Print

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

[dz]

To those of you not in the TGG discord server (the company making the mobile version of Dominion), the rules for Coffers are getting changed, and this change also requires errata to 2 cards.

The change: You can spend Coffers at any time during your turn.

The reason: The original rule was awful and goes against intuition. How often have you bought a card, and then either realized you didn't spend enough Coffers, or you spent too many?

Side effects include being able to use Coffers to power up action-phase Storytellers, and you can immediately use the Coffers that you get from Spices.

Now there are two cards that need errata because of this. The reasons why is an exercise for the reader (or you can just go to the wiki, where I explained why).
-Merchant Guild: It will give Coffers at the end of your buy phase, and is no longer a dividing line ability.
-Patron: Only gives Coffers during an Action phase.

Also in general "while in play" is disappearing for "this turn." You may have noticed this change has already started with the Hermit errata I mentioned months ago.

These changes are already on the TGG client, and it'll come to D.G uh eventually. Probably at the same time that the other endless list of errata comes out.

I'm sure someone is going to be sad that a random combo that-comes-up-1%-of-the-time is going to disappear, but I'm not worried about that, and DXV isn't worried either.

[spineflu]

Is there a reason for Patron being phase-dependent rather than "if you haven't spent a Buy yet"? As the random Venture enjoyer of the board, that enabling combo was pretty nice.

Also kind of a bummer Merchant Guild isn't going to be enabled as a Way. Some good combos with wot Pig and others.

[dz]

Is there a reason for Patron being phase-dependent rather than "if you haven't spent a Buy yet"? 

Remember that the wording needs to take into account that it's possible to reveal your own Patron on an opponent's turn. Also "when you reveal this in an Action phase" is shorter than 'when you reveal this, if you haven't spent a Buy yet this turn."

As the random Venture enjoyer of the board, that enabling combo was pretty nice.

Also kind of a bummer Merchant Guild isn't going to be enabled as a Way. Some good combos with wot Pig and others.

I'm sure someone is going to be sad that a random combo that-comes-up-1%-of-the-time is going to disappear, but I'm not worried about that, and DXV isn't worried either.

[spineflu]

Is there a reason for Patron being phase-dependent rather than "if you haven't spent a Buy yet"? 

Remember that the wording needs to take into account that it's possible to reveal your own Patron on an opponent's turn. Also "when you reveal this in an Action phase" is shorter than 'when you reveal this, if you haven't spent a Buy yet this turn."

Yeah but you aren't spending buys on opponents turns so it always procs then; Also Patron isn't exactly in the Noble Brigand "hurting for text space" category. My way keeps more of the original functionality.

[spineflu]

also: No changes for Spices or Silk Merchant?

[Donald X.]

also: No changes for Spices or Silk Merchant?

No change for those.

[Jeebus]

These changes are already on the TGG client

Do you have the card texts for Urchin Hermit, Merchant Guild and Patron? They don't seem to be in the Wiki, and as you note in the old Urchin Hermit post, the wording matters for how they play.

[GendoIkari]

Also “if you haven’t spent a buy yet” doesn’t keep the current functionality; in which you could buy a card during your action phase or even during your play-treasures half of your buy phase; and then still spend coffers.

[Jeebus]

Also in general "while in play" is disappearing for "this turn." You may have noticed this change has already started with the Hermit errata I mentioned months ago.

I can't find any other card than Urchin Hermit that is "while in play" and "this turn". Are you talking about Way of the Frog? Improve? Treasury and Scheme? Scepter? (And, you or Donald, please post the new card texts.)

[spineflu]

Also “if you haven’t spent a buy yet” doesn’t keep the current functionality; in which you could buy a card during your action phase or even during your play-treasures half of your buy phase; and then still spend coffers.

are you referring to like, Black Market? because that doesn't spend a Buy; or are you referring to a Villa/Cavalry style backtracking?

[dz]

These changes are already on the TGG client

Do you have the card texts for Urchin, Merchant Guild and Patron? They don't seem to be in the Wiki, and as you note in the old Urchin post, the wording matters for how they play.

I don't recall an Urchin post; you mean Hermit? Donald X. hasn't announced those wordings yet. Most text changes are of course, going to be updated as sets get reprinted.

Patron:
+1 Villager
+2 Coins
---
When you reveal this in an Action phase (using the word "reveal"), +1 Coffers.

Merchant Guild:
+1 Buy
+1 Coin
At the end of your Buy phase, +1 Coffers per card you bought this turn.

Also in general "while in play" is disappearing for "this turn." You may have noticed this change has already started with the Hermit errata I mentioned months ago.

I can't find any other card than Urchin that is "while in play" and "this turn". Are you talking about Way of the Frog? Improve? Treasury and Scheme? Scepter? (And, you or Donald, please post the new card texts.)

I don't understand, how is Urchin (or is that Hermit) special here? And how are Frog/Improve/Treasury/Scheme/Scepter relevant either?

The text changes are more like:

Highway:
+1 Card
+1 Action
This turn, cards cost 1 less.

There are most likely going to be some random side effects (and I don't just mean the interactions with Throne Room and Ways). For example, I think the best Lighthouse wording is to just match Guardian (they currently work differently against Black Cat).

Lighthouse:
+1 Action
+1 Coin
At the start of your next turn, +1 Coin. Until then, when another player plays an Attack card, it doesn't affect you.

[Jeebus]

I don't recall an Urchin post; you mean Hermit? Donald X. hasn't announced those wordings yet. Most text changes are of course, going to be updated as sets get reprinted.

Sorry, I meant Hermit every time I wrote Urchin.

You said that these are in the TGG client already, but I guess since it's still in Beta, the card texts could theoretically change again and that's why it's not official yet?

I don't understand, how is Urchin (or is that Hermit) special here? And how are Frog/Improve/Treasury/Scheme/Scepter relevant either?

I misunderstood your phrase '"while in play" is disappearing for "this turn."' I didn't get that "disappearing for" was supposed to mean "replaced by".

So this means that "while in play" will be removed from all cards? Wow. We have these:
Bridge Troll, Goons, Groundskeeper, Haggler, Highway, Hoard, Lighthouse, Merchant Guild, Princess, Quarry, Royal Seal, Sauna, Talisman, Tracker, Urchin

This is certainly not a "change as little as possible" move from Donald! Throne Room + Goons! I wonder why.

[GendoIkari]

Also “if you haven’t spent a buy yet” doesn’t keep the current functionality; in which you could buy a card during your action phase or even during your play-treasures half of your buy phase; and then still spend coffers.

are you referring to like, Black Market? because that doesn't spend a Buy; or are you referring to a Villa/Cavalry style backtracking?

Well both; but I was indeed mixing up “spend a buy” with “buy a card”. I’m not a fan of the former; because all though we all likely know what it means; it’s not a clearly defined term in Dominion as far as I know.

[Jack Rudd]

Also, since the introductions of Events, one can spend a buy without buying a card.

[spineflu]

Also, since the introductions of Events, one can spend a buy without buying a card.

exactly what I was aiming to mitigate with Gamble, Pursue, Scouting Party, etc.

[Donald X.]

You said that these are in the TGG client already, but I guess since it's still in Beta, the card texts could theoretically change again and that's why it's not official yet?

Yes. The TGG program needed the wordings, since it will only ever have the new Coffers rule.

The idea to the Coffers change is to have it work more like people do it irl. It's simpler. The rule was trickier just to deal with Merchant Guild; instead Merchant Guild should deal with itself.

So this means that "while in play" will be removed from all cards? Wow. We have these:
Bridge Troll, Goons, Groundskeeper, Haggler, Highway, Hoard, Lighthouse, Merchant Guild, Princess, Quarry, Royal Seal, Sauna, Talisman, Tracker, Urchin

This is certainly not a "change as little as possible" move from Donald! Throne Room + Goons! I wonder why.

Exactly which cards will change and how is still not official; wordings will become official as sets are reprinted, and you will see my exact choices then.

"While in play" is confusing in a way that "this turn" is not. That's what it comes down to.

[Jeebus]

"While in play" is confusing in a way that "this turn" is not. That's what it comes down to.

So you're not worried about the change in power level? Goons was already pretty powerful, now it seems that it will be insane whenever there's a Throne Room in the kingdom. Maybe the same can be said about Groundskeeper and some others.

[Donald X.]

"While in play" is confusing in a way that "this turn" is not. That's what it comes down to.

So you're not worried about the change in power level? Goons was already pretty powerful, now it seems that it will be insane whenever there's a Throne Room in the kingdom. Maybe the same can be said about Groundskeeper and some others.

For a typical card, I'm not worried. For specific cards, details will have to wait for those sets to be reprinted.

[Holger]

To those of you not in the TGG discord server (the company making the mobile version of Dominion), the rules for Coffers are getting changed, and this change also requires errata to 2 cards.

The change: You can spend Coffers at any time during your turn.

The reason: The original rule was awful and goes against intuition. How often have you bought a card, and then either realized you didn't spend enough Coffers, or you spent too many?

Side effects include being able to use Coffers to power up action-phase Storytellers, and you can immediately use the Coffers that you get from Spices.

Now there are two cards that need errata because of this. The reasons why is an exercise for the reader (or you can just go to the wiki, where I explained why).
-Merchant Guild: It will give Coffers at the end of your buy phase, and is no longer a dividing line ability.
-Patron: Only gives Coffers during an Action phase.

[...]

You give a good reason for errata-ing Patron in the wiki, but could you expand on the reason for errata-ing Merchant Guild? Its wiki article only says "With the new rules to Coffers, you would be able to spend Coffers that you gained from Merchant Guild during the same Buy phase."

Though this would strengthen MG significantly, I don't see why it would make MG overpowered. If you immediately spend the gained coffers on further buys, MG essentially becomes kind of a Bridge variant: Instead of a cost reduction by $1, you immediately get $1 back for each buy.
While Bridge is a very strong $4 card, MG costs $5, so it should be okay for it to be usable as an "almost immediate" cost reducer.

Spices seems more problematic to me: With the coffers change, it effectively becomes a $3 card that's strictly (and significantly) better than Silver whenever you have 2 coffers (or a spare $2) at the beginning of your buy phase.

[Donald X.]

You give a good reason for errata-ing Patron in the wiki, but could you expand on the reason for errata-ing Merchant Guild? Its wiki article only says "With the new rules to Coffers, you would be able to spend Coffers that you gained from Merchant Guild during the same Buy phase."

Though this would strengthen MG significantly, I don't see why it would make MG overpowered. If you immediately spend the gained coffers on further buys, MG essentially becomes kind of a Bridge variant: Instead of a cost reduction by $1, you immediately get $1 back for each buy.
While Bridge is a very strong $4 card, MG costs $5, so it should be okay for it to be usable as an "almost immediate" cost reducer.

Spices seems more problematic to me: With the coffers change, it effectively becomes a $3 card that's strictly (and significantly) better than Silver whenever you have 2 coffers (or a spare $2) at the beginning of your buy phase.

The fix to Merchant Guild preserves its existing functionality, as well as possible. The intention of the Coffers change was not to make cards turn into different cards; Merchant Guild would still like to be Merchant Guild.

There was no such simple fix possible for Spices. I can e.g. Remodel into Spices, then use the tokens the same turn.

At the same time I consulted experts. The feeling was that Spices was not really so different. The value in the tokens lies in saving them for later.

[cookiedrugs]

To those of you not in the TGG discord server (the company making the mobile version of Dominion), the rules for Coffers are getting changed, and this change also requires errata to 2 cards.

The change: You can spend Coffers at any time during your turn.

The reason: The original rule was awful and goes against intuition. How often have you bought a card, and then either realized you didn't spend enough Coffers, or you spent too many?

Side effects include being able to use Coffers to power up action-phase Storytellers, and you can immediately use the Coffers that you get from Spices.

Now there are two cards that need errata because of this. The reasons why is an exercise for the reader (or you can just go to the wiki, where I explained why).
-Merchant Guild: It will give Coffers at the end of your buy phase, and is no longer a dividing line ability.
-Patron: Only gives Coffers during an Action phase.

[...]

You give a good reason for errata-ing Patron in the wiki, but could you expand on the reason for errata-ing Merchant Guild? Its wiki article only says "With the new rules to Coffers, you would be able to spend Coffers that you gained from Merchant Guild during the same Buy phase."

Though this would strengthen MG significantly, I don't see why it would make MG overpowered. If you immediately spend the gained coffers on further buys, MG essentially becomes kind of a Bridge variant: Instead of a cost reduction by $1, you immediately get $1 back for each buy.
While Bridge is a very strong $4 card, MG costs $5, so it should be okay for it to be usable as an "almost immediate" cost reducer.

Spices seems more problematic to me: With the coffers change, it effectively becomes a $3 card that's strictly (and significantly) better than Silver whenever you have 2 coffers (or a spare $2) at the beginning of your buy phase.

Traveling Fair comes to my mind. If you have three MGs in play, you can alternately buy Traveling Fair and Copper and get additionally a Coffer. After the Copper pile is empty you have +46$.

[pubby]

Is patron better worded as "if it's not your buy phase..."? That way it works more often.

BTW presumably debt needs a rule change too?

[Holger]

You give a good reason for errata-ing Patron in the wiki, but could you expand on the reason for errata-ing Merchant Guild? Its wiki article only says "With the new rules to Coffers, you would be able to spend Coffers that you gained from Merchant Guild during the same Buy phase."

Though this would strengthen MG significantly, I don't see why it would make MG overpowered. If you immediately spend the gained coffers on further buys, MG essentially becomes kind of a Bridge variant: Instead of a cost reduction by $1, you immediately get $1 back for each buy.
While Bridge is a very strong $4 card, MG costs $5, so it should be okay for it to be usable as an "almost immediate" cost reducer.

Spices seems more problematic to me: With the coffers change, it effectively becomes a $3 card that's strictly (and significantly) better than Silver whenever you have 2 coffers (or a spare $2) at the beginning of your buy phase.

The fix to Merchant Guild preserves its existing functionality, as well as possible. The intention of the Coffers change was not to make cards turn into different cards; Merchant Guild would still like to be Merchant Guild.

There was no such simple fix possible for Spices. I can e.g. Remodel into Spices, then use the tokens the same turn.

At the same time I consulted experts. The feeling was that Spices was not really so different. The value in the tokens lies in saving them for later.

Thanks for your answer, Donald! Yes, changing the wording to keep the existing functionality of Merchant Guild makes perfect sense.

For Spices, I will of course defer to the experts. (FWIW, I would consider you the topmost Dominion expert yourself  .)

Still, I think it would be possible to change Spices' wording in order to keep its functionality in most cases, by changing it to:
"When you gain this, at the end of this phase, +2 Coffers."

This would still allow you to gain Spices in your Action phase (e.g. with Remodel) and use the Coffers in the same turn's buy phase, but would not allow you to immediately use Coffers received by buying Spices.
The only difference to Spices' current functionality (AFAICS) would be the rare case when you gain Spices during the "play treaures" part of your buy phase (e.g. with Horn of Plenty or with Scepter+Artisan).

[Donald X.]

Still, I think it would be possible to change Spices' wording in order to keep its functionality in most cases, by changing it to:
"When you gain this, at the end of this phase, +2 Coffers."

I considered and rejected that. It maintains previous functionality better, but is some weird text that I don't think I need.

[Donald X.]

Is patron better worded as "if it's not your buy phase..."? That way it works more often.

BTW presumably debt needs a rule change too?

I haven't looked at debt yet. It's worth considering though.

Yes Patron could specifically look for the Buy phase. Almost everything else is the Action phase though.

[JW]

-Patron: Only gives Coffers during an Action phase.

To save anyone else a trip to the Wiki: "With the new rules to Coffers, Patron and Pursue would become an infinite combo. Because of this, Patron has received errata to only give Coffers during an Action phase."

[mxdata]

-Patron: Only gives Coffers during an Action phase.

To save anyone else a trip to the Wiki: "With the new rules to Coffers, Patron and Pursue would become an infinite combo. Because of this, Patron has received errata to only give Coffers during an Action phase."

Thanks!  I was wondering why it was necessary to restrict Patron to action phase.  It didn't seem like the occasional coffer from things like Venture or Loan was worth the extra clause. I missed the interaction with Pursue

[Sparafucile]

Is this errata ever going to make it to the printed version of the cards - I love the game getting fixed - but it makes my IRL copy less true to the game when it happens. 

[Donald X.]

Is this errata ever going to make it to the printed version of the cards - I love the game getting fixed - but it makes my IRL copy less true to the game when it happens. 

It will, I think in 2022 though I'm not sure.

[pacovf]

"While in play" is confusing in a way that "this turn" is not. That's what it comes down to.

I am amused by this. If I remember correctly, "while in play" was introduced because "this turn" was confusing (as in, harder to track). See Highway vs Bridge. Life twists and turns :p

[mxdata]

"While in play" is confusing in a way that "this turn" is not. That's what it comes down to.

I am amused by this. If I remember correctly, "while in play" was introduced because "this turn" was confusing (as in, harder to track). See Highway vs Bridge. Life twists and turns :p

Yeah, honestly, "while in play" seems far easier than "this turn". And more fun with things like Ways

[Ingix]

Dominion players (at least the one posting online) seem to like power. So they don't like their Throne Rooms not working with Highways (in the "reduce costs by $2" sense) or Goons (in the "give me 2VP per bought card" sense). And with more expansions coming out, Procession seems to be the odd one out of the "Throne Room"-likes.

Ways are another case where the "artificial" split between a card's abilities becomes visible: Way a Goon, and you still get the "VP per bought card" effect, but without the $2, +Buy and opponent's discard. It's kinda the opposite to Throne Room.

[scolapasta]

I played in person Dominion for the first time since the pandemic started this week and already felt the result of this change.

In a game with Guildhall and Fair (both bought previously turns), there was one province left and I only had $7. I was about to just buy a Duchy, when I realized the new rule let me first buy a Copper, get a Coffers, and then use that Coffers that turn to get up to $8.

[Jeebus]

Before, the two subphases were "get coins" (play Treasures and spend Coffers tokens) and "use coins" (buy things and pay off Debt).
Is paying off Debt also changing?

[spineflu]

Is there a reason for Patron being phase-dependent rather than "if you haven't spent a Buy yet"? As the random Venture enjoyer of the board, that enabling combo was pretty nice.

Also kind of a bummer Merchant Guild isn't going to be enabled as a Way. Some good combos with wot Pig and others.

i thought of another noninfinite way for patron to work, including in the buy phase: just have it work when a card (not a landscape or rulebook) tells you to reveal it using the keyword reveal

[AJD]

Before, the two subphases were "get coins" (play Treasures and spend Coffers tokens) and "use coins" (buy things and pay off Debt).

I don't think this is right? You can pay off Debt before playing Treasures if you choose.

[Ingix]

Before, the two subphases were "get coins" (play Treasures and spend Coffers tokens) and "use coins" (buy things and pay off Debt).

I don't think this is right? You can pay off Debt before playing Treasures if you choose.

No, this is actually correct, as per the rules in the Empires rulebook:

A player removes Debt tokens in the player's Buy phase by paying $1 per Debt token to remove it; this is done after playing Treasures, but can be done both before and after buying cards.

dominion.games allows you pay off debt before, which may make it easier to do calculations in your head, but also has very little effect on what can actually happen, because you generally use/spend $ only by buying things.

[Jeebus]

dominion.games allows you pay off debt before, which may make it easier to do calculations in your head, but also has very little effect on what can actually happen, because you generally use/spend $ only by buying things.

I didn't realize that. I guess it would only make a difference if you played Black Market as a Treasure with Capitalism. According to the rules, this would be like playing it normally in your Action phase: you can't pay off debt, so you can't buy anything if you're in debt.*

But there are also ways to play Black Market in the second part of the buy phase, and then you actally can pay off debt. So it doesn't actually sound like a bad idea to allow paying off debt all through the buy phase, just like it works online - to simplify the rules.

*Another rare corner case: You want to play a Storyteller as a Treasure with Capitalism, but you don't want to pay all your $, rather use some of it on debt first.

[Jeebus]

Another question, hopefully Donald can answer: Is the rule for spending Villagers changing too? It would be simpler to just say that you can spend both Coffers and Villagers at any point during your turn.

And as mentioned above, you could also allow paying off debt at any point during your turn. Dominion Online already allows it throughout your Buy phase, with very little functional difference.

Actually, it would be even simpler to say that you can do these things whenever, instead of specifically excluding the corner cases where you might want to do them on another player's turn.

[GendoIkari]

And as mentioned above, you could also allow paying off debt at any point during your turn. Dominion Online already allows it throughout your Buy phase, with very little functional difference.

Which would also allow Capital to get cleaner wording.

[dz]

Stef has been working on a big update for the online version for a while, and it will come out a couple weeks before Allies previews (week of Feb 28). It also includes all the new rules errata (such as the rules for playing cards, using coffers, and the new ruling for Star Chart). You can test it out here: https://dev.dominion.games/

Anyways, I can now give you the official wordings on *some* of the errata'd cards (not all of them; Hermit hasn't changed yet). I'm not going to cover the ones previously announced; if you need a refresher on Donate etc., go here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20551.msg856350#msg856350.

Merchant Guild (Action):
+1 Buy
+$1
At the end of your Buy phase this turn, +1 Coffers per card you gained in it.

Note that there's no dividing line, and Merchant Guil cares about gaining, not buying.

Patron (Action):
+1 Villager
+$2
(dividing line)
When something causes you to reveal this in an Action phase (using the word "reveal"), +1 Coffers.

Citadel (Project):
The first time you play an Action card during each of your turns, replay it afterwards.

Prince (Action-Duration)
You may set aside (on this) a non-Duration Action card from your hand costing up to $4. At the start of each of your turns, play that card, leaving it set aside.

Surprise, Prince is getting the 2019 errata treatment. Note that it doesn't have the Command type, because that type only exists to avoid infinite loops. Also Prince is a now a permanent duration, like Hireling.

[silverspawn]

achievement: play a cost reducer, then Prince a Pillage. (Unless I've missed an errata where Pillage only attacks if it's trashed successfully)

[ephesos]

So if Prince doesn't have the Command type, and it no longer has the "Set this aside. If you do, ..." condition, can you use an Overlord and cost reduction to play a Prince from the Supply, leaving it there and setting aside a card from your hand on top of the supply pile?

[GendoIkari]

achievement: play a cost reducer, then Prince a Pillage. (Unless I've missed an errata where Pillage only attacks if it's trashed successfully)

According to the text shown on Pillage itself in the Wiki, it does indeed only do something if trashed.

It received errata in 2019 to make it not be crazy with new Inheritance and Overlord, same as Embargo and Death Cart.

[ephesos]

So if Prince doesn't have the Command type, and it no longer has the "Set this aside. If you do, ..." condition, can you use an Overlord and cost reduction to play a Prince from the Supply, leaving it there and setting aside a card from your hand on top of the supply pile?

I guess because it has the Duration tag now, Overlord would stay out and you would set the card aside on that.

Maybe it would also work with Throne Room or King's Court to set aside multiple cards?

[GendoIkari]

So if Prince doesn't have the Command type, and it no longer has the "Set this aside. If you do, ..." condition, can you use an Overlord and cost reduction to play a Prince from the Supply, leaving it there and setting aside a card from your hand on top of the supply pile?

It has been clarified elsewhere that "on this" is not meant to be taken literally in all cases, but rather just a suggestion for tracking of where to set cards aside. For example, if you play Haven from the supply, the card you set aside doesn't go under that Haven.

[GendoIkari]

So if Prince doesn't have the Command type, and it no longer has the "Set this aside. If you do, ..." condition, can you use an Overlord and cost reduction to play a Prince from the Supply, leaving it there and setting aside a card from your hand on top of the supply pile?

Oh never mind, I missed that it also got the Duration tag. Though maybe it would still work with Throne Room or King's Court to set aside multiple cards?

Confused by this post, what does the Duration change have to do with the question?

But to your edit, yes, Throne Room and King's Court should now work with Prince, which they didn't before.

[ephesos]

Confused by this post, what does the Duration change have to do with the question?

But to your edit, yes, Throne Room and King's Court should now work with Prince, which they didn't before.

I edited it again to try and make it clearer

[GendoIkari]

Confused by this post, what does the Duration change have to do with the question?

But to your edit, yes, Throne Room and King's Court should now work with Prince, which they didn't before.

I edited it again to try and make it clearer

Ah ok. Yeah for tracking purposes it would indeed be recommended to set aside the chosen card on your Overlord, though that still is a non-literal reading of the "on this", in which "this" is the Prince that's in the supply.

[ephesos]

Another follow-up question: what happens if you Prince a Prince with cost reduction? Do you just get to keep on Princing cards every turn? And does the card you just set aside with your Princed Prince get played in the same "start of turn" phase that you set it aside in?

[GendoIkari]

Another follow-up question: what happens if you Prince a Prince with cost reduction? Do you just get to keep on Princing cards every turn? And does the card you just set aside with your Princed Prince get played in the same "start of turn" phase that you set it aside in?

You can't because new Prince has both Duration type and "non-Duration" clause.

[ephesos]

Another follow-up question: what happens if you Prince a Prince with cost reduction? Do you just get to keep on Princing cards every turn? And does the card you just set aside with your Princed Prince get played in the same "start of turn" phase that you set it aside in?

You can't because new Prince has both Duration type and "non-Duration" clause.

Hmmmm, maybe you could Prince a Band of Misfits to play a Prince. Though that would require Prince to cost less than Band of Misfits which doesn't seem possible currently. Either that, or use Inheritance plus cost reduction to give your Estates the ability to play a set-aside Prince, since your Estates wouldn't have the Duration tag.

[silverspawn]

achievement: play a cost reducer, then Prince a Pillage. (Unless I've missed an errata where Pillage only attacks if it's trashed successfully)

According to the text shown on Pillage itself in the Wiki, it does indeed only do something if trashed.

It received errata in 2019 to make it not be crazy with new Inheritance and Overlord, same as Embargo and Death Cart.

Still, any other card that trashes itself while producing resources should work with Prince now? Like Acting Troupe.

[GendoIkari]

achievement: play a cost reducer, then Prince a Pillage. (Unless I've missed an errata where Pillage only attacks if it's trashed successfully)

According to the text shown on Pillage itself in the Wiki, it does indeed only do something if trashed.

It received errata in 2019 to make it not be crazy with new Inheritance and Overlord, same as Embargo and Death Cart.

Still, any other card that trashes itself while producing resources should work with Prince now? Like Acting Troupe.

And Feast!

[Jeebus]

achievement: play a cost reducer, then Prince a Pillage. (Unless I've missed an errata where Pillage only attacks if it's trashed successfully)

According to the text shown on Pillage itself in the Wiki, it does indeed only do something if trashed.

It received errata in 2019 to make it not be crazy with new Inheritance and Overlord, same as Embargo and Death Cart.

Still, any other card that trashes itself while producing resources should work with Prince now? Like Acting Troupe.

And Feast!

Tragic Hero, if you also have a +1 Card effect (like Hireling, or a Caravan played most turns), will repeatedly draw three cards and gain a gold.
Wine Merchant, Encampment, Experiment and Knights will keep doing their thing, never going away.

[Jeebus]

Either that, or use Inheritance plus cost reduction to give your Estates the ability to play a set-aside Prince, since your Estates wouldn't have the Duration tag.

Yeah, if you inherit Prince (with cost reduction), I think you could play a Prince (or an Estate) and set aside an Estate, and the Estate would play the original set-aside Prince every turn for the rest of the game. Each turn you would be able to choose a new card to play every turn for the rest of the game. If you choose another Estate, you would be able to choose two cards every turn, starting next turn. Not exactly an infinite loop, but pretty loopy nonetheless.

[NiCkLeB474]

I couldn't find precedent for this on the Wiki; if you return to your Action phase, does that result in two Buy phases or is it more like "getting to" the start of your Buy phase (singular) multiple times? Does the new Merchant Guild only count gains that happened in the one Buy phase that reaches its end?

[kieranmillar]

New Merchant Guild only counts gains for the buy phase that ended. Returning to your action phase via Villa or Cavalry means any gains that happened in that buy phase don't count, as it never reached the end.

So you start multiple buy phases, but only the last one reaches the end.

[Jeebus]

We know that you only reach the end of your Buy phase once. But do we know that each time you start your Buy phase it counts as a new Buy phase? Do you have a quote from Donald about this?

[Donald X.]

We know that you only reach the end of your Buy phase once. But do we know that each time you start your Buy phase it counts as a new Buy phase? Do you have a quote from Donald about this?

Tentatively it's a new phase every time it starts anew.

[GendoIkari]

We know that you only reach the end of your Buy phase once. But do we know that each time you start your Buy phase it counts as a new Buy phase? Do you have a quote from Donald about this?

Tentatively it's a new phase every time it starts anew.

Not sure if this answers the part of the question directly about Merchant Guild. When you return to your action phase from your buy phase does that trigger new Merchant Guild? Is "the end of your buy phase" any time your buy phase is ending?

[NiCkLeB474]

We know that you only reach the end of your Buy phase once. But do we know that each time you start your Buy phase it counts as a new Buy phase? Do you have a quote from Donald about this?

Tentatively it's a new phase every time it starts anew.

Not sure if this answers the part of the question directly about Merchant Guild. When you return to your action phase from your buy phase does that trigger new Merchant Guild? Is "the end of your buy phase" any time your buy phase is ending?

http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Wine_Merchant#Other_rules_clarifications

The timing on Wine Merchant is the same as new Merchant Guild, and returning from Buy to Action phase does not trigger WM, so it would appear that no, the only way to trigger new MG is by reaching the end of Buy phase normally.

[Jeebus]

Yes, this has been ruled on before, that's why I wrote, "We know that you only reach the end of your Buy phase once."

[Jeebus]

We know that you only reach the end of your Buy phase once. But do we know that each time you start your Buy phase it counts as a new Buy phase? Do you have a quote from Donald about this?

Tentatively it's a new phase every time it starts anew.

I've been thinking about Cavalry and Villa. They say, "return to your Action phase," which implies that there is only one Action phase although you reach the end of it several times. This would imply that the same goes for the Buy phase: There is only one Buy phase although you reach the beginning of it several times.

[Jack Rudd]

I suppose infinite combos might be a problem with a Night card that returned to an earlier phase, but the answer to that is probably to not make that card.

[Donald X.]

We know that you only reach the end of your Buy phase once. But do we know that each time you start your Buy phase it counts as a new Buy phase? Do you have a quote from Donald about this?

Tentatively it's a new phase every time it starts anew.

I've been thinking about Cavalry and Villa. They say, "return to your Action phase," which implies that there is only one Action phase although you reach the end of it several times. This would imply that the same goes for the Buy phase: There is only one Buy phase although you reach the beginning of it several times.

I see what you mean.

[GendoIkari]

Amy particular reason that new Merchant Guild doesn’t trigger at the end of your turn instead of the end of your buy phase?

[Donald X.]

Amy particular reason that new Merchant Guild doesn’t trigger at the end of your turn instead of the end of your buy phase?

Just that it's based on the previous Merchant Guild.

[GendoIkari]

Amy particular reason that new Merchant Guild doesn’t trigger at the end of your turn instead of the end of your buy phase?

Just that it's based on the previous Merchant Guild.

Not really sure that the wording is closer to the original than "end of turn" would be. I suppose in games with Night phases, it's the difference between old Merchant Guild having the coffers during your Night Phase, while "end of turn" Merchant Guild wouldn't. But in that case, "end of turn" would be closer in functionality to old Merchant Guild than "end of buy phase" would, because old Merchant Guild (with old Coffers rules) didn't let you spend those new Coffers during your Night phase. New Merchant Guild (with "End of buy phase") allows you to spend them during Night phase, while "End of turn" wouldn't. And "End of turn" would remove the confusion about which buy phases count for which. It could be for each card you bought this turn, or for each card you gained during your buy phase this turn; either way.

I wonder how strong new "gained' version is with things like Port and Experiment.

[Donald X.]

Amy particular reason that new Merchant Guild doesn’t trigger at the end of your turn instead of the end of your buy phase?

Just that it's based on the previous Merchant Guild.

Not really sure that the wording is closer to the original than "end of turn" would be. I suppose in games with Night phases, it's the difference between old Merchant Guild having the coffers during your Night Phase, while "end of turn" Merchant Guild wouldn't. But in that case, "end of turn" would be closer in functionality to old Merchant Guild than "end of buy phase" would, because old Merchant Guild (with old Coffers rules) didn't let you spend those new Coffers during your Night phase. New Merchant Guild (with "End of buy phase") allows you to spend them during Night phase, while "End of turn" wouldn't. And "End of turn" would remove the confusion about which buy phases count for which. It could be for each card you bought this turn, or for each card you gained during your buy phase this turn; either way.

I wonder how strong new "gained' version is with things like Port and Experiment.

It's not that I compared "end of turn" and found it wanting; I just found a wording based on looking at the current card.

"End of turn" does do the trick of getting rid of rules questions for Villas.

[Donald X.]

Currently I am leaning towards, Villa (and pals) will actually end the Buy phase. This can trigger Wine Merchant, Exploration, Pageant, Merchant Guild.

The idea is just, if we asked a casual player, wouldn't they say that the Buy phase ended? I mean after gaining Villa you're no longer in it. We call that "ending."

[Jeebus]

Currently I am leaning towards, Villa (and pals) will actually end the Buy phase. This can trigger Wine Merchant, Exploration, Pageant, Merchant Guild.

The idea is just, if we asked a casual player, wouldn't they say that the Buy phase ended? I mean after gaining Villa you're no longer in it. We call that "ending."

The question then would be, does that also mean that Villa makes the Action phase start again? But fortunately it doesn't matter, since no cards care about the start of the Action phase. And I guess no cards ever will, since "beginning of turn" serves the same purpose.

[GendoIkari]

Currently I am leaning towards, Villa (and pals) will actually end the Buy phase. This can trigger Wine Merchant, Exploration, Pageant, Merchant Guild.

The idea is just, if we asked a casual player, wouldn't they say that the Buy phase ended? I mean after gaining Villa you're no longer in it. We call that "ending."

I agree, the old ruling feels odd to me; if you were somewhere and you are no longer there, clearly you left. If you were at a time in your life and you are no longer in that time in your life, that time in your life ended.

[silverspawn]

If you imagine phases as a label you put on a chunk of time, they start and end. If on the other hand you imagine your turn specially, like a road separated into "action phase", "buy phase", "night phase", then buying a villa would be like taking a step backwards, and you haven't reached the end of the buy phase.

I would genuinely not be super shocked most casual players imagine it the latter way (though I'd probably bet against it). Maybe you could run a poll!

[ephesos]

Does triggering Pageant multiple times mean you can pay $1 for 1 Coffers multiple times per turn? Or can you only pay once, but each time Pageant triggers you get the option to do it if you haven't yet? The Renaissance rulebook says Pageant only works once per turn, but of course with a new wording that could be completely void now (though presumably, you'd still only be able to do it once per Buy phase that ended).

[GendoIkari]

If you imagine phases as a label you put on a chunk of time, they start and end. If on the other hand you imagine your turn specially, like a road separated into "action phase", "buy phase", "night phase", then buying a villa would be like taking a step backwards, and you haven't reached the end of the buy phase.

I would genuinely not be super shocked most casual players imagine it the latter way (though I'd probably bet against it). Maybe you could run a poll!

This analogy makes me rethink my last post.

[Donald X.]

If you imagine phases as a label you put on a chunk of time, they start and end. If on the other hand you imagine your turn specially, like a road separated into "action phase", "buy phase", "night phase", then buying a villa would be like taking a step backwards, and you haven't reached the end of the buy phase.

I would genuinely not be super shocked most casual players imagine it the latter way (though I'd probably bet against it). Maybe you could run a poll!

My informal poll so far has most players having thought that Villa ended the buy phase, until they were told otherwise.

[Donald X.]

Does triggering Pageant multiple times mean you can pay $1 for 1 Coffers multiple times per turn? Or can you only pay once, but each time Pageant triggers you get the option to do it if you haven't yet? The Renaissance rulebook says Pageant only works once per turn, but of course with a new wording that could be completely void now (though presumably, you'd still only be able to do it once per Buy phase that ended).

The rulebooks can never cover everything card interactions can manage. If Lab's entry says you draw two cards, well clearly that's wrong because of the -1 Card token. If you see what I mean.

If Villa ends the buy phase - which doesn't involve new wordings for any cards - then you could use Pageant again, yes.

[grrgrrgrr]

I am kinda split on this change, since I kinda dislike the errata Merchant Ship and (especially) Patron got. Is there a reason why the playability conditions aren't "when you can play a Treasure, you can spend Coffers". I know I can't outthink Donald X when it comes to Dominion design, so he must have a good reason for this.

That said, is there any consideration on making Treasures playable during the entirety of the Buy phase (kinda contradicting what I just said above)? This mattered pretty much never pre-Renaissance, but nowadays it feels kinda ugly.

EDIT: I have thought about it and yes, above suggestion is also less than ideal as Gamble suggests that you can play a Treasure. So a more ideal solution would be adding the convention that "A Coffers is a $1 producing Spoils that is always available". But that might be a too much of a breeding ground for rule questions (such as: do they count towards Storyteller and Voyage? Can I Mint them? etc.). And that probably sums up why Donald chose his solution instead.

[Jeebus]

That said, is there any consideration on making Treasures playable during the entirety of the Buy phase (kinda contradicting what I just said above)? This mattered pretty much never pre-Renaissance, but nowadays it feels kinda ugly.

The rule was introduced with Prosperity. Removing it would break Grand Market, and significantly alter Mint and Mandarin, maybe more.

[grrgrrgrr]

That said, is there any consideration on making Treasures playable during the entirety of the Buy phase (kinda contradicting what I just said above)? This mattered pretty much never pre-Renaissance, but nowadays it feels kinda ugly.

The rule was introduced with Prosperity. Removing it would break Grand Market, and significantly alter Mint and Mandarin, maybe more.

Wow, how could I forgot that one lol. But this isn't really that far of from the Coffers thing though.

EDIT: This begs the question: shouldn't the Buy phase be split into two phases: a phase A in which you play Treasures, and a phase B in which you can buy cards and (some) landscapes? For Coffers, the solution is then simple: you can play Coffers during the Action phase and phase A of the Buy phase. But I guess this opens other cans of worms (with playing Black Market through March or Gamble).

[GendoIkari]

That said, is there any consideration on making Treasures playable during the entirety of the Buy phase (kinda contradicting what I just said above)? This mattered pretty much never pre-Renaissance, but nowadays it feels kinda ugly.

The rule was introduced with Prosperity. Removing it would break Grand Market, and significantly alter Mint and Mandarin, maybe more.

Wait, this wasn't the rule before prosperity? Not that it would matter with just the base game treasures, but I thought that it was always the rule.

[Jeebus]

That said, is there any consideration on making Treasures playable during the entirety of the Buy phase (kinda contradicting what I just said above)? This mattered pretty much never pre-Renaissance, but nowadays it feels kinda ugly.

The rule was introduced with Prosperity. Removing it would break Grand Market, and significantly alter Mint and Mandarin, maybe more.

Wait, this wasn't the rule before prosperity? Not that it would matter with just the base game treasures, but I thought that it was always the rule.

Nope. It didn't matter with any of the sets before Prosperity, and that's where it was introduced.

[GendoIkari]

That said, is there any consideration on making Treasures playable during the entirety of the Buy phase (kinda contradicting what I just said above)? This mattered pretty much never pre-Renaissance, but nowadays it feels kinda ugly.

The rule was introduced with Prosperity. Removing it would break Grand Market, and significantly alter Mint and Mandarin, maybe more.

Wait, this wasn't the rule before prosperity? Not that it would matter with just the base game treasures, but I thought that it was always the rule.

Nope. It didn't matter with any of the sets before Prosperity, and that's where it was introduced.

I read the 1st edition base game rulebook and while it doesn’t go out of its way to be clear; it does say that you play treasure and “then” you buy your card. But I suppose especially with multiple buys; it’s not at all clear.

[Jeebus]

That said, is there any consideration on making Treasures playable during the entirety of the Buy phase (kinda contradicting what I just said above)? This mattered pretty much never pre-Renaissance, but nowadays it feels kinda ugly.

The rule was introduced with Prosperity. Removing it would break Grand Market, and significantly alter Mint and Mandarin, maybe more.

Wait, this wasn't the rule before prosperity? Not that it would matter with just the base game treasures, but I thought that it was always the rule.

Nope. It didn't matter with any of the sets before Prosperity, and that's where it was introduced.

I read the 1st edition base game rulebook and while it doesn’t go out of its way to be clear; it does say that you play treasure and “then” you buy your card. But I suppose especially with multiple buys; it’s not at all clear.

Exactly. It says that about buying one card; then it says you can buy more cards with multiple buys. But the whole point is that you can't play more Treasure after you've bought a card, and it doesn't really say that.

[Jeebus]

Currently I am leaning towards, Villa (and pals) will actually end the Buy phase. This can trigger Wine Merchant, Exploration, Pageant, Merchant Guild.

The idea is just, if we asked a casual player, wouldn't they say that the Buy phase ended? I mean after gaining Villa you're no longer in it. We call that "ending."

Do you still stand by this ruling?

[Donald X.]

Currently I am leaning towards, Villa (and pals) will actually end the Buy phase. This can trigger Wine Merchant, Exploration, Pageant, Merchant Guild.

The idea is just, if we asked a casual player, wouldn't they say that the Buy phase ended? I mean after gaining Villa you're no longer in it. We call that "ending."

Do you still stand by this ruling?

That's still sounding good to me.

[m_knox]

That said, is there any consideration on making Treasures playable during the entirety of the Buy phase (kinda contradicting what I just said above)? This mattered pretty much never pre-Renaissance, but nowadays it feels kinda ugly.

The rule was introduced with Prosperity. Removing it would break Grand Market, and significantly alter Mint and Mandarin, maybe more.

Wait, this wasn't the rule before prosperity? Not that it would matter with just the base game treasures, but I thought that it was always the rule.

Nope. It didn't matter with any of the sets before Prosperity, and that's where it was introduced.

Wrong. In Alchemy.

During the Buy phase, all Treasures are played before a player buys any cards, even if he has +Buys. A player may not play Treasures after Buying a card. This is important for Philosopher's Stone.

[Jeebus]

That said, is there any consideration on making Treasures playable during the entirety of the Buy phase (kinda contradicting what I just said above)? This mattered pretty much never pre-Renaissance, but nowadays it feels kinda ugly.

The rule was introduced with Prosperity. Removing it would break Grand Market, and significantly alter Mint and Mandarin, maybe more.

Wait, this wasn't the rule before prosperity? Not that it would matter with just the base game treasures, but I thought that it was always the rule.

Nope. It didn't matter with any of the sets before Prosperity, and that's where it was introduced.

Wrong. In Alchemy.

During the Buy phase, all Treasures are played before a player buys any cards, even if he has +Buys. A player may not play Treasures after Buying a card. This is important for Philosopher's Stone.

Ah, okay. I checked, but too quickly then.
But the point is, it was not always the rule, and it was introduced when it mattered (and of course it matters a lot more for the cards in Prosperity than for Philosopher's Stone).

[Wizard_Amul]

That said, is there any consideration on making Treasures playable during the entirety of the Buy phase (kinda contradicting what I just said above)? This mattered pretty much never pre-Renaissance, but nowadays it feels kinda ugly.

The rule was introduced with Prosperity. Removing it would break Grand Market, and significantly alter Mint and Mandarin, maybe more.

Wait, this wasn't the rule before prosperity? Not that it would matter with just the base game treasures, but I thought that it was always the rule.

Nope. It didn't matter with any of the sets before Prosperity, and that's where it was introduced.

Wrong. In Alchemy.

During the Buy phase, all Treasures are played before a player buys any cards, even if he has +Buys. A player may not play Treasures after Buying a card. This is important for Philosopher's Stone.

Ah, okay. I checked, but too quickly then.
But the point is, it was not always the rule, and it was introduced when it mattered (and of course it matters a lot more for the cards in Prosperity than for Philosopher's Stone).

It certainly matters for Philosopher's Stone--whether or not you can buy cards before playing all your treasures directly changes how many coins you get for playing Philosopher's Stone. I get what you mean, though...it doesn't practically matter since almost nobody cares about Philosopher's Stone.

[cookiedrugs]

Merchants Guild looks at all cards gained in the buying phase, including prior ones, isn't it? I buy a Silver, after that I buy Merchant Guild and play it with Innovation. Do I get two Coffers?

[Jeebus]

It certainly matters for Philosopher's Stone--whether or not you can buy cards before playing all your treasures directly changes how many coins you get for playing Philosopher's Stone. I get what you mean, though...it doesn't practically matter since almost nobody cares about Philosopher's Stone.

No, I meant that the cases it would matter at all when playing Philosopher's Stone are rare. First of all, you have to have 2 Buys and enough coins to buy a second card (buying the first card without Ph.Stone), and then it only makes a difference in 1/5 of the cases, of +$1, and that coin in itself will only matter sometimes.

For Mint and Grand Market it makes a big difference.

[Ingix]

Merchants Guild looks at all cards gained in the buying phase, including prior ones, isn't it? I buy a Silver, after that I buy Merchant Guild and play it with Innovation. Do I get two Coffers?

It does count gains prior to it being in play, from the same buy phase, so you get 2 Coffers at the end of the buy phase in your example.

[Holger]

For Mint and Grand Market it makes a big difference.

The difference is bigger than for Philosopher's Stone, but allowing treasure plays after the first buy still only matters if you have extra buys at all.

This rule change would strengthen all three cards, but I don't see it breaking either of them: Mint could use a boost, and Grand Market wouldn't become any easier to buy itself - you could only use the coppers to buy something else afterwards.

[GendoIkari]

Another issue with allowing you to play treasures after you buy a card is that it would add to the confusion that new players have in thinking that you “buy stuff with treasure”. As opposed to treasures being cards that work exactly like action cards.

[Jeebus]

For Mint and Grand Market it makes a big difference.

The difference is bigger than for Philosopher's Stone, but allowing treasure plays after the first buy still only matters if you have extra buys at all.

Sure, for all three you need extra buys, and the coins to use them. But Ph.Stone is much narrower still, since as I said it still only makes a difference 1/5 of the time, and only for +$1. So it's just much less important than for Mint and Grand Market.

This rule change would strengthen all three cards, but I don't see it breaking either of them: Mint could use a boost, and Grand Market wouldn't become any easier to buy itself - you could only use the coppers to buy something else afterwards.

Grand Market would be substantially better. It would be easier to buy because of the opportunity cost.
Maybe Mint could use the boost, I haven't considered that.

[silverspawn]

I think for Mint, it's not a question of powerlevel but of swinginess. Right now it's really extremely good if you draw 5 coppers on turn 3+. With the changed mint, later purchases would become better, thus making the card less swingy. I'd say Mint would be improved. (It would probably still be worth buying early if you draw the 5 Copper hand.)

[mxdata]

Another follow-up question: what happens if you Prince a Prince with cost reduction? Do you just get to keep on Princing cards every turn? And does the card you just set aside with your Princed Prince get played in the same "start of turn" phase that you set it aside in?

You can't because new Prince has both Duration type and "non-Duration" clause.

Hmmmm, maybe you could Prince a Band of Misfits to play a Prince. Though that would require Prince to cost less than Band of Misfits which doesn't seem possible currently. Either that, or use Inheritance plus cost reduction to give your Estates the ability to play a set-aside Prince, since your Estates wouldn't have the Duration tag.

Now with Family of Inventors that might work?