is so expensive but only gives one more $1 than Market, is not relevant to this discussion I think, because you can't compare terminals and non-terminals that way. I'm trying to say that $1 is a bigger bonus for non-terminals than for terminals. But still, I did say that "+3 cards, +$1" should be $6, costing $2 more than Smithy. Not sure if that is a little too expensive though. Might be that it needs to be a nerfed $5 or something.

Variants and Fan Cards / Missing vanilla
« on: July 06, 2013, 10:31:38 pm »
I just played a game with Throne Room and no card giving +action. The other guy tried making a TR+Masq engine (with Witch). It didn't work, but I thought maybe it could have if one of the drawers gave +coins so you wouldn't have to gum it up with Silver and Gold.

Then I realized that there are no terminal drawers that give +coins. There's Vault, but it draws and then discards for the coins. Also there's Trusty Steed, which can be used that way (but most often isn't), but it doesn't count, since you can't build a strategy around a card that you might get one copy of well into the game.

There aren't even any non-terminal cards that give +coins and draws more than one card. (+1 card +coins: Peddler, Market, Grand Market, Bazaar, Treasury, activated Conspirator, level 3 City).

Anyway, I think Dominion is really missing this vanilla card:

+3 Cards

It might be too good for a $5 cost. Maybe either make it cost $6, or just +2 Cards, whichever would be more balanced. Haven't playtestet obviously. (Also, I suspect this has already been suggested as a fan card. I just can't be bothered to look through everywhere.)

Rules Questions / Re: Throne Room/King's Court/Procession + Outpost
« on: June 29, 2013, 11:48:51 pm »
I was able to scrounge up a direct quote about haven and no card however:

Does the "until the end of the turn in which they have effect" clause mean that, if I play Haven but have no cards to draw and my hand is empty, I should clean up Haven at the end of that turn?

Okay, that settles it then. Thanks. I'll add it to the FAQ eventually.

Rules Questions / Re: Throne Room/King's Court/Procession + Outpost
« on: June 25, 2013, 02:30:30 pm »
Effects are immediate though. Haven's full effect is:
+1 card, +1 action, (select a card from your hand and set it aside face down), at the start of next turn, put it into your hand

If there is no IT (no card in your hand to choose from), then that specific haven effect (the one that makes it a duration) has failed, and thus throne room is not doubling its effect.

Consider playing a haven on its own. If as you say it's setting up an effect next turn no matter what, then a haven played with no cards in hand (without any modifier) would NOT be discarded during this turn's clean-up.
If you have no card in your hand to set aside when you play Haven, you set aside nothing, and clean up Haven at the end of that turn; it does not stay out.

If haven can fail by itself, then it surely can fail on the second throne roomed play, thus leaving haven in play while its modifier throne room is discarded.

Absolutely, I was considering the case of one Haven "failing" and the case of TR+Haven "failing" the second time, as equal. If the first case doesn't cause Haven to stay in play then the second case doesn't cause TR to stay in play. But I'm not sure that not having a card to set aside, means that you don't set up an effect. Tactician is unambiguous; it doesn't even tell you to set up an effect if you don't discard. Haven always tells you to. I see that the wiki says that the Haven doesn't stay, but no source is given. The Seaside rulebook doesn't mention it. I can't see that this can be resolved without a quote from Donald.

See my example earlier in this thread with Masochist, which is Donald's own example. Nobody has addressed this.

I wasn't quite sure how to address this, and it seemed like you were agreeing with me insofar as the logic is concerned. Where you lost me is when you were talking about what was supposed to be happening, because I haven't seen any rules/rulings starting why that would be.

Yes, I was agreeing with you. I was making two points. First, what is supposed to happen, according to Donald's own words. See the post I linked to. Second, that logically I can find no fault with your argument, meaning that Donald's intention doesn't seem to be what logically happens. And I was using the example of Masochist to illustrate this.

So, since we agree about this, I didn't go through the rest of your post. I assume that it's correct. :)

Rules Questions / Re: Throne Room/King's Court/Procession + Outpost
« on: June 17, 2013, 11:30:31 am »
Tactician that didn't make you discard your hand, does not stay in play. Outpost always stays in play.

I'm not so sure that Haven would work like Tactician in that it only stays in play if it has an unresolved effect. I think it's probably more like Outpost. Tactician specifically says "if you discarded", so if you didn't discard, you just don't do the next part of the sentence, so no effect is set up. Haven on the other hand, tells you, no matter what, to do something next turn. The problem is of course that it tells you to put the set-aside card into your hand, and that card might not exist, even at the time you set up this effect. So the question is whether you fail to set up the effect because the card doesn't exist, or whether you set it up and then only see that it doesn't exist at the time you resolve it. I'm guessing the latter, but don't know for sure.

you do get multiple effects from outpost,

Both of them; drawing three cards at the end of this turn, and getting an extra turn. How this works has been shown in this thread, and there are links to posts from Donald.

(Which means that "All durations stay in play until the end of the turn in which they have their last effect" is actually wrong. They stay in play until the cleanup after they had their last effect. This only matters for Outpost, though, as it is the only Duration that can cause you to do something the same turn it's played but after cleaning up)

The Seaside rulebook does say that: "Leave the card in front of you until the Clean-up Phase of the last turn in which it does something (discard it before drawing for the following turn)."

So i'd say it goes like this:
7. This turn you won't draw up to only 3 cards, as you allready did that twice during your last turn. (The two instances of the effects are not splitted for two turns.) You'd still make an extra turn, if that was allowed. It isn't, and TR can "see" that now, so Outposts effects have all been resolved. Discard it and Throne Room.

Why would TR "see" anything? The point that has been made is that the second extra turn has not been resolved yet, so there is no reason that TR+Outpost should be cleaned up. The extra turn will happen after this turn, after clean-up is already done. Only then do you check whether you get the extra turn, because of the condition that it fails if you've already had two consecutive turns. See my example earlier in this thread with Masochist, which is Donald's own example. Nobody has addressed this.

Rules Questions / Re: Throne Room/King's Court/Procession + Outpost
« on: June 12, 2013, 12:47:00 am »
I think you bring up a great point. At least I can't immediately see anything wrong with your reasoning.

I'm fairly certain that the intention from Donald on how to deal with several Outposts (or TR+Outpost etc) is to leave them all in play until the next turn, and then to discard them all at the end of that turn, just as you would with a single Outpost.

But I really can't see that it would work that way. Lets look at this post, that you've quoted from:
Donald gives an example of a "ridiculous" card that goes "The player to your left takes an extra turn after this one, before any other extra turns for other players." Taking this card (let's call it Masochist) as an example, it seems that it has to work like you're describing it:

I play two Outposts. They both stay in play during clean-up. I get an extra turn, during which I play a Masochist. During clean-up in that turn, one Outpost has no more effects and gets discarded. The other one stays, because its extra turn hasn't happened yet. Now you get your extra turn from Masochist, as it will happen before the Outpost turn. After that the second Outpost tries to give me its extra turn. It succeeds. If I had not played the Masochist, the second Outpost would fail at that point (and so would get discarded in the clean-up of my next normal turn).

But as I said I think it's supposed to work like this: If Masochist is played as per above, it's correct as described. But if no Masochist is played, both Outposts get discarded in the clean-up of your first (and only) extra turn. But it's really hard to see how the Outpost knows that a Masochist was played at the moment the Outpost is supposed to be discarded. According to Donald's own words, it fails or succeeds to give an extra turn at the moment when it's supposed to do so, and only because it checks how many consecutive turns you've had, as per the card's text. And that is after the turn, not during clean-up.

Rules Questions / Re: Multiple Possessions
« on: May 31, 2013, 08:49:53 pm »
The first answer given here was wrong.

Yes, in the example two things are about to happen at the same time. But since it's happening to different players, we go in turn order starting with the active player. It's only when several things happen to the same player that he decides the order. So it sounds like Goko has this right.

In between turns, if a decision has to be made, it's the player who last had a turn who decides. But if that player was possessed on that turn, it's the possessor who decides instead. This only matters for Possession + Outpost. See the FAQ in my sig for the sources for this.

Rules Questions / Re: Golem+Card Draws/+Actions
« on: May 31, 2013, 04:34:39 pm »
Thanks guys.  My confusion was that when Throne Room says to "resolve the action completely" I thought that also meant the +Actions you get.  I now see that the resolving only refers to the text below and that any bolded + items refer to your whole turn.

Others have already explained how it works thoroughly, but I just want to be explicit and say that your new interpretation here is also wrong. There is no difference between bolded "+ items" and any other instruction. Everything is done immediately and in order. The problem is rather that you were misinterpreting what "+1 Action" means.

Rules Questions / Re: Band of Misfits as Hermit?
« on: May 31, 2013, 04:25:31 pm »
I'm not so sure about that.
The Hermit text says "When you discard this from play...", which I can interpret in 2 different ways:
1. When you discard the Band of Misfits, it isn't Hermit anymore, so it doesn't have the last part of the text, and therefore isn't trashed and you don't get a Madman.
2. When you discard the Band of Misfits, 2 things tries to happen at the same time: The Hermit text and the turning back to Band of Misfits, and you can therefore choose yourself what happens.

So reading directly from the card texts, I don't see how you must trash it and gain a Madman.
Unless the "When you discard this from play..." actually means instead of discarding it, but that would be inconsistent with other parts of the game (when gain effects happens after the gaining).
But I can easily be mistaking something. Any other opinions or more explanation please?

This one is tricky, but if you read it carefully, you shouldn't need the explanation in the rulebook.

I think you're right on your second interpretation, that two effects happen when you discard it and you can choose the order of those two effect. The two effect are (1) that the card is trashed and you gain a Madman, and (2) that the card turns back into BoM. But the key thing here is that both of those effects happen after ("when") you've already discarded the card, i.e. it was a Hermit when you discarded it. So even if you choose to turn it into a BoM first, the other effect will still happen, it's already in queue. So it doesn't matter at all in which order you resolve the two effects.

Game Reports / Re: How..?!
« on: May 28, 2013, 10:57:42 am »
Looking at it again, you didn't buy any provinces since your deck contained a lot of non-income cards. This would be watchtower, spy, island, band of misfits.

Um, Spy is never in the way of Treasure.
I don't think you've looked at the log very carefully at all. Going into turn 22 he has three Provinces. he has 10 "bad" cards (counting SC and Moat - he only has 3 inns, so those cards are pretty bad), but 3 less Coppers than me though. I have 8 "bad" cards (counting BoM since I see that I misplayed it, I should have played it as Spy when it crashed). We both have 3 Silver and 3 Gold! After that he always has more "bad" cards than me (increasing amount of Victory cards) and less Treasure (I buy more Silvers). Still he manages to buy the other 5 Provinces, I none.

Having a little less Treasure early should allow me to play MB more often. Spy should also help this a little. More Inns and Watchtowers too. So even if I have a slightly worse economy then, I should at least get less Curses and Coppers, not more.

I see two mistakes I made though. Not using the BoM as Spy. And not buying Inn at the opportune moment, like he did (important). We did end up playing MBs about the same number of times though, so that evened out. The huge difference that I see looking through the log, is all the times he got Inn + Watchtower in the right order and I didn't. And he got $8 a lot, with a worse economy.

Game Reports / Re: How..?!
« on: May 28, 2013, 09:59:47 am »
you allways talk about topdecking from Inn but Inn only Shuffles the action cards in the remaining deck.

Who's "you"? I noticed that DG does that, it was probably just a slip-up. I and SheCantSayNo were talking about topdecking with Watchtower though.

Game Reports / Re: How..?!
« on: May 28, 2013, 06:06:36 am »
I seriously believe assessing the game accurately is the most productive way to go, with strategy, tactics and luck. If you don't take the amount of luck into consideration, you take away the wrong lessons. So I think we might have a disagreement there.

But thanks for your advice, I think you're right about several things, especially second MB over Inn. T7 was because there were 7 cards left in my deck, one of which was a MB (and no Inn). Topdecking in that situation seemed stupid. But I was unlucky there. So the MB missed the shuffle.

Okay, so not having as much of an economy is bad, but should effectively serve me in getting less Curses and Coppers (whether that's worth it or not), yes? So I don't think calling it cursing yourself is accurate. After a while I have more Silvers than him and just as many Golds, but of course more Coppers and Curses, so still can't buy Provinces. I can't see that there's anything wrong with this analysis.

Game Reports / Re: How..?!
« on: May 27, 2013, 09:35:53 pm »
But does that really explain anything in this game? He's pretty much got one fewer watchtowers than me throughout the game, but he's getting a moat and a SC also! That's more actions clogging up than me. Also I wasn't aiming for Gold early, I was aiming for a deck with Inns and watchtowers, so that I don't get those curses as protection. You know, the way his deck worked..?

Game Reports / How..?!
« on: May 27, 2013, 08:02:15 pm »
This is one of those games that I really don't understand.

How did I lose like this? To me it really really looks like horrible luck for me ALL THE TIME and great luck for him ALL THE TIME. To the tune of a 62-18 score.
I always have more Watchtowers than him, but he hits me almost every time. I hit him once, and then two times late game for Coppers. He buys a Moat and a SC, that I would never want to touch here. He keeps drawing Inn + Watchtower even late game, getting Province after Province. I keep getting them in the wrong order.
Am I missing something or is this really shuffle luck from hell?

Dominion General Discussion / Re: My Stupider Project: Dominicon
« on: May 25, 2013, 10:50:41 pm »
Good God, you must be trolling.

Actually I think that's you.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: My Stupider Project: Dominicon
« on: May 22, 2013, 08:32:20 pm »
Thanks for your post!

-I doubt that the wording of the lose track rule in you current rulebook is correct, especially this part the expected location, which is where the card was when the event was triggered, or where the event itself has subsequently put it. I think this is not true.

It seems you're right about this. I think that currently this only happens with cards that are played and so are supposed to be in play, because of Throne Room and similar cards. When a card is moved in any other way (gained, discarded, trashed) it either ends up where it's supposed to, or it's not <gained/discarded/trashed> at all, so it doesn't matter for triggered events. But you can actually play a card without doing the associated movement (moving the card to play). Anyway, that means my text is wrong. I need to think about how to phrase it better. The Dark Ages rulebook doesn't really satisfactorily explain "expected location" in a complete way; it just gives examples.

About this, doesn't this hold for everything? Trashing, discarding, etc. For example if you trash with chapel, you first choose all cards you trash, and then trash them, resolving the on-trash effects (so if that makes you draw cards, you can't trash those as well). It's strange you do make the choice explicit for gaining, but not for trashing.

You're right that there's no essential difference between those activities. You always choose card(s) first, then do the activity. The thing is that for gaining, there are some questions, see this thread to see what I mean:

(Whether or not choosing is presented as a separate step for trashing, doesn't have any bearing on whether you can resolve on-trash effects for each trashed card though. That is to say, even if choosing were presented as a separate step first, the actual trashing of the chosen cards could still be construed as being non-atomic. So we need a rule saying that trashing is atomic in any case.)

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Getting an early Familiar
« on: May 19, 2013, 09:39:48 pm »
I get very annoyed when my opponent opens Potion + Scheme and still gets a Familiar on the next shuffle!

So what are the odds for this? If I open Silver it's a 65.40% chance for me. And a 60.606% chance for the player who opened Scheme?

Yes. The thing is, while of course you're far less likely to draw 2p or worse, you're also less likely to draw the potion at all (he has a 1 in 11 chance, you have a 1 in 6), which offsets most of that advantage.

Right, I see now. Now I'm unsure what the best of those openings are. I'm leaning towards the Silver anyway, for a better long-term deck, and then get Schemes for $3 after that.
(Btw, the numbers you gave were of course the odds of NOT drawing the Potion...)

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45] 46 47 ... 54

Page created in 0.27 seconds with 20 queries.