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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 45
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Translations
« on: April 20, 2018, 06:41:28 pm »
Well, the Norwegian Intrigue rulebook now says: «The game ends at the end of a player’s turn if one of these conditions are met: Either that the Province pile is empty, or that three other piles are empty (treasures, victory cards, kingdom cards. curse cards).» The period inside the brackets isn’t a typo on my part, by the way, and is probably there because you reminded them of the curse pile counting for a three-pile ending. This is kind of awkward to read, I think. Extraneous words and a dubious sentence at best. And why did they specify «other» piles? While I guess it’s technically correct (if Province is among the first three piles to empty, the Province pile IS empty, so the game would end either way), it seems unnecessary and out of place, as a reference to three empty piles or an empty Province pile, in that order, mind you, like the English rules say, is both much simpler and much shorter: «The game ends after 3 piles are empty or the Province pile is empty». I think they should’ve removed the brackets altogether. People would understand, I think.

I'm amazed that "curse cards" was just added after the period, and nobody even proofread it before print (or it seems not anyway). I don't think adding "other" is that bad, but it's sad that they're not putting a little more effort into making the rules clear and precise.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Translations
« on: April 20, 2018, 10:30:31 am »
Looking at the notes I wrote to the Norwegian publisher about Intrigue (which as I mentioned I still haven't checked if they followed), I found the following.

In the section about the three piles to end the game, it was explained as "Treasure, Victory and Action cards". (Of course Curse was missing.) I recommended writing "kingdom cards" instead of "Action cards". Although no Kingdom cards existed that were not either Treasure, Victory or Action, I theorized that in the future there might be some. My theory was actually not confirmed until Nocturne!

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Translations
« on: April 20, 2018, 10:03:43 am »
At least the Norwegian translations have done a pretty good job with the flavor part - the card names and such. I would say that getting the actual rules right is slightly more important though.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Translations
« on: April 19, 2018, 12:13:53 pm »
Well, I did get the file for Prosperity several years after it was published. I proofread the rulebook and had lots of comments, even suggesting ways of making it better. I was so depressed going through it, that I never even got going for the cards themselves (except for the probably known issues of different fonts, Stash saying "Myntkort" at the bottom, while all the other treasures simply saying "Mynt", all-capital or all-lowercase letters on a host of card titles, differences like "kort på hånden" og "håndkort", etc.), if you discount that I already mentioned the functional error on Biskop.

What did the original Tyv and Park say? My printing of these seem fine (N-22024860), though they're still kind of poorly translated.

There were lots of things I would change, mind you, but I don't think I saw any other functional errors, or I've forgotten all about them (as I don't read the Norwegian cards anymore).

Yeah, I also found many, many things to improve in the Empires rulebook. The good thing is that I got paid for it that time. (With Intrigue it was voluntary.) Maybe next time they'll give me the translation job from scratch, but it seems that they have no more plans for Dominion.

Original Tyv used "may" ("kan") for trashing opponents' Treasures!
Original Park was an Action card (Befalingskort). I assume the translator thought it was simpler if Kingdom cards and Action cards were the same thing. In the rules there was no distinction between the two.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Translations
« on: April 19, 2018, 10:26:50 am »
So far I've "only" seen two functional errors on the Norwegian cards: The Norwegian "Bishop" ("Biskop") says that you can discard a card for VP token gain. Of course you have to trash it. "Governor" ("Guvernør") suggests that trashing is mandatory if the person playing the card chooses the trashing effect, which of course it isn't.

The first edition of the base game had mistakes on Thief and Gardens. (I told them about Thief and they corrected it. I think they figured out Gardens by themselves.) I did a proofreading of Intrigue before publication, back in 2011, and caught two cards with errors (plus several cards that I thought were unclear). I still haven't seen Norwegian Intrigue, so I don't know how it turned out.

I recently did a proofreading of Empires, so I guess they will publish that at some point. I'm counting 19 cards with clear errors that I corrected. And of course many others that could be improved. I also did this for Dismantle.

I also haven't seen Prosperity, which I was not involved in. I would be surprised if there's only one card with an error. But maybe they got someone else with Dominion knowledge to check it.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Playing the new Guilds & Cornucopia!
« on: April 16, 2018, 05:31:18 pm »
Wero caught this and I've reported it. Also the Possession FAQ has right for left, but that one wasn't printed yet.

It sounds like it's printed now(?). Hopefully you also caught this error, for Scrying Pool:

If you run out of cards without revealing an Action card, shuffle your discard pile and keep going.

I'm pretty sure this should be "non-Action card", as it was in the 1st edition rules.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Playing the new Guilds & Cornucopia!
« on: April 16, 2018, 02:31:21 pm »
I just noticed that there is a printing error in the rules PDF. In the FAQ section, the image for Followers is repeated instead of the image for Trusty Steed. Of course it's too late to fix this in the published game, but it can be fixed for next time.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Playing the new Guilds & Cornucopia!
« on: April 16, 2018, 12:04:54 pm »
I just saw that the new card to mark the Bane pile is actually called a "Bane card" in the rules, which is very unfortunate, since the cards from the Bane pile are called Bane cards. This leads to these unfortunate sentences in the rules:

[...] mark its pile with the Bane card (underneath it, sideways). This is the "Bane" pile referred to by Young Witch; cards that start the game in this pile are "Bane cards."

Mountain Pass
-1 Card token (Relic, Borrow)

Maybe cards like Coppersmith, Merchant, -$1 token (Bridge Troll, Ball) and Envious.

*Prince is probably mostly difficult because of lose track issues. If you have solidly implemented lose track from the start, you should avoid many problems. (Unfortunately, I don't think Shuffle IT has done this yet.) I suspect lose track is the one thing that is by far the most difficult thing to implement as a general rule (not special casing it).

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: March 23, 2018, 05:44:34 pm »
What does it feel like inspiring a whole genre of games at varying levels of rip-offy-ness?

How do you feel about the idea of rotating supplies?  I get the sense that most Dominion players frown upon it, but Black Market is my favorite card, and that design choice seems to be common in other deckbuilders.  What would you change if you were gonna re-work Dominion into a more "black markety" format, and do you think that would make the game inherently worse (or better)?

That's a very good point for descrbing why I don't like Black Market. I think all other deck builders are worse than Dominion (of the ones I've tried), and the rotating supply, which is common as you say, is one of the things that make them worse.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Playing the new Guilds & Cornucopia!
« on: March 23, 2018, 02:31:02 pm »
Are you sure rule #2 ever existed? Empires Previews #1 was where Donald first mentioned that Possession was receiving errata, and from the very beginning he said that the possessor would get VP tokens in addition to debt and coin tokens. I don't see any time when there was a rule that made VP tokens different from Debt or Coin.

The Empires rulebook said that you take VP tokens, the original Prosperity rulebook said that you take VP tokens and put them on your mat. Empires didn't mention any mats, but for people with Prosperity it would seem that you use the mats, since the rulebook didn't mention any specific rules change about taking VP tokens. But you're right, Donald did declare that rules change online when Empires was released, so following all official announcements, printed or not, there was never any rule #2.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Playing the new Guilds & Cornucopia!
« on: March 23, 2018, 12:57:28 pm »
Says who? Possession explicitly says you gain any tokens they would gain. "+Coffers" means gain a token. Which means if you are Possessed, and play Baker, the Possessor gets the token.

Possession does say "gain", but according to Donald, the Possessor only gets tokens the player would take, and this doesn't include tokens the player would put on or add to mats. Therefore no Pirate Ship tokens and no player tokens from Adventures (except the -$1 token). And now, no Coin tokens. If this has been omitted from the wiki, I suggest it's added.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Playing the new Guilds & Cornucopia!
« on: March 23, 2018, 12:52:31 pm »
You have this backwards. He was asking about playing Baker while he was possessed; not about forcing someone to play Baker while Possessing them. And indeed, the rule is changing again; it is now back to the original printed first edition Possession, for everything except .

Not exactly, the Possessor also gets VP tokens, and (horribly) the -$1 token.

Here's the timeline, assuming that you would always play with the newest versions of everything:

* Possessor gets no tokens.

* Empires is released, with Possession errata in the rulebook. Possessor gets Debt tokens, Coin tokens and the -$1 token. Possessor doesn't get Pirate Ship tokens, based on the way Pirate Ship works as explained in the Seaside rulebook (later corrected in the 2nd edition card text).

* Prosperity 2nd edition is released, with changed rules about VP tokens. Possessor now gets VP tokens, Debt tokens, Coin tokens and the -$1 token.

* Guilds 2nd edition is released, with changed rules about Coin tokens. Possessor now gets VP tokens, Debt tokens and the -$1 token.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Playing the new Guilds & Cornucopia!
« on: March 23, 2018, 12:58:07 am »
Apart from the "Coffers" thing, are there other changes to the card texts compared to the 2nd edition versions we have seen before (which has been online)?

I see that the rulebook is still not online:

It sounds like Locusts caused a card to be gained, which covered up the Blessed Village, causing it to be lost track of. When it comes to War, as far as I can think it must be that it made you shuffle your discard pile because it didn't find a $3/$4-cost card in your deck, causing Blessed Village to be shuffled in and obviously lost track of. So whenever War does find a $3/$4-cost card in your deck, Blessed Village is not lost track of.

You're right about cards already having been moved to the discard pile (or your hand or on your deck if it was gained there instead) at the point when Tracker lets you move it. This is also the case with Watchtower, Royal Seal and Travelling Fair.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Most unique cards amongst each set?
« on: February 23, 2018, 01:18:48 pm »
Taxman - can force a player to discard a specific card from hand
So did Cutpurse.

How do you know that they do?

Could it be that you're seeing people loading an old game just to look at the log? As far as I know, you have to add a bot then.

Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« on: February 20, 2018, 03:46:04 pm »
Yes, Possession getting trashed cards. Also Fortress getting itself from trash.

Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« on: February 20, 2018, 10:23:39 am »
I also think it was a mistake to let cards you buy be yours before you gain them. It goes against all other cards and interactions that were already introduced, mostly starting in Hinterlands. As Donald has said himself, to clarify the difference between when-buy and when-gain, buying is paying for the card, gaining is when you get it.

If you buy a card while Possessed, or reveal Trader, you get the when-buy but not the when-gain. Technically this is not inconsistent with Inheritance, the card can still be "yours" between the moment you bought it and the moment you "didn't gain it" (whenever that moment is), but it sure seems cleaner and easier to understand if that were not the case, even for average players, assuming those players are supposed to also get how those Possession and Trader interactions work.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: The bad luck thread
« on: February 15, 2018, 04:11:30 pm »
Turn 3 - Awaclus
A plays a Necromancer.
A plays a Zombie Mason.
A trashes a Goat.

I felt really bad for my opponent when I swindled his Goat into an Estate near the beginning. I don't think there was any other trashing, either.

I just recently got my Goat Locusted into a Copper early in the game.

Refugee A - Norway (group B)

jeebus 3
Seprix 3

Apart from the possibility of having another card that gains from the trash, how does the earlier wording avoid pile-driving? Perhaps some subtlety I’m missing.

Maybe I'm missing it. What pile is it that was being pile-drived? If it's $4 cost cards you're talking about, isn't it the same now?

Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« on: February 11, 2018, 12:30:26 pm »
Does the interpretation of Nomad Camp's top-decking as a when-would-gain effect still apply with the second-edition wording, "onto your deck (instead of to your discard pile)"?

Yeah, as far as I see, it can still only work as when-would-gain.

Before Transmogrify (or Artisan, Cobbler or Wish) existed, Donald said that Nomad Camp and a hypothetical "Transmogrify" would have the same timing, so you would choose where the Nomad Camp goes. (And it was actually very difficult to figure out what that meant for the timing of cards that gain to your hand or deck - without "visiting" the discard pile - like Mine or hypothetical "Transmogrify".)

But when Transmogrify came out, the rule was different: Transmogrify wins. The new text actually reflects this, since it says "instead of to your discard pile", but in my opinion it would be better without the parenthesis.

Phoenix-Ashes is now too similar to Vampire-Bats in reverse order for my taste. If you wanna avoid pile-driving you could use the exchange wording.
I don't see the pile-driving problem, since Phoenix is gained from the trash. In any case I don't think it's very similar to Vampire/Bats. The only similarity (except for the one-turns-into-the-other thing) is the trashing from hand.

It seems pretty strong though. I would guess it's more balanced without the newest change of +1 action on Ashes.

Slight wording correction on Occupied Village: You need to specify putting cards from hand. Unlike discarding, putting cards on your deck doesn't have a default source location.

Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« on: February 10, 2018, 01:03:24 pm »
I think this is a new question!

The timing of Nomad Camp has been discussed many times, unofficially. The conclusion has always been that it has to be timed as when-would-gain, or it can't change the gaining destination. The current official ruling about interactions between Nomad Camp and cards like Transmogrify also makes this unproblematic. So it seems to be: When you would gain a Nomad Camp, it first changes the gaining destination from your discard pile to your deck. (If you Transmogrify into a Nomad Camp, the gaining destination is not your discard pile, so Nomad Camp can't change it, so it goes to your hand.)

Accordingly, gaining Estate Inheriting Nomad Camp (without buying it), should not top-deck the Estate: It's not yours yet when when-would-gain triggers. But if you buy it, it's yours before when-would-gain triggers, so it should be top-decked.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 45

Page created in 0.126 seconds with 18 queries.