Print

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

[GendoIkari]

If you imagine phases as a label you put on a chunk of time, they start and end. If on the other hand you imagine your turn specially, like a road separated into "action phase", "buy phase", "night phase", then buying a villa would be like taking a step backwards, and you haven't reached the end of the buy phase.

I would genuinely not be super shocked most casual players imagine it the latter way (though I'd probably bet against it). Maybe you could run a poll!

This analogy makes me rethink my last post.

[Donald X.]

If you imagine phases as a label you put on a chunk of time, they start and end. If on the other hand you imagine your turn specially, like a road separated into "action phase", "buy phase", "night phase", then buying a villa would be like taking a step backwards, and you haven't reached the end of the buy phase.

I would genuinely not be super shocked most casual players imagine it the latter way (though I'd probably bet against it). Maybe you could run a poll!

My informal poll so far has most players having thought that Villa ended the buy phase, until they were told otherwise.

[Donald X.]

Does triggering Pageant multiple times mean you can pay $1 for 1 Coffers multiple times per turn? Or can you only pay once, but each time Pageant triggers you get the option to do it if you haven't yet? The Renaissance rulebook says Pageant only works once per turn, but of course with a new wording that could be completely void now (though presumably, you'd still only be able to do it once per Buy phase that ended).

The rulebooks can never cover everything card interactions can manage. If Lab's entry says you draw two cards, well clearly that's wrong because of the -1 Card token. If you see what I mean.

If Villa ends the buy phase - which doesn't involve new wordings for any cards - then you could use Pageant again, yes.

[grrgrrgrr]

I am kinda split on this change, since I kinda dislike the errata Merchant Ship and (especially) Patron got. Is there a reason why the playability conditions aren't "when you can play a Treasure, you can spend Coffers". I know I can't outthink Donald X when it comes to Dominion design, so he must have a good reason for this.

That said, is there any consideration on making Treasures playable during the entirety of the Buy phase (kinda contradicting what I just said above)? This mattered pretty much never pre-Renaissance, but nowadays it feels kinda ugly.

EDIT: I have thought about it and yes, above suggestion is also less than ideal as Gamble suggests that you can play a Treasure. So a more ideal solution would be adding the convention that "A Coffers is a $1 producing Spoils that is always available". But that might be a too much of a breeding ground for rule questions (such as: do they count towards Storyteller and Voyage? Can I Mint them? etc.). And that probably sums up why Donald chose his solution instead.

[Jeebus]

That said, is there any consideration on making Treasures playable during the entirety of the Buy phase (kinda contradicting what I just said above)? This mattered pretty much never pre-Renaissance, but nowadays it feels kinda ugly.

The rule was introduced with Prosperity. Removing it would break Grand Market, and significantly alter Mint and Mandarin, maybe more.

[grrgrrgrr]

That said, is there any consideration on making Treasures playable during the entirety of the Buy phase (kinda contradicting what I just said above)? This mattered pretty much never pre-Renaissance, but nowadays it feels kinda ugly.

The rule was introduced with Prosperity. Removing it would break Grand Market, and significantly alter Mint and Mandarin, maybe more.

Wow, how could I forgot that one lol. But this isn't really that far of from the Coffers thing though.

EDIT: This begs the question: shouldn't the Buy phase be split into two phases: a phase A in which you play Treasures, and a phase B in which you can buy cards and (some) landscapes? For Coffers, the solution is then simple: you can play Coffers during the Action phase and phase A of the Buy phase. But I guess this opens other cans of worms (with playing Black Market through March or Gamble).

[GendoIkari]

That said, is there any consideration on making Treasures playable during the entirety of the Buy phase (kinda contradicting what I just said above)? This mattered pretty much never pre-Renaissance, but nowadays it feels kinda ugly.

The rule was introduced with Prosperity. Removing it would break Grand Market, and significantly alter Mint and Mandarin, maybe more.

Wait, this wasn't the rule before prosperity? Not that it would matter with just the base game treasures, but I thought that it was always the rule.

[Jeebus]

That said, is there any consideration on making Treasures playable during the entirety of the Buy phase (kinda contradicting what I just said above)? This mattered pretty much never pre-Renaissance, but nowadays it feels kinda ugly.

The rule was introduced with Prosperity. Removing it would break Grand Market, and significantly alter Mint and Mandarin, maybe more.

Wait, this wasn't the rule before prosperity? Not that it would matter with just the base game treasures, but I thought that it was always the rule.

Nope. It didn't matter with any of the sets before Prosperity, and that's where it was introduced.

[GendoIkari]

That said, is there any consideration on making Treasures playable during the entirety of the Buy phase (kinda contradicting what I just said above)? This mattered pretty much never pre-Renaissance, but nowadays it feels kinda ugly.

The rule was introduced with Prosperity. Removing it would break Grand Market, and significantly alter Mint and Mandarin, maybe more.

Wait, this wasn't the rule before prosperity? Not that it would matter with just the base game treasures, but I thought that it was always the rule.

Nope. It didn't matter with any of the sets before Prosperity, and that's where it was introduced.

I read the 1st edition base game rulebook and while it doesn’t go out of its way to be clear; it does say that you play treasure and “then” you buy your card. But I suppose especially with multiple buys; it’s not at all clear.

[Jeebus]

That said, is there any consideration on making Treasures playable during the entirety of the Buy phase (kinda contradicting what I just said above)? This mattered pretty much never pre-Renaissance, but nowadays it feels kinda ugly.

The rule was introduced with Prosperity. Removing it would break Grand Market, and significantly alter Mint and Mandarin, maybe more.

Wait, this wasn't the rule before prosperity? Not that it would matter with just the base game treasures, but I thought that it was always the rule.

Nope. It didn't matter with any of the sets before Prosperity, and that's where it was introduced.

I read the 1st edition base game rulebook and while it doesn’t go out of its way to be clear; it does say that you play treasure and “then” you buy your card. But I suppose especially with multiple buys; it’s not at all clear.

Exactly. It says that about buying one card; then it says you can buy more cards with multiple buys. But the whole point is that you can't play more Treasure after you've bought a card, and it doesn't really say that.

[Jeebus]

Currently I am leaning towards, Villa (and pals) will actually end the Buy phase. This can trigger Wine Merchant, Exploration, Pageant, Merchant Guild.

The idea is just, if we asked a casual player, wouldn't they say that the Buy phase ended? I mean after gaining Villa you're no longer in it. We call that "ending."

Do you still stand by this ruling?

[Donald X.]

Currently I am leaning towards, Villa (and pals) will actually end the Buy phase. This can trigger Wine Merchant, Exploration, Pageant, Merchant Guild.

The idea is just, if we asked a casual player, wouldn't they say that the Buy phase ended? I mean after gaining Villa you're no longer in it. We call that "ending."

Do you still stand by this ruling?

That's still sounding good to me.

[m_knox]

That said, is there any consideration on making Treasures playable during the entirety of the Buy phase (kinda contradicting what I just said above)? This mattered pretty much never pre-Renaissance, but nowadays it feels kinda ugly.

The rule was introduced with Prosperity. Removing it would break Grand Market, and significantly alter Mint and Mandarin, maybe more.

Wait, this wasn't the rule before prosperity? Not that it would matter with just the base game treasures, but I thought that it was always the rule.

Nope. It didn't matter with any of the sets before Prosperity, and that's where it was introduced.

Wrong. In Alchemy.

During the Buy phase, all Treasures are played before a player buys any cards, even if he has +Buys. A player may not play Treasures after Buying a card. This is important for Philosopher's Stone.

[Jeebus]

That said, is there any consideration on making Treasures playable during the entirety of the Buy phase (kinda contradicting what I just said above)? This mattered pretty much never pre-Renaissance, but nowadays it feels kinda ugly.

The rule was introduced with Prosperity. Removing it would break Grand Market, and significantly alter Mint and Mandarin, maybe more.

Wait, this wasn't the rule before prosperity? Not that it would matter with just the base game treasures, but I thought that it was always the rule.

Nope. It didn't matter with any of the sets before Prosperity, and that's where it was introduced.

Wrong. In Alchemy.

During the Buy phase, all Treasures are played before a player buys any cards, even if he has +Buys. A player may not play Treasures after Buying a card. This is important for Philosopher's Stone.

Ah, okay. I checked, but too quickly then.
But the point is, it was not always the rule, and it was introduced when it mattered (and of course it matters a lot more for the cards in Prosperity than for Philosopher's Stone).

[Wizard_Amul]

That said, is there any consideration on making Treasures playable during the entirety of the Buy phase (kinda contradicting what I just said above)? This mattered pretty much never pre-Renaissance, but nowadays it feels kinda ugly.

The rule was introduced with Prosperity. Removing it would break Grand Market, and significantly alter Mint and Mandarin, maybe more.

Wait, this wasn't the rule before prosperity? Not that it would matter with just the base game treasures, but I thought that it was always the rule.

Nope. It didn't matter with any of the sets before Prosperity, and that's where it was introduced.

Wrong. In Alchemy.

During the Buy phase, all Treasures are played before a player buys any cards, even if he has +Buys. A player may not play Treasures after Buying a card. This is important for Philosopher's Stone.

Ah, okay. I checked, but too quickly then.
But the point is, it was not always the rule, and it was introduced when it mattered (and of course it matters a lot more for the cards in Prosperity than for Philosopher's Stone).

It certainly matters for Philosopher's Stone--whether or not you can buy cards before playing all your treasures directly changes how many coins you get for playing Philosopher's Stone. I get what you mean, though...it doesn't practically matter since almost nobody cares about Philosopher's Stone.

[cookiedrugs]

Merchants Guild looks at all cards gained in the buying phase, including prior ones, isn't it? I buy a Silver, after that I buy Merchant Guild and play it with Innovation. Do I get two Coffers?

[Jeebus]

It certainly matters for Philosopher's Stone--whether or not you can buy cards before playing all your treasures directly changes how many coins you get for playing Philosopher's Stone. I get what you mean, though...it doesn't practically matter since almost nobody cares about Philosopher's Stone.

No, I meant that the cases it would matter at all when playing Philosopher's Stone are rare. First of all, you have to have 2 Buys and enough coins to buy a second card (buying the first card without Ph.Stone), and then it only makes a difference in 1/5 of the cases, of +$1, and that coin in itself will only matter sometimes.

For Mint and Grand Market it makes a big difference.

[Ingix]

Merchants Guild looks at all cards gained in the buying phase, including prior ones, isn't it? I buy a Silver, after that I buy Merchant Guild and play it with Innovation. Do I get two Coffers?

It does count gains prior to it being in play, from the same buy phase, so you get 2 Coffers at the end of the buy phase in your example.

[Holger]

For Mint and Grand Market it makes a big difference.

The difference is bigger than for Philosopher's Stone, but allowing treasure plays after the first buy still only matters if you have extra buys at all.

This rule change would strengthen all three cards, but I don't see it breaking either of them: Mint could use a boost, and Grand Market wouldn't become any easier to buy itself - you could only use the coppers to buy something else afterwards.

[GendoIkari]

Another issue with allowing you to play treasures after you buy a card is that it would add to the confusion that new players have in thinking that you “buy stuff with treasure”. As opposed to treasures being cards that work exactly like action cards.

[Jeebus]

For Mint and Grand Market it makes a big difference.

The difference is bigger than for Philosopher's Stone, but allowing treasure plays after the first buy still only matters if you have extra buys at all.

Sure, for all three you need extra buys, and the coins to use them. But Ph.Stone is much narrower still, since as I said it still only makes a difference 1/5 of the time, and only for +$1. So it's just much less important than for Mint and Grand Market.

This rule change would strengthen all three cards, but I don't see it breaking either of them: Mint could use a boost, and Grand Market wouldn't become any easier to buy itself - you could only use the coppers to buy something else afterwards.

Grand Market would be substantially better. It would be easier to buy because of the opportunity cost.
Maybe Mint could use the boost, I haven't considered that.

[silverspawn]

I think for Mint, it's not a question of powerlevel but of swinginess. Right now it's really extremely good if you draw 5 coppers on turn 3+. With the changed mint, later purchases would become better, thus making the card less swingy. I'd say Mint would be improved. (It would probably still be worth buying early if you draw the 5 Copper hand.)

[mxdata]

Another follow-up question: what happens if you Prince a Prince with cost reduction? Do you just get to keep on Princing cards every turn? And does the card you just set aside with your Princed Prince get played in the same "start of turn" phase that you set it aside in?

You can't because new Prince has both Duration type and "non-Duration" clause.

Hmmmm, maybe you could Prince a Band of Misfits to play a Prince. Though that would require Prince to cost less than Band of Misfits which doesn't seem possible currently. Either that, or use Inheritance plus cost reduction to give your Estates the ability to play a set-aside Prince, since your Estates wouldn't have the Duration tag.

Now with Family of Inventors that might work?