Print

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

[Jeebus]

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.

So is the answer that it's too late?

It also matters with Fool's Gold and Road Network. You could trash a Fool's Gold and then draw the Gold with Road Network, or first draw and then gain a Gold. With the old it rule, it was clear: The first player has to decide what they want to do, and then do it all; then it's the next player.

But with the new rule, what happens? Let's say I'm first. I decide to trash a Fool's Gold first (before Road Network). The next player then says, I also want to do that. Ok, then we go in turn order. I trash mine, the next player trashes theirs. Then I do my Road Network draw?

[markus]

My opinion is: Road Network is mandatory. When it's my turn in turn order, I need to resolve it before it's the next player's turn. Before resolving Road Network, I'm allowed to trash Fool's Gold. I'm also allowed to trash afterwards. If someone else after me in turn order resolves something (e.g. Road Network draw), I get another chance to trash Fool's Gold.

[Jeebus]

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.

I don't agree - we would still know when everyone is done. As we both agree, normally we don't need to go in turn order or say "pass". If someone thinks the order matters, we go in turn order. In those cases, we have to ask each player in turn what they want to do, and each player might pass. In those cases we know when everybody is done: it's when the last player says that they're done or says "pass". At that time anybody could say, ok then I want to use my reaction.

There is no reason to think, just given this new rule, that it makes a difference whether everybody passed or not. Indeed, neither GendoIkari or I* knew to interpret it that way. My point is that we need a special rule to say which interpretation is correct, and that makes this new rule more complicated and non-intuitive than the old one.

EDIT: Ok, I see that technically, if we allow new reactions after everybody passed, it would mean an infinite loop of re-asking everybody. But I really don't think most people would analyze it that deeply and then conclude what the rule is just based on the theoretical consequences.

*Yeah, I'm rebelling against the standard US usage of using "me" here. I just can't bring myself to write "me knew", even though I'm pretty sure it's considered correct.

[hhelibebcnofnena]

Indeed, neither GendoIkari or I* knew

*Yeah, I'm rebelling against the standard US usage of using "me" here. I just can't bring myself to write "me knew", even though I'm pretty sure it's considered correct.

Pretty sure that putting I instead of me here is correct.

[Jeebus]

Indeed, neither GendoIkari or I* knew

*Yeah, I'm rebelling against the standard US usage of using "me" here. I just can't bring myself to write "me knew", even though I'm pretty sure it's considered correct.

Pretty sure that putting I instead of me here is correct.

I guess I was thinking about sentences like "Me and Lucy went to the movies", which I think are more common than "I and Lucy...". I thought I read somewhere that it was considered okay, but I'm probably wrong.

[Wizard_Amul]

Indeed, neither GendoIkari or I* knew

*Yeah, I'm rebelling against the standard US usage of using "me" here. I just can't bring myself to write "me knew", even though I'm pretty sure it's considered correct.

Pretty sure that putting I instead of me here is correct.

Yes, "I" is correct here. You use "I" in this context if "I" is the subject of the sentence; you would use "me" in this context if "me" is the object. However, it should be "nor" and not "or" in either case.

[GendoIkari]

Indeed, neither GendoIkari or I* knew

*Yeah, I'm rebelling against the standard US usage of using "me" here. I just can't bring myself to write "me knew", even though I'm pretty sure it's considered correct.

Pretty sure that putting I instead of me here is correct.

I guess I was thinking about sentences like "Me and Lucy when to the movies", which I think are more common than "I and Lucy...". I thought I read somewhere that it was considered okay, but I'm probably wrong.

"Me and Lucy" might be more common, but it's definitely wrong.

[Jeebus]

It seems Donald gave up on this thread, but I'm still struggling to make sense of this new rule. I'm trying to figure out how it can be expressed in my rules document. I was hoping for a clear answer to my question about mandatory and optional abilities.

Part of it is that I'm struggling to fit Donald's explanation of how this makes sense into the existing rules. To me it just seems like a completely new rule that needs to be added and explained. It follows from the printed rules to a much less extent than the old rule did. (I'm going by the 2nd edition rulebooks.)

It makes turn order for reactions very different from turn order for other things. There is never any reason to go in turn order except for the risk that everybody passes. If player D happens to react first, and this makes both B and C want to react, C can perfectly well react next, and then B.

Let's say we all have Diplomat and want to react, and some players think the order matters. The printed rule just says, go in turn order. The natural interpretation is that if the first player wants to do it, they have to do it first. But with the new rule, they can wait and see, risking possibly that everybody else passes too (assuming that they players know that this is how it works). As far as I can understand, there is never any "if we both want to do something, we go in turn order." There is only, "I want to wait and see what you do, but since I'm before you in turn order, that could mean that I don't get to react." The turn-order rule has been reduced to this very specific wait-and-see rule when it comes to reactions. (If you're not doing wait-and-see, the turn-order rule has no relevance: You can react several times whenever you want before or after the other players react, just as if there were no turn-order rule.)

Here's a related problem: Under the old rule, usually everybody just reacts whenever - out of turn - and it's usually fine. This is the same under the new rule. But under the old rule, it's technically incorrect. When the players realize that the order matters in a real-world scenario, someone - maybe several players - would often have reacted already. Under the old rule, we backtrack and everybody has to do all their reactions in turn. Simple. Under the new rule, the reactions that already happened were technically not incorrect. It's perfectly legal to react out of turn. So following the rules strictly we shouldn't backtrack. (And when players are in this situation it's because they realize that they have to follow the rules strictly.) I guess a player could make the argument that they actually didn't want to pass but wanted to react first, etc, and we could then agree that it's fair that we do backtrack and go in turn order. Kind of like when someone forgets to topdeck a Treasury. But to even realize why or how it's like that, seems very difficult and complicated.

But let's say that the players do agree to go in turn order. Well, then we have the following weirdness.

Let's say we have 4 players reacting, and we decide to go in turn order. First it's A, who passes. Then B reacts, which means everybody else gets a chance to react now, before we move on to C. First A, who passes again. Then C, who passes. Then D. Since we haven't reached C in the outer loop yet, C will get another chance, but D could react now, if they want to do it before C. Let's say D reacts. Now we start a third-level loop, A + B + C, let's say everybody passes, and we're done with the third-level and second-level loop. We continue in the outer loop with C, who reacts. Now we start a second-level loop with A, who also reacts. Now we start a third-level loop with B + C + D. Let's say all pass. Now we continue the second-level loop with B + C + D. D is left in the outer loop, but we can ignore that, because D was the last to pass. If this is how it's supposed to work, it's crazy. But maybe I'm not understanding it.

[Donald X.]

It seems Donald gave up on this thread, but I'm still struggling to make sense of this new rule. I'm trying to figure out how it can be expressed in my rules document. I was hoping for a clear answer to my question about mandatory and optional abilities.

Donald X. did not feel like there was anything left unanswered.

In normal situations, there's no need for anything, everyone flashes their Moat and is fine. No-one learns any further rule, they know the Curses go out in order but that's it.

When two players want to do something at the same time and it matters, the player first in turn order does their thing first. What if the second player no longer wants to do their thing? They don't have to. What if an earlier player now wants to do something? They can. There's no memory, no recursion here. It's confusing to say it as if the second player's thing won't happen - odds are the second player wants to do their thing, that's how we got into this situation of needing the order. So I say, they go in turn order, as if the 2nd player actually will do their thing. But the more precise version is: if two players want to do something at the same time, the player first in turn order does theirs, and that's it, that's all that happens unless now, in light of new circumstances, someone wants to do something. There's no queue of which player we check next; we are back to square one, what matters is if someone wants to do something, and if someone does the first player in turn order who wants to is the one doing their thing.

What if they're mandatory? It's identical except you know, you have to do mandatory things. If player 3 does a mandatory thing that creates a mandatory thing for player 2 in the same window then player 2 is next, unless player 1 wanted to do something and so on and on.

What if this disagrees with some previous rulings? These things happen. What if the rulebooks don't sufficiently communicate this? A thing to work on someday.

[Jeebus]

Sorry, but I still don't get how mandatory things work with reactions. Maybe you could answer my two questions in this post? http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19913.msg812473#msg812473

When two players want to do something at the same time and it matters, the player first in turn order does their thing first. What if the second player no longer wants to do their thing? They don't have to. What if an earlier player now wants to do something? They can. There's no memory, no recursion here.

So... Several players want to react at the same time. A is first in turn, but passes. Next is B, who reacts. A gets another chance, but passes. C passes. D wants to react. We go back to A. A and B both pass. C reacts. A, B and D pass.

Did I understand it correctly? After every reaction we go back to the first player.

Ok, no recursion, and it makes things simpler. But I still see no way that people will ever assume or even guess that this is how it works given the printed rules. You'll notice that people who ask about this assume that each player does all their reactions in turn order, and only after that is there a question of whether people can react AGAIN. Nobody even considers that it works the way you're describing. Also, a lot more explanation is needed than with the old rule. The problems I outlined in my previous post still stand - exept for the last paragraph.

[Donald X.]

Sorry, but I still don't get how mandatory things work with reactions.

I felt like that last post of mine was pretty thorough. I am going to pursue the theory that I actually explained it well enough for other people to get it. If that turns out to be wrong then I will see what I need to say to communicate accurately to those other people, and then try that on you.

But I still see no way that people will ever assume or even guess that this is how it works given the printed rules.

What if the rulebooks don't sufficiently communicate this? A thing to work on someday.

[Jeebus]

That theory would be wrong. You seemed to say that a player can react before mandatory things are resolved. That would be the opposite of what Markus assumed above. I assure you, this is not clear for anybody. I asked about specific scenarios with +1 card token and reactions, and with Fool's Gold and Road Network. It would be so much easier if you just answered those.

I would also appreciate it if you could confirm that I understood it correctly in my last post.

I'm trying to get this right for my rules document. You seem to not care (or maybe you are just so annoyed that I'm also arguing against the sense of this rule). You have no obligation to me of course, but I thought maybe you would see some value in having this document. Certainly I didn't foresee that it would be so much work keeping it up to date and accurate. I'm fine with adding new rules from new expansions, but there are also a lot of erratas and rules changes, and frankly this one rules change actually makes me want to give up on the whole thing. Not because I don't like it, but because I just can't figure out how to incorporate it into the rules without making it very messy and complex. it would be nice if you could help me.

[dane-m]

Sorry, but I still don't get how mandatory things work with reactions.

I felt like that last post of mine was pretty thorough. I am going to pursue the theory that I actually explained it well enough for other people to get it.

I think I get it, but if so, it's not what I originally understood your ruling to be, so for me it's just as well that Jeebus has kept asking questions!  On the other hand it could be that I don't get it, so I'll explain what I think I've understood it to be...

Let's imagine a 6-player game, just so that we can have players A through F.  It's player A's turn.  Something happens that permits reactions to occur...

• Player A gets the opportunity to react.  If they have a mandatory reaction they must react (but presumably could do an optional reaction at this stage if there was one?).  If they do react, we repeat step 1.
• Player B gets the opportunity to react.  If they have a mandatory reaction they must react (but presumably could do an optional reaction at this stage if there was one?).  If they do react, we go back to step 1.
• Player C gets the opportunity to react.  If they have a mandatory reaction they must react (but presumably could do an optional reaction at this stage if there was one?).  If they do react, we go back to step 1.
• Player D gets the opportunity to react.  If they have a mandatory reaction they must react (but presumably could do an optional reaction at this stage if there was one?).  If they do react, we go back to step 1.
• Player E gets the opportunity to react.  If they have a mandatory reaction they must react (but presumably could do an optional reaction at this stage if there was one?).  If they do react, we go back to step 1.
• Player F gets the opportunity to react.  If they have a mandatory reaction they must react (but presumably could do an optional reaction at this stage if there was one?).  If they do react, we go back to step 1.
• Reactions come to an end.

[Donald X.]

That theory would be wrong.

That's pretty arrogant! Because it's not clear to you, it must be unclear to everyone! It does not inspire me to devote time to your questions.

You seemed to say that a player can react before mandatory things are resolved. That would be the opposite of what Markus assumed above.

My opinion is: Road Network is mandatory. When it's my turn in turn order, I need to resolve it before it's the next player's turn. Before resolving Road Network, I'm allowed to trash Fool's Gold. I'm also allowed to trash afterwards. If someone else after me in turn order resolves something (e.g. Road Network draw), I get another chance to trash Fool's Gold.

Here is markus saying that in fact you can do a non-mandatory thing, Fool's Gold, ahead of a mandatory thing, Road Network. It's the opposite of what you say markus said.

I asked about specific scenarios with +1 card token and reactions, and with Fool's Gold and Road Network. It would be so much easier if you just answered those.

Whatever I haven't answered, it was for whatever reason not worth reliving. I am not dodging questions, but only have so much time; I am trying to give you clear answers, you could try to produce clear questions. What you need is an answer that can be used for all scenarios, not a specific scenario; when you know the general answer you can just answer the specific scenarios yourself.

I'm trying to get this right for my rules document. You seem to not care (or maybe you are just so annoyed that I'm also arguing against the sense of this rule).

It's great having your rules document exist, though of course these days the wiki also collects that information in its own way. Yes your arguments against the ruling didn't make it easier to devote time to your posts. I did ask other people elsewhere, what do you think of this ruling; only markus spoke up, to agree with it.

You have no obligation to me of course, but I thought maybe you would see some value in having this document. Certainly I didn't foresee that it would be so much work keeping it up to date and accurate. I'm fine with adding new rules from new expansions, but there are also a lot of erratas and rules changes, and frankly this one rules change actually makes me want to give up on the whole thing. Not because I don't like it, but because I just can't figure out how to incorporate it into the rules without making it very messy and complex. it would be nice if you could help me.

From my perspective I have been helping you. If you aren't enjoying the rules document then of course you shouldn't do it. I don't think it will be tricky to explain this though.

[Donald X.]

I think I get it, but if so, it's not what I originally understood your ruling to be, so for me it's just as well that Jeebus has kept asking questions!  On the other hand it could be that I don't get it, so I'll explain what I think I've understood it to be...

Let's imagine a 6-player game, just so that we can have players A through F.  It's player A's turn.  Something happens that permits reactions to occur...

• Player A gets the opportunity to react.  If they have a mandatory reaction they must react (but presumably could do an optional reaction at this stage if there was one?).  If they do react, we repeat step 1.
• Player B gets the opportunity to react.  If they have a mandatory reaction they must react (but presumably could do an optional reaction at this stage if there was one?).  If they do react, we go back to step 1.
• Player C gets the opportunity to react.  If they have a mandatory reaction they must react (but presumably could do an optional reaction at this stage if there was one?).  If they do react, we go back to step 1.
• Player D gets the opportunity to react.  If they have a mandatory reaction they must react (but presumably could do an optional reaction at this stage if there was one?).  If they do react, we go back to step 1.
• Player E gets the opportunity to react.  If they have a mandatory reaction they must react (but presumably could do an optional reaction at this stage if there was one?).  If they do react, we go back to step 1.
• Player F gets the opportunity to react.  If they have a mandatory reaction they must react (but presumably could do an optional reaction at this stage if there was one?).  If they do react, we go back to step 1.
• Reactions come to an end.

Thanks, and yes, that's correct, minus the question marks.

[Jeebus]

That theory would be wrong.

That's pretty arrogant! Because it's not clear to you, it must be unclear to everyone! It does not inspire me to devote time to your questions.

Pardon the hyperbole of saying it's not clear for anybody; I thought this would be understood as rhetorical. I meant that it's not clear for almost anybody. Your theory (I assumed) was that it's clear for everybody, or most people, except for me. Certainly nobody who has spoken up in this thread has demonstrated that it's clear to them.

Here is markus saying that in fact you can do a non-mandatory thing, Fool's Gold, ahead of a mandatory thing, Road Network. It's the opposite of what you say markus said.

What I meant to express was, You seemed to say that a player can react (with a Reaction) before ALL mandatory things are resolved. The mandatory things from all the players. To me it implied that you could react before a player behind you in turn order has done their mandatory thing. And that would be opposite of what Markus assumed, if I understood him correctly. (But I think now that you are actually not saying that either.)

Whatever I haven't answered, it was for whatever reason not worth reliving. I am not dodging questions, but only have so much time; I am trying to give you clear answers, you could try to produce clear questions. What you need is an answer that can be used for all scenarios, not a specific scenario; when you know the general answer you can just answer the specific scenarios yourself.

My questions were very clear. I have no doubt about that, and I have no idea why you're trying to claim otherwise. Of course we need a rule for all scenarios, but getting answers to specific scenarios helps in understanding the rule.

It's great having your rules document exist, though of course these days the wiki also collects that information in its own way.

FYI, I can say with great confidence that the wiki does not collect a lot of this information, and furthermore that it contains several errors and outdated information.

[Donald X.]

That theory would be wrong.

That's pretty arrogant! Because it's not clear to you, it must be unclear to everyone! It does not inspire me to devote time to your questions.

Pardon the hyperbole of saying it's not clear for anybody; I thought this would be understood as rhetorical. I meant that it's not clear for almost anybody. Your theory (I assumed) was that it's clear for everybody, or most people, except for me. Certainly nobody who has spoken up in this thread has demonstrated that it's clear to them.

Here is markus saying that in fact you can do a non-mandatory thing, Fool's Gold, ahead of a mandatory thing, Road Network. It's the opposite of what you say markus said.

What I meant to express was, You seemed to say that a player can react (with a Reaction) before ALL mandatory things are resolved. The mandatory things from all the players. To me it implied that you could react before a player behind you in turn order has done their mandatory thing. And that would be opposite of what Markus assumed, if I understood him correctly. (But I think now that you are actually not saying that either.)

Whatever I haven't answered, it was for whatever reason not worth reliving. I am not dodging questions, but only have so much time; I am trying to give you clear answers, you could try to produce clear questions. What you need is an answer that can be used for all scenarios, not a specific scenario; when you know the general answer you can just answer the specific scenarios yourself.

My questions were very clear. I have no doubt about that, and I have no idea why you're trying to claim otherwise. Of course we need a rule for all scenarios, but getting answers to specific scenarios helps in understanding the rule.

It's great having your rules document exist, though of course these days the wiki also collects that information in its own way.

FYI, I can say with great confidence that the wiki does not collect a lot of this information, and furthermore that it contains several errors and outdated information.

My silence here would not mean I accepted anything you had to say - hey it was probably all hyperbole - but also we do not need to have this conversation more.