Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

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.

1151

Rules Questions / Re: BoM wording

« on: March 19, 2019, 04:35:59 pm »

Corner case: Vanilla bonus tokens. I'm pretty sure you still get the bonus, but if it never was that card, you wouldn't.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that you get the bonus too.

Another corner case: Moat and other Reactions. I'm pretty sure the same thing applies. BoM isn't an Attack, but it briefly becomes one.

So I think it does actually matter, but I'm not sure about that.

Maybe. The important thing is that when you play BoM "as" the chosen card, that counts as playing the card. You played a card from a pile with a token. Or you played an Attack card.

1152

Rules Questions / Re: BoM wording

« on: March 19, 2019, 12:29:57 pm »

This is Donald's ruling:

There remains the weird special case for Throne - BoM - Feast. Possibly I should drop it; the people who are never guessing how it works are never seeing it either. I guess there's still the chance to make the call as to what it means to play a card that instantly stops being itself; maybe that's fine, it still does everything, therefore Throne - BoM - Feast means you choose the second time and successfully play whatever you picked.

BoM immediately stopped being Scout, but that's okay, we still execute the instructions on Scout.

Ingix is right that it becomes the chosen card, then immediately reverts to BoM. But I think it really doesn't matter, since "immediately" means right after we trigger the on-play instructions and before we start resolving them. An Overlord in the trash will instantly revert to Overlord and be Overlord when we are resolving the on-play ability. So it will cost D8 no matter how we phrase it.

1153

Rules Questions / Re: BoM wording

« on: March 19, 2019, 10:32:51 am »

There was indeed a long discussion about this, and Donald changed the ruling at least once. The way it works is that when you play a BoM from the trash, you choose a card and get the on-play ability, but the BoM never becomes the chosen card. It's always just a BoM (or bum?) in the trash.

1154

Rules Questions / Re: Throne Room-Band of Misfits-Embargo and the lose track rule

« on: March 19, 2019, 10:24:12 am »

Ok, I read through the thread, and of course GendoIkaro had already answered what I wrote.

Would Necromancer move cards into play if we cut his "leaving it there"?

Yes, just like Vassal, Golem etc.

Throne Room actually doesn't move anything. Once the card is played the first time, it stays where it ended up. You don't pull Reserves off your mat or move Encampment back from set aside land or whatever. So when BoM ends up in the trash it's not going anywhere.

Throne Room doesn't lose track because it was never keeping track. Throne doesn't care where the card is at any point I can immediately think of.

You always try to put a card in play when you play it. TR tries to put the card into play both times. If there was a card Junk Room, "Play an Action card from your hand, trash it, then play it again", it would put the card into play the second time as long as it was able to trash it. (If the card trashed itself, Junk Room would lose track of it before it could trash it.) This is the reason Vassal and Golem put cards into play.

1155

Rules Questions / Re: Throne Room-Band of Misfits-Embargo and the lose track rule

« on: March 19, 2019, 10:00:20 am »

I haven't read all the thread, but this question goes back to the BGG thread where lose-track was first introduced. TR + Mining Village, Mining Village can't put itself into play because it expects itself to be in play. An on-play ability always expects the card to be in play. Wasn't this brought up just a few weeks ago?

EDIT: Ok, it was more than 2 months ago: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19394.0

MV doesn't try to put itself in play (its on-play effect doesn't mention the word play). However you're right that the same principle applies: MV can't trash itself because it's exepcting itself to be in play (though it's perhaps not the best example as even if it didn't lose track of itself it still couldn't trash itself because it's already in the trash).

Yes, the principle is the same because both BoM and M(ining)V try to move themselves from play as their on-play instruction. The unusual thing about BoM is that even if it's just played normally and doesn't lose track of itself, it still can't move itself into play since it's already there. But whenever you're told to play a card, you put it in play if possible (just like the OP recognizes).

The original BGG thread from 2011 also deals with the following situation: You're Possessed and play TR + MV. Now when you trash MV, it's set aside. TR plays it again (but lost track of it). MV can't trash itself now, even though it's not in trash, since it also lost track of itself.

1156

Rules Questions / Re: Throne Room-Band of Misfits-Embargo and the lose track rule

« on: March 18, 2019, 11:56:53 pm »

I haven't read all the thread, but this question goes back to the BGG thread where lose-track was first introduced. TR + Mining Village, Mining Village can't put itself into play because it expects itself to be in play. An on-play ability always expects the card to be in play. Wasn't this brought up just a few weeks ago?

EDIT: Ok, it was more than 2 months ago: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19394.0

1157

Rules Questions / Re: Overlord-Wine Merchant

« on: March 16, 2019, 03:45:42 pm »

I disagree. Under this interpretation, a once played Improve could 'improve' cards for the remainder of the game.

Improve only lets you improve a card that you discard from play "this turn".

Right, I thought about that first. But actually it's not that simple. Let's say I would discard a Smithy this turn, and I choose to trash it at the start of Clean-up this turn. At the start of Clean-up next turn, I could now choose to trash that same Smithy again. The Smithy is lost track of though, so this can't happen in practice.
This is based on a literal (and wrong) interpration of Improve where "at the start of Clean-up" does not imply "at the start of Clean-up this turn".

1158

Rules Questions / Re: Overlord-Wine Merchant

« on: March 16, 2019, 03:39:37 pm »

I disagree. Under this interpretation, a once played Improve could 'improve' cards for the remainder of the game.

So you mean because Improve doesn't say "at the start of Clean-up this turn".

Yeah, read literally it would apply to all Clean-up phases after the card was played (but it would make no difference, since you can't trash a card more than once). Encampment also says this. The implication is that they apply "this turn", but to be technically correct they should have said so. Note that Scheme (1st edition) actually did specify this, saying exactly "at the start of Clean-up this turn".

As Crj concluded, "at the end of your Buy phase" (on Wine Merchant) means any and all Buy phases. (Goons, Peddler etc. work the same way.) Based on this it would work the same way as an on-play instruction, read literally. But sure, you could also choose to assume that "this turn" is implied, like on Improve and Encampment. The problem is of course that the ability doesn't make any sense as an on-play instruction. That's why it's impossible to infer anything.

1159

Rules Questions / Re: Overlord-Wine Merchant

« on: March 16, 2019, 01:24:51 pm »

Yes, it would work beyond the current turn - and actually for the rest of the game, which would present a tracking problem. But for this card it wouldn't matter in practice that you can't track it, since you can only discard it from your Tavern mat and since you can't discard it more than once. A Goons without a dividing line on the other hand...

1160

Rules Questions / Re: Overlord-Wine Merchant

« on: March 15, 2019, 10:15:37 pm »

Irrelevant sidetrack time: It would actually work if there were no dividing line on the Wine Merchant.

1161

Rules Questions / Re: Inn and Watchtower

« on: March 11, 2019, 05:39:29 pm »

This is an old ruling, which is also most likely the reason it works like that in Dominion Online: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1028.msg16408#msg16408

1162

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.

« on: March 09, 2019, 09:20:14 am »

Well, almost all the rules confusion that has stemmed from Inheritance and Band of Misfits has been because of cards changing in the middle of a turn (which is avoided with Capitalism and Necromancer, for different reasons). Crj's hypothetical Landmark has the same problem with Transmute, Ironworks etc.

1163

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.

« on: March 08, 2019, 05:44:49 pm »

e.g., my inherited estate is a certain card and your inherited estate is a different card

Or more relevant, my Estate is a certain card right before I trash it and a different card right after.

1164

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Star Chart and the new shuffle rule

« on: February 27, 2019, 12:49:50 pm »

With Stash you don't get to see the cards you're shuffling. That's why Stash has a different back.
Edit: That's not really the reason of course. In any case you wouldn't be allowed to see the cards after shuffling.

1165

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Star Chart and the new shuffle rule

« on: February 27, 2019, 12:33:54 pm »

I'm almost positive this is the only affected card (plus old Stash). As you imply, with Star Chart you get to see all the other cards -- the ones you don't have left in your deck -- so at least you have a lot more info than you would with old Stash under the new shuffling rule.

1166

Dominion General Discussion / Re: A Question About First-Player Advantage

« on: February 27, 2019, 12:19:29 pm »

Yeah, the added randomness is pretty much the only reason I prefer a lower player count in Dominion.

1167

Dominion General Discussion / Re: A Question About First-Player Advantage

« on: February 26, 2019, 08:14:35 pm »

Ok, I see. Yeah, I thought something had to be inaccurate in the way it was described, but I couldn't figure out what.

1168

Dominion General Discussion / Re: A Question About First-Player Advantage

« on: February 26, 2019, 07:10:28 pm »

markus says:



[fixed from earlier version]

I'm probably dumb, I don't get these stats. They seem to say that out of 43,898 games, P1 won 3,419 games. But that would be crazy.

1169

Rules Questions / Re: Face Down requirement for Knights and Ruins?

« on: February 25, 2019, 11:58:49 am »

I agree about Knights, but for Ruins I have definitely always just kept them face-up, while telling people to try to not reveal the next one. That usually works out, and it would almost never matter anyway if one was accidentally revealed.

1170

Rules Questions / Re: Face Down requirement for Knights and Ruins?

« on: February 22, 2019, 02:13:57 pm »

Hhelibebcnofnena wrote the correct rules for Ambassador. The rules are exactly what the card says. You put up to 2 copies from your hand to the supply pile. So if you want to return 2, they both have to have the same name (of course also matching the one you revealed). Then each other player gains a copy from the supply; again this means the same name.

1171

Rules Questions / Re: Debt clarification

« on: February 22, 2019, 02:04:19 pm »

There is not need the clarify that buying a card (or Event) that doesn't cost any $ counts as buying, since the rules already say that you do indeed buy these. In the Empires rulebook it's clear that these cards work like all other cards, you buy them using a Buy. The Alchemy rulebook says the same about Vineyard, and indeed, the Dominion rulebook says the same about Copper and Curse.

1172

Rules Questions / Re: Trashing a Gladiator that's under a Fortune?

« on: February 21, 2019, 12:01:27 am »

It's not? I guess it makes sense that is has to "have" track first, but I thought the card just had to be somewhere where it isn't expected at the time it has to be moved. I could be wrong though.

You are right about this, as we see in the famous Throne Room + Mining Village example.

But the Gladiator doesn't refer to any specific card, so it can't lose track of it. It's like when a Marauder is played, you can't choose any of the lower Ruins, but that's not because the Marauder is losing track of any particular Ruins. It's just because that's the rule, only the top card is available.

1173

Rules Questions / Re: Trashing a Gladiator that's under a Fortune?

« on: February 20, 2019, 04:13:40 pm »

Donald has confirmed earlier that you can look through split piles.

The rules do state (or imply) that you can only choose cards that are on top of piles, for instance with Band of Misfits. Given this as a rule, it's pretty clear that you can't choose to Salt the Earth a Castle hidden in the pile. It's not immediately clear that trashing a hidden Gladiator with Gladiator falls under this rule though. But Donald's ruling makes the rules consistent.

1174

Dominion Online at Shuffle iT / Re: Slow-Playing Detection?

« on: February 20, 2019, 01:17:44 pm »

This got me thinking. Isn't the behavior of slowplaying that the player uses almost max time, or at least a big percentage of max time, for each and every click? I would think it would be a pretty easy thing to identify.

I don't really like a time difference between the players. This could give false positives with very different playing styles, especially in long games (although I guess the latter could be addressed with a percentage instead of minute count).

But something along the lines of Dingan's first suggestion should work. I think the allowed time per click currently is 4 minutes. For instance, let's say you get a "mark" if you take more than 3 minutes per click 3 times in a turn (or every time if there are less than 3 clicks in the turn). You can't get marks the first two turns in a game. If you get marks for two consecutive turns, you can be force-resigned. To make sure nobody games the system by slow-playing only every other turn, the total number of marks should also matter. For instance, after 4 marks you can be force-resigned. Hmm, one problem could be that slow-playing < 3 minutes still works. To solve that, taking more than 1 minute per click 4 times in a turn could earn you half a mark; this would count towards your total only.

Another great thing about this system would be that if a player is actually force-resigned based on "marks", and this happens a certain number of times, they could get auto-banned. No involvement from Stef or anybody else is needed.

1175

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Donald X.'s Guide to 12 Dominion Expansions Discussion Thread

« on: February 19, 2019, 04:14:24 pm »

In terms if sets with "duds", I don't view any set as having many duds, except Alchemy, Hinterlands, and probably first edition base game.

Alchemy is pretty bad, 4 of the cards means that 33% are duds. I don't see Prosperity as being so bad; it has maybe 4 dud cards, but two of those are not awful (Trade Route and Royal Seal). Seaside has like 2 dud cards (plus a semi-dud in Pearl Diver). But I don't get why Hinterlands isn't mentioned more often. Hinterlands has 4 awful cards, plus a couple semi-duds.