Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

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.

Messages - Donald X.

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 247
51
Rules Questions / Re: Errata to extra turns
« on: October 23, 2023, 02:02:34 pm »
Possession:
The player to your left takes an extra turn after this one (but not a 2nd extra turn in a row), in which you can see all cards they can and make all decisions for them. Any cards or debt they would gain on that turn, you gain instead; any cards of theirs that are trashed are set aside and put in their discard pile at end of turn.

Will Possession get the Duration type to match Outpost and Voyage?  Kind of like how Prince eventually got the Duration type.
It wouldn't be wrong, but no plans there.

52
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: October 22, 2023, 03:16:02 am »
What can you tell us about Rising Sun (the board game, not the Dominion expansion)?
- It's the new Dominion expansion, best guess currently is that it will come out in March.
- Art has started, unless it hasn't, I sent Jay the artist notes but haven't seen any sketches yet.
- Spielbox wanted a promo and to find out if a new expansion was coming, and we told them the name and estimated date, and they immediately put that up on a kickstarter. So that's how you guys know this set is coming already.
- The promo has no special connection to the expansion.
- More information may be a few months away. I really don't know, but we get nothing special out of getting people excited now about a set coming out in March.

Edit: man I don't know how I was supposed to read this question correctly. All I know about the board game is that it exists.

Do you meet with IRL playtesters at a game store, or do they come to your house?
I do both. At various points in my life it's been all one way or all the other or always both. Currently I have games twice a week at my place and then sometimes make it to a game store. Where I play with whoever wants to play.

What are the chances that you do something like this or that again?
Ah, Swindler. Everyone complained about me thinking about that last turn but man this game is tricky. I don't even remember doing that commentary.

They both could happen again. It's never super-exciting to play because I mean I'm just some guy. With the quarterfinals happening for the Championship now, I immediately thought, I could do some commentary. I can always pointlessly tell stories about cards, or mention what the TGG bot would be doing. I haven't felt like stepping in and treading on any of the other speakers yet though.

What card avatar do you use on TGG?
Smugglers! And man, there's a card to crush the bot with. It will just endlessly pass on buying cards.

Nowadays, do you prefer to use "each time" instead of "when"? (Frigate and Deliver both use “each time.”)
I think probably "each time" would have been better in general from the start, though now there's a lot of weight behind "when" so probably I keep using that in most places.

What do you think of those Quartermaster games where they gain a bunch of cards, but the cards just sit on them forever and you never put them in your hand?
If the set had had even more time spent on it, maybe it would have come up, and I might have tried a version that always alternates, see how that goes (if there's a card, take it, otherwise gain a card onto it). The bot has taught me to be terrified of Quartermaster pile-outs; it will get out four of them in any game with it, and they will pile up cards. I like having the card be as flexible as possible, but it certainly looms, this ability to just stock up cards you're never taking.

What do you think of Falconer, aka my favorite Dominion card?
I still like it fine. I'm a big fan of the Sheepdog family in general, Reactions that you can play in some circumstance. That's how Reactions should have always been, and started out as, and at last they got back there with Sheepdog.

53
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: October 16, 2023, 12:55:14 pm »
To my knowledge, the difference between the prototype version of the game that you play, and the version that we got, is different in the following ways
* Different art, font, icons, aspect ratio, stuff that doesn't matter functionally
* The new expansion(s) you're working on
* Tweaks to a bunch of Hinterlands cards ($2 Mandarin, moving the +Buy from Margrave to Cache, etc.)

Are there any other tweaks? Do your throne rooms secretly say "non-duration"?
I don't have those tweaks to the Hinterlands cards - I took them out when I made Hinterlands 2E. My prototype is functionally the same as published cards, except you know, when there's upcoming errata and I already printed it out for myself (and any new cards I have that aren't published yet). In a few cases there was a non-functional wording change I never bothered to print, like an "including this" or something. And I never printed out City with that name (my copies say Boomtown); I think that's the last one of those. At one point I had several wrong names, but finally printed some of them.

54
Rules Questions / Re: Errata to extra turns
« on: October 11, 2023, 01:02:31 pm »
As noted this means that a superfluous Outpost gets discarded during another player's Clean-up. It doesn't know that the extra turn won't happen until we're right there failing to do it, which is after Clean-up.

And this would be the case even if Outpost had nothing to do with giving extra turns, right? The fact that it also changes the draw part of cleanup means that it still has stuff to do after the discard part of cleanup.
Yes, the Outpost / Lich business doesn't involve that. Edit: corrected by Jeebus.

As noted this means that a superfluous Voyage... there we go.

55
Rules Questions / Re: Errata to extra turns
« on: October 10, 2023, 03:34:17 pm »
So:

I'm changing the ruling on Lich vs. the new Outposts. You can't skip the turn you weren't going to get. Outpost says "Take an extra turn after this one (but not a 3rd turn in a row)"; that can be read as "After this turn, if this wouldn't be a 3rd turn in a row, take an extra one."

Outpost is timed as "in-between turns"; Lich is timed as "when you're about to take a turn." If you play two Outposts and Lich on one turn, Lich can skip the first extra turn. The second Outpost still happens, since you haven't taken 2 turns in a row yet. If you play Outpost and Lich on an Outpost turn, Outpost doesn't generate an extra turn and Lich ends up skipping your next normal turn.

As noted this means that a superfluous Outpost gets discarded during another player's Clean-up. It doesn't know that the extra turn won't happen until we're right there failing to do it, which is after Clean-up.

56
Rules Questions / Re: Errata to extra turns
« on: October 08, 2023, 04:05:57 pm »
Yes, I think this is a very strange interpretation of new Outpost - that it actually sets up an extra turn, and then checks whether it would be the 3rd turn in a row right before you start the turn. I don't see why it wouldn't be exactly like original Outpost: after the current turn, it checks whether it will give you an extra turn.

The new phrasing seems to support this even more than the original phrasing did. "Take an extra turn after this one (but not a 3rd turn in a row)" suggests that you only take the extra turn if it wouldn't be the 3rd in a row. Taking an extra turn means that an extra turn is set up. Exactly as GendoIkari said, Outpost does not say: "take an extra turn after this one. If this would be the 3rd turn in a row, skip it."

By the way, this Lich interaction applies to all these "extra turn" cards (except Possession), not just Outpost.

Donald X., maybe you missed this post since it was last on the first page? Seems like at least me, GendoIkari and Majiponi think that the wording on Outpost suggests that Lich can't skip the Outpost turn.
Outpost has to check if the turn will be a 3rd one right before that turn happens. If it checked any earlier, things could change such that you got a 3rd turn in a row; if it checked any later, the turn would have already happened.

Then, given that, how should it be phrased? Currently it's phrased to be clear and simple for people in normal situations, with the idea being that there's a rulebook (though currently there isn't, since the card hasn't been reprinted yet) to cover the tricky cases.

So then, there's two pieces here: generating the turn, and making sure it's not a 3rd one. We could spell these out as:
A) Take an additional turn after this one. When it's about to happen, if it would be a third turn in a row, get rid of it quietly.
B) After this turn, when you've got a moment, if another turn wouldn't be a third turn in a row, take one.

I went with A. I think you're arguing for B.

The card text is: "Take an extra turn after this one (but not a 3rd turn in a row)."

Leading with "Take an extra turn" makes it look like, okay we're taking a turn; now then, what else is there to say? But really we've provided timing and could rephrase it as:

"After this turn, take an extra turn (but not a 3rd turn in a row).

When you look at it like that, the uh amount of reasonableness of B goes up. B still is really seeing it as:

"After this turn, if it won't be a 3rd turn in a row, take an extra turn."

But then, the "if" has to come ahead of the actual turn.

So this does make it seem like Lich shouldn't be able to skip a 3rd turn generated by Outpost. There's no turn to skip until we know it's not a third one.

57
Rules Questions / Re: Errata to extra turns
« on: October 05, 2023, 03:37:35 pm »
Or to put it another way: Why is it so bad that players can't take 2 extra turns in a row when there are two of these cards in the same kingdom, which surely isn't very common?
I think we just disagree on the importance of both halves - I put less value on the exotic cases, and more value on the three-turns-in-a-row problem. It would be great to have everything perfect in all respects; this is what I have currently. Playing Throne on Outpost is super crazy exotic when the card makes it clear that it won't work. You won't do it! Asking what happens exactly then is just an intellectual exercise, or something important for programmers of the digital versions; it's not something that really happens in games. Whereas when you can take 3 turns in a row, you do it.

It came up; otherwise I wouldn't have been thinking about it. I had multiple games where players could take three turns in a row. It sucked hard. I thought, damn Donald X., fix that. I fixed it. It wasn't just Voyage; a variety of extra turn cards came up and we had the awful experience. Then Allies was being reprinted and hey, good time to fix this.

58
Rules Questions / Re: Errata to extra turns
« on: October 05, 2023, 12:21:26 am »
Other random question:

3-player game. On my turn, I play two Possessions. On the first possessed turn, I make the player 2 play a Possession. Player 3 now takes a possessed turn. I then get to possess player 2 again?
Yes if you squeeze in a turn for a different player, you can get your next Possession to work. However! When two players are supposed to do something at once, we go in turn order, and in these between-turns situations, we go by the last player to take a turn. So you possess Alice twice, and on the first extra turn make her possess Bob; Alice took the last turn (with you possessing her) so we start with her and resolve her taking another extra turn, no wait she doesn't get it due to the wording on Possession, and then go on to Bob's extra turn.

59
Rules Questions / Re: Errata to extra turns
« on: October 05, 2023, 12:18:04 am »
I'm reminded of when a new rule was added that if a cost would be reduced to less than , it stayed at . This enabled Bridge and other cards to all not need "but not less than ". Could the same thing have worked for extra turns? Just a general new rule that says "A player cannot take more than 2 turns in a row. If a player would begin a third turn in a row, that turn is skipped". If such a rule existed, then all of these cards could be worded as they are in this errata, but without the "but not a 3rd turn in a row" bit.

Granted, that would also change Fleet and Seize the day, but only in the rare cases when they show up in the same game with other extra turn cards.
Changing Fleet and Seize the Day isn't a problem. Having it just be a rule, no 3rd turns, was proposed, and considered, and wasn't good enough. If it were a new game, with an Outpost in the main set, then it could be in the rules, even though every such rule is super bad, as players never learn them since they don't come up often enough. In Dominion especially, people expect the cards to tell them the rules. Anyway it's not the main set for a new game; it's these cards, and the way for people to know the rule is to put it on the cards. Then you can say, the cards could have treated it like a rule that they were reminding you of: "(Players can't take 3 turns in a row.)" And I mean that was considered too. I don't want a main set rulebook rule like "you can't take three turns in a row" with no way to take extra turns; that's how it is.

"Cards can't cost less than $0" is much different, because it's what everyone expects will be the rule if they don't know the rule, and when they don't know the rule it's very clear to them that they don't know it. As soon as they ask, "hey does it go to negative $," they know they don't know and can look it up. They never think "oh it probably goes to negative, la la la, let's not check." They think "of course it won't go negative" or "I don't know." Whereas! You can't tell that you don't know "you can't take 3 turns in a row"; there's no hint for you that a rule is missing. By default you sure think you can.

60
Rules Questions / Re: Errata to extra turns
« on: October 05, 2023, 12:10:59 am »
I'm surprised that Outpost is errata'ed back to its original text, since now we're back to all the confusing stuff that the new (previous) wording was specifically made to avoid:
For me, "you can't take 3 turns in a row" was more important than these things. That's the whole idea; killing those awful situations. I think the new wording is very clear for players in normal situations. IRL players may discard Outpost at the wrong time in exotic cases and that will be fine.

61
Rules Questions / Re: Errata to extra turns
« on: October 03, 2023, 01:21:50 pm »
As far as I understand it, Lich and Outpost et. al. work on the same principle: An extra turn that is about to happen now will not happen if certain conditions are met. So if an "about to happen now" Outpost turn would both be the third for its player in a row and the first after that player played Lich, both effects can could apply. Whichver is chosen to prevent the turn wins, the other effect remains.
Correct. We don't know if the Outpost turn will actually happen until it's time for it; when it's time for it, you can choose how to resolve Lich and Outpost. I've just been figuring you wanted to not skip more turns than you had to, but you can choose to miss the turn due to it being a 3rd one in a row, then also skip a turn due to Lich.

I thought "Outpost effect between turns" tries to let Bob take an extra turn only if he had only 1 or fewer turns in a row, since Outpost instruction is a single statement, unlike E1 clause - "This can’t cause you to take more than 3 consecutive turns".  So, I guessed Lich cannot cancel Outpost; nothing was about to happen.  As far as I know, this must be a new ruling.
I don't know what the ruling used to be. For me today, Outpost can't know if it will be a third turn in a row until it's about to happen. At the point at which we're looking at whose turn will be next, Outpost and Lich both speak up to answer this question, and you get to pick an order to resolve them.

So then, on the Lich side, Lich skips an upcoming extra turn. It can't wait until the turn has already happened; it's always an upcoming turn. The Outpost turn is upcoming until Outpost tells us it isn't.

That's how I see it currently. I'm happy to be argued into having Lich be screwed over in this ubiquitous situation (this situation is not ubiquitous).

Lich could possibly have made nothing happen on the turn, rather than skipping it, to clarify this; but then Lich was trying to not be a mess itself, and in most situations "skip a turn" is super-clear.

62
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: October 03, 2023, 01:13:28 pm »
Is there any plan for physical reprints of Captain/Prince with the 'Command' type?
From my perspective, yes, I'd like the up-to-date wording used the next time they're printed, for all cards. The promos aren't intended to be limited edition; they get reprinted as needed. I don't know what the current stock is though. And the next time they get reprinted, it's possible that we'll miss the step where I say, here is the up-to-date wording.

63
Rules Questions / Re: Errata to extra turns
« on: October 01, 2023, 01:49:38 pm »
As far as I understand it, Lich and Outpost et. al. work on the same principle: An extra turn that is about to happen now will not happen if certain conditions are met. So if an "about to happen now" Outpost turn would both be the third for its player in a row and the first after that player played Lich, both effects can could apply. Whichver is chosen to prevent the turn wins, the other effect remains.
Correct. We don't know if the Outpost turn will actually happen until it's time for it; when it's time for it, you can choose how to resolve Lich and Outpost. I've just been figuring you wanted to not skip more turns than you had to, but you can choose to miss the turn due to it being a 3rd one in a row, then also skip a turn due to Lich.

64
Rules Questions / Re: Errata to extra turns
« on: September 30, 2023, 05:05:03 pm »
Example 1: 2-player game
T10: Alice played a Lich on her regular turn.
T10: Bob played his regular turn.
T11: Alice skipped her regular turn.
T11: Bob played an Outpost on his regular turn.
The skipped turn doesn't count as a break in Bob's turn count; he's had two turns in a row, so Outpost can't give him a 3rd turn.

Example 2: 2-player game
T10: Alice played a Lich on her regular turn.
T10: Bob played his regular turn.
T11: Alice skipped her regular turn.
T11: Bob played a Lich and an Outpost on his regular turn.
Bob can apply Lich to skip the Outpost turn.

Example 3: 2-player game
Alice played a Possession on her regular turn.
Bob played a Lich and an Outpost on his Possessed turn.
Bob skipped his Outpost turn.
Bob starts his regular turn with 3-card hand.
Outpost doesn't care if you get the extra turn or not; the 3-card hand is independent of that. If you play Outpost, you only draw 3 cards (for your regular hand draw) in Clean-up; we don't even know yet if that turn will be skipped or what.

65
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: September 19, 2023, 02:27:14 pm »
When playtesting non-Dominion games, do you feel a need to use external blind playtesters? Or do you trust the people you know to give good feedback? Or some third option I didn't think of?
It's a good idea to have people who haven't been playtesting the game the whole time try out the intended-to-be-final version. Usually I manage this at least a little.

66
Dominion General Discussion / Re: "New" Promo: Rethemed Harem
« on: September 06, 2023, 01:47:18 pm »
So when is this due out?
It's out in German; I continue to have no date for English.

67
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: September 04, 2023, 02:07:47 pm »
How strong did you think Frigate was during playtesting? How strong do you think Frigate is now?
During playtesting my guess was that it was on the weak side, though fine. Now, more or less the same. Some people are scared of it, but I endlessly saw tracer build engines despite Frigate being in play every turn. It's an attack card; it's intentionally bothering the other players, that's what attacks do.

68
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: September 01, 2023, 02:48:14 pm »
Speaking of which, has your opinion on VP tracking changed over time?
I don't have earlier Donald X. with me, but it's fine; aside from Gardens etc. it's not hard to track it yourself, but I don't need to make people do that. It doesn't so much change how you play, as it means you aren't mumbling scores to yourself.

69
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: August 30, 2023, 01:45:12 pm »
Would you support "insurmountable VP lead" being programmed as a win condition in Dominion Online?
There would be a lot of situations where it would look insurmountable but technically wouldn't be. Or situations where it wouldn't be reasonable to expect the program to figure it out.

It doesn't seem worth pursuing, when the upside is, you don't need to play through your victory, or it breaks ties. I might support an "offer a tie" feature.

70
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: August 16, 2023, 01:23:49 pm »
Any news about a possible new expansion Donald X GOATnnarino
I expect a new expansion next year.

71
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: June 29, 2023, 12:40:26 pm »
I was playing some PlunderXCornucopia and had a thought:
Is Sack of Loot just a stealth revision to Bag of Gold? http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=5799.msg368773#msg368773
The premise wasn't that it was replacing Bag of Gold, but they're sure both uh cloth that you have in a shape that lets it hold treasure for you.

72
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: June 27, 2023, 01:45:27 pm »
Hello, any updates on the new promo card named Farm iirc?
I have no update, for either the German version or English version.

73
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: June 12, 2023, 11:50:25 am »
Donald X, Is there any reason you haven't posted on the forum in a couple of months?
Just a lack of things I felt I should respond to. I still check the forums every day. Most of the current online Dominion traffic is on the discord though, and the (currently down) reddit is a distant second.

74
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.

75
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.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 247

Page created in 0.114 seconds with 18 queries.