Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2  All

Author Topic: Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule  (Read 4007 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • View Profile
Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule
« on: October 19, 2019, 09:01:50 pm »
0

Donald has changed the timing rule/ruling for Reactions. My understanding is that the new rule works exactly as Dane-m described in this post.

Donald says that this new rule is very clear and easy to understand. I found it very difficult (I'm not 100% sure I understand it still), but okay. Here I'm trying to phrase it in a correct and understandable way for my rules document. Can anybody (including Donald) help me with a better phrasing?

First, the old rule:
Quote
When there are several abilities at the same time, first the current player resolves all their abilities, and then each player in turn does. Each player may resolve their abilities in any order.

Then the new rule:
Quote
Optional abilities are defined as those that say "you may" (currently Reactions and Urchin). All others are mandatory.
1. When there are several abilities at the same time, the current player may resolve any of their abilities in any order, but must resolve all mandatory abilities. If they have no mandatory abilities, they may pass. Then the next player in turn does the same, etc.
2. Whenever a player resolves an ability, other players who have already resolved all their mandatory abilities can resolve optional abilities, starting with the current player.

This description is no good, because it describes a recursive scenario, which is not what we want. Also, it doesn't take into account that e.g. player C could create a new mandatory ability for player B, and then (after player A gets to react) player B has to resolve their new mandatory ability.

We could describe it more like a computer program:
Quote
1. When there are several abilities at the same time, the players take turns resolving abilities, starting with the current player (the player whose game turn it is).
2. The player in turn to resolve abilities may resolve any ability or pass. However, they may not pass of they have a mandatory ability to resolve.
3. Whenever any player resolves an ability, the current player is next to resolve abilities.

This is correct, but seems impossible to understand. It's also a little misleading that it says that the players take turns; it again hints at recursion. Writing "Go to step 1" etc. would solve this problem, but would make it even more like a computer program.

I could write it over several paragraphs, with several examples, and make it understandable that way. But I'm trying to phrase it succinctly, like the old rule.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5844
  • Respect: +23531
    • View Profile
Re: Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule
« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2019, 01:59:05 pm »
0

If multiple players want to do things at the same time, whether mandatory or optional, the player first in turn order (starting from the player whose turn it is) with a thing to do does one, and then the players can decide again if they still want to (or have to) do things.

If multiple players want to do things at the same time, the player first in turn order (starting from the player whose turn it is) with a thing to do does one, and then the players can decide again if they still want to do things. This applies whether the things are mandatory or optional (but mandatory things have to be done).
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8904
  • Respect: +9688
    • View Profile
Re: Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2019, 05:40:48 pm »
0

If multiple players want to do things at the same time, whether mandatory or optional, the player first in turn order (starting from the player whose turn it is) with a thing to do does one, and then the players can decide again if they still want to (or have to) do things.

If multiple players want to do things at the same time, the player first in turn order (starting from the player whose turn it is) with a thing to do does one, and then the players can decide again if they still want to do things. This applies whether the things are mandatory or optional (but mandatory things have to be done).

Iím confused by the two paragraphs; is this two separate rules / parts of a rule; or two different but very similar suggested phrasings for the rule?
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • View Profile
Re: Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule
« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2019, 05:54:19 pm »
0

If multiple players want to do things at the same time, whether mandatory or optional, the player first in turn order (starting from the player whose turn it is) with a thing to do does one, and then the players can decide again if they still want to (or have to) do things.

If multiple players want to do things at the same time, the player first in turn order (starting from the player whose turn it is) with a thing to do does one, and then the players can decide again if they still want to do things. This applies whether the things are mandatory or optional (but mandatory things have to be done).

Regarding GendoIkari's question: I understand this as two very similar suggestions.

The main problem with this phrasing is that it doesn't say anything about what happens next: who is the next player that may or must do something? It only says that we start with the current player.

It also says that all the players decide each time (after one player does something), but as far as I understand there is no requirement that everybody announces whether they want/have to do something each time. Rather the point is only that the players once (somehow) decide that they want to follow turn order instead of everybody doing their things at once. Then, each time a player does something, there is only one player at a time who decides what they want to do. I'm following the procedure laid out by Dane-m.

Also, this phrasing says that the player has to resolve an ability, but actually the player may pass (if they have no mandatory ones).

Edit: We also need to include that the player can choose any ability.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2019, 06:11:20 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

Wizard_Amul

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 129
  • Respect: +145
    • View Profile
Re: Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2019, 07:02:33 pm »
+1

We could describe it more like a computer program:
Quote
1. When there are several abilities at the same time, the players take turns resolving abilities, starting with the current player (the player whose game turn it is).
2. The player in turn to resolve abilities may resolve any ability or pass. However, they may not pass of they have a mandatory ability to resolve.
3. Whenever any player resolves an ability, the current player is next to resolve abilities.

This is correct, but seems impossible to understand. It's also a little misleading that it says that the players take turns; it again hints at recursion. Writing "Go to step 1" etc. would solve this problem, but would make it even more like a computer program.

I could write it over several paragraphs, with several examples, and make it understandable that way. But I'm trying to phrase it succinctly, like the old rule.

I don't see what's wrong with this, other than the fact that it's longer than the old rule. Because of having to restart at the current player each time any decision is made by anyone, I think it's hard to get a clear rule that's a lot shorter than this. You already spend multiple sections in your rules document talking about timing of concurrent abilities, even though the actual rule is pretty short--most people reading the rules document closely likely don't care about length that much, anyways. I personally would rather have a longer section that is clearer about what the rules are than a shorter, potentially confusing, section.

For the new rule, I think it's fine to have multiple examples to clarify the rule. I suggest using a somewhat simple example (like dane-m's example, but maybe with 3-4 players instead of 6) and a more complicated example (like the changeling/embassy/etc. example).
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • View Profile
Re: Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule
« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2019, 08:08:53 pm »
0

I don't see what's wrong with this, other than the fact that it's longer than the old rule. Because of having to restart at the current player each time any decision is made by anyone, I think it's hard to get a clear rule that's a lot shorter than this. You already spend multiple sections in your rules document talking about timing of concurrent abilities, even though the actual rule is pretty short--most people reading the rules document closely likely don't care about length that much, anyways. I personally would rather have a longer section that is clearer about what the rules are than a shorter, potentially confusing, section.

For the new rule, I think it's fine to have multiple examples to clarify the rule. I suggest using a somewhat simple example (like dane-m's example, but maybe with 3-4 players instead of 6) and a more complicated example (like the changeling/embassy/etc. example).

Yeah, I don't think it can get shorter. But the big problem is the third line ("Whenever any player resolves an ability, the current player is next to resolve abilities"). This is just way too confusing without adding more context.

The reason my document is much longer than the printed rule is because it incorporates several additional rulings (making the rule more specific) - and also several examples of course. With this rule, I think it's going to get quite a bit longer, and several more examples are needed.

Thanks for your suggestions of examples.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2019, 08:24:13 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • View Profile
Re: Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule
« Reply #6 on: October 20, 2019, 08:13:06 pm »
0

A new working draft:
Quote
Optional abilities are defined as those that say "you may" (currently Reactions and Urchin). All others are mandatory.
When there are several abilities at the same time and the correct order might matter in the game, procede as follows.
1. First, the current player may resolve any of their abilities in any order, but must resolve all mandatory abilities. If they have no mandatory abilities, they may pass.
2. When a player passes, continue with the next player in turn.
3. When a player resolves an ability (mandatory or optional), go back to the first player (the current player in the game), and continue from there. This means that the players who already either resolved some abilities or passed, get a new chance to resolve abilities.
[SMALL TEXT: If you pass without resolving an optional ability because you want to see what the others do first, you risk that everybody else passes too and you don't get the opportunity to resolve it.]
4. When everybody passes, the players are done resolving these abilities.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8904
  • Respect: +9688
    • View Profile
Re: Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule
« Reply #7 on: October 20, 2019, 09:04:33 pm »
+1

I don't know the best way to word it; but it seems to me that this almost follows MTG priority rules exactly; with the exception that the active player gets priority after each time priority is used; rather than it staying with the player who had it.

That is to say... a thing triggers. Active player "gets priority" (the player whose turn it is can do something, or not; or maybe is forced to do something). If he does nothing, priority passes to next player in turn order. That player can do something, or not (or maybe is forced to do something). If that player does nothing, priority passes. Once all players have passed, the chance to act is over (like the game moving to the next step in MTG). If a player does act, then priority goes to the active/current player, who may act.

The biggest difference of course is that "acting" here is always like activating a mana ability; it does not use the stack and cannot be responded to before it resolves.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Shvegait

  • Scout
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 44
  • Respect: +77
    • View Profile
Re: Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule
« Reply #8 on: October 21, 2019, 12:09:45 am »
0

A new working draft:
Quote
Optional abilities are defined as those that say "you may" (currently Reactions and Urchin). All others are mandatory.
When there are several abilities at the same time and the correct order might matter in the game, procede as follows.
1. First, the current player may resolve any of their abilities in any order, but must resolve all mandatory abilities. If they have no mandatory abilities, they may pass.
2. When a player passes, continue with the next player in turn.
3. When a player resolves an ability (mandatory or optional), go back to the first player (the current player in the game), and continue from there. This means that the players who already either resolved some abilities or passed, get a new chance to resolve abilities.
[SMALL TEXT: If you pass without resolving an optional ability because you want to see what the others do first, you risk that everybody else passes too and you don't get the opportunity to resolve it.]
4. When everybody passes, the players are done resolving these abilities.

I don't think it's accurate to say Reactions and Urchin are currently the only optional abilities, there are tons of "you may" cards (Reserve cards for instance). Those are maybe just the ones that require the complicated multiplayer rule, but it's misleading as worded.

I think step 1 is not entirely accurate as written. The current player may only resolve one such ability before step 3 kicks in. That doesn't matter if you're just talking about the current player, of course, but since step 2 seems to imply that you follow step 1 for the next player, it would seem to say the next player may "resolve any of their abilities in any order", but my understanding is that they only get to pick one at a time.

I agree with GendoIkari that this rule is similar to the MTG priority rule. So how about something like this:
Quote
Optional abilities are defined as those that say "you may" (such as revealing a Reaction card). All others are mandatory.
When several abilities could resolve at the same time and the correct order might matter in the game, proceed as follows:
1. The current player starts with priority.
2. The player with priority may resolve any one of their abilities. If they have any mandatory abilities, they must resolve an ability (whether an optional or mandatory one). If they don't resolve an ability, they pass.
3. After any player resolves an ability, the current player (first player) gets priority.
4. When a player passes, the next player in turn order gets priority.
5. When everybody passes, the players are done resolving these abilities. (Optional abilities that could have resolved at this time may no longer resolve.)

Edit:
Getting rid of the word "pass" because it's used on Masquerade, if you care about that kind of thing, but the last rule becomes clumsy:
Quote
Optional abilities are defined as those that say "you may" (such as revealing a Reaction card). All others are mandatory.
When several abilities could resolve at the same time and the correct order might matter in the game, proceed as follows:
1. The current player starts with priority.
2. The player with priority may resolve any one of their abilities. If they have any mandatory abilities, they must resolve an ability (whether an optional or mandatory one). If they don't resolve an ability, the next player in turn order gets priority.
3. After any player resolves an ability, the current player (first player) gets priority.
4. If the current player gets priority as the result of the last player in turn order not resolving an ability, the players are done resolving these abilities. (Optional abilities that could have resolved at this time may no longer resolve.)
« Last Edit: October 21, 2019, 12:15:37 am by Shvegait »
Logged

markusin

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3841
  • Shuffle iT Username: markusin
  • I also switched from Starcraft
  • Respect: +2418
    • View Profile
Re: Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule
« Reply #9 on: October 21, 2019, 04:39:55 am »
0

I don't know the best way to word it; but it seems to me that this almost follows MTG priority rules exactly; with the exception that the active player gets priority after each time priority is used; rather than it staying with the player who had it.

That is to say... a thing triggers. Active player "gets priority" (the player whose turn it is can do something, or not; or maybe is forced to do something). If he does nothing, priority passes to next player in turn order. That player can do something, or not (or maybe is forced to do something). If that player does nothing, priority passes. Once all players have passed, the chance to act is over (like the game moving to the next step in MTG). If a player does act, then priority goes to the active/current player, who may act.

The biggest difference of course is that "acting" here is always like activating a mana ability; it does not use the stack and cannot be responded to before it resolves.

What happened with the rules change is that, in the old rules, optional Dominion abilities were like triggered abilities in MTG that included an optional effect, except only one player can use the stack at a time (making it not like an MTG stack in spirit at all). Active player (current player in Dominion) would get all their triggered abilities, both mandatory and optional, put on the stack in an order that player chooses, then decides which optional abilities to use, and how they were weaved into  the mandatory ones. When they were done, the next player would do the same with their triggered abilities.

With the new rules, only the mandatory abilities are treated as MTG triggered abilities. The optional abilities have become like MTG activated abilities, where they can be used any time something leaves the stack (but not when something is added to it). There is still the quirk where players can only use this stack once priority is passed to them the first time all mandatory abilities of the previous player are done.

Essentially, optional abilities now have a fundamentally different timing than mandatory ones even when they happen "at the same time".
« Last Edit: October 21, 2019, 04:42:59 am by markusin »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • View Profile
Re: Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule
« Reply #10 on: October 21, 2019, 10:40:14 am »
0

I don't think it's accurate to say Reactions and Urchin are currently the only optional abilities, there are tons of "you may" cards (Reserve cards for instance). Those are maybe just the ones that require the complicated multiplayer rule, but it's misleading as worded.

Thanks for your suggestions!

You're right, I will specify that this rule is relevant for Reactions and Urchin. (I already phrased it like this in an earlier version of the document where optional abilities mattered.)

I think step 1 is not entirely accurate as written. The current player may only resolve one such ability before step 3 kicks in. That doesn't matter if you're just talking about the current player, of course, but since step 2 seems to imply that you follow step 1 for the next player, it would seem to say the next player may "resolve any of their abilities in any order", but my understanding is that they only get to pick one at a time.

Yes, this is tricky because for the current player, the "priority" doesn't change (except when they pass of course), but for all the other players, it changes to the current player. My idea was that line 3 clarifies this. The next player follows line 1 (just like the current player), but also follows line 3. These are not meant as steps by the way. I won't use numbering in the document. These are just "sub rules" to make it easier to talk about them here. Line 3 literally says that after anybody, including the current player, does something, the current player gets "priority". The inaccuracy (for the current player) is that it says "go back to", but my idea was that this is understandable.

I don't like introducing a new term, "priority", just for this. Of course, it's very difficult to phrase complex rules in an accurate and at the same time understandable way, and what you need is good terminology. This means I have had to define things more strictly than Donald or the official rules do. I have clear definitions of ability, effect, and triggered. But I was hoping to define this rule without the need for a new term. You're right that using "pass" is not ideal though.

I really like this: "This means that the players who already either resolved some abilities or passed, get a new chance to resolve abilities."
This clarifies what is actually going on without just using computer program code, even though it's technically not needed. The idea is that people will actually understand this.

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • View Profile
Re: Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule
« Reply #11 on: October 21, 2019, 10:46:16 am »
0

What happened with the rules change is that, in the old rules, optional Dominion abilities were like triggered abilities in MTG that included an optional effect, except only one player can use the stack at a time (making it not like an MTG stack in spirit at all). Active player (current player in Dominion) would get all their triggered abilities, both mandatory and optional, put on the stack in an order that player chooses, then decides which optional abilities to use, and how they were weaved into  the mandatory ones. When they were done, the next player would do the same with their triggered abilities.

Almost correct. The player wouldn't order all their triggered abilities first, just choose one to resolve. Then after that, choose the next one, etc. This is one of those clarifications that Donald ruled on when someone asked about it for a specific scenario.

With the new rules, only the mandatory abilities are treated as MTG triggered abilities. The optional abilities have become like MTG activated abilities, where they can be used any time something leaves the stack (but not when something is added to it). There is still the quirk where players can only use this stack once priority is passed to them the first time all mandatory abilities of the previous player are done.

Essentially, optional abilities now have a fundamentally different timing than mandatory ones even when they happen "at the same time".

Yes, this is what makes it so complex. They trigger at the same time... but not really. I have a feeling that it might be better to treat them as two completely separate things, with two different sections in the rules. The problem is that they are also intertwined. So far I have not been able to come up with something substantially different than what I've written here.

markusin

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3841
  • Shuffle iT Username: markusin
  • I also switched from Starcraft
  • Respect: +2418
    • View Profile
Re: Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule
« Reply #12 on: October 21, 2019, 01:57:25 pm »
0

What happened with the rules change is that, in the old rules, optional Dominion abilities were like triggered abilities in MTG that included an optional effect, except only one player can use the stack at a time (making it not like an MTG stack in spirit at all). Active player (current player in Dominion) would get all their triggered abilities, both mandatory and optional, put on the stack in an order that player chooses, then decides which optional abilities to use, and how they were weaved into  the mandatory ones. When they were done, the next player would do the same with their triggered abilities.

Almost correct. The player wouldn't order all their triggered abilities first, just choose one to resolve. Then after that, choose the next one, etc. This is one of those clarifications that Donald ruled on when someone asked about it for a specific scenario.


Yeah this is where the MTG comparison sort of breaks down, because there is no "stack" at all, and it's really a set of abilities in a pool waiting for a single resolution "stall" to empty so that they can take a turn in the stall. And then there are specific rules as to what can and can't use the stall at a given time, and this depends on what abilities are still in the pool.

It's not necessarily complex to write programming code for this rule, but explaining it in human language is messy.
Logged

dane-m

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 112
  • Shuffle iT Username: dane-m
  • Respect: +162
    • View Profile
Re: Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule
« Reply #13 on: October 21, 2019, 04:17:12 pm »
0

I had been contemplating suitable wording, but I think Shvegait's approach looks good, so I'll not bother taking my ideas any further.

Incidentally is anyone else dreading playing Urchin followed by another Attack card in an online 4-player game and then having to answer "No" numerous times to the question "Do you want a Mercenary?" because the opponents each have one or more appropriate Reaction cards and all choose to exercise all of them?  I wonder how many times one could be asked the question.  Let's see...

Beggar, Diplomat, Horse Traders and Moat can all react to an Attack being played, so if each opponent had a hand containing one of each, that would make 13 times one would have to answer the question.  And that's before allowing for multiple copies of Beggar or Horse Traders, or for one Diplomat being revealed multiple times.
Logged

Commodore Chuckles

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1070
  • Shuffle iT Username: Commodore Chuckles
  • Respect: +1419
    • View Profile
Re: Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule
« Reply #14 on: October 21, 2019, 06:27:07 pm »
0

Incidentally is anyone else dreading playing Urchin followed by another Attack card in an online 4-player game and then having to answer "No" numerous times to the question "Do you want a Mercenary?"

No, because I hate that card so much I banned it :P
Logged

crj

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1418
  • Respect: +1578
    • View Profile
Re: Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule
« Reply #15 on: October 22, 2019, 07:14:26 am »
0

If trying to be complete, doesn't the Reaction timing rule also need to cope with reacting when it's nobody's turn?

I mean, imagine Catacombs cost more than Ill-Gotten Gains and someone gained IGG by trashing Catacombs during a Donation. (I may be overlooking some similar trick that's already possible.)
Logged

markusin

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3841
  • Shuffle iT Username: markusin
  • I also switched from Starcraft
  • Respect: +2418
    • View Profile
Re: Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule
« Reply #16 on: October 22, 2019, 08:47:43 am »
0

If trying to be complete, doesn't the Reaction timing rule also need to cope with reacting when it's nobody's turn?

I mean, imagine Catacombs cost more than Ill-Gotten Gains and someone gained IGG by trashing Catacombs during a Donation. (I may be overlooking some similar trick that's already possible.)

Got you covered. Trash Catacombs to Donate while Embassy has the Ferry token. There is also Changeling on the board. Does the player trashing cards get to decide if they can exchange Embassy (gained from trashing Catacombs) for Changeling before the others players gain  Silver? What if multiple players want to react/pseudo-react to someone exchanging one of the Silvers for Changeling? Who gets to react first?

I suppose in the cases where it is nobody's turn, treat the ordering as if it were the turn of the person who took the last (non-possession?) turn, or treat it as if it's the turn of the player taking the turn after Donate is done, or something straightforward like that.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2019, 08:50:32 am by markusin »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • View Profile
Re: Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule
« Reply #17 on: October 22, 2019, 09:39:30 am »
0

There is a turn-order question in those scenarios, but it has nothing to do with Reactions or other triggered abilities.

The player who gains Embassy has two triggered abilities to resolve: "each other player gains a Silver" and "you may exchange it for a Changeling". That player decides which one to resolve first; it makes no difference whose turn it is. So the triggered abilities in this scenario do not involve several players, and so it's not directly related to the topic in this thread.

The actual turn-order question is not about triggered abilities, but about effects. (I'll write the question in the end.) Embassy creates "gain a Silver" effects for each other player. The same happens if you somehow gain IGG. These effects go in turn order. Each player could react to their own gain (Watchtower, Trader, Market Square), but several players can't do this at the same time.

So far there are no Reactions - or other optional triggered abilities - that trigger on another player gaining a card (except Fool's Gold with Province), but if there were that would create a legitimate question about triggered abilities when it's nobody's turn - and the rule in this thread would technically need to take it into account. If Innovation worked during Donate, things would get really complex.

The question is, who is the first player to receive the Silver (Embassy) or Curse (IGG) when it's nobody's turn? This matters mostly if the cards run out. I think nobody has asked this before.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2020, 09:07:29 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • View Profile
Re: Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule
« Reply #18 on: October 22, 2019, 09:45:50 am »
+3

Wait, actually Donald has ruled on it before, when answering questions about Possession: Between turns, the player who last had a turn is considered to be the current player. (This includes Possession turns.)

crj

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1418
  • Respect: +1578
    • View Profile
Re: Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule
« Reply #19 on: October 22, 2019, 11:14:17 am »
0

Got you covered. Trash Catacombs to Donate while Embassy has the Ferry token.
Ferry only works "on your turns". So before we get to my question, we first have to answer the question of whether or not Ferry works during Donate. I don't recall ever seeing an answer to that...
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • View Profile
Re: Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule
« Reply #20 on: October 22, 2019, 11:22:52 am »
+3

Got you covered. Trash Catacombs to Donate while Embassy has the Ferry token.
Ferry only works "on your turns". So before we get to my question, we first have to answer the question of whether or not Ferry works during Donate. I don't recall ever seeing an answer to that...

Yes, Donald has answered that too. Things that work "on your turns" do not working during Donate, since it's nobody's turn. As mentioned, this also includes Innovation. Others: Bridge Troll, Canal, Citadel, Labyrinth, The Riverís Gift, −$2 Cost token.

crj

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1418
  • Respect: +1578
    • View Profile
Re: Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule
« Reply #21 on: October 22, 2019, 12:42:17 pm »
0

That's how I'd have expected it to play out, but then you let it pass by without comment, so I began to doubt myself. (-8
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5844
  • Respect: +23531
    • View Profile
Re: Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule
« Reply #22 on: October 22, 2019, 12:43:37 pm »
0

Iím confused by the two paragraphs; is this two separate rules / parts of a rule; or two different but very similar suggested phrasings for the rule?
It's two versions of the same rule.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5844
  • Respect: +23531
    • View Profile
Re: Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule
« Reply #23 on: October 22, 2019, 04:47:40 pm »
+1

Essentially, optional abilities now have a fundamentally different timing than mandatory ones even when they happen "at the same time".
For me they aren't at all different. The different thing about mandatory things is that they're mandatory; there are no differences beyond, you have to do them. There's no "how do you pass on this" because you can't pass on them. I will explain it again in case somehow it becomes clearer.

But in writing that up, I am looking at Urchin, and well I have some degree of reversal, and here's the argument. Moat is purely optional; there's a particular time when you can do it. Hireling is purely mandatory; there's a particular time when you have to do it. Church is mandatory but has an option; there's a particular time when you have to do it, but part of doing it is optional, and you decide when resolving it what to do. Some cards make this ambiguous, e.g. Crop Rotation. Is it mandatory with an option - where the option is all of it - or optional? I feel like it looks more like it's mandatory with an option. And that's how it works online of course. You can choose to resolve other things first, in case they affect your decision, but in the end you specifically need to resolve it, and can't go back on your decision. Urchin is one of those, so, you can't go back and do Urchin after you've passed on doing it. What you can go back and do are Reactions, since they are purely optional; there's no point at which you need to reveal that you have the Reaction and are choosing not to do it.

So e.g. player A plays Urchin and may trash it. They have nothing else at the same time to do so that happens and they trash it or don't. Then player C wants to Moat, and for some reason this makes player B want to Moat and they still can. If player A didn't trash the Urchin, they never get to undo that.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2019, 04:58:06 pm by Donald X. »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5844
  • Respect: +23531
    • View Profile
Re: Phrasing the new Reaction timing rule
« Reply #24 on: October 22, 2019, 05:00:42 pm »
+1

Some things in Dominion happen at a particular time, e.g. "At the start of your turn." Normally there will just be one of these happening at a time, and when the time comes you do the thing.

Sometimes you have multiple things to do at the same time. In this case you get to order them. Mandatory abilities have to be done; public optional abilities are optional, but at some point you have to decide to do them or not. Reactions from hand (not e.g. Tunnel, Faithful Hound) are secret optional abilities; as other abilities resolve, you keep having the option of doing the Reaction until you decide not to do anything else. If a new thing appears to resolve at the same time as the other things you are resolving, it becomes part of the list of things you're resolving right then; for example if a Hireling appears in play while you're resolving "At the start of your turn" abilities, you will also resolve that Hireling then, though you can still order other "at the start of your turn" things ahead of it.

Sometimes something happens to multiple players at the same time; the players go in turn order, starting with the player whose turn it is. Normally there's just one thing, e.g. "Each other player gains a Curse," and you just resolve it for each affected player in turn order.

Sometimes there are multiple things for multiple players to do; in this case you go in turn order still, but after each thing resolves you start back with the first player in case anything new appeared for them to do, or in case they changed their mind about a secret optional ability. At any point at which two players want to (or have to) do things at the same time, the first player in turn order goes first.

Sometimes a new particular time is relevant in the middle of resolving abilities for another time. For example you can be resolving "At the start of your turn" abilities, and have one of them gain you a card, with a Watchtower in your hand that could then be used. When this happens you switch to handling the set of things for the new particular time, and when done with all of them return to handling things for the original one, including any new things that have appeared in the meantime. So in this example you would handle all "when you gain a card" abilities, then go back to handling "At the start of your turn" stuff. Of course a new time could be relevant in the middle of doing "when you gain a card" things and so on.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2019, 01:33:22 pm by Donald X. »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All
 

Page created in 0.094 seconds with 22 queries.