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.

4301

Rules Questions / Re: bad (Dutch) translations & rules

« on: May 12, 2013, 12:15:25 pm »

Others are: Watchtower, Smugglers and Possesion all mention "buys or gain" instead of "gain"... Obviously they didn't know gain always (when not tradered) happens after buy, and as players, we didn't before Hinterland...

The rule book actually made a severe distinction in german between "gain" and "buy", claiming that "gain" happens only during your action phase. They didn't correct that until Hinterlands.

Not the most horrible mistake. (Except they made the mistake of thinking it would be a good idea to "correct" the original rules.) But then Royal Seal and Trade Route should also say "buy or gain".

For example we once had the situation where somebody bought a Farmland with Watchtower as the only card in hand. So reveal WT, trash Farmland, trash Watchtower, gain Duchy.


Here is a complete(?) list of all card that are wrong in german:

Thief, Chancellor, Pirate Ship, Possession, Venture, Bishop, Kings Court, Forge, Tournament, Trusty Steed, Scheme, Procession, Dame Natalie, Ironmonger, Scavenger, Hermit, Urchin, Walled Village;
Also: Watchtower, Smugglers, Royal Seal ("gain or buy" instead of "gain"), Native Village (does not mention you may look at cards on the mat) and all Durations (unnecessary stroke). All cards with setup Rules, like Young Witch, Trade Route, etc. lack those.

I think Donald already knows about the first part and already passed that information (Thanks, Donald). They were listed here before: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=5799.msg162582#msg162582

Part after the also is my addition. I'm shocked how many it are...

4302

Dominion: Guilds Previews / Re: Needed card titles

« on: May 11, 2013, 05:42:54 pm »

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7039.msg196620#msg196620

4303

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: House Rule: All Ruins Do The Same Thing

« on: May 11, 2013, 05:28:59 pm »

Swamped Moat
Reaction - Ruins
When another player plays an attack card, you may discard this. If you do, the attack has no effect on you.

You can't even Procession it...

4304

Rules Questions / Re: bad (Dutch) translations & rules

« on: May 11, 2013, 12:19:41 pm »

Obviously they didn't know gain always (when not tradered) happens after buy, and as players, we didn't before Hinterland...

(Actually I think we did—it's in the Prosperity rules as an aside comment for some interaction with Mint, isn't it?)

With "we" i meant me and my family. But you are right, it's there (though i forgot that Royal Seal also makes that "gain or buy" mistake). Honestly, when i originally read that, i didn't think about it. I thought it was just a random decision. The rule that you can chose what to do first if two things happen at the same time here came with Hinterlands, too.

The rule book actually made a severe distinction in german between "gain" and "buy", claiming that "gain" happens only during your action phase. They didn't correct that until Hinterlands.

4305

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: "Fixing" cards that you don't like

« on: May 11, 2013, 09:06:22 am »

Scout should cost 2$ or be something like
"+1 Card
+1 Action
Reveal the top 2/3 cards from your deck. [...]"

Rebuild should lose that Action. It's strong enough without it, i think. But maybe that's just me hating the card...

Expand and Forge seem too expensive to me. I'd consider them for 6$, but without Quarry, they usually are not bought by anyone when we play.

4306

Rules Questions / Re: bad (Dutch) translations & rules

« on: May 11, 2013, 08:52:17 am »

As the "dutch" is in parentheses, i'll just throw in the most terrible german translation to date, also from Dark Ages.

"Prozession" is Procession, and it's mostly the same. It only lacks one word. In the german translation, Procession says "Nimm dir eine Karte, die genau eins mehr kostet" (Gain a card costing exactly 1 more) instead of "Gain an ACTION card costing exactly 1 more". Of course this makes it possible to Procession Witch and gain a Gold after that. Even worse: They repeated the mistake in the manual and even added an example turn in which a "Herzogtum"(Duchy) is gained with Procession. Not to mention they used it to replace the sample turn part of the english rules where Procession fails to gain an Action card costing 6$.
Worst, you can't notice the error on your own, as nothing implies translation problems. Only thing is an Errata on their german web page...

Others are: Watchtower, Smugglers and Possesion all mention "buys or gain" instead of "gain", Native Village does not mention you being able to look at your mats content, Chancellor and Scavenger "discard" your deck, KC has no "may", Thief does "discard" stolen treasures to your discard pile (not gain them) and Walled Village wants exactly one other action in play (not 0-1). All cards with setup rules lack those (they are in the manual) and Duration effects are divided by a stroke. Also manuals that don't know what they are talking about, most noticeable example is Trader. Obviously they didn't know gain always (when not tradered) happens after buy, and as players, we didn't before Hinterland...

4307

Rules Questions / Re: Trader / Ruins (or Knights)

« on: May 07, 2013, 07:57:52 pm »

This is what should happen:

Buy and gain BV.
BV when-gain: gain Market.
Watchtower when-gain: topdeck Market.
Now it's too late to topdeck the BV because it was covered by Market.

This is the other way:

Buy and gain BV.
Watchtower when-gain: topdeck BV.
BV when-gain: gain Market.
Watchtower when-gain: topdeck Market.

But on Goko, after gaining the BV, you get no choice of Watchtower when-gain. You must do BV when-gain. So you gain Market. BV should now be lost track of, but on Goko it isn't. Now you can reveal Watchtower, but there is no indication of which gain it's for. It's for the Market though. Afterwards you get to reveal for the BV, no matter if you topdecked the Market or left it on top of the BV.

This means you can topdeck the BV after the Market, which is actually impossible to achieve if the rules were followed.
This also means you can't topdeck the Market after the BV, which is possible if the rules were followed.

The interaction between WT and cards that make you gain other cards on gain will probably forever stay one of my least favourite dominion interactions, followed by Possession/Outpost (and Black Market/Tactician). They all feel so un-intentional. Like... glitches. One thing's for sure, i'd never insist on WTs cover-up-lose-track-rule or the 3-card turn in a real game. I'd probably follow those rules, though, if the situation occurs.

4308

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Cards with Spoils , Price task

« on: May 07, 2013, 07:41:13 pm »

On a side note: If Spoils were in the supply, how much would it cost? $3?

More... I'm pretty sure that Donald said that Feast was originally "Trash this. +$3." For $4. Spoils is better than that.... but not good enough for $5.

So it's 2$ and a Potion
Not really.

4309

Rules Questions / Re: Procession-->BoM as Fortress

« on: May 06, 2013, 02:26:38 pm »

It's just weird to me that Nomad Camp and Watchtower work different. They shouldn't. Jeebus insists NC never visits the discard because it is moved on-gain (and the rules say the same, too). But you insist cards i move on-gain with Watchtower DO visit the discard (which, i think, was already said in an older thread).

The place in this thread where I "insist" that NC never visits the discard, I link to a post by Donald, which I suggest you read (or re-read) because it answers everything you're asking. He says exactly how Nomad Camp works, how he considered phrasing it differently (and more correctly) but decided against it, and how the NC FAQ explains how it works.

So NC is not moved on-gain like WT (even though NC says so). Rather it triggers before gain, changing the gaining destination, just like Bureaucrat changes the gaining destination of the Silver. In the case of NC we have to rely on the card FAQ, not the card itself, to know exactly how it works. Luckily this is hardly ever (if ever) a problem. It seems the fact that NC is gained directly to your deck creates problems not for NC itself, but mostly because people think that by extension the same goes for WT (and Royal Seal), which does create problems.

I also see the problem now more clearly: With NC and WT worded as they are, the problem comes from gaining NC with WT in hand. NC and WT both "trigger" on gaining NC and you can choose which to resolve first.

If you pick WT first, where is NC at this point? In the supply? On top of your deck? In the discard? You might think it's in the discard because that's where gained cards go. But NC specifies it goes to the top of your deck. However, you aren't resolving NC just yet, are you?

Well, in this hypothetical (NC and WT both trigger on-gain), NC would be in your discard, because it triggers when you gain it, at which point it's in your discard. I can't see any reason why it couldn't have been that way. I'm guessing Donald thought of it to work like Mine and Bureaucrat, because that seemed simpler. I'm thinking that it maybe was a mistake to give it the same wording as WT and RS though.

Okay, i didn't see the link for that discussion before. Probably because you posted that before my question and originally what i thought about wasn't NC. Thanks for the link.
I too think it's problematic that NC is worded this way, as i'm a good example how it can lead you to assume WT working differently than it is supposed to do. I'm still not sure whether i like the real ruling of WT, though - if you gain a card on-gain of another card (with BV or Haggler in play), you'll always be forced to leave the cheaper card on top of the more expensive one or not top-deck it at all.

Edit: I see most of what i nagged about already was discussed here. I'll read more carefully, next time. Don't have a clue how to explain NC=/=WT to my family, though

4310

Rules Questions / Re: Procession-->BoM as Fortress

« on: May 03, 2013, 07:00:10 pm »

But there's a big difference between NC and WT: NC references itself while WT can only do something with other, already gained, cards. I don't see any contradictions there.

For clarification: NC's on-gain is a special effect mentioned on the card, WT's on-gain is a reaction and thus reacts to something: having gained a card.

WT does something to cards that are gained. Otherwise you could just as well argue that NC does something about itself after being gained. Reflexivity is no plausible reason to draw a distinction where there is none on the cards.

You also seem to assume that there's a difference because the card types are different. I don't think that's a valid point. WT is a reaction because the rules have to have a way how cards that are not actively participating can influence the game. It doesn't say anything about the trigger or the effect itself.

Personally i also find it highly counter-intuitive to have one wording with two different effects.

Edit: Maybe i'll just have to accept we disagree, as i can't find any good point beyond that last sentence. Maybe i'm just unable to understand yours, though.

4311

Rules Questions / Re: Procession-->BoM as Fortress

« on: May 03, 2013, 03:43:36 pm »

But what about if I gain a BV, from that gain a Cultist, and then trash the Cultist with Watchtower, drawing three cards? Where would the BV be as I'm drawing cards? I can still topdeck it, so it can't be in my discard pile yet (since Watchtower now redirects gains). So it's still in "nowhere" land. Not exactly intuitive.

Also, Inn would not be able to shuffle itself into your deck, since we would do all on-gain effect before the card is actually gained.

So if i understand you, this means that i can buy BV, gain Cultist, trash it, draw 3 cards and then topdeck BV if, and only if, i didn't have to shuffle inbetween? I see that in such cases there is a difference between my idea for a ruling and the official one, which i didn't intend. Inn is a good point, too.

Fair's fair, i accept it's not working my way.

Here the infamous lose-track rule roars its ugly head.

I'm glad i'm not the only one to think that way... Also reminds me of Monty Python

It's just weird to me that Nomad Camp and Watchtower work different. They shouldn't. Jeebus insists NC never visits the discard because it is moved on-gain (and the rules say the same, too). But you insist cards i move on-gain with Watchtower DO visit the discard (which, i think, was already said in an older thread).

My problem is not actually about Watchtower losing track. It's the fact that two on-gain-effects of two cards have very different impacts allthough they even say the same. So same trigger, same description, different effect. Simply doesn't go in my head. Or one of you two is wrong.

4312

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Dominion: Seasons

« on: May 03, 2013, 03:29:03 pm »

No it doesn't.

It does in the Finnish translation.

Same in german.

Student
Action - $4
+2 Cards
If the Season pile has 4 or less Seasons: +$2
If the Season pile is empty: +1 Action

I like what you made out of what originally was just a gag in the Guilds forum
My favourite would be Student, and how it can't get anything done till time has already run out.

4313

Rules Questions / Re: Procession-->BoM as Fortress

« on: May 02, 2013, 01:57:54 pm »

But what about if I gain a BV, from that gain a Cultist, and then trash the Cultist with Watchtower, drawing three cards? Where would the BV be as I'm drawing cards? I can still topdeck it, so it can't be in my discard pile yet (since Watchtower now redirects gains). So it's still in "nowhere" land. Not exactly intuitive.

Also, Inn would not be able to shuffle itself into your deck, since we would do all on-gain effect before the card is actually gained.

So if i understand you, this means that i can buy BV, gain Cultist, trash it, draw 3 cards and then topdeck BV if, and only if, i didn't have to shuffle inbetween? I see that in such cases there is a difference between my idea for a ruling and the official one, which i didn't intend. Inn is a good point, too.

Fair's fair, i accept it's not working my way.

4314

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: House Rule: All Ruins Do The Same Thing

« on: May 02, 2013, 09:15:31 am »

Ruined Chapel
0$, Action, Ruins
You may trash a Ruins from your hand.

Dominion - now for 7 players

4315

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Really bad card ideas

« on: May 02, 2013, 09:08:56 am »

Hare-Brained Scheme
Action - $3

+1 Card
+1 Action
----
When you discard this from play, you may instead place it on top of your deck.

At least i won't draw my KC without something to triple...

4316

Rules Questions / Re: Procession-->BoM as Fortress

« on: May 02, 2013, 09:03:29 am »

When a card specifies it goes to a specific place on-gain or another card specifies a place for a gained card to go (Mine), it doesn't visit the discard first, it goes directly to that place. In your case, the Nomand Camp goes directly to the top of the deck, so BV doesn't cover it in the discard pile.

I had some research, and obviously you are right about Mine and Nomad Camp... Nomad Camp never visits the discard. Thanks for pointing that mistake out. I guess my idea is not very useful then. Do Watchtower and Royal Seal work the same way, then? Does this work?
1. Buy Border Village
2. Resolve BV's on-gain, gain X
3. Put X on top of my deck with WT/RS
4. Put BV on top of my deck with WT/RS

I think it should work, but does it? I was sure there once was a thread about this, but i can't find it anymore...

4317

Rules Questions / Re: Procession-->BoM as Fortress

« on: April 30, 2013, 03:29:55 pm »

Personally i don't understand why trashing makes it necessary that a card visits the trash or gaining means putting the card in your discard pile. It seems to be a common agreement, possible even official rule, but i don't like it. It leads to weird situations, especially with some on-gains, because the top card of the discard is still known, but the card below has been lost track of.
Example: Border Village is bought, Nomad Camp gained, i want to topdeck both with Watchtower, but want BV at the top. It doesn't work, and we all know that's not something Donald explicitly wanted - i even think he himself said he would want it to be possible.

Why can't we read those cards like: "Gaining usually means a card is put in your discard. Some cards that trigger on-gain may redirect that movement, so the gained card is put in another place, instead." So "gain" is an event, a moment. All on-gains instantly trigger and are resolved. Only then the actual gain is resolved, which usually means moving the card to your discard - if the card wasn't redirected. Why this ruling? Because it's the same as with attacks. Play attack, on-attack triggers, Moats reaction is resolved, attack is resolved, Moat changed how attack is resolved.

I think it feels much more natural with not only Watchtower and Nomad Camp, but also Fortress and Possession. Possession keeps you from putting cards in the trash, it doesn't make you dig through it directly after putting cards there. I mean, is this how you actually play in real life? I highly doubt it. So Nomad Camp should never see the discard pile (by the way a practice that is described in the official rules), and Fortress should never see the trash (a practice against the official rules).

When i reveal Watchtower, i personally think the concept of "redirecting" the card to your decks top makes much more sense then putting it in the discard and moving it from there. Same with Fortress. I think it "redirects" the movement trashing usually implies and moves itself to your hand.

Dominion is full of "usually this, but some cards will make it that" rules. Why can't gaining and trashing be some of them? I think it's much more natural, and if Donald sees this, i hope he doesn't think i'm nagging, i'm just thinking how some (i believe) unwanted complications with the lose-track rule could be removed.

Edit: Made several edits, but now i think it says what i want to say...

4318

Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Exception to the rule: keeping bad cards

« on: April 30, 2013, 08:39:59 am »

Oh yes, d'oh. I think too complicated. You can just use the buy for another card if you have enough money and gain an additional Estate.
But maybe someone can think of what I had in mind.

It still works if Estate has Embargo Tokens on it. Or if Coppers are out (somebody KCed Beggar all the time) and you have Haggler in play. Any case where gaining the Estate is better than buying it.

4319

Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Easy Puzzles

« on: April 29, 2013, 08:12:28 pm »

About the question how much space is needed for maximum setup:

Maximum setup includes:
10 kingdom cards, one of which is Black Market
1 bane card
copper, silver, gold, estate, duchy, province
colony, platin, potion
curses, ruins
spoils, mercanary, madman, prices
black market pile
trash pile

Pirate ship, island, native village mats (6 each)
6 vp mats and trade route mat

This comes to a total of 28 piles, 25 play mats (with 7 of them actually being quadratic) and 6 play areas.

I'm pretty sure i didn't forget anything.

4320

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Charter - A Treasure-Attack

« on: April 25, 2013, 02:40:13 pm »

Another try, Charter as a Looter:

Charter
5$, Treasure - Attack - Looter
2$
When you play this, each other player may discard a Ruins. If he does not, he gains a Ruins, putting it in his hand.


Differences:
1. Ruins are much more rare than Coppers, and scale better with different numbers of players.
2. Gaining a ruins to hand is worse than gaining a Copper to hand, so losing one/gaining one in hand usually won't be that swingy. You even can decide which hits you less bad.
3. Only half of the Charters will actually hit, making it less spammable.

4321

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Trinkets: Replacements for Starting Copper

« on: April 25, 2013, 02:31:53 pm »

I don't think giving players different Trinkets is a good idea. There will always be those that work with the board, and those that don't. The number of constellations in which you can draw a set of - say - three Trinkets, 4 Coppers and Estates/Shelters during your first two turns is high enough already. My suggestion is to chose those you like most and give them to each player. I like Key and Dagger, but Bell and Toy Bridge seem too strong to me and change the game very much. Also Bell is Necropolis+1$.

4322

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Inverse Counting House?

« on: April 22, 2013, 01:55:16 pm »

Sometimes i'm just stupid. I totally missed you had the shuffle in there ^^'

You missed the reshuffle!

I'm a Duration. This turn, i give + 1 respect.

4323

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Inverse Counting House?

« on: April 21, 2013, 09:05:33 pm »

If you have enough of one type of Victory card that the card is likely to remove many of them from your deck then you're either beyond help or don't need it.

That's a fair point...

I've made up my mind, i think 5$ is fine and the card is different enough from Island to stand for itself (and let Island stand).

4324

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Inverse Counting House?

« on: April 21, 2013, 05:22:13 pm »

Yep, that's why I said you have to shuffle your deck afterwards. I think it should be terminal, with no other bonuses; it has the potential to be too strong otherwise. Its main uses would be in slogs where your deck is full of junk, in which case you aren't going to be drawing it with other actions normally anyway, so making it terminal doesn't hurt that much. It makes combos harder to set up since you need a village too, but I feel like that's appropriate.

Island has a bunch of advantages:
1) You don't need to play the same Island once per reshuffle to keep the cards on your mat, they're there forever
2) If Island ends up near the bottom of your deck, it's not totally useless
3) When playing Island, you can trigger reshuffles mid-turn without worrying, and getting Spy-ed or Council Room-ed isn't an issue
4) Island is cheap so you can get the benefits very early
5) Island is worth 2VP!
Not to mention a whole lot of edge-cases to do with Silk Road, Ironworks, Possession, etc. Actually that's a thought, if you get Possessed, you'll be made to discard all of your most important engine components!

I feel like it's a $5 card due to the similar unreliability problem as Counting House. At $6 it would be unattainable in slogs where it would be most useful.

Sometimes i'm just stupid. I totally missed you had the shuffle in there ^^'

I admit most points you made are valid, but i don't think the first two are.
1. You do not need to play the same Island once per reshuffle. Instead, you need to buy, gain, draw and play a new Island once per card.
2. If Island ends up at the bottom of your deck, it's not completely useless - unless you don't draw it without a card you want to remove from your deck, in which case Island is useless no matter when you draw it.

So your card lost the collision problem and adds the problem of unwanted reshuffles, which is less unpleasant. Probably it's indeed balanced at 5$ - maybe a buff would still be okay. At least it's not Rebuild.

Also: Play it and say "Tunnel".

4325

Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Inverse Counting House?

« on: April 21, 2013, 02:41:14 pm »

Speaking from a solely technical point, i think the card needs to tell the player to shuffle his deck afterwards. Otherwise he would not only know what cards are in there, but also where.
Edited this for my stupidity.

It generally would be the first card that lets players look through their deck, when another card would have put the deck in the discard to look through the discard after that. I see this is not your cards intention, as you mentioned the part with the reshuffle.

Actually, i think this is quite strong. If you manage to get it early after reshuffle and only invest in 1 or 2 different victories, your game will be VP-free most of the time. It also makes Islands basically useless, which is a point i admit i really dislike.