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

Rules Questions / Re: Old Salvager and Capitalism

« on: April 10, 2023, 01:23:25 pm »

It's not relevant if a card can actually make $; a card with "This does not give you +$1" would be affected by Capitalism.

"+$ amounts" requires an amount, which e.g. 0 is but blank isn't. So Capitalism would not work with "If it gave you +$, +1 Card," and of course ideally I wouldn't use that phrasing. Old Salvager clearly should work with Capitalism; it has errata, possibly for this very reason; the system works, at least as well as it can.

As always if someone goes online to ask, "how does this pre-errata thing work," the answer is always, "use the errata." And if they don't go online, then there's no way to tell them the answer. If they go online but insist on using the pre-errata version, well, it isn't supported, or rather the support is the errata; it's beyond the scope. Though people are welcome to play by whatever house rules they want.

2

Rules Questions / Re: Invasion

« on: March 26, 2023, 12:38:08 pm »

You gain the Loot to your discard pile, have a chance to react to that, then play the Loot from your discard pile.

3

Dominion General Discussion / Re: "New" Promo: Rethemed Harem

« on: March 23, 2023, 01:12:32 pm »

Will it still cost $6?

Yes, it's not a new card, it just has new name/art.

Donald X.

4

Dominion General Discussion / Re: * Plunder Previews #5: More Stuff *

« on: March 19, 2023, 01:43:37 pm »

I think Taskmaster is the first time we've seen the phrasing of "repeat this ability" on a Dominion card. Is there a reason it's not just "at the start of your next turn, play this again."?

Yes. A lot of work went into that wording, trying to find something that handled all the cases that needed handling. "Play this again" was tried and failed; consider Throning it.

Hmm, what's the problem with Throning "at the start of your next turn, play this again"? If you gain a $5, it plays itself twice next turn, setting up its next-turn ability twice. If you gain a $5 that turn too, it plays itself twice again, etc. What am I missing?

I'd swear there was a version that added copies with each turn. I don't have it in me to look through the discussions of the wordings though.

5

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.

« on: March 16, 2023, 04:55:17 pm »

I've played Dominion on-and-off for years, and there is just one tiny little thing that bothers me about the game.
The Guilds flavor text description mentions specifically cheese graters cheesemaking, and cheese destruction, and yet there are no cheese or cheesemaker-themed cards in Guilds or any other set.
Shoemakers were also mentioned, and they finally got represented a few years later in Nocturne with the Cobbler card.
Will these long-hoped-for cheese-themed cards ever come to pass, in a forthcoming 2nd edition, as a promo or in a new set?
I think it would only brie a gouda thing.
Also, I love the prosperity 2nd edition update, thank you for making it.

I'm there for you!

I couldn't include a cheese maker back when, due to lactose intolerance. These days I've learned that cheese loses lactose as it ages; cheese two years old or older is fine. So a cheese maker in Guilds would be fine now, but for any new expansion, it's still an issue: for a while it would be too new.

I'd recommend a substitute, but there really is no substitute for cheese.

6

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.

« on: March 07, 2023, 02:08:02 pm »

As far as I can tell, Donate is the only Event that affects a future (non-extra) turn without any method to track it: Delay, Inheritance, etc have an Action card; Ferry, Pathfinding, etc have a token. Is this an intentional precedent, or just a side effect of the 2022 errata? Is tracking here simply not an issue because of the price? Did you ever try adding other Duration-type "next turn" Events?

My mission was to preserve the original Donate as well as possible while having a wording that worked. That's how it got that wording. It tends to be very memorable; no worries about forgetting it so far.

In general it is not great to have an Event that does something on a future turn, unless something specifically provides tracking. Summon affects your next turn, and the card you set aside provides the tracking there.

7

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.

« on: March 05, 2023, 01:46:52 pm »

I was thinking about the Ruins... It's a nice mechanics but used by only 3 cards... Could we see in a future some new use for them? In a Promo or in a new Expansion... I'm thinking to trying to make Cursers give Ruins instead! E.g. Witch: +2 cards, every other player gains a Ruins... Would it make the game unbalanced or "broken"?

P.S. I know designers don't comment on variants, it's just something that I'm willing to try and wish to know if it would make the game going to a direction not intended...

The problem with doing more with them is that you need those 50 cards. I don't think it will ever be worth it to have another expansion include them. You can imagine a "treasure chest" expansion, full of cards that add to other expansions, without including the extra components from those expansions; I don't know if RGG would go for that though. I mean the idea of the extra cards for other expansions would be fine; it's not including the needed components that's the problem.

I don't mind people playing whatever variants they like. Obv. Ruinses do not hurt as much as Curses, so using Ruinses instead would change how powerful all of those cards are. But some of those cards are strong anyway.

8

Rules Questions / Re: Harbor Village and Inspiring

« on: February 23, 2023, 06:10:26 pm »

Play Harbor Village [1].
..Get +1 card and +2 Actions.
..Inspiring triggers: you may play a card you don't have a copy of in play. Decline to do so.
Play Harbor Village [2].
..Get +1 card and +2 Actions.
..Inspiring and Harbor Village [1] both trigger.
....Choose to resolve Inspiring first.
......Play Guildmaster
........Get +$3.
........Harbor Village [2] triggers.
..........Did Guildmaster give you +$? Yes it did. Therefore, Harbor Village [2] gives you +$1.
....Resolve Harbor Village [1] second.
......Did Harbor Village [2] give you +$? Yes it did. Therefore, Harbor Village [1] gives you +$1.

Looks correct.

9

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.

« on: February 23, 2023, 01:19:42 pm »

When the cards are already out, there has to be a rules problem; power level isn't enough.

Is King's Court + Masquerade an exception to this? Or did you consider that a rules problem?

I mean. Which is friendlier: the friendliest answer, or the most accurate answer? I try to be friendly, but some people crave accuracy.

I'll try again. In every case, there's everything to consider that there is to consider for that case, and I consider all the things I manage to, and I arrive at whatever decision I arrive at, or sometimes fail to. This has no exceptions except the ones I've missed. It doesn't tell you anything either, but hey, that's the price we pay sometimes.

KC + Masq was a very minor change that no-one would notice except if they knew about the combo. The change stopped people from preying on other people with it while having essentially no other effect on the game. I did not list these things in my answer to the other question though, you've got me there.

10

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.

« on: February 22, 2023, 01:27:53 pm »

Under what circumstances do you kill a combo?

When a card isn't out yet, the issues are:
- how often does it happen - more of an issue if 2 cards rather than 3, if within a set rather than spread across sets, if a card plus a category of card rather than specific cards
- how powerful is it
- how confusing is it
- do we catch it

When the cards are already out, there has to be a rules problem; power level isn't enough.

11

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.

« on: February 20, 2023, 12:47:03 pm »

Have you ever tried reusing a Victory card mechanic, e.g. a version of gardens with a different cost and a different ratio of cards to points?

I've tried just slightly different things.

There's some room for new cards that are a different size of an old card, e.g. Pilgrim being a bigger Courtyard. Sometimes the change in size will be interesting enough. In general they are bound to be unexciting though.

12

Rules Questions / Re: New Plan

« on: February 18, 2023, 01:42:09 pm »

Now that the trashing token is when-gain, I have this question: Let's say I put the token on Village, and then I gain a Village from trash, does the token trigger?

I think it should. It says "when you gain a card from that pile", but the other tokens are "when you play a card from that pile" and of course you play them from your hand (normally).

You can certainly read it either way. Tentatively, Plan does trigger when you gain the card from the trash.

13

Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat

« on: February 14, 2023, 01:19:55 pm »

Ways and Enchantress are very similar, probably in all the ways you're used to. It's just that Way of the Sheep specifically attributes the +$2 to the played card for Harbor Village purposes, and Enchantress does not.

14

Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat

« on: February 11, 2023, 05:02:41 pm »

Enchantress is easier:
"When you would follow the instructions of a played Action card, it makes you instead get +1 Card and +1 Action."

This isn't true! I'm not saying that any of the rest of your post is true; time does not permit. I can tell you though that this part is not.

Way of the Sheep attributes the +$2 to the card, for e.g. Harbor Village to see.
Enchantress does not do this. It just happens on the side, like the +$1 from the Adventures token.

Why does Way of the Sheep attribute the +$2 to the card, for Harbor Village to see?
- I read the cards and rulebook and what people had to say.
- I made a ruling.

Why does Enchantress not do this?
- ditto

Way of the Sheep attributes its +$2 to the card, for things that look in the way Harbor Village does; Enchantress doesn't attribute its cantrip.

15

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.

« on: February 09, 2023, 06:51:50 pm »

What are your thoughts on Ruins? My hot take is that it's the least successful mechanic in Dominion history. Even for other mechanics that could be considered a "failed experiment" (artifacts, hexes, overpay etc.), there's at least 1-2 cards that I like; I can't say the same thing for Ruins. Also yikes, it eats up 50 cards in an expansion.

Eating 50 cards is certainly a bummer. Aside from that, I still like the premise. Ruinses are more interesting than Curses. I could see it being Ruinses from the start, no Curses.

Artifacts still sound fine, even though I wasn't happy with all the cards. I bet I could end up with 5 worth doing in the long run. Hexes are too complex, they are a top failed experiment. Overpay still seems fine; its key problem is, the cards end up crazy wordy. I revisited it with Hostelry. Potions loom as an especially disliked mechanic. I think they're fine, but there are sure a lot of players who don't like them, and I don't think it's just the other problems in Alchemy making Potions look bad.

What are your thoughts on Silver Mine? It's been mocked a lot as a bad Sculptor.

I remain happy to have done it. They can't all have a million words and require non-supply piles and do something no card has done that generates a dozen-page rules thread.

Now that some time has passed, what are your thoughts on the Loot pile in general? I think at this point, it's the least liked mechanic in Plunder?

Well done Donald X., slam dunk, amazing mechanic. Go listen to Tom Vasel rave about it. Everything can't be aimed at expert players. Even in the 15th expansion, where it's more reasonable to aim things at experts.

Innovation has some tricky rules around it, and yet there have been a lot of those effects recently (especially in 2022). Is this a mix of "we're already a bunch of expansions in" and "it's fun and popular"?

It's those things plus "what a great idea, why hadn't I done this years earlier." I mean I had it years earlier; it took until Innovation for it to stick.

What other wordings of Reckless were tried? I'd be most curious about finding a Flagship-like wording (with some parenthetical that stops infinite loops).

I can share all the printed wordings; it's too much work to look up all considered wordings.



There were always issues, problems any which way.

You've said that Rich is your least favorite thing in Plunder. When you were making the set, did you worry that the gameplay may resemble what you dislike about Lucky Coin?

Well, I didn't worry about that enough, or it wouldn't be in the set, but sure, that's basically the issue. Sometimes Rich is on a card you already wanted, and then you end up not getting to have as much fun with the board, at least unless your opponent cooperates with you (which the bot does not).

In your opinion, what expansion is the closest to "perfect"? (if this question is too hard to answer, just say Prosperity 2E)

Oops, missed this question.

Certainly revisiting the expansions pushes them way up. Man I dunno. I have the least amount of information about my mistakes in Plunder; it's looking pretty amazing. Allies is still looking great.

16

Rules Questions / Re: Replaying Durations that aren't in play

« on: February 07, 2023, 01:29:01 pm »

So I am leaning towards, the BoM rule is in fact only for BoM's, and Procession a BoM a Duration does not keep Procession out.

I guess you still mean that the rule also applies to scenarios like in this thread (Flagship + BoM + Duration)?

I don't understand the question. Flagship is both a Command card and a Duration card.

I was referring to the question in the OP of this thread. Is the ruling that Flagship stays in play? (Flagship is a TR; it's not a BoM, i.e. a card that says to play a card leaving it there.)

Originally I was thinking, "oh right, thx, Throne Rooms should behave like Band of Misfits, staying out when cards aren't in play, for consistency and a simpler rule and Whatnot."

Now I am thinking, "Throne a Throne a Duration doesn't keep out the first Throne; the consistent thing is to not change Thrones here." In the early days, Thrones had a much more confusing rule; it was a Good Thing to simplify it down to "did you play a Duration that's still in play." Ultimately this is a fight between "is there some way to track this" and "can this rule be something that can actually go into a rulebook."

For the OP, Flagship played a Duration card, and there's a rule for that, it stays in play as long as the Duration card *stays in play*. It's not the BoM rule that keeps BoM out by caring about how long the Duration *would have stayed out*. So nothing is keeping Flagship out.

17

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.

« on: February 06, 2023, 01:16:46 pm »

The Empire's Landscapes they are like endgame modifiers... You have the normal game and bam... a Landscape "alters" they way scores are tallied at the end.

The Allies' Allies were they at one point intended to be something like "start game" modifiers?

No; the entire idea to Allies was to have lots of different kinds of tokens, where the Ally tells you what the tokens do this game.

18

Rules Questions / Re: Replaying Durations that aren't in play

« on: February 06, 2023, 01:15:45 pm »

So I am leaning towards, the BoM rule is in fact only for BoM's, and Procession a BoM a Duration does not keep Procession out.

I guess you still mean that the rule also applies to scenarios like in this thread (Flagship + BoM + Duration)?

I don't understand the question. Flagship is both a Command card and a Duration card.

19

Rules Questions / Re: Replaying Durations that aren't in play

« on: February 04, 2023, 04:36:15 pm »

Donald X.,

Is the ruling
a card that plays a card stays in play as long as that card would have stayed in play; or
a card that plays a card that is not in play stays in play as long as that card would have stayed in play?

In other words, if you Procession a BoM to play a Duration, does the Procession stay?

I guess I have ruled both ways on this.

For sure the second one is true (whether or not the first is); that's the rule that handles tracking for Band of Misfits on a Duration card. Obv. it would be simpler if Band of Misfits didn't work on Duration cards; lack of foresight over a decade ago, plus public outcry, leave Band of Misfits working on Durations. And this rule (about leaving BoM out) is in rulebooks now, in BoM FAQs.

Duration card rules say that Thrones stay out; that's special to Thrones plus Durations. Throne FAQs don't even have this rule.

Obv. in the case of Procession on BoM on Amulet, BoM vanishes and there's a hole in our tracking. I guess Procession could have also said non-Command. Trashing cards from play is trouble.

The precedent is that a Throne Room that plays a card with future effects but which is not a Duration, doesn't stay out; for example Throne Throne Amulet. So I am leaning towards, the BoM rule is in fact only for BoM's, and Procession a BoM a Duration does not keep Procession out. Procession a BoM lets you cheat the non-Duration clause and cause a tracking issue. For years we just had that tracking issue, and I guess we survived; I could solve it someday with non-Command on Procession.

20

Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat

« on: February 02, 2023, 05:07:26 pm »

Chameleon + Enchantress: Yes, Reckless and Enchantress both look for FTI happening due to playing a card. If one sees the Chameleon FTI then they both do. I'm with you on this one. The Menagerie rulebook says that you can use a Way to dodge Enchantress. So the temptation is to reverse the Reckless ruling to match the rulebook there. Possibly though I reverse the rulebook ruling instead. The question then is which seems like it will make more sense to people.

So to double check, the reversed-rulebook ruling would go like this?

Your Chapel is Enchanted:
-use Chameleon: get +$1 +1 Action
-don't use Chameleon: get +1 Card +1 Action

If so, I give my thumbs up to that.

No. Enchantress's +1 Card +1 Action doesn't become the card's instructions. It's not a thing Chameleon looks at. Enchantress gives cantrip instead of FTI; Chameleon changes FTI.

what fingers can I get for this

21

Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat

« on: February 02, 2023, 03:37:35 pm »

But doesn't call out Chameleon specifically. Chameleon could be the exception, even though it's not brought up in the rulebook.

That's true, and there's a nice line of reasoning that makes e.g. Way of the Sheep dodge Enchantress but not Way of the Chameleon.

22

Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat

« on: February 01, 2023, 03:51:13 pm »

You don't have to keep repeating it, it's clear: Way of the Goat means that Smithy makes you trash. I've been trying to explain how I can't see any difference between a card (in this case Smithy) making you trash and that card giving you an instruction to trash. You still haven't really responded to this (which is understandable if you don't follow).

- An instruction to trash doesn't mean you will necessarily trash. For example, we could have Highwayman cause us to not do the instruction.
- We can attribute something to "the card did that" that isn't an instruction on the card.

23

Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat

« on: February 01, 2023, 03:48:28 pm »

- Reckless + Way of the Chameleon
-- This could go either way, but I have ruled that it works, you get the flipped effect twice. (a reversal)

- Enchantress + Way of the Chameleon
-- Your choice!
- Way of the Sheep + Way of the Chameleon
-- Not recommended! But supported. Your choice!

Those two seem contradictory to me.

Reckless works if you're following the card's instructions; it doesn't if you're not (see Reckless + Enchantress, and Reckless + Way of the Sheep).
So if Reckless + Way of the Chameleon works, it must mean that you're following the card's instructions with Chameleon.

Okay, but then Enchantress + Chameleon should work like this: You apply Enchantress first, Chameleon does nothing. You apply Chameleon first, Enchantress works. So there's no way to escape Enchantress.

And Sheep + Chameleon should work like this: You apply Sheep first, Chameleon does nothing. You apply Chameleon first, Sheep works. Of course this doesn't matter in practice, because you can just choose not to use Sheep if you want the Chameleon effect.

Again, the issue with Reckless is that it cares about FTI, and Way of the Chameleon causes FTI. It says "follow the instructions." Does Reckless see that as an FTI it can add a copy of to, or does it think "oh that's some side thing that Chameleon did, that's not what we care about"? This isn't clear from card text / rulebooks. I have ruled on it though, the way I think will make the most sense to players.

Chameleon + Enchantress: Yes, Reckless and Enchantress both look for FTI happening due to playing a card. If one sees the Chameleon FTI then they both do. I'm with you on this one. The Menagerie rulebook says that you can use a Way to dodge Enchantress. So the temptation is to reverse the Reckless ruling to match the rulebook there. Possibly though I reverse the rulebook ruling instead. The question then is which seems like it will make more sense to people.

Chameleon + Sheep: You aren't allowed to use two Ways on a card. FTI doesn't cause "you may use a Way"; playing a card does.

So! Yes, Reckless and Enchantress should match for this Chameleon question.

24

Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat

« on: February 01, 2023, 02:56:03 pm »

I'm not clear what "your choice!" means for Sheep + Chameleon... is this ruling that you can play a card and end up getting just +2 cards for it? Or does "your choice" simply mean that you can play a card for Sheep, or for Chameleon, or for neither?

We recommend that you not use two Ways in the same game.

If you do, then when you play an Action, you can use either Way ("your choice!"). You can't use both, even when one is Way of the Chameleon, which makes this more confusing, but really, it's just like wanting to use both Way of the Sheep and Way of the Mule.

25

Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat

« on: February 01, 2023, 02:53:54 pm »

The essence of my issue is this:

A card gives you +$ must mean that the card makes you get +$. For instance, with Way of the Goat, the played card makes you trash - according to this ruling.

1. The card makes you trash.
2. The card tells you to trash.
3. The card instructs you to trash.
4. The card orders you to trash.
5. The card's instructions are to trash.
6. The card's orders are to trash.

To me these are synonymous. But according to the ruling, they are not. (This is not about terminology, but about concept. We can add more verbs and nouns.) Where do we draw the line? Between the verbs and nouns? Wherever we draw the line seems arbitrary to me.

I don't understand the list of 6 things or how it relates to anything.

Because if making you trash and giving you an instruction to trash is the same concept, then using Way of the Goat counts as following the played card's instructions.

I'm sorry, I still don't follow you *at* *all*.

You are using English words, not jargon that doesn't exist, right? Way of the Goat "makes you trash" if you use it. It has an instruction on it. But Way of the Goat on Smithy doesn't "count" as following Smithy's instructions. Smithy's instructions are +3 Cards. Way of the Goat instead means that "trash" is attributed to the Smithy, due to my ruling based on rulebook text and how I think players who aren't you will see things. I have endlessly said this, I have not shifted my position here, you don't like it, you have not shifted your position there, it is not so productive for both of us to keep repeating this stuff.