Print

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

[SirPeebles]

Since your action phase doesn't actually end until you finish resolving your last action (despite what is literally said in the rulebook)

Says who?

You could defend this interpretation, but just having a faq would be easier.

FAQs don't trump rules.

[pacovf]

Since your action phase doesn't actually end until you finish resolving your last action (despite what is literally said in the rulebook)

Says who?

Not sure what exactly you are disagreeing with? Since peddler's cost doesn't get reduced as soon as you play your last action, the action phase ends after you finish resolving your last action. However, the rules as written would imply otherwise.

You could defend this interpretation, but just having a faq would be easier.

FAQs don't trump rules.

What I mean here is that the rulebook has precedence over what the card says. See Throne Room and Band of Misfits as a one-shot, Donald X. has actually said that the way they interact contradicts the way the cards are written, but makes more intuitive sense.

[silverspawn]

FAQs don't trump rules.

they kind of do, otherwise you could use pirate ship coin tokens as coin tokens. or you could argue that it was a specific rule for that question, not a faq...

[Witherweaver]

But then you can topdeck them all if you have at least one unused action, which is definitely not what we want it to do.

EDIT: I would like it if it was possible to reuse Diadem's phrasing, but I don't see a way to do it that isn't really clunky.

I didn't think that was a huge problem.  But you're right, it probably is. 

[LastFootnote]

I don't know why I don't like "You may spend an action to put this on top of your deck", it's just instinctive, it feels off somehow I can definitely see why other people don't have a problem with it though. EDIT: @LastFootnote: minor quibble that is easy to fix, but is there any "You may ... to ..." card in Dominion?

Yes, you are correct! It should say, "At the start of Clean-up, you may spend an Action. If you do, put this on top of your deck."

EDIT: Or maybe "pay" an Action would be better than "spend"? Whatever. Either way it's clear what is meant.

[pacovf]

But then you can topdeck them all if you have at least one unused action, which is definitely not what we want it to do.

EDIT: I would like it if it was possible to reuse Diadem's phrasing, but I don't see a way to do it that isn't really clunky.

I didn't think that was a huge problem.  But you're right, it probably is.

Actually, I have no idea if it would be a huge problem or not, I'm here just for the challenge of finding a version that does what walled village tries to do but actually doesn't.

[amalloy]

But then you can topdeck them all if you have at least one unused action, which is definitely not what we want it to do.

EDIT: I would like it if it was possible to reuse Diadem's phrasing, but I don't see a way to do it that isn't really clunky.

I didn't think that was a huge problem.  But you're right, it probably is.

Actually, I have no idea if it would be a huge problem or not, I'm here just for the challenge of finding a version that does what walled village tries to do but actually doesn't.

It would make Walled Village a huge card for engines, instead of just a more expensive Village that might help a mostly-money strategy.

Say I buy eight Walled Villages as part of my engine. As the card is now, they're basically just Villages, because I'm never playing less than three actions a turn. So, my top-end is playing nine terminals, but I might have to play as few as one on an unlucky draw.

But with this "if you have one action left, topdeck all of them" mechanic, I can guarantee I never run dry of actions, just by playing one less terminal. So, I play at most eight terminals per turn, in order to ensure that I top all eight of my villages every turn. Way, way better than the extra chance of playing nine, unless I'm somehow super-reliably drawing a village, in which case the "new" WV is just equivalent to the current one.

I think once you get to the late game you often are drawing villages reliably, but in the early engine build-up having some guaranteed villages every turn is a really big deal.

[pacovf]

It's true that it's vastly more powerful than village, but it's still only a village. It's not really doing anything by itself, afterall. You could compare with fishing village, and that one only costs 3$. Is this version at 4$ really as strong as it looks like?

[silverspawn]

It's true that it's vastly more powerful than village, but it's still only a village. It's not really doing anything by itself, afterall. You could compare with fishing village, and that one only costs 3$. Is this version at 4$ really as strong as it looks like?

fishing village is one of the best cards in the game though. and there is no such thing as "only 3$"

[enfynet]

At the start of cleanup, if you have any unused actions, you may use one to put this on top of your deck.

Or does that still allow any number to be returned?

[Donald X.]

When you discard this from play, if you then have more unused Actions than you have Walled Villages in play (Actions, not Action cards), you may put this on top of your deck.

Counting the Walled Villages given that one was just discarded is confusing but I at least addressed it. There's also

+1 Card
+1 Action
Choose one: +1 Action; or when you discard this from play this turn, you may put it on top of your deck.

which is different all the ways that it's different.

[LastFootnote]

When you discard this from play, if you then have more unused Actions than you have Walled Villages in play (Actions, not Action cards), you may put this on top of your deck.

That's elegant, but man is it difficult to parse.

[silverspawn]

When you discard this from play, if you then have more unused Actions than you have Walled Villages in play (Actions, not Action cards), you may put this on top of your deck.

Counting the Walled Villages given that one was just discarded is confusing but I at least addressed it. There's also

+1 Card
+1 Action
Choose one: +1 Action; or when you discard this from play this turn, you may put it on top of your deck.

which is different all the ways that it's different.

is there any reason why you didn't make it like that? is it a matter of simplicity over functionality? how would you make it now?

I guess I could ask that in the interview thread, but well I can also ask it here.

[Donald X.]

is there any reason why you didn't make it like that? is it a matter of simplicity over functionality? how would you make it now?

Well we didn't like the card much so it left Guilds, early on. Then I needed a promo that would seem appropriate for a Carcassonne tie-in. The name Walled Village (then on Fortress) sounded good and it seemed okay for this outtake.

There was never a point where I was trying to fix it up. I don't remember how much time I had when it turned out I needed the promo, but I sure didn't work on the card. And it was an outtake because it was boring and so there it is, still boring.

The unused Actions version seems too confusing to let loose on the world; the choose one version is fine but not exciting. I think I'd do Plaza instead, and figure that Plaza plus whatever fraction of Herald was enough villages for a small set.

[petrie911]

Is

"At the start of Clean-up, if you have any number of unused Actions, you may put up to that many Walled Villages from play on top of your deck. (Actions, not Action cards)"

any clearer?

[Donald X.]

Is

"At the start of Clean-up, if you have any number of unused Actions, you may put up to that many Walled Villages from play on top of your deck. (Actions, not Action cards)"

any clearer?

That would happen once per Walled Village; they would all say it, so they would all do it. So one unused Action would get them all back. You would need more text to make sure it only happened once.

[silverspawn]

Is

"At the start of Clean-up, if you have any number of unused Actions, you may put up to that many Walled Villages from play on top of your deck. (Actions, not Action cards)"

any clearer?

That would happen once per Walled Village; they would all say it, so they would all do it. So one unused Action would get them all back. You would need more text to make sure it only happened once.

Wouldn't it work if you just put it below a horizontal line? like so

+1 Card
+2 Actions
----
At the start of Clean-up, if you have any number of unused Actions, you may put up to that many Walled Villages from play on top of your deck. (Actions, not Action cards)"

if it's below a line, it means that it's just a general rule for games using this, right? Embargo says "When a player buys a card, he gains a curse per embargo token on that pile", and that also happens just once, not once per embargo. or am i missing something?

[Mr Anderson]

It should be "In games using this: …"

Highway's and Goons' ability that can't be throned is below a line as well.

[silverspawn]

It should be "In games using this: …"

Highway's and Goons' ability that can't be throned is below a line as well.

I don't think it needs to have "in games using this", Emargo doesn't have it. The only card that does is Duchess I think.

[Nevermind]

Can you put prince on the poll?

[Donald X.]

Wouldn't it work if you just put it below a horizontal line? like so

+1 Card
+2 Actions
----
At the start of Clean-up, if you have any number of unused Actions, you may put up to that many Walled Villages from play on top of your deck. (Actions, not Action cards)"

if it's below a line, it means that it's just a general rule for games using this, right? Embargo says "When a player buys a card, he gains a curse per embargo token on that pile", and that also happens just once, not once per embargo. or am i missing something?

The line means "these things happen at different times." Your text, by not limiting its scope to Walled Village being in play or some such, is just a general game rule, not even requiring that card to be used that game (except then it does nothing, phew). These days I think Embargo isn't clear enough, and I would probably say "In games using this" for clarity. But yes that would be a way to have the ability not happen multiple times.

[amalloy]

Wouldn't it work if you just put it below a horizontal line? like so

+1 Card
+2 Actions
----
At the start of Clean-up, if you have any number of unused Actions, you may put up to that many Walled Villages from play on top of your deck. (Actions, not Action cards)"

if it's below a line, it means that it's just a general rule for games using this, right? Embargo says "When a player buys a card, he gains a curse per embargo token on that pile", and that also happens just once, not once per embargo. or am i missing something?

The line means "these things happen at different times." Your text, by not limiting its scope to Walled Village being in play or some such, is just a general game rule, not even requiring that card to be used that game (except then it does nothing, phew). These days I think Embargo isn't clear enough, and I would probably say "In games using this" for clarity. But yes that would be a way to have the ability not happen multiple times.

Wow, I hadn't realized how important the horizontal separating line is here. I figured this wording would be like that of Scheme, which also doesn't mention Scheme being in play. But you're saying that because Scheme has no dividing line, it creates its end-of-turn effect when it's played, whereas with the line it would do that indiscriminately for the whole game, allowing you to topdeck any number of actions every turn? I knew Scheme's effect "happened" when it was played, but didn't realize what a dividing line would have done to it. Wild.

[Donald X.]

Wow, I hadn't realized how important the horizontal separating line is here. I figured this wording would be like that of Scheme, which also doesn't mention Scheme being in play. But you're saying that because Scheme has no dividing line, it creates its end-of-turn effect when it's played, whereas with the line it would do that indiscriminately for the whole game, allowing you to topdeck any number of actions every turn? I knew Scheme's effect "happened" when it was played, but didn't realize what a dividing line would have done to it. Wild.

No dividing line on Scheme means it's all following the implicit "when you play this." When you play Scheme, you set up something to happen later; same with duration cards (though they blew it on the old German cards).

Scheme says "this turn" and so doesn't even make sense if you just squeeze in a dividing line; you also have to rephrase it. Some versions did have a line, but they said things like "when you discard this from play."

[soulnet]

Scheme says "this turn" and so doesn't even make sense if you just squeeze in a dividing line; you also have to rephrase it. Some versions did have a line, but they said things like "when you discard this from play."

Herbalist-style basically?

[Donald X.]

Scheme says "this turn" and so doesn't even make sense if you just squeeze in a dividing line; you also have to rephrase it. Some versions did have a line, but they said things like "when you discard this from play."

Herbalist-style basically?

Yes (though there were different versions of that). You can see one of those in the Outtakes article.