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.

26

Rules Questions / Re: Errata to extra turns

« on: October 09, 2023, 04:25:51 am »

So then, there's two pieces here: generating the turn, and making sure it's not a 3rd one. We could spell these out as:
A) Take an additional turn after this one. When it's about to happen, if it would be a third turn in a row, get rid of it quietly.
B) After this turn, when you've got a moment, if another turn wouldn't be a third turn in a row, take one.

I went with A. I think you're arguing for B.

Yes. I read "(but not a 3rd turn in a row)" as "unless it would be your 3rd turn in a row".

27

Rules Questions / Re: Errata to extra turns

« on: October 08, 2023, 07:09:55 am »

Yes, I think this is a very strange interpretation of new Outpost - that it actually sets up an extra turn, and then checks whether it would be the 3rd turn in a row right before you start the turn. I don't see why it wouldn't be exactly like original Outpost: after the current turn, it checks whether it will give you an extra turn.

The new phrasing seems to support this even more than the original phrasing did. "Take an extra turn after this one (but not a 3rd turn in a row)" suggests that you only take the extra turn if it wouldn't be the 3rd in a row. Taking an extra turn means that an extra turn is set up. Exactly as GendoIkari said, Outpost does not say: "take an extra turn after this one. If this would be the 3rd turn in a row, skip it."

By the way, this Lich interaction applies to all these "extra turn" cards (except Possession), not just Outpost.

Donald X., maybe you missed this post since it was last on the first page? Seems like at least me, GendoIkari and Majiponi think that the wording on Outpost suggests that Lich can't skip the Outpost turn.

28

Rules Questions / Re: Errata to extra turns

« on: October 07, 2023, 06:03:05 am »

If you have more than one of those, the turns can definitely stack up. You probably get this part, but before the errata, since they all said "if the previous turn wasn't yours," you could sometimes easily stack up multiple of those effects on your first turn and then proceed to take multiple turns in a row.

In the particular case of Donald's game, I'd be curious to hear what the cards were but I wouldn't be surprised if it was Island Folk combined with another one--you can sometimes build a deck that can give you multiple favors every turn, most likely with Underling or Guildmaster. I think I've personally played a game with Island Folk and Outpost where I was able to get the 5 favors each time (plus, you get two turns to get the favors, so 3 favors each turn would work). The game ends up being both players taking nearly 3 full turns in a row every turn. I wouldn't say it was a bad experience, though, although it definitely makes judging the end of the game pretty difficult.

I can see Voyage going either way--I thought it was fine to take the very limited turns multiple times, but it's the one card where you could sometimes get multiple turns in a row without needing another extra turns card. Particularly IRL, I could see that slowing the game down and not being a fun experience.

Yeah, I can see changing Voyage and Possession to get rid of multiple turns with them in a row. But the errata to the others are only relevant when there are several of these cards in the same kingdom (as you wrote and as I wrote before). Game with three of these cards would be extremely rare, so we're talking about the ability to take 3 turns in a row as opposed to 2 turns in a row. I don't really get the awfulness of this in the few games where it would be possible. Some people also understandably hate 4-player cursing games with no trashing, for example, which has been quite common in Dominion from the start; but I would never think the game should be fixed to avoid it.

29

Rules Questions / Re: Errata to extra turns

« on: October 06, 2023, 04:28:48 am »

Or to put it another way: Why is it so bad that players can't take 2 extra turns in a row when there are two of these cards in the same kingdom, which surely isn't very common?

I think we just disagree on the importance of both halves - I put less value on the exotic cases, and more value on the three-turns-in-a-row problem. It would be great to have everything perfect in all respects; this is what I have currently. Playing Throne on Outpost is super crazy exotic when the card makes it clear that it won't work. You won't do it! Asking what happens exactly then is just an intellectual exercise, or something important for programmers of the digital versions; it's not something that really happens in games.

That's a good point, in a practical sense it's more exotic than I realized. But then why was it important enough to get errata in the first place? I guess that's part of my surprise here.

I had multiple games where players could take three turns in a row. It sucked hard. I thought, damn Donald X., fix that. I fixed it. It wasn't just Voyage; a variety of extra turn cards came up and we had the awful experience. Then Allies was being reprinted and hey, good time to fix this.

I really wonder what kind of games this was, with two of these cards consistently giving 1 extra turn each, making in awful experience? I guess it didn't involve Island Folk; you don't get that many Favors. Voyage and Journey create very limited turns; Possession, Mission, and sometimes Outpost will let you take full turns. So I guess that's three cards, two of which need to be in the game, letting you take 3 full turns in a row. (Not just asking Donald X. here; I guess this is a problem several people reported?)

30

Rules Questions / Re: Errata to extra turns

« on: October 05, 2023, 05:12:16 am »

I'm surprised that Outpost is errata'ed back to its original text, since now we're back to all the confusing stuff that the new (previous) wording was specifically made to avoid:

For me, "you can't take 3 turns in a row" was more important than these things. That's the whole idea; killing those awful situations. I think the new wording is very clear for players in normal situations. IRL players may discard Outpost at the wrong time in exotic cases and that will be fine.

Sure, I understand that priority. But Outpost already prevented more than 1 extra turn from itself. Voyage and Possession were the only ones that didn't. So the reason to not just errata those two must be that you wanted to prevent taking more than 1 extra turn in games with two (or more) of these cards in the kingdom?

Outpost got errata specifically to kill those complicated questions, and you maintain that there's a high bar for getting errata, so that must have been quite important. What this new errata achieves is that you can't take exactly 2 extra turns in a row when there are two "extra turn" cards in the kingdom. (Those kingdoms aren't any less exotic than playing a Throne Room variant + Outpost/Voyage.) It seems weird to me that that was so important that it warrants not just another errata, but reverting a previous errata (plus errata to several cards where that's the only difference).

Or to put it another way: Why is it so bad that players can't take 2 extra turns in a row when there are two of these cards in the same kingdom, which surely isn't very common?

31

Rules Questions / Re: Errata to extra turns

« on: October 04, 2023, 06:03:33 am »

I'm surprised that Outpost is errata'ed back to its original text, since now we're back to all the confusing stuff that the new (previous) wording was specifically made to avoid:

* If you play several Outposts, all stay in play. One is discarded in the Clean-up of your extra turn. The others are discarded in the Clean-up of the turn after that, which is normally the next player's turn.

* If you play Outpost and buy Seize the Day (on the same turn), you get both turns. The Outpost stays in play for one or two turns, depending on which extra turn you resolve first (although it doesn't make a difference otherwise; you will start the first turn with 3 cards in hand in any case).

* If you play Outpost on an extra turn, you only draw 3 cards in Clean-up even though you don't get an extra turn. The Outpost stays in play until the Clean-up of the next turn, which is normally the next player's turn.

Most of this now also applies to Voyage.

In addition we have all the confusing stuff about Lich that Majiponi posted, which I think applies to all of these "extra turn" cards.

Previous Outpost had a longer text, but I think it was much cleaner in its implementation. Either you get an extra turn and a reduced hand, or Outpost is discarded right away.

32

Rules Questions / Re: Errata to extra turns

« on: October 04, 2023, 06:02:05 am »

What's the goal?
DXV has gotten sick of being able to take 3+ turns in a row, every single turn, for the whole game. Fleet and Seize the Day are only once a game, which is why they're safe.

How was that possible, except with Voyage, specifically because it was missing "if this is the first time you played a Voyage this turn"?
Was the problem when there were several of these cards in the same game?

EDIT: Oh yes, Possession too.

33

Rules Questions / Re: Errata to extra turns

« on: October 04, 2023, 05:01:40 am »

Yes, I think this is a very strange interpretation of new Outpost - that it actually sets up an extra turn, and then checks whether it would be the 3rd turn in a row right before you start the turn. I don't see why it wouldn't be exactly like original Outpost: after the current turn, it checks whether it will give you an extra turn.

The new phrasing seems to support this even more than the original phrasing did. "Take an extra turn after this one (but not a 3rd turn in a row)" suggests that you only take the extra turn if it wouldn't be the 3rd in a row. Taking an extra turn means that an extra turn is set up. Exactly as GendoIkari said, Outpost does not say: "take an extra turn after this one. If this would be the 3rd turn in a row, skip it."

By the way, this Lich interaction applies to all these "extra turn" cards (except Possession), not just Outpost.

34

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.

« on: October 04, 2023, 04:04:45 am »

Is there any plan for physical reprints of Captain/Prince with the 'Command' type?
I've held off on buying them from BGG because I don't want to cause confusion with new players when using Flagship or Maroon.

Just play with the text you have. That has always been the way to play Dominion. If someone manages to pull off some loop with Flagship and Captain, great for them - it will surely not happen often, if at all.

35

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Neat and potentially useful card interactions

« on: June 09, 2023, 08:48:20 am »

I think this one actually now qualifies as a combo since any reshuffle triggers it, so I pulled it from the other thread.

This one was really kind of neat, although an extreme edge case.  If you gain a Siren with a Sheepdog in hand and you are at the end of your draw pile you can gain it without trashing if the Siren ends up triggering a reshuffle.

I was wondering if it mattered whether you actually draw the Siren there, and it's easier than that. I just tested it online, and this works whenever the Sheepdog makes you shuffle the gained Siren into your deck--that's where the Siren loses track of itself. You don't have to draw the Siren from the Sheepdog effect, just shuffle the Siren into your deck with the Sheepdog effect.

From my rules document, there's these, that can move the Siren directly:
Bauble, Cargo Ship, City-state, Deliver, Gatekeeper, Hasty, Innovation, Insignia, Royal Seal, Rush, Sailor, Sleigh, Tiara, Tracker, Trappers’ Lodge, Travelling Fair, Watchtower, Way of the Seal

And these, that can cause the Siren to be shuffled in:
Band of Nomads, Sheepdog, Way of the Horse/Mole/Mouse/Otter/Owl/Pig (via Falconer, Sheepdog or Stowaway)

36

Rules Questions / Re: Capitalism + Enchantress + Highwayman

« on: May 09, 2023, 10:26:20 am »

Yes, correct. The relevant rulings are here: https://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=21600.msg900488#msg900488
In that discussion, in the end, Highwayman and Enchantress stayed as they had been, meaning they trigger normally and you choose which to apply first, which is the one that "wins", just like you said. What ended up being different was how Ways work. It's not really clear how they work formally, but when it comes to interactions with Enchantress and Highwayman it's the same: you get to choose (with the exception of Way of the Chameleon).

It's the one you choose to apply first the one that wins? I had that wrong. Is that because both of them only do anything when you would follow instructions, and both of them replace following instructions? So after you apply one, the other has nothing to do?

Yes, that's right. I hadn't noticed that you wrote it the other way.
It's the same when two Enchantresses are in effect: the second one doesn't replace the first one; it does nothing because you're not following the instructions anymore.

Also, am I right that Highwayman has been ruled to really mean: "the first time each other player plays a Treasure card on each turn, they do nothing instead of following its instructions"?

Yes, Donald X. has always said that Highwayman works exactly like Enchantress (except it makes you do nothing instead of cantrip of course), and that hasn't changed.

37

Rules Questions / Re: Capitalism + Enchantress + Highwayman

« on: May 09, 2023, 07:01:48 am »

Yes, correct. The relevant rulings are here: https://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=21600.msg900488#msg900488
In that discussion, in the end, Highwayman and Enchantress stayed as they had been, meaning they trigger normally and you choose which to apply first, which is the one that "wins", just like you said. What ended up being different was how Ways work. It's not really clear how they work formally, but when it comes to interactions with Enchantress and Highwayman it's the same: you get to choose (with the exception of Way of the Chameleon).

38

Game Reports / Epic handicap against the Temple Gates Hard AI

« on: April 18, 2023, 09:35:05 am »

I usually play the "daily challenge" against the Hard AI, and I win about 70% of the games. The AI has gotten better with time, and it excels at a certain strategy, which is kind of "good cards" + money, start hammering Provinces early and then Duchies. Surprisingly often this is a good strategy. There really has to be a very strong attack and/or strong alt-vp to beat it. The AI recently beat me by avoiding Cultists and just going for 1 Maroon and 1 Margrave, no village. This is its own topic, but it's actually changing how I view the 2-player game. It seems money is the best option much more than good players think. Sure, there are better players than me, I hear that good players beat it 80% of the time. But I'm convinced that good players play engine too often, it's just this meta where both good players and decent players play engine when it seems at all viable, so there is never a good player playing non-engine to show them wrong. I assume this has been discussed in other places, Discord or something.

Anyway, on to the actual topic!

Today I gave myself a huge handicap. I started with 5 coppers. I wanted to right-click on Annex, but misclicked and bought it before having played any Treasure! After the first shuffle, I had my opening cards plus a Duchy and was $6 in debt! In the meantime the AI was buying Sacrifice, Archives and Treasure. But by luck, this was an extremely engine-friendly kingdom, with Sacrifice, Temple, Crown, Charm, Wild Hunt, City Quarter, Overlord, Legionary and Labyrinth. Lots of alt-VP and a strong attack. I was not attacking until way into the game though, and by that time it had 5 Provinces already. It started to stall a little then, even before I started attacking (almost) every turn. When it bought the penultimate Province, I was still behind on points, but could easily score enough on my last turn to also buy the last Province for the win (and of course another Annex in the end!).

So the AI still doesn't know how to play engines... almost at all.

39

Rules Questions / Old Salvager and Capitalism

« on: April 10, 2023, 08:33:33 am »

On Capitalism, what does "+ amounts" mean? Does it only include coin symbols with actual numbers in it or also empty coin symbols? This is only relevant if you play with first-edition Salvager - does Capitalism affect it?
We could also imagine a card similar to Harbor Village that said "if it gave you +, +1 Card". This card would not itself give you any coins; would it be affected by Capitalism?

40

Rules Questions / Re: Taskmaster post-gain

« on: April 10, 2023, 06:29:34 am »

This answer is actually in the rulebook (which is on the RGG website): "Taskmaster does not count cards gained before playing it."
But in any case, this is supported by the straight reading of the card. Cards like Livery, Galleria and Guildmaster don't give you anything for cards gained earlier in the turn.

Well, sure, but the confusion here is more about timing of effects. After all, I don't think it is intuitive that if gaining a $5 causes you to play Taskmaster (like with Haggler and Rush), then it will count.

Similarly with Livery, I think it is not intuitive that if you gain a Livery and play it with Innovation, you do get a Horse from Livery's effect.

Another nuance to watch out for (which cost me a game just now as I didn't think about it), is if you have Taskmaster(s) in play from a previous turn and you have a start-of-turn gainer (e.g. Importer), you have to "trigger" Taskmaster's replay effect before you gain the card (if that's the card you are using as your 5-cost gain for that turn). If you are playing IRL I daresay you'd never actually do anything different, you'd just gain the card and then at end-of-turn note you'd gained the card and keep Taskmaster in play, but online if you don't select to apply the Taskmaster effect first, then they'll all get discarded at end-of-turn (even though it makes absolutely no difference in practical terms as those card effects all happen prior to anything else occurring on your turn).

I think the only extreme corner case where it could make a difference is if you're gaining Storyteller at start of turn and playing it with Innovation/City-state, and you DON'T want to use the coin from Taskmaster on Storyteller.

41

Rules Questions / Re: Complete Dominion rules document

« on: April 07, 2023, 01:16:00 pm »

Version 10 is up, updated for Plunder.

42

Rules Questions / Re: Rush Siren, no need to trash?

« on: April 07, 2023, 01:10:19 pm »

The relevant fact is that once a card has been moved from Point A to Point B, it can't also be moved from Point A to Point C. So the situation for Rush/Siren is as follows:

Buy Rush.
Gain a Siren. It goes to your discard pile.
Two on-gain events trigger. You can choose what order to activate them in.
Choose to activate Rush first: play the Siren, which involves moving it from the discard pile to the play area.
Now Siren's on-gain effect activates. It tells you to trash the Siren, but it's expecting to do so from the discard pile.
Since the Siren isn't in the discard pile anymore, its self-trashing effect can't activate.

Not quite. It's not because the Siren isn't in the discard pile now, it's because it had moved from the discard pile. The moment the Siren moved from the discard pile, it lost track of itself. Even if it had moved back to the discard pile somehow, it could not have trashed itself.
So the rule is not about the card being in the expected location when you try to move it from there. It's about losing track of the card the moment it's not in the expected location. (There are some scenarios where a card is moved back to the expected location; it's still lost track of.)

The recent changes are:
- A card that is lost track of can't be played either (except by throne rooms).
- Gaining a card to your discard pile and covering it with another card doesn't cause it to be lost track of.

43

Rules Questions / Re: ? about how villa works

« on: March 29, 2023, 03:56:12 am »

You also don't lose Buys or Actions. You don't lose anything (except by spending it) until your turn is completely over.

44

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Neat and potentially useful card interactions

« on: March 27, 2023, 03:32:42 am »

Mandarin + Endless Chalice, which is the sort of thing that makes you realize why Mandarin is a deprecated card.

If anything, I think it's the other way around, Endless Chalice exists because Mandarin was removed.

But since that's just a two-card combo, I actually don't think Mandarin would have stopped Donald X. from making Endless Chalice. But I do think that the influx of Treasure Durations is tied to the fact that he decided to remove (almost) all possibilities of moving them from play.

45

Rules Questions / Re: Invasion

« on: March 26, 2023, 06:22:22 am »

Yes, you can move the Loot. It could have been worded with "..., then ...", but since there is no condition, the printed version is shorter. The semicolon is emphasisizing that the effects are apart, not one big effect, IMO.

Thanks. The thing is that semicolon has been used in the past to indicate that it's one effect, like on the original versions of Mine, Bureaucrat and Rocks. That used to be kind of the big indicator of the "no visiting" rule.

Of course, it would be unusual to gain and play a card as one effect, but I've learned that nothing is out of the question, so I wanted to make sure.

46

Rules Questions / Invasion

« on: March 25, 2023, 02:13:52 pm »

"Gain a Loot; play it."

I assume this is like Replace and Summon, that it gains the card and then moves it. But the semicolon made me wonder.
So can you move the gained Loot with Watchtower, making Invasion lose track of it?

47

Dominion General Discussion / Printings of recent (2022) errata

« on: March 25, 2023, 11:33:28 am »

Donald X. mentioned last year that Adventures would be the first set to reprinted with the new errata'ed cards. Did it get printed last year?

Donald X. or anyone who knows: Have other sets been reprinted, or are there news of when it will happen?

The sets with errata seem to be:
Alchemy
Cornucopia and Guilds
Dark Ages
Adventures
Empires
Nocturne
Renaissance

48

Dominion General Discussion / Re: * Plunder Previews #5: More Stuff *

« on: March 19, 2023, 11:40:34 am »

I think Taskmaster is the first time we've seen the phrasing of "repeat this ability" on a Dominion card. Is there a reason it's not just "at the start of your next turn, play this again."?

Yes. A lot of work went into that wording, trying to find something that handled all the cases that needed handling. "Play this again" was tried and failed; consider Throning it.

Hmm, what's the problem with Throning "at the start of your next turn, play this again"? If you gain a $5, it plays itself twice next turn, setting up its next-turn ability twice. If you gain a $5 that turn too, it plays itself twice again, etc. What am I missing?

49

Rules Questions / Re: Harbor Village and Inspiring

« on: March 18, 2023, 03:35:12 pm »

Play Harbor Village [1].
..Get +1 card and +2 Actions.
..Inspiring triggers: you may play a card you don't have a copy of in play. Decline to do so.
Play Harbor Village [2].
..Get +1 card and +2 Actions.
..Inspiring and Harbor Village [1] both trigger.
....Choose to resolve Inspiring first.
......Play Guildmaster
........Get +$3.
........Harbor Village [2] triggers.
..........Did Guildmaster give you +$? Yes it did. Therefore, Harbor Village [2] gives you +$1.
....Resolve Harbor Village [1] second.
......Did Harbor Village [2] give you +$? Yes it did. Therefore, Harbor Village [1] gives you +$1.

Even more useless corner-cases... With Inspiring and Royal Carriage it's possible to play Harbor Village many times after each other and get the bonus from all of them by playing one card like Guildmaster in the end. Example with 2 Harbor Villages and 3 Royal Carriages.

Play HB1
Play HB2
..Call RC to replay HB2 = HB3
....Call RC to replay HB2 = HB4
......Call RC to replay HB2 = HB5
........Inspiring: play Guildmaster: +$3
..........HB5 checks Guildmaster: +$1
........HB4 checks HB5: +$1
......HB3 checks HB4: +$1
....HB2 checks HB3: +$1
..HB1 checks HB2: +$1

It would be the same with 1 Harbor Village and 4 Royal Carriages. But this doesn't work with 3 or more Harbor Villages; you need Royal Carriages. Also, it doesn't work with Flagships instead of Royal Carriages, since the Flagships would only trigger after playing Harbor Village the first time; Royal Carriages trigger after each time you play (or replay) a card.

50

Rules Questions / Re: Procession vs BoM vs Duration

« on: March 13, 2023, 03:43:15 pm »

Yeah, it depends whether you have the old or the new Lighthouse. The new Lighthouse was published last year with the 2nd Edition of Seaside.

It also depends whether you have the old or the new Band of Misfits! The new BoM, which was published in 2019, doesn't emulate the Lighthouse. It just plays the Lighthouse from the supply. Image above.

If you have the new BoM...

Old Lighthouse - "while this is in play"
If you play BoM on Lighthouse, BoM stays in play. But it doesn't protect you. The Lighthouse protects you if it's in play, but it's not (it stays in the supply); only the BoM is in play.
Playing Procession on BoM on Lighthouse doesn't make a difference. BoM is of course in the trash, but wouldn't protect you anyway.

New Lighthouse
If you play BoM on Lighthouse, BoM stays in play. Lighthouse protects you because you played it (it doesn't have to be in play to protect you). It makes no difference where the BoM is. So in this case too, it doesn't matter if you trashed the BoM with Procession.

With both versions of Lighthouse, you always get the next-turn effects. Again it doesn't matter whether BoM was trashed or not.

Do you want to know how it would be with old BoM?