Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Rules Questions => Topic started by: Jeebus on November 05, 2018, 12:51:40 pm
-
1) I gather from the FAQ that these count as "extra turns"? The card itself says "extra round of turns". This matters for tie breaking.
2) If I play Outpost and end the game, I normally won't get the Outpost turn. But what if I have Fleet? What if I don't have Fleet but someone else does? The rules don't say either way, but since they don't mention it, it kind of implies that I don't get the Outpost turn. On the other hand, the explanation for why Outpost doesn't give you a turn after the last Fleet turn, says that Outpost doesn't keep the game going after it ends. Well, Fleet does keep the game going, so that would imply that an Outpost played before the game ends would happen (whether I have the Fleet or someone else does).
-
1) Good question, I would suspect that they are normal turns for tie-breaking purposes.
2) The game continues if at least one player has bought Fleet, so any Outpost turns or Donations or Mountain Passes still happen. I think the answer to the first question will be important to determine the order of those turns.
-
Fleet extends the game but Outpost etc. do not. When the last player with Fleet finishes their Fleet-given turn, no more Outpost etc. turns happen.
-
Fleet extends the game but Outpost etc. do not. When the last player with Fleet finishes their Fleet-given turn, no more Outpost etc. turns happen.
This doesn't answer the other question though... do Outpost/Mission turns happen between the last normal turn but before the Fleet turns?
-
Fleet extends the game but Outpost etc. do not. When the last player with Fleet finishes their Fleet-given turn, no more Outpost etc. turns happen.
This doesn't answer the other question though... do Outpost/Mission turns happen between the last normal turn but before the Fleet turns?
Yes... just like it says in the rulebook.
-
Fleet extends the game but Outpost etc. do not. When the last player with Fleet finishes their Fleet-given turn, no more Outpost etc. turns happen.
This doesn't answer the other question though... do Outpost/Mission turns happen between the last normal turn but before the Fleet turns?
Yes... just like it says in the rulebook.
It doesn't say that in the rulebook. It says that Outpost turns can happen in between Fleet turn, so as a result of a Fleet turn. The question was what happens to Outpost turns before the first Fleet turn - after the game ends "for the first time".
And, do Fleet turns count for tie-breaker (unlike Outpost/Possession/Mission turns)?
-
It doesn't say that in the rulebook. It says that Outpost turns can happen in between Fleet turn, so as a result of a Fleet turn. The question was what happens to Outpost turns before the first Fleet turn - after the game ends "for the first time".
I do not understand how this is a question.
Outpost turns can happen not only in-between Fleet turns, but also in-between a regular turn and a Fleet turn, a Mission turn and a Fleet turn, a Possession turn and a Fleet turn.
And, do Fleet turns count for tie-breaker (unlike Outpost/Possession/Mission turns)?
No.
-
It doesn't say that in the rulebook. It says that Outpost turns can happen in between Fleet turn, so as a result of a Fleet turn. The question was what happens to Outpost turns before the first Fleet turn - after the game ends "for the first time".
I do not understand how this is a question.
It's a question because the regular Outpost rules specify that an Outpost played on the last turn of the game doesn't allow an extra turn. Your answer here seems clear enough; but even with the clarification in the Renaissance rulebook, it wasn't obvious; because that clarification only dealt with between Fleet turns.
To put it another way; Fleet only kicks in when the game ends. By the time the game has ended, it's reasonable to think that you must have already dealt with any Outpost turns (and those rules say that such turns are dealt with by never happening). So it takes a special ruling like this to conclude that any player having a Fleet causes a last-turn Outpost to now work.
-
To put it another way; Fleet only kicks in when the game ends. By the time the game has ended, it's reasonable to think that you must have already dealt with any Outpost turns (and those rules say that such turns are dealt with by never happening). So it takes a special ruling like this to conclude that any player having a Fleet causes a last-turn Outpost to now work.
I see.
-
To put it another way; Fleet only kicks in when the game ends. By the time the game has ended, it's reasonable to think that you must have already dealt with any Outpost turns (and those rules say that such turns are dealt with by never happening). So it takes a special ruling like this to conclude that any player having a Fleet causes a last-turn Outpost to now work.
The way I see it, Fleet does not 'reopen' an already ended game, it implicitely changes the rules on when and how a game ends. What were previously absolute game ending conditions now become conditional ones. If no player has bought Fleet, they still end the game immediately. If a player has, Fleet generates one or more exrtra turns, that mix with other extra turns, either already existing or created later.
What irritates me at the moment is that the rulebook explicitely calls out the order of the extra fleet turns. Normally the rules handle this already, so I'm unsure if this is a restatement of the normal rules for extra turns, made under the assumption that the turn triggering fleet was a non-extra turn, or something new. It isn't the 'normal way' either, as after the 'game ending turn' normally any extra turns for that player would come first, while the intention is obviously that that player is last in the Fleet turns (if they have bought it at all).
Test case: 2 player game, my oppoennt has bought Fleet, I haven't. I play Possession and buy the last Province, so Fleet kicks in when this turn ends and creates an extra Fleet turn for my opponent. Now there are 2 extra turns for my opponent: 1x Possession, 1x Fleet.
Is opponent able to choose the Fleet turn first, thus ending the game before I get to possess them? I think they should, but I'm not sure.
-
What irritates me at the moment is that the rulebook explicitely calls out the order of the extra fleet turns. Normally the rules handle this already, so I'm unsure if this is a restatement of the normal rules for extra turns, made under the assumption that the turn triggering fleet was a non-extra turn, or something new. It isn't the 'normal way' either, as after the 'game ending turn' normally any extra turns for that player would come first, while the intention is obviously that that player is last in the Fleet turns (if they have bought it at all).
The regular order was no good because no-one ever thought it worked that way. So Fleet tries to suggest that you keep going around, and then the rulebook says that that's what you do.
Test case: 2 player game, my oppoennt has bought Fleet, I haven't. I play Possession and buy the last Province, so Fleet kicks in when this turn ends and creates an extra Fleet turn for my opponent. Now there are 2 extra turns for my opponent: 1x Possession, 1x Fleet.
Is opponent able to choose the Fleet turn first, thus ending the game before I get to possess them? I think they should, but I'm not sure.
The opponent has to take two extra turns and so gets to order them. You only possess them during the turn, not between turns, so it's still their decision.
-
So basically the Fleet turn of the player who triggered Fleet is special. It isn't taken into account which (extra) turn the next is and doesn't compete with for example that player's Outpost/Mission turns that already exist. This special treatment ends once another player has had a turn.
-
Ok, the way I interpret it is the following.
As Ingix concludes, Fleet turns don't follow the normal turn order rule. If the normal rule applied, the player who triggered end-game would actually be the first to take a Fleet turn: That player is the active player, and extra turns are taken in turn order starting with the active player. So the Fleet FAQ introduces a special rule (unfortunately not stated on the card) that Fleet turns start with the next player after the player who triggered end-game.
Given that someone has Fleet, the game continues normally after end-game is triggered, except that no more normal turns are played, only extra turns. All extra turns follow normal turn order rules, except that the end-game-triggering player gets their Fleet turn last.
So if there are extra turns in wait (Outpost/Mission/Possession) when I trigger end-game, I play my extra turns first, then the next player plays their extra turns including the Fleet turn, and so on. (Any further extra turns generated are added to the mix of course.) As normal, each player can order their turns, including Fleet turns. As soon as the last Fleet turn is played, the game is over - no more extra turns are played, not even for the current player.
-
That all sounds correct. An awkward way of stating it is that Fleet has 3 assumed rules texts:
As long as there is a token on this:
1) The number of rounds this game is increased by 1.
2) Only players with a token on this get a turn in the final round.
3) Turns in the final round do not count for the tie breaker.
*Edit* You know, I don't think most of that needs to be assumed. Fleet is actually worded really well for what it does. It does NOT say "when the game ends, each player who has a token on Fleet gets an extra turn". With that wording, the turn order should work differently, and Outposts played on the last normal turn shouldn't work.
But with the wording as-is.. it basically does say my 3 points above. It says there is an extra round. The only part I think I could nitpick is the "after the game ends". When really it's always true that this game will have an extra round, it's not something that triggers when the game ends.
-
I agree with that way of thinking. It's just too bad that the Fleet turns count as extra turns, not as normal turns. If they had counted as normal turns, (1) and (2) would be a clean way of explaining it without the need for (3).
-
One thing to remember is that the 'would have ended the game if not for Fleet'-turn might be a Possession turn, so the active player is not necessarily the one whose' turn just happened. In a six player game with players A-F, A possesses B, then B (while possessed by A) possesses C, then C (while possessed by B) 'ends the game'. At this point the "active player" is IMO still A under the previous rules, as we are waiting to handle all the extra turns created after A had their last regular turn (where they played Possession on B).
The (I think) intended Fleet turn order is however D,E,F,A,B,C (whoever of them has Fleet). So I think in addition to what whas said before, the active player position needs to shift from A to C. Or maybe it doesn't need to shift with the current card set, as there is no way for A or B to get an extra turn (except Fleet) in the scenario I presented; extra turns are either for oneself (Outpost, Mission) or the next player (Possession). So since we have special rules for Fleet turns already, they may be skipped and the game would continue with extra turns by C, then extra turns by D (including Fleet, if applicable),...
-
I agree with that way of thinking. It's just too bad that the Fleet turns count as extra turns, not as normal turns. If they had counted as normal turns, (1) and (2) would be a clean way of explaining it without the need for (3).
Well I've never thought of the tie-breaker as actually caring about the number of turns a player took. Even if it's worded that way. What it cares about is 1) Where you sit in turn order; and 2) If the game ended part of the way through a round.
-
I agree with that way of thinking. It's just too bad that the Fleet turns count as extra turns, not as normal turns. If they had counted as normal turns, (1) and (2) would be a clean way of explaining it without the need for (3).
Well I've never thought of the tie-breaker as actually caring about the number of turns a player took. Even if it's worded that way. What it cares about is 1) Where you sit in turn order; and 2) If the game ended part of the way through a round.
Why is that different? If Alice starts and Bob ends the game, and they tie, the tie isn't broken. But if Alice has a Fleet turn and not Bob, Alice will get one more turn, and also the round (the extra Fleet round) ends part of the way through.
-
One thing to remember is that the 'would have ended the game if not for Fleet'-turn might be a Possession turn, so the active player is not necessarily the one whose' turn just happened. In a six player game with players A-F, A possesses B, then B (while possessed by A) possesses C, then C (while possessed by B) 'ends the game'. At this point the "active player" is IMO still A under the previous rules, as we are waiting to handle all the extra turns created after A had their last regular turn (where they played Possession on B).
The (I think) intended Fleet turn order is however D,E,F,A,B,C (whoever of them has Fleet). So I think in addition to what whas said before, the active player position needs to shift from A to C. Or maybe it doesn't need to shift with the current card set, as there is no way for A or B to get an extra turn (except Fleet) in the scenario I presented; extra turns are either for oneself (Outpost, Mission) or the next player (Possession). So since we have special rules for Fleet turns already, they may be skipped and the game would continue with extra turns by C, then extra turns by D (including Fleet, if applicable),...
I actually thought about asking this, but I forgot.
The question is what's the correct Fleet round turn order in this scenario. Does Fleet create extra turns, with a special rule that the player who triggered end-game comes last? Or does Fleet create an extra normal game round (whose turns still don't count for tie breaker), as GendoIkari suggested? In the latter case, the Fleet turns would start with B. In the former case, they would start with D. Only Donald can answer this.
-
One thing to remember is that the 'would have ended the game if not for Fleet'-turn might be a Possession turn, so the active player is not necessarily the one whose' turn just happened. In a six player game with players A-F, A possesses B, then B (while possessed by A) possesses C, then C (while possessed by B) 'ends the game'. At this point the "active player" is IMO still A under the previous rules, as we are waiting to handle all the extra turns created after A had their last regular turn (where they played Possession on B).
The (I think) intended Fleet turn order is however D,E,F,A,B,C (whoever of them has Fleet). So I think in addition to what whas said before, the active player position needs to shift from A to C. Or maybe it doesn't need to shift with the current card set, as there is no way for A or B to get an extra turn (except Fleet) in the scenario I presented; extra turns are either for oneself (Outpost, Mission) or the next player (Possession). So since we have special rules for Fleet turns already, they may be skipped and the game would continue with extra turns by C, then extra turns by D (including Fleet, if applicable),...
I actually thought about asking this, but I forgot.
The question is what's the correct Fleet round turn order in this scenario. Does Fleet create extra turns, with a special rule that the player who triggered end-game comes last? Or does Fleet create an extra normal game round (whose turns still don't count for tie breaker), as GendoIkari suggested? In the latter case, the Fleet turns would start with B. In the former case, they would start with D. Only Donald can answer this.
Fleet turns are extra turns; the rulebook calls them extra turns.
-
I agree with that way of thinking. It's just too bad that the Fleet turns count as extra turns, not as normal turns. If they had counted as normal turns, (1) and (2) would be a clean way of explaining it without the need for (3).
Well I've never thought of the tie-breaker as actually caring about the number of turns a player took. Even if it's worded that way. What it cares about is 1) Where you sit in turn order; and 2) If the game ended part of the way through a round.
Why is that different? If Alice starts and Bob ends the game, and they tie, the tie isn't broken. But if Alice has a Fleet turn and not Bob, Alice will get one more turn, and also the round (the extra Fleet round) ends part of the way through.
It's not different, which is why it's possible to think of it that way without changing any rules. But it does mean that you no longer need to worry about "extra" turns. Rather than count the number of turns each person took, and then subtract the ones that counted as "extra", you simply look at who was the start player, and where in turn order did the game end. I mean, that's what people do in reality; no one is actually counting turns IRL.
The question is what's the correct Fleet round turn order in this scenario. Does Fleet create extra turns, with a special rule that the player who triggered end-game comes last? Or does Fleet create an extra normal game round (whose turns still don't count for tie breaker), as GendoIkari suggested? In the latter case, the Fleet turns would start with B. In the former case, they would start with D.
Like Donald said, the rule book does say that the turns count as extra turns. But I don't see why it's an either/or between that and creating an extra round. Fleet says there's an extra round, but that doesn't mean you need to start with player B. You don't just immediately end the current round because Provinces ran out, and then start the new, extra round. Instead, because the game is one round longer than normal, you keep going with the current round, and go exactly 1 more round; as in each player gets a final turn (but only players with Fleet, and those turns don't hurt you in the tie breaker).
So to try and diagram this; looking at a game with Fleet that only lasted 4 normal rounds. B buys the last Province on turn 4, and everyone bought Fleet.
Your latter case (not what happens):
Round 1: A, B, C, D
Round 2: A, B, C, D
Round 3: A, B, C, D
Round 4: A, B
Round 5: A, B, C, D
What happens, thinking in terms of simply extending the game by 1 round:
Round 1: A, B, C, D
Round 2: A, B, C, D
Round 3: A, B, C, D
Round 4: A, B*, C, D
Round E: A, B**
*Even though B bought the last Province, Fleet added 1 to the game round counter, so the last round isn't round 4 anymore.
**The game normally would have ended after turn 4-B, Fleet makes it end after 5-B instead.
What happens, thinking only in terms of extra turns:
Round 1: A, B, C, D
Round 2: A, B, C, D
Round 3: A, B, C, D
Round 4: A, B
Round 5: C, D, A, B
These last 2 interpretations are completely the same, rules-wise. At least until there's some card and rule introduced that formalizes what exactly constitutes a "round". But I prefer the first of these interpretations; simply because this extra round doesn't suddenly have a different turn order than all other rounds.
-
Say an extra round starts with player A. Player A has bought Fleet, and player B, to his left, hasn't. If player A, during his Fleet turn, Possesses player B, then has him buy Fleet during the Possession turn, will player B end up getting his Fleet turn, or is it too late for that?
-
Say an extra round starts with player A. Player A has bought Fleet, and player B, to his left, hasn't. If player A, during his Fleet turn, Possesses player B, then has him buy Fleet during the Possession turn, will player B end up getting his Fleet turn, or is it too late for that?
Going by the card wording, I'm calling it too late.
-
It's not different, which is why it's possible to think of it that way without changing any rules. But it does mean that you no longer need to worry about "extra" turns. Rather than count the number of turns each person took, and then subtract the ones that counted as "extra", you simply look at who was the start player, and where in turn order did the game end. I mean, that's what people do in reality; no one is actually counting turns IRL.
I feel like it would have been much better to have this conversation in person, because I think there are some basic misunderstandings.
You're right that players don't have to count turns, but I never suggested that they do. But when the game ends in a player's extra turn from Possession, we can't just check where that player is in turn order. We need to specifically disregard that extra turn.
If Fleet turns count as extra turns, it means we can disregard them at the end of the game (and so just check where the game-end triggering player was in turn order, just like you said). If Fleet turns don't count as extra turn, it means we need a special extra rule to say that we should still disregard them when doing that. You can't simply look at who was start player and where in turn order the game ended, because that would include the Fleet turns. You need that extra rule. That's all I was saying.
Like Donald said, the rule book does say that the turns count as extra turns. But I don't see why it's an either/or between that and creating an extra round.
Because if we count them as extra turns, we can't follow your 3-point model of extending the game with 1 round. The reason is that per normal rules the game-ending player would get their extra turn first, which is not how Fleet is supposed to work. So then we do need to add the extra rule that the game-ending player gets their Fleet turn last, and we don't need the extra rule that turns in the final round dont't count for tie breaker.
Fleet says there's an extra round, but that doesn't mean you need to start with player B. You don't just immediately end the current round because Provinces ran out, and then start the new, extra round. Instead, because the game is one round longer than normal, you keep going with the current round, and go exactly 1 more round; as in each player gets a final turn (but only players with Fleet, and those turns don't hurt you in the tie breaker).
So to try and diagram this; looking at a game with Fleet that only lasted 4 normal rounds. B buys the last Province on turn 4, and everyone bought Fleet.
Your latter case (not what happens):
Round 1: A, B, C, D
Round 2: A, B, C, D
Round 3: A, B, C, D
Round 4: A, B
Round 5: A, B, C, D
That does not follow my latter case at all. My cases were about Possession turns, and the latter one was in accordance with your explanation. I was saying that with Possession turns, it actually does matter if we add extra turns or extend the game with an extra round. I was thinking that extending the game with 1 round would mean that the game continues with the next player who would normally have a turn if the game hadn't ended (so player B in Ingix's scenario):
Round 4) A, B, C, D, E, F
Round 5) A, [B poss. by A], [C poss. by B*], B, C, D, E, F
Round 6) A
But I guess we could still follow the Fleet FAQ literally ("The extra turns go in order starting with the next player after the one that just took a turn"), and then it would be player D. The problem with that is that, following your preferred model, we get a round that doesn't follow normal turn order:
Round 4) A, B, C, D, E, F
Round 5) A, [B poss. by A], [C poss. by B*], D, E, F
Round 6) A, B, C
*triggers end-game
-
Maybe Donald can settle what exactly happens.
Alice, Bob and Clara all buy Fleet. Alice plays Possession. Bob possessed by Alice triggers end-game. In what order do the Fleet turns go? The rulebook says: "The extra turns go in order starting with the next player after the one that just took a turn." Does that mean it's Clara, Alice, Bob? Or does the game extend normally with 1 round - Bob, Clara, Alice?
-
That does not follow my latter case at all. My cases were about Possession turns, and the latter one was in accordance with your explanation. I was saying that with Possession turns, it actually does matter if we add extra turns or extend the game with an extra round. I was thinking that extending the game with 1 round would mean that the game continues with the next player who would normally have a turn if the game hadn't ended (so player B in Ingix's scenario):
Round 4) A, B, C, D, E, F
Round 5) A, [B poss. by A], [C poss. by B*], B, C, D, E, F
Ah, yeah sorry I misunderstood your previous post. When you said "In the latter case, the Fleet turns would start with B" I thought it was a scenario where A hadn't bought Fleet; so B was starting just because B was the first player with a turn in normal turn order.
Alice, Bob and Clara all buy Fleet. Alice plays Possession. Bob possessed by Alice triggers end-game. In what order do the Fleet turns go? The rulebook says: "The extra turns go in order starting with the next player after the one that just took a turn." Does that mean it's Clara, Alice, Bob? Or does the game extend normally with 1 round - Bob, Clara, Alice?
Yeah this is kind of unfortunate either way. The natural thing seems like it really should be Bob first, because had the game not ended, it would have been Bob's turn. Seems clear that that's the intended way for Fleet to work. However, you're correct in pointing out that the actual wording of the FAQ differs in this case. But I don't think this would be the first time that the FAQ says something where there is an assumed "normally", and specific card interactions can make it so that something different happens from what the FAQ says happens.
-
Maybe Donald can settle what exactly happens.
Alice, Bob and Clara all buy Fleet. Alice plays Possession. Bob possessed by Alice triggers end-game. In what order do the Fleet turns go? The rulebook says: "The extra turns go in order starting with the next player after the one that just took a turn." Does that mean it's Clara, Alice, Bob? Or does the game extend normally with 1 round - Bob, Clara, Alice?
It means, the last player to take a regular turn. Bob goes next.
-
Then I have this tentative description:
After end-game is triggered, all players who have bought Fleet get an extra turn. The active player (the last player to take a regular turn) gets their Fleet turn last. Otherwise normal turn order rules apply: Any extra turns already in queue (from Outpost, Possession or Mission) - which would otherwise not be played - are played, starting with the active player. So are any extra turns produced during this extra round. Each player can order their extra turns. When the last Fleet turn has been played, the game ends and no more extra turns are played.
-
Say an extra round starts with player A. Player A has bought Fleet, and player B, to his left, hasn't. If player A, during his Fleet turn, Possesses player B, then has him buy Fleet during the Possession turn, will player B end up getting his Fleet turn, or is it too late for that?
Going by the card wording, I'm calling it too late.
Looking at this headache-inducing thread again, and trying to formulate the rules, I paused at this post. In this scenario we must assume that there is a player C who has bought Fleet, right? Otherwise the game would be over after player A's Fleet turn, and the Possession turn wouldn't happen.
Another question: There are two players, both have bought Fleet. Player A takes theirs first and plays Possession. If this had been a normal round, the Possession turn would happen now, before player B's regular turn. But since it's a Fleet round, player B gets to order the two turns, and could actually choose to take their Fleet turn first, thereby causing the game to end before the Possession turn happens. Is this correct?
-
Even one more question.
In a 2-player game, if Alice plays Possession twice, and Bob being Possessed plays Possession, we have two extra turns in wait, one for Alice and one for Bob. The rules say that Bob is the active player, since he had a turn last (even though Alice is the one who had a regular turn last). This means that Bob plays his extra turn first. (Then Alice plays hers, and then it's Bob's regular turn.)
Now assume both have bought Fleet, and the above happens. But on Bob's turn when he plays Possession, he also ends the game. Now there are two Possession turns in wait, plus the Fleet turns. Per the Fleet rules, since Alice had a regular turn last, Bob plays his Fleet turn first. But when are the two Possession turns played? Following normal rules, Bob had a turn last, so Bob would get his Possession turn first. Or, since Alice is the one who last had a regular turn, is she the one who gets her Possession turn first? It's weird that the order of extra turns would be different in a normal round and in a Fleet round.
If Bob gets his Possession turn first, he can take it before or after his Fleet turn. Whatever he chooses, Bob's Fleet turn goes before Alice's Possession turn, right?
-
Even one more question.
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19297.0
-
Another question: There are two players, both have bought Fleet. Player A takes theirs first and plays Possession. If this had been a normal round, the Possession turn would happen now, before player B's regular turn. But since it's a Fleet round, player B gets to order the two turns, and could actually choose to take their Fleet turn first, thereby causing the game to end before the Possession turn happens. Is this correct?
It sounds right. I only want to spend so long staring at card wordings and FAQs when the situation hasn't actually come up.
Edit: Wait I don't think so, see below.
-
In a 2-player game, if Alice plays Possession twice, and Bob being Possessed plays Possession, we have two extra turns in wait, one for Alice and one for Bob. The rules say that Bob is the active player, since he had a turn last (even though Alice is the one who had a regular turn last). This means that Bob plays his extra turn first. (Then Alice plays hers, and then it's Bob's regular turn.)
Now assume both have bought Fleet, and the above happens. But on Bob's turn when he plays Possession, he also ends the game. Now there are two Possession turns in wait, plus the Fleet turns. Per the Fleet rules, since Alice had a regular turn last, Bob plays his Fleet turn first. But when are the two Possession turns played? Following normal rules, Bob had a turn last, so Bob would get his Possession turn first. Or, since Alice is the one who last had a regular turn, is she the one who gets her Possession turn first? It's weird that the order of extra turns would be different in a normal round and in a Fleet round.
If Bob gets his Possession turn first, he can take it before or after his Fleet turn. Whatever he chooses, Bob's Fleet turn goes before Alice's Possession turn, right?
The Fleet turns proceed around the table like normal turns, which means if anyone has fleet and you play Possession and e.g. empty the Provinces the same turn, the Possession-generated turn happens next like it normally would.
Your turns keep happening as if the game hadn't ended. Answers to weird situations should be the same as for "Keep playing as if the game hadn't ended until everyone with a token on Fleet when the game would have ended has another turn, skipping turns for players who don't have a token on Fleet."
Edit: So. You don't get to order Possession vs. Fleet turns. Fleet turns are this extra round of turns thing.
-
The Fleet turns proceed around the table like normal turns, which means if anyone has fleet and you play Possession and e.g. empty the Provinces the same turn, the Possession-generated turn happens next like it normally would.
Your turns keep happening as if the game hadn't ended. Answers to weird situations should be the same as for "Keep playing as if the game hadn't ended until everyone with a token on Fleet when the game would have ended has another turn, skipping turns for players who don't have a token on Fleet."
Edit: So. You don't get to order Possession vs. Fleet turns. Fleet turns are this extra round of turns thing.
Does that mean you're changing what you wrote earlier in this thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19177.msg776158#msg776158)?
-
The Fleet turns proceed around the table like normal turns, which means if anyone has fleet and you play Possession and e.g. empty the Provinces the same turn, the Possession-generated turn happens next like it normally would.
Your turns keep happening as if the game hadn't ended. Answers to weird situations should be the same as for "Keep playing as if the game hadn't ended until everyone with a token on Fleet when the game would have ended has another turn, skipping turns for players who don't have a token on Fleet."
Edit: So. You don't get to order Possession vs. Fleet turns. Fleet turns are this extra round of turns thing.
Does that mean you're changing what you wrote earlier in this thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19177.msg776158#msg776158)?
Yes. You don't get to order Fleet turns. Fleet doesn't create extra turns; it creates an extra round of turns, and then only some people participate in it. That's how I read it.
-
The Fleet turns proceed around the table like normal turns, which means if anyone has fleet and you play Possession and e.g. empty the Provinces the same turn, the Possession-generated turn happens next like it normally would.
Your turns keep happening as if the game hadn't ended. Answers to weird situations should be the same as for "Keep playing as if the game hadn't ended until everyone with a token on Fleet when the game would have ended has another turn, skipping turns for players who don't have a token on Fleet."
Edit: So. You don't get to order Possession vs. Fleet turns. Fleet turns are this extra round of turns thing.
Does that mean you're changing what you wrote earlier in this thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19177.msg776158#msg776158)?
Yes. You don't get to order Fleet turns. Fleet doesn't create extra turns; it creates an extra round of turns, and then only some people participate in it. That's how I read it.
Ok, so this is a kind of a change from the rulebook, where it says "extra turns". Maybe it doesn't have to be read literally.
The good thing is that the turn order now makes sense without the need for extra rules. But do the Fleet turns still not count for tie-breaker?
-
Ok, so this is a kind of a change from the rulebook, where it says "extra turns". Maybe it doesn't have to be read literally.
The good thing is that the turn order now makes sense without the need for extra rules. But do the Fleet turns still not count for tie-breaker?
Tentatively they still don't count for the tie-breaker.
-
So here is an updated tentative description:
After end-game is triggered*, the game instead continues for one more round if any player has bought Fleet. Only players who have bought Fleet get a new turn in this round. Any extra turns (from Outpost, Possession or Mission) or abilities like Donate or Mountain Pass - which would otherwise not be resolved - are resolved as normal considering that the game continues. So are any extra turns etc. that are triggered during this round. However, when the last Fleet turn has been played, the game ends immediately. Just like extra turns, Fleet turns don't count for tie-breaking.
*EDIT: Maybe clearer: After the game would normally end...
-
So here is an updated tentative description:
After end-game is triggered, the game instead continues for one more round if any player has bought Fleet. Only players who have bought Fleet get a new turn in this round. Any extra turns (from Outpost, Possession or Mission) or abilities like Donate or Mountain Pass - which would otherwise not be resolved - are resolved as normal considering that the game continues. So are any extra turns etc. that are triggered during this round. However, when the last Fleet turn has been played, the game ends immediately. Just like extra turns, Fleet turns don't count for tie-breaking.
Yes. Sounds good.
-
the game instead continues for one more round if any player has bought Fleet
[...]
when the last Fleet turn has been played, the game ends immediately
To me, those two statements verge on being mutually contradictory.
Consider the case where there are players A,B,C,D. A and C have bought Fleet, and D triggers game-end. The former statement suggests there is a moment between C's turn ending and the game ending, during which D is passed over before the game ends, opening the spectre of C being able to Donate, Outpost, etc.
But the second statement closes that door.
Is this a clearer alternative?
"The game enters the about-to-end state when, at the end of someone's turn, [Provinces/Colonies/piles]. Once the game is about-to-end, non-Fleet players miss their normal turns and the game ends when, at the end of someone's turn, every Fleet player has taken one more normal turn."
Just to check the corner case on the corner case, am I right that if someone plays Possession during the Fleet round and makes the Possessed player buy Fleet, the Possessed player does then get a Fleet turn, and this could even prolong the game by a turn in the ridiculous situation that A and B have Fleet but C doesn't, then:
- A plays Possession on their Fleet turn
- A makes B play Possession on their Possessed turn
- B makes C buy Fleet on their Possessed turn
- B takes their Fleet turn
- C does get to take their Fleet turn?
Taking the corner case on the corner case on the corner case, what happens if B and C have Fleet but A doesn't, in a three-player game with C triggering game-end:
- (A doesn't get a Fleet turn at this because they don't have Fleet. Yet...)
- B Possesses C on their Fleet turn
- B has C Possess A on their Possessed turn
- C has A buy Fleet on their Possessed turn
- C takes their Fleet turn
- Now, does the game end, or does A get a Fleet turn?
-
Consider the case where there are players A,B,C,D. A and C have bought Fleet, and D triggers game-end. The former statement suggests there is a moment between C's turn ending and the game ending, during which D is passed over before the game ends, opening the spectre of C being able to Donate, Outpost, etc.
I don't think your alternative is an improvement. Terms like "about-to-end state" are not necessary.
The intention was that "After end-game is triggered" only referred to the normal end-game conditions. If it's necessary to clarify that, all we need is to write "After the game would normally end" instead. That's how I'm phrasing it in my rules document actually.
Just to check the corner case on the corner case, am I right that if someone plays Possession during the Fleet round and makes the Possessed player buy Fleet, the Possessed player does then get a Fleet turn
No, this was answered by Donald earlier in this thread.
-
Just to check the corner case on the corner case, am I right that if someone plays Possession during the Fleet round and makes the Possessed player buy Fleet, the Possessed player does then get a Fleet turn
No, this was answered by Donald earlier in this thread.
Although I guess I didn't ask enough to determine exactly when it's too late to buy Fleet meaningfully. Based on the wording on Fleet, I assume it's "after a turn has ended with a game end condition being met." But it might also be "after a player's turn has been skipped in the Fleet round" or "after a player has taken a Fleet turn." (Not that there should be a way to do anything between when the Fleet round starts and the first Fleet turn, but hey, maybe someday.)
-
Although I guess I didn't ask enough to determine exactly when it's too late to buy Fleet meaningfully. Based on the wording on Fleet, I assume it's "after a turn has ended with a game end condition being met." But it might also be "after a player's turn has been skipped in the Fleet round" or "after a player has taken a Fleet turn." (Not that there should be a way to do anything between when the Fleet round starts and the first Fleet turn, but hey, maybe someday.)
Fleet locks in at the point at which the game would otherwise end. It's the end of someone's turn, we check for the game-end condition, it's met, but there's Fleet. We see who has tokens on it right then.
This is just me trying to be true to the wording on Fleet.
-
I don't think your alternative is an improvement. Terms like "about-to-end state" are not necessary.
Even if you don't give the state a label, it has to exist: in a Fleet/Ambassador game, there's nothing else which can let you know whether or not the game should end.
Though actually, it turns out you also need to track who triggered game-end, and who had bought Fleet at that point.
(I'm assuming there's someone working on the online version who's already formalised this stuff?)
-
Wait, so if I am the last player in turn order who bought Fleet, my Outposts are worthless, but the Outposts of other players aren't?
-
Wait, so if I am the last player in turn order who bought Fleet, my Outposts are worthless, but the Outposts of other players aren't?
Yup. At first that sounds arbitrarily unfair; but it’s the same as the rules without Fleet. If you are the last person of a regular game to take a turn; your Outpost on your final turn is worthless. And with Fleet; you may have turned your normally worthless last-turn Outpost into an extra turn before Fleet round begins.
-
Wait, so if I am the last player in turn order who bought Fleet, my Outposts are worthless, but the Outposts of other players aren't?
Yup. At first that sounds arbitrarily unfair; but it’s the same as the rules without Fleet. If you are the last person of a regular game to take a turn; your Outpost on your final turn is worthless. And with Fleet; you may have turned your normally worthless last-turn Outpost into an extra turn before Fleet round begins.
Good point, it's me who triggers the Fleet turns, so I can't complain.
-
I assume Possession works only if the left player has bought Fleet, correct? It does not skip similar Masquerade players which did not buy Fleet?
-
Wait, so if I am the last player in turn order who bought Fleet, my Outposts are worthless, but the Outposts of other players aren't?
Yup. At first that sounds arbitrarily unfair; but it’s the same as the rules without Fleet. If you are the last person of a regular game to take a turn; your Outpost on your final turn is worthless. And with Fleet; you may have turned your normally worthless last-turn Outpost into an extra turn before Fleet round begins.
Do i interpret correctly that the player triggering end condition get extra turns triggered in that same turn, then the other players with Fleet get their "normal" turns plus possible extra turns, but the ending player gets only their "normal" turn without extra turns triggered during that?
-
I assume Possession works only if the left player has bought Fleet, correct? It does not skip similar Masquerade players which did not buy Fleet?
If Alice plays Possession and ends the game normally, she will Possess Bob - as long as somebody has bought Fleet. First Bob gets a turn (Possessed by Alice), then all Fleet-players get a turn, starting with Bob and ending with Alice.
If Alice ends the game normally, and then Bob plays Possession on his Fleet turn, Bob Possesses the next player - as long as there are more Fleet turns. If Bob is the last Fleet player, he won't Possess anybody, because the game (Fleet round) ends immediately after his Fleet turn. If Alice plays Possession on her Fleet turn, she will not Possess anybody, because she is the last player.
-
Do i interpret correctly that the player triggering end condition get extra turns triggered in that same turn, then the other players with Fleet get their "normal" turns plus possible extra turns, but the ending player gets only their "normal" turn without extra turns triggered during that?
Yes, if the "ending player" is indeed the last player to play their Fleet turn. The last player to play their Fleet turn, whoever that may be, does not get any extra turns after that.
-
I assume Possession works only if the left player has bought Fleet, correct? It does not skip similar Masquerade players which did not buy Fleet?
If Alice plays Possession and ends the game normally, she will Possess Bob - as long as somebody has bought Fleet. First Bob gets a turn (Possessed by Alice), then all Fleet-players get a turn, starting with Bob and ending with Alice.
If Alice ends the game normally, and then Bob plays Possession on his Fleet turn, Bob Possesses the next player - as long as there are more Fleet turns. If Bob is the last Fleet player, he won't Possess anybody, because the game (Fleet round) ends immediately after his Fleet turn. If Alice plays Possession on her Fleet turn, she will not Possess anybody, because she is the last player.
Wow. That baffles me. I have had thought, that a player without Fleet would do nothing (except any "each player" or "each other player" or "the player to your left" effects). But when they still do an extra turn contrary to Fleet wording "turns just for players with this" then what with Outpost or Mission triggered in that possessed turn?
-
Wow. That baffles me. I have had thought, that a player without Fleet would do nothing (except any "each player" or "each other player" or "the player to your left" effects). But when they still do an extra turn contrary to Fleet wording "turns just for players with this" then what with Outpost or Mission triggered in that possessed turn?
I don't quite understand what you're saying, but will try to re-explain it.
Normally, if you play Outpost, you get an extra turn. If the game ends, you don't get that extra turn. Outpost doesn't stop the game from ending; it only gives you an extra turn if the game is still going.
Fleet actually stops the game from ending. So Outpost turns get to happen. Same with Possession and Mission.
-
Wow. That baffles me. I have had thought, that a player without Fleet would do nothing (except any "each player" or "each other player" or "the player to your left" effects). But when they still do an extra turn contrary to Fleet wording "turns just for players with this" then what with Outpost or Mission triggered in that possessed turn?
Fleet doesn't prevent anything from happening. The "just for players with this" clause only specifies which players get to take a "normal" turn in the extra round. It doesn't mean "players who didn't buy this can't take any turns", it just means "players who did buy this get an extra turn".
But if it helps to think about it this way, taking a possessed turn is a "player to your left" effect, and any consequences of the possessed turn therefore happen because of a "player to your left" effect.
-
Wow. That baffles me. I have had thought, that a player without Fleet would do nothing (except any "each player" or "each other player" or "the player to your left" effects). But when they still do an extra turn contrary to Fleet wording "turns just for players with this" then what with Outpost or Mission triggered in that possessed turn?
I don't quite understand what you're saying, but will try to re-explain it.
Normally, if you play Outpost, you get an extra turn. If the game ends, you don't get that extra turn. Outpost doesn't stop the game from ending; it only gives you an extra turn if the game is still going.
Fleet actually stops the game from ending. So Outpost turns get to happen. Same with Possession and Mission.
If I understand it, his confusion was actually thinking that if you didn't buy a Fleet, the game is completely over for you, so you can't have any extra turns. But your right-hand opponent playing a Possession grants you and extra turn, even though the game has ended for you.
-
Yet one more way of saying it:
If any player has bought Fleet, there will be a Fleet round after the game would normally end. Only players with Fleet get a normal turn in this round. Otherwise it is exactly as if the game is extented for one normal round.*
*except that these turns don't count for tie-breaker.
-
Yet one more way of saying it:
If any player has bought Fleet, there will be a Fleet round after the game would normally end. Only players with Fleet get a normal turn in this round. Otherwise it is exactly as if the game is extented for one normal round.*
*except that these turns don't count for tie-breaker.
Basically it sounds like Fleet changes the timing between when the end of game is triggered and when its resolved. (With the obvious caveat that only players who bought Fleet get to participate in the final round.)
-
If I understand it, his confusion was actually thinking that if you didn't buy a Fleet, the game is completely over for you, so you can't have any extra turns. But your right-hand opponent playing a Possession grants you and extra turn, even though the game has ended for you.
Exactly.
If any player has bought Fleet, there will be a Fleet round after the game would normally end. Only players with Fleet get a normal turn in this round. Otherwise it is exactly as if the game is extented for one normal round.*
That i will propose for translated FAQ.
In that sense in a possessed turn during Fleet round i can order to play Outpost and buy Mission and so give a player without Fleet additional turns also.
-
In that sense in a possessed turn during Fleet round i can order to play Outpost and buy Mission and so give a player without Fleet additional turns also.
Yes, but I still don't understand why you would want to.
-
In that sense in a possessed turn during Fleet round i can order to play Outpost and buy Mission and so give a player without Fleet additional turns also.
Yes, but I still don't understand why you would want to.
3 player game. You have a Lighthouse in play. Right hand opponent is winning by 1 point. Left hand opponent can play an engine that plays multiple Witches. But when you possessed them; they only had Outpost and a bunch of junk in hand. You need them to take the Outpost turn to play out their engine to give other player multiple Curses.
-
In that sense in a possessed turn during Fleet round i can order to play Outpost and buy Mission and so give a player without Fleet additional turns also.
Yes, but I still don't understand why you would want to.
You don't necessarily need to want to. Think Herald, or Golem.
-
In that sense in a possessed turn during Fleet round i can order to play Outpost and buy Mission and so give a player without Fleet additional turns also.
Yes, but I still don't understand why you would want to.
You don't necessarily need to want to. Think Herald, or Golem.
I was mostly confused by the phrasing "i can order to play Outpost and buy Mission", which sounds like the possessor is making the decision directly to have the possessee play Outpost. I guess GendoIkari's edge-case works.
-
I was mostly confused by the phrasing "i can order to play Outpost and buy Mission", which sounds like the possessor is making the decision directly to have the possessee play Outpost. I guess GendoIkari's edge-case works.
Yes, that was my intention. Was thinking of king making. But Golem + Herold have higher probability.
-
To be clear: I see Donald's ruling and reasoning and accept it so far (after all he is the author and as such master), play it IRL so and explain it so to other players. But still i find it counter-intuitive because it does things not written.
Normally, if you play Outpost, you get an extra turn. If the game ends, you don't get that extra turn. Outpost doesn't stop the game from ending; it only gives you an extra turn if the game is still going.
Fleet actually stops the game from ending. So Outpost turns get to happen. Same with Possession and Mission.
I have no problem with them to happen.
I have a problem they happen for every player.
I have a problem they happen not for last player (if it is not the same triggering Fleet).
I have a problem that i can't find any hint why Fleet should get executed the way ruled here.
I try it this way:- Gain a card. Simple order. I want to grab Followers. But wait, there is written in the rulebook "If no pile is specified, gaining is restricted to supply." (probably not that wording, but that meaning) So a order is confined by a rule.
- (instead of to your discard pile) No doubt, the gained card does not visit.
- (+1 Action has no effect if it's not your turn.) That should be self-evident, but let us make it clear for the ignorants also.
So there are (at least) three ways to accomplish things otherwise not in scope.
Back to Fleet: After the game ends, there's an extra round of turns just for players with this. Nothing else. No bracketed text. No italicized text. Nothing additional about it in the rules of rulebook. From FAQ we get to know only that other extra turns happen and the last player with Fleet does not get other extra turns. No explicit statement about non-Fleet-players.
So as average player i am stuck with generale rule "do exactly as written, nothing more, nothing less". I would deduct from FAQ i can generate extra turns by Outpost and Mission (if i am not the last Fleet-player) during my Fleet turn and if the player to my left hand has also Fleet i can posses him/her/them (if i am not the last Fleet-player).
Nothing at all indicates that players without Fleet do extra turns. How should the average player (or a translator) guess that? ... just for players with this. seems simple and straightforward. I don't know of a rule which could enlarge that specified group. Without knowledge of this thread tasked to write a FAQ i would have written - players without Fleet get no turns during Fleet round. Especially can't such player get possessed.
- players with Fleet execute other extra turns pending from before Fleet round or initiated in Fleet round as usual.
Hey, Donald wrote something sounding just so:Fleet doesn't create extra turns; it creates an extra round of turns, and then only some people participate in it. That's how I read it.
bold by me
So how comes it to the ruling non-Fleet-players extra turns get executed? (Rhetoric. I see the way.) To be more precise: how can it get reasoned other than by "Donald said so here"? I mean it is not that somebody presented his interpretation of a whacky text and Donald explained wether it is correct or why not. If there would be some italicized text on Fleet like (player without this execute extra turns until last player-with-this's turn) i would happily bow to it and Donalds ruling about it. Again to be clear: I see Donald's ruling and reasoning and accept it so far, now play it IRL so and explain it so to other players. But still i find it counter-intuitive because it does things not written.
Now last player: the ruling he/she/they get no extra turns seems reasonable. At first. Fleet extends the game by a round so the player triggering Fleet get a chance to play extra turns otherwise forfeited. (Of course in my interpretation he/she/they get that chance only if he/she/they is also Fleet buyer.) So that would not change last turn condition. But what about if the Fleet triggerer has not bought Fleet? Then the last Fleet player get hit by the rule which is written at least in FAQ. Personally i find it unfair compared with other non-Fleet-triggering players – i would prefer a ruling saying "if last Fleet player did not trigger Fleet he get extra turns generated in that Fleet turn also." (Possession can't get executed since my interpretation forbid extra turns by non Fleet players.) But still it is a reasonable ruling. I am not happy with it, but i comply to it. Bad luck for last player.
-
The key point is that the game is *not* over for every player that didn't buy Fleet during the round of Fleet turns. You get to discard a Tunnel for an opponent's Milita, gain a Gold with it and increase you score due to Palace. You can get your Duchy swindled into a Harvest, loosing points. Why should Possession not affect you?
The only thing you don't get is the "extra turn" granted by Fleet.
I have the feeling we are actually agreeing, but I'm not sure with your post.
-
Nothing at all indicates that players without Fleet do extra turns. How should the average player (or a translator) guess that? ... just for players with this. seems simple and straightforward. I don't know of a rule which could enlarge that specified group. Without knowledge of this thread tasked to write a FAQ i would have written - players without Fleet get no turns during Fleet round. Especially can't such player get possessed.
- players with Fleet execute other extra turns pending from before Fleet round or initiated in Fleet round as usual.
Hey, Donald wrote something sounding just so:Fleet doesn't create extra turns; it creates an extra round of turns, and then only some people participate in it. That's how I read it.
bold by me
Why would the fact that you're in "Fleet turns" stop Possession/Outpost/Mission from working? Those specifically say that some player gets an extra turn after this one. It doesn't say anywhere that the extra turn is contingent on or occurs relative to some player's "normal" turn (or Fleet turn).
I agree, though, that the rulebook should have been much more detailed about what exactly Fleet's text is trying to convey.
-
Nothing at all indicates that players without Fleet do extra turns. How should the average player (or a translator) guess that? ... just for players with this. seems simple and straightforward. I don't know of a rule which could enlarge that specified group. Without knowledge of this thread tasked to write a FAQ i would have written - players without Fleet get no turns during Fleet round. Especially can't such player get possessed.
- players with Fleet execute other extra turns pending from before Fleet round or initiated in Fleet round as usual.
Hey, Donald wrote something sounding just so:Fleet doesn't create extra turns; it creates an extra round of turns, and then only some people participate in it. That's how I read it.
bold by me
Why would the fact that you're in "Fleet turns" stop Possession/Outpost/Mission from working? Those specifically say that some player gets an extra turn after this one. It doesn't say anywhere that the extra turn is contingent on or occurs relative to some player's "normal" turn (or Fleet turn).
I agree, though, that the rulebook should have been much more detailed about what exactly Fleet's text is trying to convey.
Because if the bolded text is taken literally, then people who didn't buy Fleet simply aren't a part of the game any more; they don't exist. Similar to a multi-player Magic game when one player loses.
But, we know that the bolded text is NOT to be taken literally, because those people in fact are still participating in the game. They gain Curses when someone plays Witch, etc. It's not that they don't participate in it, it's that they don't get an extra turn from Fleet's effect.
-
Because if the bolded text is taken literally, then people who didn't buy Fleet simply aren't a part of the game any more; they don't exist. Similar to a multi-player Magic game when one player loses.
But, we know that the bolded text is NOT to be taken literally, because those people in fact are still participating in the game. They gain Curses when someone plays Witch, etc. It's not that they don't participate in it, it's that they don't get an extra turn from Fleet's effect.
Even so, if a card specifically said to give an extra turn to, like, a friend who didn't even start playing the game, why wouldn't it be able to do that, Fleet or no? (Assuming it detailed where they were supposed to get their deck and starting hand from.)
EDIT: I guess you're saying that you can interpret it as though the seating order has changed and you can no longer refer to a non-Fleet player as "the player to your left." I guess I could see that. But I wouldn't call that a literal interpretation of anything. I'd call that making assumptions that some text means a bunch of things it doesn't actually (literally) say.
-
Back to Fleet: After the game ends, there's an extra round of turns just for players with this. Nothing else. No bracketed text. No italicized text. Nothing additional about it in the rules of rulebook. From FAQ we get to know only that other extra turns happen and the last player with Fleet does not get other extra turns. No explicit statement about non-Fleet-players.
So as average player i am stuck with generale rule "do exactly as written, nothing more, nothing less". I would deduct from FAQ i can generate extra turns by Outpost and Mission (if i am not the last Fleet-player) during my Fleet turn and if the player to my left hand has also Fleet i can posses him/her/them (if i am not the last Fleet-player)
I disagree about the FAQ. When I read it, there was no doubt it my mind that extra turns from Outpost etc will happen for all players. Here it is:
The extra turns go in order starting with the next player after the one that just took a turn. Other extra turns, such as from Outpost (in Seaside) can happen in-between those turns...
In the first sentence, the "extra turns" (unfortunate phrase) referred to are the Fleet turns. Other extra turns can happen in between.
The card says "there's an extra round of turns just for players with this". I take the card text to mean that there is an extra round consisting of just turns for Fleet players. I interpret "just for players with this" to refer to the turns, not the round. So it does not mean an extra round just for Fleet players. This is evident when you think of what that would mean, as others have pointed out: All non-Fleet players have to participate in this round, or they couldn't even receive a Curse from Witch. (This is also heavily implied in the FAQ, because it says that non-Fleet players don't sort their cards and count VP until the end.)
So there is an extra round of Fleet turns. The card says or implies nothing about other extra turns, but the FAQ does. It says that other extra turns can happen in between. Only players with Fleet get Fleet turns, but that doesn't mean that the other extra turns only apply to players with Fleet.
-
The card says "there's an extra round of turns just for players with this". I take the card text to mean that there is an extra round consisting of just turns for Fleet players. I interpret "just for players with this" to refer to the turns, not the round.
Quite funny. Just what i think.
So it does not mean an extra round just for Fleet players. This is evident when you think of what that would mean, as others have pointed out: All non-Fleet players have to participate in this round, or they couldn't even receive a Curse from Witch. (This is also heavily implied in the FAQ, because it says that non-Fleet players don't sort their cards and count VP until the end.)
To all, who seem to think that i want to exclude non Fleet player from the Fleet round totally: quite contrary i was always without doubt and said so that they still participate, just only they should not get any turns.: Wow. That baffles me. I have had thought, that a player without Fleet would do nothing (except any "each player" or "each other player" or "the player to your left" effects).
So there is an extra round of Fleet turns. The card says or implies nothing about other extra turns, but the FAQ does. It says that other extra turns can happen in between.
Yep, agreed (and never said otherwise). In that point the FAQ does just what it should do: explaining what implicitly is included. The Fleet turn does not have any known restrictions laid on, so that implies i can play Outpost or buy Mission. And if there are no other objections (e.g. i got possessed before i played Outpost) i get and execute those extra turns. And thats what the FAQ says.
On the other side the FAQ does not explicitly say non Fleet player get extra turns, which it should if that were true because of the then obvious conflict with "players with this".
Only players with Fleet get Fleet turns, but that doesn't mean that the other extra turns only apply to players with Fleet.
That contradicts your own words from above.
-
To me, the big problem which makes Fleet unintuitive is that the end of the game now appears to mean two different moments in different contexts. Fleet gives people extra turns "after the game ends", but that moment occurs before the "at the end of the game" of Distant Lands, "for the rest of the game" of Embargo/Hireling/Champion, and the rulebook's "The player with the most victory points in his Deck at game end wins."
So first we do the things that happen after the game ends, then we do the things that happen at game end? Huh.
-
The key point is that the game is *not* over for every player that didn't buy Fleet during the round of Fleet turns. You get to discard a Tunnel for an opponent's Milita, gain a Gold with it and increase you score due to Palace. You can get your Duchy swindled into a Harvest, loosing points. Why should Possession not affect you?
The only thing you don't get is the "extra turn" granted by Fleet.
Well put.
The cards can't have computer code on them; that game is unplayable. They try to do well enough for most situations, and there's a rulebook that tries to cover other questions that will come up.
Maybe there was a better wording for Fleet; we put work into it and that was the best we had. I could have not done Fleet; it's the 12th expansion, I need to still do new things that excite people, Fleet seemed worth doing.
-
To all, who seem to think that i want to exclude non Fleet player from the Fleet round totally: quite contrary i was always without doubt and said so that they still participate, just only they should not get any turns.:
Right, you did say that.
Only players with Fleet get Fleet turns, but that doesn't mean that the other extra turns only apply to players with Fleet.
That contradicts your own words from above.
No, you're failing to understand my point. Which quote do you mean?
As I said, there is an extra round of Fleet turns. This doesn't mean that there are only Fleet turns. Indeed, the FAQ explicitly says that that is not the case: There can also be other extra turns. But the card only says who gets Fleet turns. It doesn't say who gets or doesn't get other extra turns. Neither does the FAQ. The card gives turns to Fleet players, not to other players. But it doesn't regulate any other actitivity in the extra round.
-
The cards can't have computer code on them; that game is unplayable. They try to do well enough for most situations, and there's a rulebook that tries to cover other questions that will come up.
Maybe there was a better wording for Fleet; we put work into it and that was the best we had. I could have not done Fleet; it's the 12th expansion, I need to still do new things that excite people, Fleet seemed worth doing.
Given that the cards can't have computer code on them, and given the sheer amount and variety of cards, I would say that Dominion does an exceptional job of having very few cards/card interactions which need to refer you to the rulebook. Renaissance had Capitalism and Fleet, and that was about it. Granted, it was the simplest expansion out of the last few, but even the most complex ones don't have very many. That's one of the reasons it's my favorite game. Also the fact that new exciting things like Fleet are still out there waiting to be designed.
-
To me, the big problem which makes Fleet unintuitive is that the end of the game now appears to mean two different moments in different contexts. Fleet gives people extra turns "after the game ends", but that moment occurs before the "at the end of the game" of Distant Lands, "for the rest of the game" of Embargo/Hireling/Champion, and the rulebook's "The player with the most victory points in his Deck at game end wins."
So first we do the things that happen after the game ends, then we do the things that happen at game end? Huh.
Yes, that also bothered me - taken literally, the Fleet turns shouldn't matter because they happen after determining the final scores. I think the card should have said "When the game would end, ..." This is intuitively clearer and follows the precedent of Trader that "would gain" happens before actual gaining.
On another matter, when is it determined which players get the extra turn, at the nominal game end or when it would be their Fleet turn? Possession could cause a player to buy Fleet after "game end" but before it would be their Fleet turn.
-
On another matter, when is it determined which players get the extra turn, at the nominal game end or when it would be their Fleet turn? Possession could cause a player to buy Fleet after "game end" but before it would be their Fleet turn.
This was actually answered up-thread. You could also take a look at the document in my sig for the complete rulings about Fleet.
-
On another matter, when is it determined which players get the extra turn, at the nominal game end or when it would be their Fleet turn? Possession could cause a player to buy Fleet after "game end" but before it would be their Fleet turn.
This was actually answered up-thread. You could also take a look at the document in my sig for the complete rulings about Fleet.
(Sorry, for necroing, didn't read your answer before...)
Unfortunately I can't access it since I don't have a BGG account. :(
I also can't find an answer to my question in this thread - you've only discussed what happens with Possessions/Outposts played at the end of game or in a Fleet turn. I was asking about the inverse situation - what happens if one player only buys Fleet "after the game ends" during a Possession or Outpost turn (which does happen because another player did buy Fleet before, as discussed above). E.g. as follows:
Player A has already bought Fleet, player B hasn't. Player B "ends" the game during his turn, in which he's also played an Outpost. So due to A's Fleet, B does get the Outpost turn (that much is clear form the above), and buys Fleet in this Outpost turn. Does B now also get an extra Fleet turn after A or doesn't he?
-
Say an extra round starts with player A. Player A has bought Fleet, and player B, to his left, hasn't. If player A, during his Fleet turn, Possesses player B, then has him buy Fleet during the Possession turn, will player B end up getting his Fleet turn, or is it too late for that?
Going by the card wording, I'm calling it too late.
(And a BGG account is free and recommended.)