Print

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

[naitchman]

I was making a fan card and started to have questions about the order things resolve,

So there are 2 rules that seem to govern things happening at the same time:

1) If multiple cards resolve at the same time for you, you choose what order to resolve them.
2) A card that affects multiple players during your turn still resolves in player order, affecting you first if it affects all players and then proceeding clockwise.

I am particularly interested in the 2nd rule. I have 2 main questions about it.

Q1: Does it go in turn order always starting with the player's whose turn it is, or does go based on the next player after the player who triggered the card? For example, in a 3p game say A plays saboteur. B reveals a province (trashes it) and gains an IGG and there's only one curse left.
         A1: Does C get the curse since he is next after B,
         A2: or does A get the curse since we always start at the player whose turn it is and go clockwise?

Q2: What if multiple things must be resolved, and then before they are all resolved, more things must be resolved. For example, say in a 4p game A ambassadors Embassy.
         A1: There is a constant Queue of things needing to be resolved. Whenever a new thing gets added to the queue, the queue is updated so that it is in the correct order.

So in this case (assuming the answer to the Q1 is A1) B gains an embassy, C gains an embassy and silver (in whichever order he likes), D gains 2 silvers and an embassy, A gains 3 silvers, B gains 2 silvers, C gains a silver.

(assuming the answer to the Q1 is A2) B gains an embassy, A gains a silver, C gains an embassy and silver (in whichever order he chooses. we'll say he gains the silvers first for simplicity), A gains a silver, B gains a silver, D gains 2 silvers and an embassy (silvers first for simplicity), A gains a silver, B gains a silver, C gains a silver.

         A2: Triggers stop the game and get dealt with first before all other effects that were previously supposed to happen. (this is kind of like yugioh or magic where the last card resolves first)

So in this case (assuming the answer to the Q1 is A1) B gains an embassy, C gains a silver, D gains a silver, A gains a silver, C gains an embassy, D gains a silver, A gains a silver, B gains a silver, D gains an embassy, A gains a silver, B gains a silver, C gains a silver.

(assuming the answer to the Q1 is A2) B gains an embassy, A gains a silver, C gains an embassy and silver (in whichever order he chooses. we'll say he gains the silvers first for simplicity), A gains a silver, B gains a silver, D gains 2 silvers and an embassy (silvers first for simplicity), A gains a silver, B gains a silver, C gains a silver.

         A3: There is a queue, but it's order does not get updated. Thus when multiple things enter the queue at the same time, they enter in the correct order. If new things get added, they appear at the end in the correct order (correct order among themselves at least).

So in this case (assuming the answer to the Q1 is A1) B gains an embassy, C gains an embassy , D gains an embassy, C gains a silver, D gains a silver, A gains a silver, D gains a silver, A gains a silver, B gains a silver, A gains a silver, B gains a silver, C gains a silver.

(assuming the answer to the Q1 is A2) B gains an embassy, C gains an embassy , D gains an embassy, A gains a silver, C gains a silver, D gains a silver, A gains a silver, B gains a silver, D gains a silver, A gains a silver, B gains a silver, C gains a silver.

         A4: Something else

This question stems from a fan card I made that goes something like this (I've since changed it for other reasons, but I'm interested in the answer):
Eavesdropper
$4 Action - Reserve
+1 Action
Put this on your tavern
-
When another player gains a card costing up to $6, you may call this to gain a copy of that card.

The problem comes in a 2p game if A, B and C have 3 of these on their tavern mat each and A buys a card, say grand market (only 5 left in the supply after A bought it), and they both want as many as they can get, how many does each player get (keep in mind A can react to B's calling of eavesdropper).

Here's a breakdown based on the answers to the above questions (I'm doing this late at night so I might have made an error in the logic):
Q1-A1,Q2-A1- B gets 3, C gets 2

Q1-A2,Q2-A1- A gets 4, B gets 1

Q1-A1,Q2-A2- A gets 1, B gets 2, C gets 2 (they chain along)

Q2-A2,Q2-A2- A gets 1, B gets 2, C gets 2

Q2-A1,Q2-A3- B gets 3, C gets 2

Q2-A2,Q2-A3- A gets 3, B gets 2 (A reacts after B gets 1, gaining 3, and then B gains the last one).

In addition to these questions, I have 2 smaller questions.

1) It seems to be understood that if A plays militia and B reacts with a secret chamber, B gets to use SC's ability before discarding. Why is that so? When A plays a card the immediate effect is for it to be resolved. When B reacts he also gets to do stuff. In effect A and B get to do stuff at the same time in reaction to A playing militia (A resolving militia, and B using SC's ability). So shouldn't A go first? Notice all other reactions to attack cards (like moat or beggar) specify that you go first. On secret chamber, it doesn't do that. Is there errata on this that I'm missing? Or are there special rules for reactions (and reserve cards) that let you effectively stop the game and resolve your effects first?

2) When multiple players can react, can I react then wait to see whether an opponent reacts and then react again? In other words does the time to reveal reactions happen in turn order and then finish after the last player, or can we continuously react until the trigger finally gets resolved? for example, A plays an attack (let's say witch). B has 6 cards in hand including an urchin and wants to really hurt C. B reacts with a diplomat (keeping the urchin and diplomat). C has 5 cards in hand and reacts with diplomat. B realizes his urchin won't hurt C anymore and wants to react with diplomat again to change up his hand. Can he do it?

[Dominionaer]

My guess (AFAIK)
Q1 : A1
Q2 : A2?  B Embassy CDA Silver - C Embassy DAB Silver - D Embassy ABC Silver
Eavesdropper : B3 C2

Small 1) Secret Chamber would probably say "first" today same as Moat if it got not removed. Moat did not say "first" in 1st Edition and got reworded for that reason.

Small 2) AFAIK reactions go in turn order; so one may react as often as possible, but when done or announces so it is next players turn to react.

[Ingix]

From your formulation of pinciples, 1) with "multiple cards resolve" sounds a bit off, I think "multipele effects resolve" would be the better formulation.

Let's start with Q1.
The correct answer is A2 (current player gets the one remaining Curse). Turn order is turn order, even if the effect originated from a card not belonging to the current player.

Let's move on to Q2.
All your detailed event listings are wrong, so the correct answer is something else. A2 seems to the nearerst to the truth.

After A returns 0-2 Embassies to the pile, the other players are supposed to gain one each. Since players can't gain cards from the same pile at the same time, this is broken up in player order (just a for Q1). So B gains an Embassy. Normally the game would proceed to C gaining an Embassy, but something triggered. So the execution of Ambassador's effect is suspeneded until everything that triggered from the gaining is handled. And that includes things that trigger from handling those triggers,a.s.o.

Since B gained an Embassy, all other players in turn order gain a Silver, so A, then C then D gain a Silver. Nothing more triggered on the Embassy gain by B and nothing triggered on the Silver gains, so the interruption of Ambassador's effect is over and it continues with C gaining an Embassy, triggerring again a round of Silver gain.

So the full order of effects on that playing of Ambassador showing an Embassy is

A4: A reveals an Embassy, A returns 0-2 Embassies to the pile, B gains an Embassy, A gains a Silver, C gains a Silver, D gains a Silver, C gains an Embassy, A gains a Silver, B gains a Silver, D gains a Silver, D gains an Embassy, A gains a Silver, B gains a Silver, C gains a Silver.

This oderering is completely forced, no choice involved. It also assumes that there are enough Embassies and Silver available to fulfill the demand.

Now let's add some fun and assume Changeling is also in the game. Then for each Embassy/Silver gain, there is an additional optional trigger: Exchanging it for a Changeling. The interaction with the Silver gains is easy: Changeling is the only thing triggering of the Silver gain, so it is has to be handled immediately after the gain.

So in the above order of events the first Silver is gained by A (after B got the first Embassy). Now, before that game proceeds to give C the next Silver, all triggers on the Silver gain by A habe to be resolved, so A has to decide if they want to exchange the just gained Silver for a Changeling. Only once that is decided and executed (if so chosen), does the game proceed to C gaining a Silver, and then C has the same decision to make, a.s.o.

How Changeling interacts with the Embassy gains is more complicated. Once for example player B has gained an Embassy, now 2 things have triggered:
1) the mandatory Silver gain for the other players by Embassy itself, and
2) the optional exchange for a Changeling.

Both triggers 'belong' to player B, so they get to decide which order they are executed in. They can choose to do 2) before 1) and thus exchange the Embassy for a Changeling before player A (and later C and D) gain their Silvers. That may be prefferable if there are less than 4 Changelings left and B fears that A,C and D might all exchange their Silvers for Changeling.
But it's also possible to do 1) first and 2) later, which has the benefit that B can make a choice based on what A,C and D did.

To sum this up, each triggerable effect has its own queue, where effects happen by affected player in turn order, and each affected player decides upon the order of their effects. If new things trigger, they interrupt the execution of previous effects until they are dealt with, then the previous effects continue.

An example of the last sentence, the possible exchange of the Silver gained for a Changeling interrupted the Silver gains from the Embassy trigger, which in turn had interrupted the Ambassador giving out Embassies.

-----

Let's move on to Eavesdropper.

It's clear (I think) that 'waiting' on a gain and not calling your Eavesdropper isn't helping here.

So A buys, then gains a Grand Market (GM0), 5 Grand Markets left (I'll call them GM1-GM5 from top to bottom).
  Eavesdroppers for B and C trigger; B is fírst in turn order, so they call an Eavesdropper and gain GM1
    For the GM1 gain, Eavesdroppers from A and C trigger, and they interrupt the triggered effects from the GM0 gaining.
    A is first in turn order and calls an Eavesdropper to gain GM2
      For the GM2 gain, the Eavesdroppers from B and C trigger and they interrupt the triggered effects from the GM1 gaining.
      B is first in turn order, they call their second Eavesdropper and gain GM3
        For the GM3 gain, Eavesdroppers from A and C trigger, and they interrupt the triggered effects from the GM2 gaining.
        A is first in turn order and calls their second Eavesdropper to gain GM4
          For the GM4 gain, Eavesdroppers from B and C trigger, and they interrupt the triggered effects from the GM3 gaining.
          B is first in turn order and calls their third Eavesdropper to gain GM5
     Now the various layers continue, allowing players to call their Eavesdroppers as indicated above, but that is pointless, as there are no more Grand Markets to gain.

Once the dust settles, A has gained 2 and B has gained 3 of the contested 5 Grand Markets. C, being last in turn order, is unhappy now.

----

Your additional questions:

1) Note that the first printed version of Moat also doesn't say that it happens first: http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Moat
Just like for Secret Chamber, it was assumed/understood that those attack-centered reaction effects naturally had to be done first, because especially for Moat it doesn't make any sense otherwise. When the game evolved and had Reactions that were not related to attacks any more, it became clear that the rules didn't really support the way Moat etc. were supposed to work. As a result, the 2E printings of Moat, Beggar and probably others were changed to include "first" in their wordings. Since Secret Chamber isn't in 2E Intrigue, it didn't get the wording update. If you play with it, I'd suggest you react with it as it was always intendend: It happens before the attack effect.

2) That I'm slightly unsure about, but I think the central rule of doing things in turn order still applies. So once you have 'passed' on doing something "first" when A played an attack, your chance is over to do anything for that attack. As Donald X.'s reply below makes clear, player B can use Diplomat again.
       

[naitchman]

Great. 2 people answered and they disagree on everything except the secret chamber q.  .

Just for the record my guess for q1 is A2.

Q2 and small Q2 I'm uncertain (I could see either way).

I'm wondering if there any concrete rulings on these (would love links if you've got them) or if these are just your gut opinions.

[Dominionaer]

By experience probably Ingix is right - most of my posts get discovered as wrong understanding. I fear that is the case here also.

e.g. i did not realize that turn order starts from active player also when something get triggered by later player. 

[hhelibebcnofnena]

Ingix's answers make sense, although I have no idea myself for Q2. If rule 1 really is worded that way, then that would seem to lead to Ingix's answer being correct. If it is a paraphrase, though, I don't know.

[Ingix]

The 2E Dominion rulebook says the following:

> When two things happen to different players at the same time, go in turn order starting with
> the player whose turn it is. For example, when a player plays Witch, the other players gain Curses
> in turn order, which may matter if the Curses run out.

> When two things happen to one player at the same time, that player picks the order to do them,
> even if some are mandatory and some are not. This can come up with expansions.

So I'm pretty sure about turn order starting with current player really being correct.

[Donald X.]

Q1: Does it go in turn order always starting with the player's whose turn it is, or does go based on the next player after the player who triggered the card? For example, in a 3p game say A plays saboteur. B reveals a province (trashes it) and gains an IGG and there's only one curse left.
         A1: Does C get the curse since he is next after B,
         A2: or does A get the curse since we always start at the player whose turn it is and go clockwise?

Turn order starting with the player whose turn it is. A gains the Curse.

Q2: What if multiple things must be resolved, and then before they are all resolved, more things must be resolved. For example, say in a 4p game A ambassadors Embassy.

Please keep fan cards in the variants forum.

You didn't quite ask a question there. Probably you get to it but I'm taking the whirlwind tour. New things that appear also get resolved. If you have four Duration cards waiting to go at the start of your turn, and one is a Cobbler that gains a Hireling (with help from Ferry) that you immediately play via Innovation, then that Hireling has a start-of-turn effect that also applies to this turn, and you can order it along with the remaining durations you already had.

A4: A reveals an Embassy, A returns 0-2 Embassies to the pile, B gains an Embassy, A gains a Silver, C gains a Silver, D gains a Silver, C gains an Embassy, A gains a Silver, B gains a Silver, D gains a Silver, D gains an Embassy, A gains a Silver, B gains a Silver, C gains a Silver.

To sum this up, each triggerable effect has its own queue, where effects happen by affected player in turn order, and each affected player decides upon the order of their effects. If new things trigger, they interrupt the execution of previous effects until they are dealt with, then the previous effects continue.

Ingix is correct.

1) It seems to be understood that if A plays militia and B reacts with a secret chamber, B gets to use SC's ability before discarding. Why is that so? When A plays a card the immediate effect is for it to be resolved. When B reacts he also gets to do stuff. In effect A and B get to do stuff at the same time in reaction to A playing militia (A resolving militia, and B using SC's ability). So shouldn't A go first? Notice all other reactions to attack cards (like moat or beggar) specify that you go first. On secret chamber, it doesn't do that. Is there errata on this that I'm missing? Or are there special rules for reactions (and reserve cards) that let you effectively stop the game and resolve your effects first?

Moat was not technically accurate as originally printed. New printings say "first" to make it clear that Moat happens before the card (unlike e.g. Watchtower happening after the gain). Secret Chamber did not get reprinted, it got replaced. So it never got a new printing. It could have errata to put in the "first," but there are no plans to ever reprint it, so no-one would ever have that version.

2) When multiple players can react, can I react then wait to see whether an opponent reacts and then react again? In other words does the time to reveal reactions happen in turn order and then finish after the last player, or can we continuously react until the trigger finally gets resolved? for example, A plays an attack (let's say witch). B has 6 cards in hand including an urchin and wants to really hurt C. B reacts with a diplomat (keeping the urchin and diplomat). C has 5 cards in hand and reacts with diplomat. B realizes his urchin won't hurt C anymore and wants to react with diplomat again to change up his hand. Can he do it?

Yes, at the point at which B decides "oh now I want to react," that's something B wants to do, and the rule is we go in turn order. If A decided "wait I will do something too," A would go ahead of B.

[Jeebus]

Great. 2 people answered and they disagree on everything except the secret chamber q.  .

Just for the record my guess for q1 is A2.

Q2 and small Q2 I'm uncertain (I could see either way).

I'm wondering if there any concrete rulings on these (would love links if you've got them) or if these are just your gut opinions.

There are lots of concrete rulings by Donald, in threads such as these. He has ruled on all these things before though. (And some of these questions, such as effects in turn order starting with the current player, is actually stated in the rulebooks, as Ingix quoted.) You might find the rules document I made helpful, link in my sig. It includes all the timing rules.

Something that is implied in this thread, but not explicitly stated, is an addendum to the rule about several abilities that trigger at the same time. As stated, each ability is resolved by the player it affects (and then ordered by that player if s/he has several). The addendum is about an ability such as Embassy's Silver gaining, that says "each other player". This ability is resolved by the player it addresses, so the player gaining Embassy in this case. That's why, in Ingix's example, the player gaining Embassy decides the order of "you may exchange it for a Changeling" and "each other player gains a Silver". (When s/he chooses "each other player gains a Silver", this of couse creates a "gain a Silver" effect for each other player, which is resolved by each player in turn.)

Another thing, that I don't think is part of any of your questions, but which Donald addressed, is that an ability can cause another ability to be triggered without actually triggering it. In all the examples with Ambassador, Embassy, Changeling and Eavesdropper, a new ability was triggered directly from the resolution of an ability. In those cases, the new ability interrupts that resolution, as has been explained. But resolving an ability (which was triggered by some "event") can change conditions in the game so that another ability is actually triggered from the same "event" that triggered the first ability. In that case, the two abilities are "happening at the same time". The new ability is added to the pool of abilities that are triggered from the same "event" and waiting to be resolved. (There could be several.) First you finish resolving the current ability. Then you decide which of the pending abilities to resolve next, etc.

Donald's example of start-of-turn abilities with Hireling is a perfect example. The "event" is here "start of turn". Another classic example is Moat and Diplomat/Secret Chamber. Another player playing an attack is the "event", which triggers your Diplomat. Resolving the Diplomat causes the Moat to enter your hand. The Moat reaction is now added to all the possible abilities you could resolve from this "event" (along with reacting with the same Diplomat again if you kept it in your hand).

(I prefer calling things that trigger "abilities". An ability can consist of several effects. "Each other player gains a Silver" is a triggered ability. When you resolve it, a Silver gaining effect happens for each player in turn order. Each of those effects could trigger other abilities. This is also important because once you start resolving an ability, you always finish resolving all of its effects.)

[Jeebus]

2) When multiple players can react, can I react then wait to see whether an opponent reacts and then react again? In other words does the time to reveal reactions happen in turn order and then finish after the last player, or can we continuously react until the trigger finally gets resolved? for example, A plays an attack (let's say witch). B has 6 cards in hand including an urchin and wants to really hurt C. B reacts with a diplomat (keeping the urchin and diplomat). C has 5 cards in hand and reacts with diplomat. B realizes his urchin won't hurt C anymore and wants to react with diplomat again to change up his hand. Can he do it?

Yes, at the point at which B decides "oh now I want to react," that's something B wants to do, and the rule is we go in turn order. If A decided "wait I will do something too," A would go ahead of B.

As far as I know, this has not been the official ruling. And it's not implemented like this online. Rather each player has to finish reacting when it's their turn, and then it's the next player, until everybody has gotten one chance. If it worked the way you say, if you gain IGG with Watchtower in hand, you get to decide whether to trash/topdeck the IGG before your opponents gain a Curse, and then (if you didn't) you get to decide again after. At least it doesn't work like that online. EDIT: Actually it is supposed to work that way with IGG/Watchtower no matter what, and it's wrong online.

You did say the same thing in this post: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4535.msg591442#msg591442. A few posts later you said that this ruling was tentative and someting to consider. It turned out that you had ruled otherwise several times before (namely that everybody only gets one shot at reacting). The conclusion in that thread was the original ruling still stood until further notice.

[Donald X.]

2) When multiple players can react, can I react then wait to see whether an opponent reacts and then react again? In other words does the time to reveal reactions happen in turn order and then finish after the last player, or can we continuously react until the trigger finally gets resolved? for example, A plays an attack (let's say witch). B has 6 cards in hand including an urchin and wants to really hurt C. B reacts with a diplomat (keeping the urchin and diplomat). C has 5 cards in hand and reacts with diplomat. B realizes his urchin won't hurt C anymore and wants to react with diplomat again to change up his hand. Can he do it?

Yes, at the point at which B decides "oh now I want to react," that's something B wants to do, and the rule is we go in turn order. If A decided "wait I will do something too," A would go ahead of B.

As far as I know, this has not been the official ruling. And it's not implemented like this online. Rather each player has to finish reacting when it's their turn, and then it's the next player, until everybody has gotten one chance. If it worked the way you say, if you gain IGG with Watchtower in hand, you get to decide whether to trash/topdeck the IGG before your opponents gain a Curse, and then (if you didn't) you get to decide again after. At least it doesn't work like that online.

You did say the same thing in this post: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4535.msg591442#msg591442. A few posts later you said that this ruling was tentative and someting to consider. It turned out that you had ruled otherwise several times before (namely that everybody only gets one shot at reacting). The conclusion in that thread was the original ruling still stood until further notice.

I think it should be, that if you want to use your reaction, you can. If someone else wants to do something at the same time then I have to say who gets to go first (turn order); if no-one wants to do anything then you've officially decided not to do the thing. But other things happening in the same window of time means you still get to decide to do your thing that you previously would have done first if you'd wanted to do it then.

[Jeebus]

Well, as I stated in the other thread, I think it would be better to stick with how everybody who has ever looked up that rule since 2010 has played it. The rulebooks also imply it, not exempting "optional effects" or Reactions from the turn-order rule.

Nobody blocks players from revealing Moat or using other Reactions because of the existing rule. The question is rather, can I wait to see what you do before I use my Reaction, as in the example in the original BGG thread.

Changing this rule also opens up the question about the timing of Urchin: Can you now reveal it after other players have reacted to your Attack?

[Donald X.]

Well, as I stated in the other thread, I think it would be better to stick with how everybody who has ever looked up that rule since 2010 has played it. The rulebooks also imply it, not exempting "optional effects" or Reactions from the turn-order rule.

Nobody blocks players from revealing Moat or using other Reactions because of the existing rule. The question is rather, can I wait to see what you do before I use my Reaction, as in the example in the original BGG thread.

Changing this rule also opens up the question about the timing of Urchin: Can you now reveal it after other players have reacted to your Attack?

As usual I consider casual players and online players. Online players will be faced with what the program does, and will not mind getting to use their reactions. Casual players will be unlikely to check the rules and unlikely to know about a ruling in these forums; from the text of the cards, it looks like you can react, so probably they will think you can.

Maybe there is something you can think of to make me think this is a bad ruling; so far I am not convinced and I like this ruling. I would like the best rules even if I have to suffer through a change, and this change is not much of a change. The ruling is based on looking at the cards and rules, which I especially like, I like rulings that don't add more rules, but just make sense of the texts.

This affects Urchin, sure. If I play Urchin and don't trash it and someone Moats, I can then trash it.

[Jeebus]

Online players will at least be presented with an Urchin that matches the old rule, not the new one. I'm not sure if there are other discrepancies. EDIT: Yes, there are. You said, "Online players will be faced with what the program does, and will not mind getting to use their reactions." That is not the issue. The issue is that they will not get the option to react again after the next player already reacted. In the example in this thread, B will not get to react with Diplomat again online. So the core issue of this question will be different online.

I do think that many players, not the most casual ones, but the ones that visit BGG, which are a great many, have read this ruling through the years. It has been asked several times after all, and 2010 was a while ago. This is the main reason why I think it's a bad idea.

The new rule does add more rules, because it concerns optional abilities (I gather), which are not mentioned in rulebooks as having any specific timing. Actually the opposite is stated: "When two things happen to one player at the same time, that player picks the order to do them, even if some are mandatory and some are not."

To me this actually seems to heavily imply that optional abilities are timed just as mandatory ones.

As I said in the other thread, the new rule is not needed to prevent players from saying "no Moat for you" (which was your main concern in that thread). Players will not do so in any case. Likewise, the old rule is not needed to prevent players from endlessly reacting to each other. Players will not do so in any case. The rule is only needed to clarify what happens when someone wants to react because of someone else reacting, such as in the original BGG thread from 2010 or in the OP in this thread. In those cases I'm certain that most players will not find that the rulebook supports the new rule. I would think that they either think it's strictly in turn order once (as seen above), or they have no idea and either house-rule it or look it up online.

[Donald X.]

Online players will at least be presented with an Urchin that matches the old rule, not the new one. I'm not sure if there are other discrepancies. EDIT: Yes, there are. You said, "Online players will be faced with what the program does, and will not mind getting to use their reactions." That is not the issue. The issue is that they will not get the option to react again after the next player already reacted. In the example in this thread, B will not get to react with Diplomat again online. So the core issue of this question will be different online.

It's not out of the question for the online version to have differences like this. It doesn't let you endlessly reveal Moat, hooray. But, the intention is to match unless there's a good reason not to. I can mention to Stef that this doesn't match my current ruling, and more people in the development discord can speak up as to any opinions they have. Changes used to be all on a retreating far away horizon, but these days things are actually happening.

As I said in the other thread, the new rule is not needed to prevent players from saying "no Moat for you" (which was your main concern in that thread). Players will not do so in any case. Likewise, the old rule is not needed to prevent players from endlessly reacting to each other. Players will not do so in any case. The rule is only needed to clarify what happens when someone wants to react because of someone else reacting, such as in the original BGG thread from 2010 or in the OP in this thread. In those cases I'm certain that most players will not find that the rulebook supports the new rule. I would think that they either think it's strictly in turn order once (as seen above), or they have no idea and either house-rule it or look it up online.

I looked at the rules and some cards and I think my ruling is consistent with them. "If we both want to do something we go in turn order" doesn't imply "if you want to do something because someone later in turn order did something, now it's too late." You didn't want to do something; then you did, and it's still time for doing it.

[Jeebus]

I looked at the rules and some cards and I think my ruling is consistent with them. "If we both want to do something we go in turn order" doesn't imply "if you want to do something because someone later in turn order did something, now it's too late." You didn't want to do something; then you did, and it's still time for doing it.

Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but where do the rules talk about "if the players want to do something"? The only thing I can find is "things happening to the players, whether mandatory or not". That implies that you react based on the fact that it happened to you, not based on the fact that someone else reacted. I really don't understand how you can get the interpretation you're saying - at least based on the section I quoted.

[Doom_Shark]

What I think Donald is trying to say is this:

There are two rules in play here. The first is that reactions go in turn order. The second is the "keep reacting if time hasn't passed" rule.

His ruling appears to be that, after going through turn order, and the trigger for the reaction hasn't passed (in this urchin/diplomat case, playing an attack), a person who chose not to react the first time, or who still has the reaction, can change their mind and choose to react due to the latter of the two rules, starting a new turn order of decisions regarding reactions to the trigger.

[Jeebus]

What I think Donald is trying to say is this:

There are two rules in play here. The first is that reactions go in turn order. The second is the "keep reacting if time hasn't passed" rule.

His ruling appears to be that, after going through turn order, and the trigger for the reaction hasn't passed (in this urchin/diplomat case, playing an attack), a person who chose not to react the first time, or who still has the reaction, can change their mind and choose to react due to the latter of the two rules, starting a new turn order of decisions regarding reactions to the trigger.

Well, the second rule is not only about Reactions.

In the basegame rulebook, these are the only rules about the turn order of abilities or effects:

When two things happen to different players at the same time, go in turn order starting with the player whose turn it is. For example, when a player plays Witch, the other players gain Curses in turn order, which may matter if the Curses run out.

When two things happen to one player at the same time, that player picks the order to do them, even if some are mandatory and some are not. This can come up with expansions.

In Intrigue, an additional rule can be derived from the description of Diplomat (earlier Secret Chamber). This rule implies that you can still react with a Reaction card as long as you are in the "window" of reacting. This is the rule you are referring to. This rule has since been extended, through various card descriptions, into a rule that I formalized earlier in this thread: "Resolving an ability can change conditions in the game so that another ability is actually triggered from the same "event" that triggered the first ability. The new ability is added to the pool of abilities that are triggered from the same "event" and waiting to be resolved." Donald gave an example with Hireling in this thread. There seems to be nothing to imply that these are two different rules, one for reactions and one for other abilities.

I assume the difference implied by Donald is only this: Reactions (and Urchin) are optional, while the other abilities are not. His thinking seems to be that since Reactions are optional, you have not given up your chance to use them just because you passed on your turn to react, as long as we are still in the "window". However, you only get a second chance if someone else reacted. I don't actually understand why this specifically gives you a second chance, when you don't get a second chance after everybody passes and we are still in the "window".

To me it just seems really odd to interpret the rule quoted from the rulebook above to mean what Donald is saying. Saying that you can do the abilities - mandatory and optional - in any order, to me heavily implies that you do them all. (Of course you can choose to not do an optional one.) In addition, as I said in the previous paragraph, how exactly this is supposed to work is not clear at all from anything written except as explained by Donald in the previous thread about this. Why not think that after everyone passes you can shout out and say "actually I want to React"?

[GendoIkari]

My concern would be avoiding a situation where players A and B both wish to do something, but they both wish to do it after the other player has done it. It sounds like these rulings may be able to lead to such a situation. Or, if player A "passes", and then player B "passes", is it now too late for player A to go ahead and do the thing? Or can he decide that he wants to do it now that player B has passed? Of course, if he can, then play B also can afterwards.

Magic defines these things clearly; if player A passes, then he doesn't know if player B will also pass or not. If player B then passes; he knows for sure that it means that neither player will get to do the thing. But if player B then does a thing, player A will get another chance.

To use a simplest possible Dominion example.... player A plays an attack. Player B has Moat but does not reveal it. Player C also does not reveal a Moat. Can player B now change his mind as a result of seeing that player C didn't reveal a Moat, and reveal his Moat? If this is allowed; then it seems like there could be a "stalemate" of events where both players wish to see what the other player does before making his decision.

[Jeebus]

According to Donald's explanation in the previous thread where he floated this idea, you cannot react after everyone has passed. Initially in that thread I thought that you could. My point now is that it's not clear how this works from anything written, and you really need a specific rule to explain it.

[GendoIkari]

According to Donald's explanation in the previous thread where he floated this idea, you cannot react after everyone has passed. Initially in that thread I thought that you could. My point now is that it's not clear which is the case.

If so then it basically follows the same as MTG rules. In MTG, if the active player chooses not to act; he knows that he is risking not being able to act at all (during the current step; which it like the current timing-window in Dominion). If he wants to do something after the other player does something, he has to hope that the other player does something. Whereas the non-active player has more control; he knows that passing means not allowing the active player to do anything.

[Donald X.]

I looked at the rules and some cards and I think my ruling is consistent with them. "If we both want to do something we go in turn order" doesn't imply "if you want to do something because someone later in turn order did something, now it's too late." You didn't want to do something; then you did, and it's still time for doing it.

Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but where do the rules talk about "if the players want to do something"? The only thing I can find is "things happening to the players, whether mandatory or not". That implies that you react based on the fact that it happened to you, not based on the fact that someone else reacted. I really don't understand how you can get the interpretation you're saying - at least based on the section I quoted.

You're right, the main set rulebook does not address reactions, just phrases the rule as it applies to Witch.

That's what the rule should be though, when I manage to put it into a rulebook.

[Donald X.]

To me it just seems really odd to interpret the rule quoted from the rulebook above to mean what Donald is saying. Saying that you can do the abilities - mandatory and optional - in any order, to me heavily implies that you do them all. (Of course you can choose to not do an optional one.) In addition, as I said in the previous paragraph, how exactly this is supposed to work is not clear at all from anything written except as explained by Donald in the previous thread about this. Why not think that after everyone passes you can shout out and say "actually I want to React"?

I don't think that would work; there has to be a way we know that everyone is done considering doing something.

IRL no-one passes and you just shout out that you want to do a thing - if anyone wants to do something, they do it, and we only say "slow down, we need to go in turn order" when specific situations call for it e.g. those Curses running out.

For me the rule has always been (I understand this doesn't help anyone, I'm just explaining my mindset), that when multiple players want to do something at the same time and it matters, they go in turn order. It didn't make the original main rulebook because those cards didn't make it come up. Similarly the rule for if one player has to do multiple things at once wasn't in the original main set rulebook since it didn't apply yet, but was always there in my mind and made it into Seaside; and there was a lose track rule and it was used by the Mining Village FAQ but I didn't manage to get it into a rulebook until Dark Ages. It's reasonable to want the main rulebook to further clarify Reactions, or at least for some rulebook out there to do this.

In the meantime, that's the rule. And then, how I interpret that rule and the card texts for this question is, if something more happens in the window, you can still react.

[Jeebus]

But how you interpret these rules when it comes to multiple players with reactions (or "optional things", since Urchin is included) has clearly not always been the same, since you ruled the other way in the past. And in 2016 decided to keep it like that.

I'm looking at the other thread and the different scenarios we were discussing. With this new rule, how do mandatory abilities get resolved? If you play an Attack card with a +1 Card token, do you have to draw a card before anybody reacts? Or can you wait and see if someone wants to react, then draw? (If so, everybody then has another chance to react of course.) This matters in a hypothetical situation (which you brought up in the other thread) where another player's reaction to your attack could create a mandatory thing for you. Would you do it or is it too late?

[Donald X.]

But how you interpret these rules when it comes to multiple players with reactions (or "optional things", since Urchin is included) has clearly not always been the same, since you ruled the other way in the past. And in 2016 decided to keep it like that.

I shouldn't just limit myself to what past Donald X. liked; I barely know that guy.

I'm looking at the other thread and the different scenarios we were discussing. With this new rule, how do mandatory abilities get resolved? If you play an Attack card with a +1 Card token, do you have to draw a card before anybody reacts? Or can you wait and see if someone wants to react, then draw? (If so, everybody then has another chance to react of course.) This matters in a hypothetical situation (which you brought up in the other thread) where another player's reaction to your attack could create a mandatory thing for you. Would you do it or is it too late?

If there's a mandatory thing, you do it. If there are both mandatory and optional things and someone wants to do an optional thing, if they are first in turn order they go first.