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

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

1

Dominion General Discussion / Jack of all Dominion

« on: November 21, 2022, 11:16:01 pm »

I am wondering who is currently maintaining Jack of al Dominion (JOAD).  The original developer of JOAD (Piotr B.) has not responded to messages in months, whereas he was very responsive before.  Even so, JOAD was updated recently to handle to latest 2E sets, albeit months after the three latest 2Es were released (while the Allies update happened fairly promptly).

So I am wondering who is now maintaining JOAD and how to contact that person.  At the least I would like the person to know that there are a few bugs in the 2E updates:

• Prosperity 2E is not hooked into the logic for selecting whether to use Colony and Platinum.
• The new prosperity cards Collection and Investment do not trigger a call for the victory point tokens to be used in the Card Setup screen.
• legacy bug: The Ally City-State has a bad link to the Dominion Strategy Wiki

I also suggest that the current maintainer should add their name and contact info in the Settings.  (Piotr B. should continue to be named as the author.  But if he is no longer the proper person to contact about JOAD, the information presented should reflect that.)

2

Dominion General Discussion / Re: 2022 Additional Errata

« on: July 06, 2022, 11:23:49 pm »

I am with you on this, somewhat.  For Counterfeit, I see nothing wrong with the playing of a Duration multiple times extending to the final resolution of the longest lasting Duration play.  In that case, the Counterfeit itself stays in play, and trashes the card when the Duration effect ends. Think of it as a Throne Room (for Treasures) with added instructions to be done once the throning is completed. Rebuild could also work in this way.

Throne Rooms already work that way, and Counterfeit is indeed a Throne Room. The card text would have to be changed to specifically address Durations though, somehow saying that the trashing happens after any future effects. Sounds messy. The only alternative I can think of is "the next time you discard that Treasure from play, trash it." Not exactly better than the current fix.

You have missed my point.  Counterfeit reads "... you may play a Treasure from your hand twice.  If you do, trash that Treasure".  So what is it to play a card?  Is it putting it into play and resolving it for that turn?  Or is it fulfilling all of the instructions on the card (which requires multiple turns for Durations)? 

It appears that the first interpretation is being used for Durations, which means that a Treasure-Duration is to be trashed during the Buy phase of the turn that it is put into play.  The loss of the card before its Duration effect is done is what is causing problems.

What I am calling for is to change the interpretation of playing a Duration to saying that the playing of the Duration is not done until all of its instructions are completed.  No change to the wording of Counterfeit is needed in this case.  Instead, if you have used Counterfeit on an Astrolabe, you get $2 and +2 Buy now, $2 and +2 Buy at the start of the next turn, and then (as part of the start of the next turn) trash the Astrolabe.  (I would wait until the Buy phase of the following turn to do the actual trashing for tracking purposes.  This also leads me to wonder if a Treasure-Duration should read "now and at the start of the Buy phase of your next turn".)  As with Throne Room, the Counterfeit would stay in play to track the Duration being played twice and to also track the fact that the card is to be trashed once it has become fully played.

This change would also help with Procession (as it was originally worded).  The trashing of the Duration and the obtaining of a more valuable card would wait until the Duration was fully played.

There are several problems with this suggestion.

We resolve an ability by following each instruction in order from top to bottom. Some instructions tell us to do something later; these set up future effects. Your suggestion entails stopping after such an instruction and not continuing resolving the ability until all the future effects are resolved. Throne Room has two instructions: Play a an Action card from your hand, and play it again. (These are two separate effects that happen after each other.)

Let's take a non-Duration card, Merchant. If we Throne Room Merchant, we play it once, getting +1 Action and +1 Card, and setting up a future effect when Silver is played for the first time later. But that future effect hasn't happened yet, so we are not done playing Merchant. That means we don't continue to the next instruction on Throne Room yet. When we play a Silver, Merchant is done, so now we play it again, getting +1 Action and +1 Card, and failing to set up a future effect (since the first Silver has already been played). Obviously this is not how Merchant should work.

Maybe your idea was that this would be a special rule for Durations, but the problem is the same. If we Counterfeit Astrolabe, we only play Astrolabe once this turn, because we're not done playing it the first time until the start of our next turn. At that point, after getting +$1 and +1 Buy for the next-turn effect, we play it again, getting +$1 and +1 Buy and setting up an effect for next turn, making Counterfeit and Astrolabe stay in play one turn more. At the beginning of that turn, after getting the next-turn effect again, we trash the Astrolabe.

What if we play Conclave on Wharf? Since Wharf is not done being played until the beginning of next turn, that's when we get the +1 Action from Conclave. But Conclave doesn't even stay in play to remind us of this.

The idea that the Duration effects in the next turn are a "future effect" is interesting.  And that is the heart of the issue:  Whether the playing of a Duration from your hand ends in the current turn or a future turn.  I am proposing that a Duration be looked upon as a card that is resolved multiple times but is only played once.  Resolving a card after setting up a future effect that happens in that turn is fine.  But if Merchant gave the play-a-Silver bonus in the next turn, it would then be a Duration with an effect that would need to be resolved in the next turn (if only by being set up at the start of that turn).  Then my suggestion would kick in.

As for Conclave:  I believe that Conclave does stay in play if a Duration is played by it (as opposed to by the Action it gives).  That my suggestion would defer the awarding of the +1 action until a future turn is an interesting side effect.

I think you miss something import with actions in general. Effects can be decided into two categories: current effects and future effects. Current effects are effects you get immediately when playing the card. Future effects are effects that happen when a condition is fulfilled or when you enter a phase. When you are done playing a card, you have resolved the current effects, not (necessarily) the future ones.

From this regard, Durations aren't (nor should they be) different from ordinary cards. They just happen to have future effects that happen during a later turn. And the only difference they have is that they stay aside, because cards shouldn't be discarded from play before their future effects are resolved.

When you trash a card from play with Procession or Counterfeit, the current effects have been resolved (twice). Future effects haven't; and you need to remember the presence of those.

All that you are saying is that my proposal is different from the way Durations are currently treated.  That is true.  Treating a Duration as a single play that is resolved in multiple turns is different, but it has its advantages:

• It does not change how a Duration behaves on its own.
• When being Thoned, you still do as much as you can in the current turn before moving on to other actions.
• It makes Durations usable in cards like Procession because you are no longer trashing the Duration before you finish playing it.
• There are grounds for ruing that when using a Way on a Duration that all of the Duration's effects are replaced including those of any future turn; and that if the Way is not used when the Duration is first played that the substitution cannot occur for its abilities in later turns.  This would remove the problems with the Ways of the Butterfly, Horse, and Turtle.

This is a significant shift in perception.  I realize that.  I also understand that shifting a foundational view is not trivially done.  But I am a software engineer who has often improved a program by making foundational changes:  They are not easy to do, but when done in the right time and way the benefits far exceed the costs.

3

Dominion General Discussion / Re: 2022 Additional Errata

« on: July 04, 2022, 01:22:33 pm »

I am with you on this, somewhat.  For Counterfeit, I see nothing wrong with the playing of a Duration multiple times extending to the final resolution of the longest lasting Duration play.  In that case, the Counterfeit itself stays in play, and trashes the card when the Duration effect ends. Think of it as a Throne Room (for Treasures) with added instructions to be done once the throning is completed. Rebuild could also work in this way.

Throne Rooms already work that way, and Counterfeit is indeed a Throne Room. The card text would have to be changed to specifically address Durations though, somehow saying that the trashing happens after any future effects. Sounds messy. The only alternative I can think of is "the next time you discard that Treasure from play, trash it." Not exactly better than the current fix.

You have missed my point.  Counterfeit reads "... you may play a Treasure from your hand twice.  If you do, trash that Treasure".  So what is it to play a card?  Is it putting it into play and resolving it for that turn?  Or is it fulfilling all of the instructions on the card (which requires multiple turns for Durations)? 

It appears that the first interpretation is being used for Durations, which means that a Treasure-Duration is to be trashed during the Buy phase of the turn that it is put into play.  The loss of the card before its Duration effect is done is what is causing problems.

What I am calling for is to change the interpretation of playing a Duration to saying that the playing of the Duration is not done until all of its instructions are completed.  No change to the wording of Counterfeit is needed in this case.  Instead, if you have used Counterfeit on an Astrolabe, you get $2 and +2 Buy now, $2 and +2 Buy at the start of the next turn, and then (as part of the start of the next turn) trash the Astrolabe.  (I would wait until the Buy phase of the following turn to do the actual trashing for tracking purposes.  This also leads me to wonder if a Treasure-Duration should read "now and at the start of the Buy phase of your next turn".)  As with Throne Room, the Counterfeit would stay in play to track the Duration being played twice and to also track the fact that the card is to be trashed once it has become fully played.

This change would also help with Procession (as it was originally worded).  The trashing of the Duration and the obtaining of a more valuable card would wait until the Duration was fully played.

There are several problems with this suggestion.

We resolve an ability by following each instruction in order from top to bottom. Some instructions tell us to do something later; these set up future effects. Your suggestion entails stopping after such an instruction and not continuing resolving the ability until all the future effects are resolved. Throne Room has two instructions: Play a an Action card from your hand, and play it again. (These are two separate effects that happen after each other.)

Let's take a non-Duration card, Merchant. If we Throne Room Merchant, we play it once, getting +1 Action and +1 Card, and setting up a future effect when Silver is played for the first time later. But that future effect hasn't happened yet, so we are not done playing Merchant. That means we don't continue to the next instruction on Throne Room yet. When we play a Silver, Merchant is done, so now we play it again, getting +1 Action and +1 Card, and failing to set up a future effect (since the first Silver has already been played). Obviously this is not how Merchant should work.

Maybe your idea was that this would be a special rule for Durations, but the problem is the same. If we Counterfeit Astrolabe, we only play Astrolabe once this turn, because we're not done playing it the first time until the start of our next turn. At that point, after getting +$1 and +1 Buy for the next-turn effect, we play it again, getting +$1 and +1 Buy and setting up an effect for next turn, making Counterfeit and Astrolabe stay in play one turn more. At the beginning of that turn, after getting the next-turn effect again, we trash the Astrolabe.

What if we play Conclave on Wharf? Since Wharf is not done being played until the beginning of next turn, that's when we get the +1 Action from Conclave. But Conclave doesn't even stay in play to remind us of this.

The idea that the Duration effects in the next turn are a "future effect" is interesting.  And that is the heart of the issue:  Whether the playing of a Duration from your hand ends in the current turn or a future turn.  I am proposing that a Duration be looked upon as a card that is resolved multiple times but is only played once.  Resolving a card after setting up a future effect that happens in that turn is fine.  But if Merchant gave the play-a-Silver bonus in the next turn, it would then be a Duration with an effect that would need to be resolved in the next turn (if only by being set up at the start of that turn).  Then my suggestion would kick in.

As for Conclave:  I believe that Conclave does stay in play if a Duration is played by it (as opposed to by the Action it gives).  That my suggestion would defer the awarding of the +1 action until a future turn is an interesting side effect.

4

Dominion General Discussion / Re: 2022 Additional Errata

« on: July 03, 2022, 05:04:41 pm »

Not a fan of annihilating of when-buy triggers. Learning the difference between gain an buy is not difficult and it seems like the new rules and wordings are awkward and weird.

The difference is subtle, with the big issue being to remember that buying comes before gaining.  I play with a girlfiriend who is often caught off-guard by distinctions like that.

I for one wonder if "when you buy this" is not going to eventually return as a short way of saying "when you gain this, if you bought it".  I see treating buying as a form of gaining (being done in exchange for coin) as the upshot of this.  But that is different than the way that DXV currently sees the relationship between buying and gaining.

5

Dominion General Discussion / Re: 2022 Additional Errata

« on: July 03, 2022, 04:14:16 pm »

I am with you on this, somewhat.  For Counterfeit, I see nothing wrong with the playing of a Duration multiple times extending to the final resolution of the longest lasting Duration play.  In that case, the Counterfeit itself stays in play, and trashes the card when the Duration effect ends. Think of it as a Throne Room (for Treasures) with added instructions to be done once the throning is completed. Rebuild could also work in this way.

Throne Rooms already work that way, and Counterfeit is indeed a Throne Room. The card text would have to be changed to specifically address Durations though, somehow saying that the trashing happens after any future effects. Sounds messy. The only alternative I can think of is "the next time you discard that Treasure from play, trash it." Not exactly better than the current fix.

You have missed my point.  Counterfeit reads "... you may play a Treasure from your hand twice.  If you do, trash that Treasure".  So what is it to play a card?  Is it putting it into play and resolving it for that turn?  Or is it fulfilling all of the instructions on the card (which requires multiple turns for Durations)? 

It appears that the first interpretation is being used for Durations, which means that a Treasure-Duration is to be trashed during the Buy phase of the turn that it is put into play.  The loss of the card before its Duration effect is done is what is causing problems.

What I am calling for is to change the interpretation of playing a Duration to saying that the playing of the Duration is not done until all of its instructions are completed.  No change to the wording of Counterfeit is needed in this case.  Instead, if you have used Counterfeit on an Astrolabe, you get $2 and +2 Buy now, $2 and +2 Buy at the start of the next turn, and then (as part of the start of the next turn) trash the Astrolabe.  (I would wait until the Buy phase of the following turn to do the actual trashing for tracking purposes.  This also leads me to wonder if a Treasure-Duration should read "now and at the start of the Buy phase of your next turn".)  As with Throne Room, the Counterfeit would stay in play to track the Duration being played twice and to also track the fact that the card is to be trashed once it has become fully played.

This change would also help with Procession (as it was originally worded).  The trashing of the Duration and the obtaining of a more valuable card would wait until the Duration was fully played.

6

Dominion General Discussion / Re: 2022 Additional Errata

« on: July 01, 2022, 10:48:13 pm »

"Non duration" is a nerf so I would have preferred a bit of variety. So for example:

• Counterfeit could play any Treasure twice, but only trash it if it isn't a Duration
• Crypt, instead of setting aside Treasures immediately, could let you optionally set aside Treasures as you discard them from play

I am with you on this, somewhat.  For Counterfeit, I see nothing wrong with the playing of a Duration multiple times extending to the final resolution of the longest lasting Duration play.  In that case, the Counterfeit itself stays in play, and trashes the card when the Duration effect ends. Think of it as a Throne Room (for Treasures) with added instructions to be done once the throning is completed. Rebuild could also work in this way.

For Crypt, I think your suggestion is the right way to go:  Trashing or moving a Duration which is still doing something (or trying to) is problematic, but once that Duration is ready to be discarded from play it should be available for cards like Crypt.

7

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Hinterlands 2E Preview 3

« on: July 01, 2022, 04:43:54 pm »

All together, the three update packs amount to 27 new cards - a full expansion, out of nowhere.

This leads me to several questions:
1) is this the "expansion" that people have been expecting to come out later this year?  (I recall your saying the you have enough material for another expansion, not that a whole new expansion was coming.)
2) Will there be a combined update pack for the three updated expansions (as you have enough material for a full box)?
3) Is this the end of the 2E updates for now?
4) Will there be any update pack(s) for the tweaked cards?

There is a new expansion coming, of all new stuff, unrelated to the 2E's; we currently are trying to have it out in October, but in this day and age it's really hard to get what you want there.

Thank you much for making this official.  I look forward to learning more about this new expansion.

Good luck with the October target date.  I see it as a good sign the you are still looking to get it out then. 

8

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Hinterlands 2E Preview 3

« on: July 01, 2022, 02:10:50 pm »

Donald X announced the fall expansion in the Seaside 2E secret history. http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=21231.0

I usually have a section going on about outtakes. Seaside 2E though was worked on at the same time as both Allies and the fall expansion (fall expansion?). Ideas went back and forth (Sentinel at one point was going to replace Lookout).  So most of these outtakes aren't really looking to be talked about yet.

And it’s been confirmed by other Dominion “cadre” since then, with I believe a predicted October timeframe.

Thank you for this.  At least it is something concrete to go on.  Personally, I will believe it when I see an official announcement of the expansion including its name and an official release date (or target release date).  I suspect that October is a bit optimistic given the current environment (which delayed the release of Allies for months), but this does give me confidence that the expansion will appear either late this year or early next year.

9

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Hinterlands 2E Preview 3

« on: July 01, 2022, 01:14:54 pm »

All together, the three update packs amount to 27 new cards - a full expansion, out of nowhere.

This leads me to several questions:
1) is this the "expansion" that people have been expecting to come out later this year?  (I recall your saying the you have enough material for another expansion, not that a whole new expansion was coming.)
2) Will there be a combined update pack for the three updated expansions (as you have enough material for a full box)?
3) Is this the end of the 2E updates for now?
4) Will there be any update pack(s) for the tweaked cards?

10

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Hinterlands Second Edition "leaked"

« on: June 08, 2022, 10:20:57 pm »

I was looking at the Allies suggested sets of 10.  The following cards are listed in the Allies & Hinterlands section: Farmland, Haggler, Jack of All Trades, Margrave, Tunnel, Border Village, Crossroads, Highway, Inn, and Spice Merchant.  Since DXV was already working on Hinterlands 2E as he was also working on Allies, I think that it is fair to say that those cards are definitely staying.

I won't speculate on what cards will be removed or added:  That will be made clear soon enough.  Based on past experience, it seems that DXV is asking 3 questions:  What does this do for the game?  What does this do to the game?  Can it be replaced with something better?  I see where the last question has driven some unexpected changes.

11

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Hinterlands Second Edition "leaked"

« on: June 08, 2022, 08:56:29 pm »

I wonder how far these second editions will go? Will Dark Ages get one? It'd be nice to finally see Rebuild and Cultist go, but I'm not sure there are enough other cards to be replaced. Adventures? I hope not, I'd hate to see Miser replaced. Or is Hinterlands it?

I assume that Dark Ages 2E is ready and waiting to be announced.  In past musing about second editions, DXV has listed a number of things that he would like to see changed.  So I am sure that it will be part of this binge of releases. Beyond that:
[...]

I don't think so, since the recommended Seaside 2E/Dark Ages kingdoms in the rulebook only contain 10 existing DA cards. If DA 2E was about to be released, chances are that the recommended kingdoms would include some replaced DA cards, like they do for Base, Intrigue, Prosperity and Hinterlands. (I suppose Donald could intentionally have only used remaining DA cards in order to not spoil a DA 2E. But as I understand his post in this thread, he intentionally included lots of Hinterlands 2E cards in the rulebook as a "hidden" spoiler for careful readers to discover.  )

Also, Donald X. is only human - I wouldn't expect him to have two full expansions and three 2nd editions ready to publish in just one year.

Personally, I am surprised that Hinterlands 2E is being done at this time.  I saw it as a fairly well-done set, and enjoy Trader (although the reaction does not get used often).  From my standpoint, the case for doing a Dark Ages 2E is similar.  If DXV and RGG chose not to do it at this time, it would be a combination of feeling that 3 2E-s is enough for now and Dark Ages being a bit less than a decade old.

As for any hints:  Perhaps the Dark Ages hint is in what the new suggested sets do not use instead of what they use.  In that respect, there are 3 cards that were listed in the 1E suggested games for Seaside and Dark Ages but not in the 2E list:  Death Cart, Feodum, and Urchin.  it also is noteworthy that the cards in the suggested games which use Adventures and beyond the cards for the other sets have not been changed.  I cannot guarantee that these cards are being removed (and Death Cart would surprise me), but the possibility is there.

Otherwise, your remark that DXV is only human is one that I agree with.  I also think that RGG would worry about saturating the Dominion market with all of these new releases.  If Dark Ages 2E is in the pipeline, it almost certainly will be the last update for this year.  I also do not expect the next expansion to be released this year so as to keep the expansions spaced out.

12

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Hinterlands Second Edition "leaked"

« on: June 07, 2022, 05:09:24 pm »

I wonder how far these second editions will go? Will Dark Ages get one? It'd be nice to finally see Rebuild and Cultist go, but I'm not sure there are enough other cards to be replaced. Adventures? I hope not, I'd hate to see Miser replaced. Or is Hinterlands it?

I assume that Dark Ages 2E is ready and waiting to be announced.  In past musing about second editions, DXV has listed a number of things that he would like to see changed.  So I am sure that it will be part of this binge of releases. Beyond that:

• Alchemy 2E:  No way.  DXV has made remarks like "Ideally, Alchemy would be allowed to go out of print".  He will not touch it.
• Cornucopia & Guilds: Maybe, but it is not a given that there is enough wrong with them to justify an update.  Also, Guilds is a more recent release and that may argue against doing an update at this time.
• Everything else is recent enough that doing an update probably is not a good idea.  Those sets have also benefited from the lessons learned for the past sets, but lessons have now been learned from the newer mechanics that these sets have.

13

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Allies Preview 4: Recursion

« on: March 04, 2022, 11:15:05 am »

As a fellow software engineer, I don't understand the wording complaint. Even the complaint itself starts with "A software recursion is where...". But the thread title doesn't say anything about software recursion. ...

Recursion doesn't have to be used in the context of computer science or programming, even though it often is used in that context. Here, the meaning was clear enough; these are cards that have abilities which play make the card recur; or happen again each turn. Sure perhaps "recurring cards" would be more technically accurate than "recursion", but I don't see the actual problem here.

You have a point there, and it is easy to say "Let Donald X. have his way. It's his game after all".   But it would also be cool if there was a card that actually recursively reused itself while being resolved.  So I have made the point.  The one problem is that you need to be careful with it.  For one, there are usually better ways than recursion to have an effect.  Even my example could be "+1 card; spend any number of favors to draw that many cards and discard that many cards; discard a card".  Same result, no recursion.  And creating a card that is not too complex or powerful is another problem.  But that is a neat puzzle all the same.

14

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Allies Preview 4: Recursion

« on: March 03, 2022, 11:02:03 pm »

This may seem like a nitpick, but for a software engineer like me, this stuff is reuse and not recursion.  A software recursion is where a function calls itself as part of its own execution.  The equivalent in Dominion would be a card that is something like "+1 card; you may spend a favor to play this card again; discard a card".  Note that the card plays itself as part of resolving itself.  Putting it onto your deck during clean-up (which occurs after the card has been resolved) is very different.

For the instructions stated above, suppose that you have 2 favors available.  You would first draw a card, then spend a favor to start playing the card over.  So you would then draw another card, and could then spend another favor to start playing the card a 3rd time.  So you draw yet another card.  Now you are out of favors (or if you had more favors you could choose to stop here), and so do not start playing the card again.  Now you discard a card to resolve the 3rd playing.  Then you discard another card to finish the second playing.  And finally you discard another card to finish resolving the card.  So you drew 3 cards while spending 2 favors, and then discarded 3 cards.

The overall mechanic is "Do X; under condition Y play this card again; do Z".  X or Z may be nothing.  Y must be something that will cease to be true at some point.  Using favors is appropriate to Allies, but it could also be coffers, villagers, discarding or trashing a card in hand, etc (as long as whatever Y uses is not being added to while the card is being played).  The important thing is that you are playing the card itself multiple times.  Think of it as being like Vassal except that it plays itself and not another card.

Beyond that, I am impressed by Allies.  The favor mechanism moderates the game-modifying effects of the Allies.  I like it better than what I have seen in the other recent expansions (but I will admit that I only have Nocturne and none of the other post-Dark-Ages sets).

Lich is a strange card that will either be very liked or very hated.  I for one feel that it has to stay out until it is no longer in force.  Whether this makes it a Duration is a matter of what becomes of the Duration cards.  If a Duration card that was played in the same turn as the Lich has its duration effect take hold on the next turn that you play, then Lich cannot be a duration itself but should still stay out until it is no longer in effect.