Print

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

[Not a Cylon]

Anyway Rebuild is as intended, I really did say to put "cheaper" on Catacombs, and one of the Knights costs $4 somehow, even though that means the randomizer doesn't match it (also true for the Knight that's a Victory card).

Is there a mechanics reason why the "cheaper" wording is preferred over "costing less than?"

I'm 99% certain there is not, and that the card just had a metric fuckton of words on it, so Donald decided to save a few words. At any rate, we'll see the Secret History soon enough

(Also, I don't see how “cheaper than” is any less precise than “costing less than.” There's really no other sensible interpretation, and any confusion about Potions is no better or worse either way.)

[Kirian]

One of the definitions of "cheap" is "of inferior quality" (at least, according to m-w.com), so I think when you trash Catacombs you can gain any card that is recognizable as being of lower quality, even if it costs the same or more.

Ok, not really.  But it seems ultra-imprecise to use cheap there. 

You can always gain Counting House, Scout or Thief with it, then?

[dondon151]

(Also, I don't see how “cheaper than” is any less precise than “costing less than.” There's really no other sensible interpretation, and any confusion about Potions is no better or worse either way.)

I agree, but we already had 2 Hinterlands cards that used the "costing less than" wording, and I'm a stickler for consistency.

[Young Nick]

Oh the Dark Ages rulebook does have a misprint. Two coin symbols are missing in some examples. It was caught too late to fix. It had been correct and I didn't catch it when it changed.

There are at least two other typos in the rule book. I imagine someone on your end has already found all of them, but in case not:
The table of contents says there should only be 10 Feodums, instead of 12.
In the FAQ about knights, it says that all but one cost $5 and the other costs $1 instead of "$1 less."

I didn't read the whole thing, but noticed those two upon first glance. Hope I can be of help to you.

[rspeer]

One of the definitions of "cheap" is "of inferior quality" (at least, according to m-w.com), so I think when you trash Catacombs you can gain any card that is recognizable as being of lower quality, even if it costs the same or more.

Ok, not really.  But it seems ultra-imprecise to use cheap there.

I gain a Possession, because according to a large number of butthurt players on Isotropic, playing Possession is totally cheap.

[Donald X.]

There are at least two other typos in the rule book. I imagine someone on your end has already found all of them, but in case not:
The table of contents says there should only be 10 Feodums, instead of 12.
In the FAQ about knights, it says that all but one cost $5 and the other costs $1 instead of "$1 less."

I didn't read the whole thing, but noticed those two upon first glance. Hope I can be of help to you.

Well that should have been $4, not "$1 less." I can report it to Jay for future printings.

"Cheaper" on Catacombs is probably just because I was also saying "cheaper" on another card that didn't make the cut. That card had "cheaper" because it had two clauses in one spot and shortening the one to "cheaper" seemed like an improvement. Wei-Hwa said, do we need to define cheaper, and I said, I think people will know what it means. Then the other card died but I never thought of rephrasing Catacombs.

In general I don't stick with old templates if I think I have better new ones. Like, originally the word "card" appeared more often. I can just say Silver, I don't need to say Silver card, that's what I think. But if I'm not intentionally changing something I do try to be consistent.

[Qvist]

Donald, can you say something about Wandering Minstrel's phrase "Put the Actions back"? Yeah it's clear what it means, but still IMO Actions are still something different than Action cards and it should definitely read "Put the Action Cards back".

[Donald X.]

Donald, can you say something about Wandering Minstrel's phrase "Put the Actions back"? Yeah it's clear what it means, but still IMO Actions are still something different than Action cards and it should definitely read "Put the Action Cards back".

I normally say "action card" because the word "action" is overloaded in Dominion, yes. There's just nothing interesting to say here though. All such wording things are either intentional for boring reasons or unintentional for boring reasons.

[hamcannon]

Knight is probably intentional.

You can name any order card if you want to hit ANY victory i.e. not ban anything - Just name Copper. You probably want to namebad Estate so that you trash duchy->Prov or Prov->Colony.

Estate->Duchy = 2 VP. Duchy->Province = 3 VP. Province->Province = 0 VP, but ends game sooner.

Banning Estate will give you less VP but end the game sooner, while banning Province gives you more VP but removes less provinces from the supply. You may want to name Province if you're trying to win the Duchy split with another rebuild player - since neither of you are trying to get $8, whoever wins the duchy split is likely to win the overall VP split.

[rspeer]

Can we change the thread title sometime? This title stopped being relevant about two posts in.

[eHalcyon]

Banning Estate will give you less VP but end the game sooner

Not sure how you figure that.  It depends on what is in your deck.  Banning Estates will hit Duchies and Provinces, so whether it gives more or less VP depends on how many Duchies you have vs. Provinces.