Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All

Author Topic: A few stumpers, really looking for an expert to help me out here :)  (Read 25990 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3413
    • View Profile
Re: A few stumpers, really looking for an expert to help me out here :)
« Reply #50 on: April 28, 2016, 09:48:22 am »
0

Okay, I think I've finally caught up.

The problem here as I understand it is that the opponents' reactions are optional, that was indeed mentioned before.

So once you play your Urchin, there is no indication that two things are trying to resolve at the same time and you don't get to explicitly choose.
All you know is that you just played your Urchin and you could exchange it for a Mercenary.

If Urchin were explicitly typed as "Reaction", I guess it would have the same timing as the other Reactions? In that case it would be clear the active player goes first and his Reaction is part of the same Reaction window as the others.

Right now it's just a card trying to do something and that doing something reveals extra information that the Reacting players might want.

So I guess the only way to resolve this is a specific ruling?
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

Deadlock39

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1722
  • Respect: +1758
    • View Profile
Re: A few stumpers, really looking for an expert to help me out here :)
« Reply #51 on: April 28, 2016, 10:57:31 am »
+1

The ruling that Donald is giving here seems pretty clear to me. When I play an attack card, there are multiple things that can happen.  I can trash an Urchin I have in play, and my opponents can reveal Reactions that say "When another player plays an Attack card". There seems to be some discussion about the timing of these things, and how the "resolve in player order" rule works, but I don't see how those can be misunderstood.  I can choose to trash my Urchin, then the player to my left can choose to reveal a Reaction, and then continue in player order.

The new ruling that Donald is suggesting is that this process does not stop until all players pass. This allows the normal way that non-pedantic people play to be legal. (Everyone just does their things in whatever order they happen to do them, and Alice isn't prevented from revealing Moat because Bob already did.) The rules lawyers are also free to halt play and check with each player in turn order every time someone plays an Attack card in a game with Moats in play. It also allows for some theoretical situation where Alice wants to react only if Bob reacts first, which is the biggest change from the way things had previously been ruled. 

It seems like a perfectly good ruling change to prevent the rules lawyer garbage that Donald has mentioned, and the only significant change is something that seems incredibly unlikely to happen.

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: A few stumpers, really looking for an expert to help me out here :)
« Reply #52 on: April 28, 2016, 11:10:44 am »
0

It seems like a perfectly good ruling change to prevent the rules lawyer garbage that Donald has mentioned, and the only significant change is something that seems incredibly unlikely to happen.

Sure (if you're talking about the scenario in the BGG thread), but I think it was just as (or maybe even more) unlikely to happen that someone pulled "no Moat for you".

Also, Donald hasn't yet committed to this new suggested ruling, so that's the unclear bit. In addition to how Urchin would work with that ruling.

EDIT: It might be a perfectly good ruling change, but almost everybody (who knows/cares about timing of reactions) already thinks it works the other way.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2016, 11:12:45 am by Jeebus »
Logged

Deadlock39

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1722
  • Respect: +1758
    • View Profile
Re: A few stumpers, really looking for an expert to help me out here :)
« Reply #53 on: April 28, 2016, 11:40:53 am »
0

To me, "When another player plays an Attack card" and "When you play another Attack card" are very clearly the same time, so it would obviously be handled in the same way as the reactions are.  I haven't seen anything Donald said that would make me believe he thinks differently, but of course I am not him, so I can't be certain.

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8172
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Let me tell you a secret...
  • Respect: +9634
    • View Profile
Re: A few stumpers, really looking for an expert to help me out here :)
« Reply #54 on: April 28, 2016, 12:31:19 pm »
+1

Either it's turn order, in which case your Urchin is first, then all the next player's reactions, then all the next player's reactions, etc. Nobody gets a second chance after it passes to the next player.

I would like to butt into this conversation that I have heretofore ignored to make it known that I support this particular interpretation. 

EDIT: Hmm.  I can also see the case being made that since you can reveal Moat as many times as you want, it can pass around again once the last player has chosen to reveal Moat or not, but I don't like it.  Things still get resolved in turn order; it doesn't matter how many times you choose to reveal Moat, you still have to do so when it's your "turn".  Once we're at the next person in turn order, your stuff is over and taken care of.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2016, 12:33:47 pm by werothegreat »
Logged
Contrary to popular belief, I do not run the wiki all on my own.  There are plenty of other people who are actively editing.  Go bother them!

Check out this fantasy epic adventure novel I wrote, the Broken Globe!  http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Globe-Tyr-Chronicles-Book-ebook/dp/B00LR1SZAS/

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: A few stumpers, really looking for an expert to help me out here :)
« Reply #55 on: April 28, 2016, 12:57:19 pm »
0

To me, "When another player plays an Attack card" and "When you play another Attack card" are very clearly the same time, so it would obviously be handled in the same way as the reactions are.  I haven't seen anything Donald said that would make me believe he thinks differently, but of course I am not him, so I can't be certain.
When the question was asked in the beginning of this thread, Donald said that Urchin has to be trashed first.

Deadlock39

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1722
  • Respect: +1758
    • View Profile
Re: A few stumpers, really looking for an expert to help me out here :)
« Reply #56 on: April 28, 2016, 03:14:32 pm »
0

To me, "When another player plays an Attack card" and "When you play another Attack card" are very clearly the same time, so it would obviously be handled in the same way as the reactions are.  I haven't seen anything Donald said that would make me believe he thinks differently, but of course I am not him, so I can't be certain.
When the question was asked in the beginning of this thread, Donald said that Urchin has to be trashed first.

The last thing Donald said was "I will think it over"

I am saying that I think Urchin and Moat have the same timing.  If the rule is changed to allow another chance to do optional things after another player has done optional things, I think that Urchin should be treated the same way as the Reactions.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7497
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10740
    • View Profile
Re: A few stumpers, really looking for an expert to help me out here :)
« Reply #57 on: April 28, 2016, 04:16:37 pm »
+1

Am I missing something? How is this not a complete non-issue? Either you're playing online, or you're not.

If you're playing online, Urchin's ability happens before other players' Moats, because effects that happen in the same time frame go in player order. The server knows which players have Moats, etc., and can enforce this order. There is no chance for you to lose the ability to reveal your Moat, since the game prompts you.

If you're not playing online, this stuff can all happen simultaneously. The exact order just doesn't matter.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: A few stumpers, really looking for an expert to help me out here :)
« Reply #58 on: April 28, 2016, 05:49:37 pm »
+1

Am I missing something? How is this not a complete non-issue? Either you're playing online, or you're not.

If you're playing online, Urchin's ability happens before other players' Moats, because effects that happen in the same time frame go in player order. The server knows which players have Moats, etc., and can enforce this order. There is no chance for you to lose the ability to reveal your Moat, since the game prompts you.

If you're not playing online, this stuff can all happen simultaneously. The exact order just doesn't matter.

It's interesting that you would post this, because you're the guy who posted the question in the first place regarding reactions and player order, with the Secret Chamber/Pirate Ship example. There Donald said it was strictly player-order, now he's saying differently (or considering it), which changes the very thing you were asking - the very example where, to you, the order mattered. So I guess what you're missing is your own question? ;)

If this is changed, it would change how online implementations should work, provided that we want them to be entirely correct. Probably we don't, because it would stall the game. Probably we don't want online implementations to enforce the "old" rule (strict player order) nor the "new" rule, we just want to let all players at once click their reactions or click "done", until everybody clicked "done". I haven't played multi player online for ages, but I guess that's how it's implemented. (Cases where it matters should be an exception, like Beggar and Fool's Gold. I guess strict player order is enforced then.)

I also guess that online you have to trash Urchin first (unlike how Reactions probably are handled online). I don't know if that should be changed (if Donald rules this way), but it matters very little.

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: A few stumpers, really looking for an expert to help me out here :)
« Reply #59 on: April 28, 2016, 05:50:06 pm »
0

The last thing Donald said was "I will think it over"
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. The fact is that Donald first said that Urchin is handled differently than Reaction cards. Then he said he would think it over. You're saying that Urchin should be handled the same (which is fine), and that Donald hasn't said anything that would make you think that he thinks differently than you. That's clearly not the case.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7497
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10740
    • View Profile
Re: A few stumpers, really looking for an expert to help me out here :)
« Reply #60 on: April 28, 2016, 05:59:58 pm »
+2

It's interesting that you would post this, because you're the guy who posted the question in the first place regarding reactions and player order, with the Secret Chamber/Pirate Ship example. There Donald said it was strictly player-order, now he's saying differently (or considering it), which changes the very thing you were asking - the very example where, to you, the order mattered. So I guess what you're missing is your own question? ;)

Bwa ha! I guess my attitudes have changed!

Man, six years. Where has the time gone? Other than into Dominion, I mean.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6487
  • Respect: +26124
    • View Profile
Re: A few stumpers, really looking for an expert to help me out here :)
« Reply #61 on: April 28, 2016, 07:18:29 pm »
0

Of course I agree that strict turn-order reacting could potentially lead to the above scenario. But as Jeff Wolfe posted in the BGG thread, "Otherwise, you could potentially have an endless loop: I react, you react, I react to your reaction, you react to mine, etc."
It's already an endless loop with a single player with e.g. Secret Chamber, as you then point out.

But this is a reasonable worry. If Secret Chamber had a visible component, it would actually create a problem. Let's say it was uh "When another player plays an Attack, you may reveal this from your hand, to swap the top card of your discard pile with the top of your deck." As if. Well now I know your card and want to change mine and so on.

The root problem is the ability to use Secret Chamber multiple times. If I had it to do again, all Reactions would be like Horse Traders (with the messy wording covered in the rulebook instead of on the cards). And they were once. But anyway they aren't. So Reactions can't be cumulative, and now this would mean that they couldn't reveal information beyond the presence of the Reaction (which doesn't change and so doesn't cause a loop). It doesn't seem hard to avoid but also I don't want to realize one day that I can't make a particular card because of this.

I don't like the idea of "the official rules" not matching "what everyone does IRL" and "what an online version should do." I mean really, I want to reveal my Moat when I finish shuffling like I do now, and I want the online version to prompt everyone immediately, man let's not waste time.

Aha there is another issue. New mandatory things can be created after a player's shot at doing them has passed. I wonder if there's any way to actually do that. New optional things happen of course. A mandatory thing, well it would be a "while this is in play" paired with playing a card at a weird time, or "this turn" with a weird trigger. Let's say, "When you gain this, this turn, when any player buys a card, they get +1 VP." That doesn't look too real. But uh, I buy Messenger and hand those out; you gained it, it causes a trigger on my Messenger buy; we already finished resolving those, so which way the rules go determines whether or not I get the +1 VP.

So uh. Some stuff to think about.

So I'm saying that it's not really the task of the rules to try to prevent that kind of behavior. That means you could still go either way on it, but since it seems that most people who ever looked it up online, and probably most people who just read the rules, assumes that it's strict turn-order reacting, my feeling is that it would be better to keep it that way.
I think for sure the rules should rule out no-fun situations where possible. But obv. it's 2016 and this has never been an issue.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: A few stumpers, really looking for an expert to help me out here :)
« Reply #62 on: April 28, 2016, 11:36:19 pm »
0

Aha there is another issue. New mandatory things can be created after a player's shot at doing them has passed. I wonder if there's any way to actually do that. New optional things happen of course. A mandatory thing, well it would be a "while this is in play" paired with playing a card at a weird time, or "this turn" with a weird trigger. Let's say, "When you gain this, this turn, when any player buys a card, they get +1 VP." That doesn't look too real. But uh, I buy Messenger and hand those out; you gained it, it causes a trigger on my Messenger buy; we already finished resolving those, so which way the rules go determines whether or not I get the +1 VP.

I'm not getting it, because I don't see the connection between this and the ruling we're discussing. In this scenario there is no optional effect and no reacting.

As far as I understand it, we're still doing "when-buy" for your Messenger. After we're done with everything that follows from handing out the cards (to all your opponents), there is now another "when-buy" ability waiting, or several of them if several players gained that card. Why wouldn't you just get the +1 VP? You're the one who triggered the "+1 VP" effect by buying a card, so it's ordered (and resolved) by you on your turn.

scott_pilgrim

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1102
  • Respect: +2146
    • View Profile
Re: A few stumpers, really looking for an expert to help me out here :)
« Reply #63 on: April 29, 2016, 12:07:20 am »
+1

What if the online implementation let everyone choose what to do simultaneously, but still reveal and resolved decisions in turn order, even while later players are still deciding.  So Al plays Militia, Bob and Diana have Moats in their hand while Cathy doesn't.  Bob and Diana both get to decide whether they want to reveal Moat.  If Diana knows she does she can just click it (and, depending on the ruling, the game might not tell Bob until he makes his decision), but if she wants to wait to find out what Bob does, she can just sit there until Bob makes a decision and the game shows her.  As soon as Bob makes a decision it gets processed, then Cathy automatically chooses not to reveal Moat, then if Diana has already made her decision it gets processed, otherwise she can now think about what happened with Bob and Cathy.

Maybe this is already what it does, I haven't played online in a long time and when I did I hardly ever played multiplayer.  But I think it makes the old ruling easy to implement online, and I don't think the old ruling is worth retracting because in cases where it really matters IRL, I think people already do go in turn order.  If Cathy reveals her Moat and tells Bob it's too late to reveal his because you do reactions in turn order, well that's ridiculous, because Bob never got a chance to say he wasn't revealing his Moat.  She was the one who went out of order, not Bob, so I don't think the rules-lawyering should be an issue.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6487
  • Respect: +26124
    • View Profile
Re: A few stumpers, really looking for an expert to help me out here :)
« Reply #64 on: April 29, 2016, 01:45:03 am »
0

Aha there is another issue. New mandatory things can be created after a player's shot at doing them has passed. I wonder if there's any way to actually do that. New optional things happen of course. A mandatory thing, well it would be a "while this is in play" paired with playing a card at a weird time, or "this turn" with a weird trigger. Let's say, "When you gain this, this turn, when any player buys a card, they get +1 VP." That doesn't look too real. But uh, I buy Messenger and hand those out; you gained it, it causes a trigger on my Messenger buy; we already finished resolving those, so which way the rules go determines whether or not I get the +1 VP.

I'm not getting it, because I don't see the connection between this and the ruling we're discussing. In this scenario there is no optional effect and no reacting.

As far as I understand it, we're still doing "when-buy" for your Messenger. After we're done with everything that follows from handing out the cards (to all your opponents), there is now another "when-buy" ability waiting, or several of them if several players gained that card. Why wouldn't you just get the +1 VP? You're the one who triggered the "+1 VP" effect by buying a card, so it's ordered (and resolved) by you on your turn.
If the rule is "when a trigger happens on my turn, we do all of my stuff, then B's, then C's," and B's thing creates a new effect for the same trigger, then we already did my stuff, so it doesn't happen.

To do the new thing, it would need to be that the rule was "we do all of my stuff, then B's, then C's, but if new stuff shows up for me, here is how to handle it."
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: A few stumpers, really looking for an expert to help me out here :)
« Reply #65 on: April 29, 2016, 12:36:48 pm »
0

Aha there is another issue. New mandatory things can be created after a player's shot at doing them has passed. I wonder if there's any way to actually do that. New optional things happen of course. A mandatory thing, well it would be a "while this is in play" paired with playing a card at a weird time, or "this turn" with a weird trigger. Let's say, "When you gain this, this turn, when any player buys a card, they get +1 VP." That doesn't look too real. But uh, I buy Messenger and hand those out; you gained it, it causes a trigger on my Messenger buy; we already finished resolving those, so which way the rules go determines whether or not I get the +1 VP.

I'm not getting it, because I don't see the connection between this and the ruling we're discussing. In this scenario there is no optional effect and no reacting.

As far as I understand it, we're still doing "when-buy" for your Messenger. After we're done with everything that follows from handing out the cards (to all your opponents), there is now another "when-buy" ability waiting, or several of them if several players gained that card. Why wouldn't you just get the +1 VP? You're the one who triggered the "+1 VP" effect by buying a card, so it's ordered (and resolved) by you on your turn.
If the rule is "when a trigger happens on my turn, we do all of my stuff, then B's, then C's," and B's thing creates a new effect for the same trigger, then we already did my stuff, so it doesn't happen.

To do the new thing, it would need to be that the rule was "we do all of my stuff, then B's, then C's, but if new stuff shows up for me, here is how to handle it."

Ok, I see the issue you're talking about. But I don't think your example illustrates it.

The trigger in this example is that you buy Messenger, and then we do all your stuff from the trigger, then B's, then C's. But B and C don't have anything that triggers from that. First there is just Messenger's own when-buy. When we resolve that, all of this happens: You gain a hypothetical card ("Poet"), then B gains a Poet - which triggers Poet's when-gain, then C does the same. Poet's when-gain is that from now on, this turn, whenever someone buys a card, they get +1 VP. Ok, so now we're done with Messenger's when-buy ability. We haven't done any other when-buy abilities yet (and importantly, not for any other player), so we're still resolving when-buy abilities for you. Now there are two other when-buy abilities, both saying that you get +1 VP. (Actually, since you gained a Poet too, there are three, so you're getting +3 VP.)

Trying to think of a scenario that works, but I don't think this can happen with purely mandatory abilities. (See bottom of post for the card abilities.)
(1) Let's say Bob has Lancier in play. Alice plays an Attack, and then discards Food Taster. The thing is that since Lancier's card-being-played ability is not optional for Bob, it works like Swamp Hag. Bob doesn't resolve it, it's resolved by Alice. She gets to order it and resolve it before we get to any of Bob's card-being-played abilities (like Moat). That's how I understand it anyway, from your explanations earlier in this thread. So again there's no question that Alice will get the +1 VP, no matter what the ruling is on ordering things.

(2) Let's go with a scenario with optional abilities too then. Bob has Poleturner in hand. Alice plays an Attack, Bob reveals Poleturner, and Alice discards Food Taster as before. Now - according to the old ruling - by the time Bob chooses to reveal Poleturner, we're done with Alice's card-being-played abilities, so she doesn't get +1 VP. What about the new ruling? By the time we get to optional things for Bob, and he resolves something, Alice could jump in and resolve an optional thing, but does she resolve a mandatory thing like Food Taster? I would say yes she does, she gets the +1 VP, because we're still resolving mandatory things for Alice. With the new ruling anybody can jump in with optional things, but mandatory things go in turn order.

(3) What about a scenario including a mandatory thing for Bob too? ...Actually I was not able to come up with a mandatory card for Bob, and I don't think it's possible. (If it were possible, the outcome would depend on whether Bob revealed Poleturner before or after the mandatory thing.) I thought of Abbot, and Bob having it in play, but actually, since it's mandatory, Alice would be the one resolving it (again, like Swamp Hag). So this has the weirdety of having Alice choose when in the turn Bob gets +1 Coin token, but doesn't create a different scenario for ordering things.

Conclusion: So it seems that with the new ruling, Alice will always get the +1 VP; with the old ruling she doesn't get it if it's from Bob's mandatory thing, just from an optional thing.

Quote
Lancier: While this is in play, when another player plays an Attack, he discards one card.
Quote
Food Taster: When you discard this, this turn, when you play an Attack, +1 VP.
Quote
Poleturner: When another player plays an Attack, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, that player discards down to 3 cards in hand.
Quote
Abbot: While this is in play, when another player plays an Attack, +1 Coin token.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2016, 11:49:08 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6487
  • Respect: +26124
    • View Profile
Re: A few stumpers, really looking for an expert to help me out here :)
« Reply #66 on: April 29, 2016, 09:13:09 pm »
0

Ok, I understand the intention. But I don't think I can find the logic that would apply for both these examples and any others that might show up.
Yes I didn't think it through and I'm not sure there's ever a problem. If we only go around once, and you create a mandatory trigger for me, well it's too late, it shouldn't trigger and doesn't.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: A few stumpers, really looking for an expert to help me out here :)
« Reply #67 on: May 01, 2016, 11:26:36 am »
0

Ok, so it sounds like you're sticking to the old rule for reaction timing, at least leaning that way for now. That also means there is no question about Urchin, it's always trashed before any Reactions.

Donald, I don't know if this was your intention, that this is peculiar to Reactions? You did write: "When something happens that other players can react to, e.g. playing an Attack, they have to speak up about their interest in doing their thing, and they technically go in turn order."
I'm just not being more specific than I have to be. I don't want to say something and have you say "oh but what about this card, it's not a Reaction but falls into this category." Man that card is covered.
I think now that this is only Reactions. Mandatory abilities that are triggered by a player (even if it's another player's Swamp Hag etc), are always resolved by that player. That means there is no way for other players to resolve mandatory abilities that trigger at the same time (from the same trigger). Only optional abilities are resolved by other players from someone's trigger. That only includes Reaction cards. Conclusion: When a player does something, Reaction abilities are the only ones that are resolved by other players. All other triggered abilities are resolved by the player.

Urchin is optional too, but Urchin is always resolved by the player who triggered it. We could theorize about another version: "When you have this in play and another player plays an Attack card, you may trash this...etc" But that card should really be a Reaction, which would mean that the conclusion still holds.

So here's a tentitive summary:

1) When a player does something that triggers several abilities, Reaction abilities are the only ones that are resolved by other players. All other triggered abilities are resolved by the player.

2) Which player gets to resolve a Reaction, is according to which player makes the decision on the Reaction ability (to reveal, discard etc).

3) The old rule is currently still in effect, which means that each player in turn (starting with the current player) resolves all his/her abilities before the next player does (ordered by the player if s/he has several to resolve). You don't get another chance after the next player (but reasonably you only lose a chance to react if there is a point in reacting by player order and you vocally say you won't and then the next player does).
« Last Edit: May 01, 2016, 11:27:48 am by Jeebus »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6487
  • Respect: +26124
    • View Profile
Re: A few stumpers, really looking for an expert to help me out here :)
« Reply #68 on: May 01, 2016, 09:02:56 pm »
+1

Ok, so it sounds like you're sticking to the old rule for reaction timing, at least leaning that way for now. That also means there is no question about Urchin, it's always trashed before any Reactions.
I continue to be busy and have not really thought about it. For sure you can consider that I haven't changed anything until I say I have.

I think now that this is only Reactions. Mandatory abilities that are triggered by a player (even if it's another player's Swamp Hag etc), are always resolved by that player. That means there is no way for other players to resolve mandatory abilities that trigger at the same time (from the same trigger). Only optional abilities are resolved by other players from someone's trigger. That only includes Reaction cards. Conclusion: When a player does something, Reaction abilities are the only ones that are resolved by other players. All other triggered abilities are resolved by the player.
I don't follow you. If I play Witch, each other player gains a Curse, in some order that has to be specified. There is a rule to cover that. Saying that "I played the Witch, I am resolving Witch" is not addressing "what order do the Curses go out."

"Reaction" is just "this is blue so you notice it in certain situations where that seemed important." So no, reactive things aren't limited to Reactions. Consider a version of Lighthouse that was optional. It wouldn't be blue, just as Lighthouse isn't.

I could have made when-gain etc. Reactions; I didn't think of it in time for Mint and then Mint was already out. But the idea there is that the card is involved so you won't miss it (yes people sometimes do). In the case of Lighthouse, you played the Lighthouse. Moat meanwhile has not done anything yet and is not a card being referred to by anything and yet can function from your hand. So, attention is drawn to it with blueness.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: A few stumpers, really looking for an expert to help me out here :)
« Reply #69 on: May 02, 2016, 12:09:59 am »
0

I think now that this is only Reactions. Mandatory abilities that are triggered by a player (even if it's another player's Swamp Hag etc), are always resolved by that player. That means there is no way for other players to resolve mandatory abilities that trigger at the same time (from the same trigger). Only optional abilities are resolved by other players from someone's trigger. That only includes Reaction cards. Conclusion: When a player does something, Reaction abilities are the only ones that are resolved by other players. All other triggered abilities are resolved by the player.
I don't follow you. If I play Witch, each other player gains a Curse, in some order that has to be specified. There is a rule to cover that. Saying that "I played the Witch, I am resolving Witch" is not addressing "what order do the Curses go out."
Yes, but now you're talking about the effects of the Witch's ability after it's played. I haven't touched on that in this thread. When an effect of a card affects several players, there's of course a rule that we go in player order. But what I've been talking about is triggered abilities (for lack of a better term). When you play Witch, several things can trigger on when-play: Certain Reactions, and Urchin. So I'm talking about ordering several abilities that trigger at the same time, not one ability that affects several players. (The latter is easy. :) )

"Reaction" is just "this is blue so you notice it in certain situations where that seemed important." So no, reactive things aren't limited to Reactions. Consider a version of Lighthouse that was optional. It wouldn't be blue, just as Lighthouse isn't.

I could have made when-gain etc. Reactions; I didn't think of it in time for Mint and then Mint was already out. But the idea there is that the card is involved so you won't miss it (yes people sometimes do). In the case of Lighthouse, you played the Lighthouse. Moat meanwhile has not done anything yet and is not a card being referred to by anything and yet can function from your hand. So, attention is drawn to it with blueness.
Ok. Currently, at least, only Reactions are optional abilities that you resolve from another player doing something. I was thinking that any new card like that would also be a Reaction, to make it clear that you may use it when another player does something. Like the Alternate Urchin example I gave: "When you have this in play and another player plays an Attack card, you may trash this...etc." And Alternate Lighthouse: "While this is in play, when another player plays an Attack card, you may choose to be unaffected by that Attack" - I would have thought both those would be Reactions too, to remind you that you have an optional thing. After all, you can have several cards in play on another player's turn, without them doing anything on that turn. But I guess you're saying no.

I must admit, to me it's an easier rule to say that Reactions are what separates the triggered abilities that are resolved by other players, instead of talking about what is and isn't optional... I mean, you can point to the text ("Reaction") and the color.

Jack Rudd

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1329
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jack Rudd
  • Respect: +1391
    • View Profile
Re: A few stumpers, really looking for an expert to help me out here :)
« Reply #70 on: May 02, 2016, 04:46:27 am »
0

Ok. Currently, at least, only Reactions are optional abilities that you resolve from another player doing something.
Bishop and Governor say hi.
Logged
Centuries later, archaeologists discover the remains of your ancient civilization.

Evidence of thriving towns, Pottery, roads, and a centralized government amaze the startled scientists.

Finally, they come upon a stone tablet, which contains but one mysterious phrase!

'ISOTROPIC WILL RETURN!'

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: A few stumpers, really looking for an expert to help me out here :)
« Reply #71 on: May 02, 2016, 09:47:20 am »
0

Ok. Currently, at least, only Reactions are optional abilities that you resolve from another player doing something.
Bishop and Governor say hi.
Deciding whether to do something based on another player's play of Bishop or Governor, is not an "optional ability". It's actually just a part of the on-play ability of those cards. As I mentioned in my previous post, this thread has not been about that. It's been about several triggered abilities (i.e. from different cards) happening at the same time.

Governor has an ability (its on-play ability) that happens after you play it. That entails several effects that you do in turn order, some of them affecting other players. There is no question about the timing of these effects. You do them for top to bottom, and any that affect other players go in player order starting with the active player.

Moat has an ability (its "Reaction ability") that triggers when someone else plays an Attack card. Several other abilities can also trigger at the same time. This is about the timing of several abilities that happen at the same time.

Currently, Reactions are the only optional abilities that you resolve when they are triggered by another player.

(This is also why it's easier to just say "Reactions" than "optional triggered abilities", because people will think it's about things like Governor being played.)
« Last Edit: May 02, 2016, 10:03:58 am by Jeebus »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All
 

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 20 queries.