Print

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

[faust]

This can really hurt chains that hoped to start off with a single Village.

Well, if you have Village/Smithy in hand, just play your Smithy first and hope that you'll draw another one.

[Davio]

Well, yeah, or play your Village and hope you'll draw a Village.

On the other hand, Looters get nerfed a tiny bit, because your Ruined Library just became a cantrip!
And so did your Ruined Village.

[Accatitippi]

I hereby require that the new Online version change the affected card's art to a pig.

[Davio]

I hereby require that the new Online version change the affected card's art to a pig.

I would also use a "squeal" sound effect on mouse-over so you are reminded of the effect when you choose your first action card to play.

[pst]

Just some rules clarification: If you play BoM as your first action, do you get choose whether Enchantress's on-play effect (changing to cantrip) or BoM's on-play effect resolves first?

As of my latest rulings on Band of Misfits, you would not pick a card, you would just get +1 Card +1 Action.

And what if you then call a Royal Carriage?

[werothegreat]

Just some rules clarification: If you play BoM as your first action, do you get choose whether Enchantress's on-play effect (changing to cantrip) or BoM's on-play effect resolves first?

As of my latest rulings on Band of Misfits, you would not pick a card, you would just get +1 Card +1 Action.

And what if you then call a Royal Carriage?

Well, it isn't any "card until it leaves play" because that instruction was voided, but it's not the first time an Action was played this turn, so the cantrip instruction is gone, so I'd assumed that if you RC an E'd BoM, you'd get to emulate a card.

[flaquito]

Just some rules clarification: If you play BoM as your first action, do you get choose whether Enchantress's on-play effect (changing to cantrip) or BoM's on-play effect resolves first?

As of my latest rulings on Band of Misfits, you would not pick a card, you would just get +1 Card +1 Action.

And what if you then call a Royal Carriage?

Well, it isn't any "card until it leaves play" because that instruction was voided, but it's not the first time an Action was played this turn, so the cantrip instruction is gone, so I'd assumed that if you RC an E'd BoM, you'd get to emulate a card.

Since RC says "Play the action again" as opposed to "Do the stuff you did again," and Enchantress says "The first time you play an action, do this other stuff instead" as opposed to "Pretend the card says this other stuff," then I'd concur with werothegreat.

[GendoIkari]

Just some rules clarification: If you play BoM as your first action, do you get choose whether Enchantress's on-play effect (changing to cantrip) or BoM's on-play effect resolves first?

As of my latest rulings on Band of Misfits, you would not pick a card, you would just get +1 Card +1 Action.

And what if you then call a Royal Carriage?

Well, it isn't any "card until it leaves play" because that instruction was voided, but it's not the first time an Action was played this turn, so the cantrip instruction is gone, so I'd assumed that if you RC an E'd BoM, you'd get to emulate a card.

Since RC says "Play the action again" as opposed to "Do the stuff you did again," and Enchantress says "The first time you play an action, do this other stuff instead" as opposed to "Pretend the card says this other stuff," then I'd concur with werothegreat.

Yeah, BoM never became the other card because, so it's just sitting there as a card with the normal BoM text. So playing it again should just be like playing a normal BoM for the first time normally.

[Jeebus]

Not to start a long esoteric discussion about this (really!), but I wonder about the timing of this.

It seems to have a when-play timing: "the first time each other player plays an Action..." seems to mean "when a player plays an Action for the first time". That's the same as Reactions and Urchin, which means before you resolve the played card. But in this case the effect is actually to do something instead of resolving the card. Obviously the intent is not to shift that to earlier so that an Enchanted Attack card is played for "+1 Card, +1 Action" before the other players React.

So as far as I can see, this is actually Dominion's first whenbefore-resolve ability. First you play the card, then any Reactions or other potential when-play abilities happen (Urchin could have except I don't think it's possible to have it in play when you play your first Action card), and then you resolve "+1 Card, +1 Action" instead of resolving the card.

EDIT: changed "when-resolve" to "before-resolve, since "when" means "after".

[Witherweaver]

Not to start a long esoteric discussion about this (really!), but I wonder about the timing of this.

It seems to have a when-play timing: "the first time each other player plays an Action..." seems to mean "when a player plays an Action for the first time". That's the same as Reactions and Urchin, which means before you resolve the played card. But in this case the effect is actually to do something instead of resolving the card. Obviously the intent is not to shift that to earlier so that an Enchanted Attack card is played for "+1 Card, +1 Action" before the other players React.

So as far as I can see, this is actually Dominion's first when-resolve ability. First you play the card, then any Reactions or other potential when-play abilities happen (Urchin could have except I don't think it's possible to have it in play when you play your first Action card), and then you resolve "+1 Card, +1 Action" instead of resolving the card.

Sorry, why before other players React?  This is correct, right? : I play a Witch as my first Action, and a lot of when-play stuff happens.  I played an Attack, so someone can reveal Moat, Horse Traders, etc.  I played a first-Action, so Enchantress kicks in.  I don't see how it matters whether those happen simultaneously or not, but if not there is maybe some resolution order.  I then go on to resolve the card and indeed it does +1 Card, +1 Action.

Edit: I guess it seems to me the timing should be when-Play, as you say.  Enchantress says 'the first time each other player plays an Action card', which seems equivalent to 'When another player plays an Action card, if that was the first Action card of their turn, then...'.  I'm not sure why it matters that the effect is to do something different than the normal resolving.

[Jeebus]

Sorry, why before other players React?  This is correct, right? : I play a Witch as my first Action, and a lot of when-play stuff happens.  I played an Attack, so someone can reveal Moat, Horse Traders, etc.  I played a first-Action, so Enchantress kicks in.  I don't see how it matters whether those happen simultaneously or not, but if not there is maybe some resolution order.  I then go on to resolve the card and indeed it does +1 Card, +1 Action.

Yes, they would be simultaneous, which means we do them in player order. So first you would do Enchantress (+1 Card, +1 Action), then the others would React (and then you wouldn't resolve the actual played card). That timing doesn't seem like the intended one.

But if you mean that when Enchantress kicks in on when-play, it makes you later do +1 Card +1 Action, then yes... that works too, and I thought about it. It would mean that Enchantress, on when-play, sets up an ability to happen whenbefore you actually resolve the card a little later (after any Attacks Reactions). But that explanation seems unnecessarily complex: First I play Enchantress, setting up a when-play ability for your first Action card. Then that when-play ability sets up a whenbefore-resolve ability, and that whenbefore-resolve ability is to make you do +1 Card +1 Action. In the end the result is the same as saying that Enchantress sets up a whenbefore-resolve ability from the start, I think.

EDIT: changed "when-resolve" to "before-resolve, since "when" means "after".

[flaquito]

Sorry, why before other players React?  This is correct, right? : I play a Witch as my first Action, and a lot of when-play stuff happens.  I played an Attack, so someone can reveal Moat, Horse Traders, etc.  I played a first-Action, so Enchantress kicks in.  I don't see how it matters whether those happen simultaneously or not, but if not there is maybe some resolution order.  I then go on to resolve the card and indeed it does +1 Card, +1 Action.

Edit: I guess it seems to me the timing should be when-Play, as you say.  Enchantress says 'the first time each other player plays an Action card', which seems equivalent to 'When another player plays an Action card, if that was the first Action card of their turn, then...'.  I'm not sure why it matters that the effect is to do something different than the normal resolving.

That does bring up an interesting (and maybe obvious? and maybe already discussed?) point, though. Since Enchantress effectively changes the text of the first-played action, but not the type, it's quite possible that the card played becomes a cantrip attack, and other players may still react to it however they wish, which can be quite advantageous to the Enchantress-ing player.

[pacovf]

This makes me realize that, if you put the +1 card token on BoM, you get to draw the card before choosing which card you want BoM to be, right?

[Witherweaver]

Sorry, why before other players React?  This is correct, right? : I play a Witch as my first Action, and a lot of when-play stuff happens.  I played an Attack, so someone can reveal Moat, Horse Traders, etc.  I played a first-Action, so Enchantress kicks in.  I don't see how it matters whether those happen simultaneously or not, but if not there is maybe some resolution order.  I then go on to resolve the card and indeed it does +1 Card, +1 Action.

Yes, they would be simultaneous, which means we do them in player order. So first you would do Enchantress (+1 Card, +1 Action), then the others would React (and then you wouldn't resolve the actual played card). That timing doesn't seem like the intended one.

But if you mean that when Enchantress kicks in on when-play, it makes you later do +1 Card +1 Action, then yes... that works too, and I thought about it. It would mean that Enchantress, on when-play, sets up an ability to happen when you actually resolve the card a little later (after any Attacks). But that explanation seems unnecessarily complex: First I play Enchantress, setting up a when-play ability for your first Action card. Then that when-play ability sets up a when-resolve ability, and that when-resolve ability is to make you do +1 Card +1 Action. In the end the result is the same as saying that Enchantress sets up a when-resolve ability from the start, I think.

Oh, hm... a literal reading actually makes me kind of think that (+1 Card, +1 Action) is the when-play effect, the one you say is not as intended. 

[Witherweaver]

Sorry, why before other players React?  This is correct, right? : I play a Witch as my first Action, and a lot of when-play stuff happens.  I played an Attack, so someone can reveal Moat, Horse Traders, etc.  I played a first-Action, so Enchantress kicks in.  I don't see how it matters whether those happen simultaneously or not, but if not there is maybe some resolution order.  I then go on to resolve the card and indeed it does +1 Card, +1 Action.

Edit: I guess it seems to me the timing should be when-Play, as you say.  Enchantress says 'the first time each other player plays an Action card', which seems equivalent to 'When another player plays an Action card, if that was the first Action card of their turn, then...'.  I'm not sure why it matters that the effect is to do something different than the normal resolving.

That does bring up an interesting (and maybe obvious? and maybe already discussed?) point, though. Since Enchantress effectively changes the text of the first-played action, but not the type, it's quite possible that the card played becomes a cantrip attack, and other players may still react to it however they wish, which can be quite advantageous to the Enchantress-ing player.

Yes.  Though this is not dissimilar to playing an Attack that effectively does nothing, like a Sea Hag when all the Curses are gone.  Players can still react to it as normal.

[GendoIkari]

This makes me realize that, if you put the +1 card token on BoM, you get to draw the card before choosing which card you want BoM to be, right?

Yes, based on the recent change for BoM rulings.

[junkers]

This is my first preview set, so I'm just wondering if the colours are washed out intentionally - this card looks closer to a Treasure than the vibrant orange we usually have on Durations...

[eHalcyon]

This is my first preview set, so I'm just wondering if the colours are washed out intentionally - this card looks closer to a Treasure than the vibrant orange we usually have on Durations...

Donald mentioned an issue with the image compression for these preview images.

[junkers]

This is my first preview set, so I'm just wondering if the colours are washed out intentionally - this card looks closer to a Treasure than the vibrant orange we usually have on Durations...

Donald mentioned an issue with the image compression for these preview images.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I really love this new form of attacking, though: it might completely halt their engine for this turn; yet it just as equally might make them feel a little less horrible about terminal collision.

[Seprix]

I hereby require that the new Online version change the affected card's art to a pig.

I would also use a "squeal" sound effect on mouse-over so you are reminded of the effect when you choose your first action card to play.

This is the first time ever I would approve of a sound effect in Dominion.

[Jeebus]

I don't think this has been mentioned. If you Throne Enchantress, it seems to give the other players +2 cards +2 actions for their first action card! Then you draw 4 cards.

[werothegreat]

Fortunately, multiple Enchantress attacks do not stack.

[Davio]

I only just realized, while it was mentioned earlier, that it would effect Crown during your buy phase, that's nuts!

The +Action still counts for Diadem, right?

[A Drowned Kernel]

Maybe I'm crazy but does anyone else think that ruins might be a counter for enchantress?

[faust]

I only just realized, while it was mentioned earlier, that it would effect Crown during your buy phase, that's nuts!

The +Action still counts for Diadem, right?

I would guess so. And if you buy a Villa afterwards, you will have another Action to use.