Print

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

[Donald X.]

If there was a Noble Torturer -- "when you buy this, each other player discards 2 cards or gains a Curse" -- and Alice buys an Embargo'd Noble Torturer, what's the order? Does she have to gain the Curse first, and then the other players make the decision in turn order?

Alice picks whether to resolve Embargo or Noble Torturer's rule first. When she resolves Noble Torturer's rule, the other players make their decisions in turn order.

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. In practice everyone just flashes their Moat; in rare cases you may need to slow down. No-one wants to stop the game so we can see in turn if each player has Moat. Even in a computer version, you don't want to go in turn order; it's slower for no benefit. But that's the rule, the decisions are made in turn order.

[ConMan]

If we only care about the trigger, that works for Noble Brigand/Embargo, but as you note, for Moat and Urchin the trigger is just "when I play an Attack, black box". To even know if Alice can choose the order of Moat and Urchin -- to find out if there are decisions that go in turn order -- we have to look in the black box. To me this means that we don't only care about the trigger. (The same is true if Bob has a Moat and a Secret Chamber: He should decide the order to resolve them, not Alice.)

Well, no. Moat and Urchin both trigger on someone playing an attack. But even without looking at what they do on the trigger, you can tell that Alice's Urchin goes first. Why? Because it's Alice's turn, and she gets first dibs on all "when an attack is played" triggers. So Alice plays her attack, says "I've got a thing that triggers on that play. It's Urchin. I [trash the Urchin/don't trash the Urchin]. I have no more triggers." Then Bob goes "I might have a thing that triggers on that play. It's Moat. I [reveal the Moat/don't reveal the Moat]." Or Bob goes "I might have things that trigger on that play. I choose to resolve Secret Chamber. Then I choose to resolve Moat. Then I choose to resolve Secret Chamber."

[Jeebus]

Well, no. Moat and Urchin both trigger on someone playing an attack. But even without looking at what they do on the trigger, you can tell that Alice's Urchin goes first. Why? Because it's Alice's turn, and she gets first dibs on all "when an attack is played" triggers. So Alice plays her attack, says "I've got a thing that triggers on that play. It's Urchin. I [trash the Urchin/don't trash the Urchin]. I have no more triggers." Then Bob goes "I might have a thing that triggers on that play. It's Moat. I [reveal the Moat/don't reveal the Moat]." Or Bob goes "I might have things that trigger on that play. I choose to resolve Secret Chamber. Then I choose to resolve Moat. Then I choose to resolve Secret Chamber."

Both Moat and Urchin has a "when an Attack is played" trigger, and Alice triggered both, on her turn. With just looking at the triggers, Alice should get to choose which goes first.

[Jeebus]

As I said, I understand the intention.

(1) Alice plays an Attack, which triggers all when-play-Attack abilities. Alice's Urchin, Bob's Moat, Bob's Secret Chamber, and Cathy's Moat all trigger at the same time. It makes intuitive sense (given the turn-order rule) that the triggered abilities are resolved in turn order.

(2) When Alice buys Embargo'd Noble Brigand, both abilities trigger at the same time. Here it's not so clear (which is why this thread was created in the first place). But the idea is, well Alice triggered both, so it's "her" abilities to order.

The problem is that Alice actually triggered all abilities in (1) too.

Maybe we have to look at the concept of ownership after all. The reason it's intuitive that we go in turn order in (1), is that we think of "Alice's Urchin", "Bob's Moat" etc. So in (2), the Noble Brigand is still in supply, it's just been bought, but going by the rule of Estate ownership for Inheritance, a card is actually "yours" from the moment you buy it, before you gain it. So then it makes sense that it's "Alice's Noble Brigand". But what about Embargo? Embargo isn't even a card really, it's a global rule that says that when "a player" buys a card, he gains a Curse. We could say, since it's a global rule, that it says to each player: "When you buy a card, gain a Curse." But Embargo is still not a card owned by Alice. Also, what if Bob had played a Swamp Hag and Alice buys a Noble Brigand? I assume she would still get to choose whether to gain the Curse first, but in this case the Swamp Hag is actually Bob's card. So card ownership clearly doesn't matter.

Maybe we can look even closer at the triggers. The difference between Noble Brigand's trigger ("when you buy this") and Moat's trigger ("when another player plays an Attack") is who is being referred to. Noble Brigand only talks about "you", and so Alice is both the player who triggers and the player who will be affected. Moat talks about "another player", meaning "a player other than you". This implies that the "other player" (Alice) triggers, but "you" (Bob) will be affected. But what about Swamp Hag and Haunted Woods? If Bob has played one previously, and Alice buys a card, Swamp Hag says to Bob: "when any other player buys a card". This would then imply that Bob is the one being affected, which is wrong (I assume). So this doesn't work either.

The only thing I can find that seems to work, is to define Reaction cards specifically: When Reaction cards trigger, they are resolved in turn order. But how do we define who resolves each card? It has to be either according to who each card belongs to, or according to who each each card addresses (in the trigger). (Since neither Embargo, Swamp Hag or Haunted Woods are Reaction cards, they are always resolved by the player who triggered them.) I think this would cover all interactions, but I'm not sure.

TL;DR: The reason Reactions go in turn order, is just because they are Reactions. That type sets them apart. (Otherwise Swamp Hag would behave wrongly.)

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."

[Donald X.]

(1) Alice plays an Attack, which triggers all when-play-Attack abilities. Alice's Urchin, Bob's Moat, Bob's Secret Chamber, and Cathy's Moat all trigger at the same time. It makes intuitive sense (given the turn-order rule) that the triggered abilities are resolved in turn order.

(2) When Alice buys Embargo'd Noble Brigand, both abilities trigger at the same time. Here it's not so clear (which is why this thread was created in the first place). But the idea is, well Alice triggered both, so it's "her" abilities to order.

The problem is that Alice actually triggered all abilities in (1) too.

"Triggered" isn't defined. My mental picture of Moat is that in some sense it "triggers" when another player attacks, but obv. in another sense it does not, in particular other players irl don't even know you have Moat if you don't reveal it, which is a far cry from a trigger happening. And if we don't know you have Moat then how can there be a "trigger" for you not having Moat? If you see what I mean.

In the second case, two abilities uh have to happen, it's at the same time, they need a rule ordering them, there is one.

In the first case, only one ability has to happen - Alice resolving whether or not she's trashing Urchin. The others are all optional. When there's a situation where players can react to something - which should be clear from the cards, e.g. Moat is in this game - and it matters, which it essentially never does, the players do their optional reactive things in turn order.

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.

[Jeebus]

"Triggered" isn't defined. My mental picture of Moat is that in some sense it "triggers" when another player attacks, but obv. in another sense it does not, in particular other players irl don't even know you have Moat if you don't reveal it, which is a far cry from a trigger happening. And if we don't know you have Moat then how can there be a "trigger" for you not having Moat? If you see what I mean.

I guess you mean "how can there be a trigger for you having Moat" (without the "not".)
Right, if Alice actually was the one choosing the order here, it wouldn't work, because the other players would have to tell her which reactions they have that triggered, before they even decide if they want to resolve them, so that she could say which one goes first etc. Nevertheless, they do trigger (that's why they can be resolved), and they all trigger at the same time (that's why we have rules for ordering them).

So obviously in practice Alice can't order opponents' reactions that they have in their hands, since they are secret. Maybe that's reason enough for saying that in these cases the resolving goes in turn order. It seems to me the only cards that work like this are: Moat, Secret Chamber, Horse Traders, Beggar, Caravan Guard and Fool's Gold. They all trigger on another player doing something. (Watchtower, Tunnel, Trader, Hovel and Market Square all trigger on something you do, so there is no turn order there - you're the only one reacting.) Swamp Hag and Haunted Woods also trigger on another player doing something, but these cards are not secret (and they are not Reaction cards).

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 don't think there are other cards than the ones I mentioned. But I see what you mean.

Just to make sure: If Bob plays Haunted Woods, then Cathy plays Swamp Hag, then Alice buys a card, Alice gets to decide whether to gain a Curse or top-deck her hand first, right?

[Donald X.]

"Triggered" isn't defined. My mental picture of Moat is that in some sense it "triggers" when another player attacks, but obv. in another sense it does not, in particular other players irl don't even know you have Moat if you don't reveal it, which is a far cry from a trigger happening. And if we don't know you have Moat then how can there be a "trigger" for you not having Moat? If you see what I mean.

I guess you mean "how can there be a trigger for you having Moat" (without the "not".)

No I meant not having Moat.

If I don't have Moat, not having Moat isn't a trigger, "now it's time to resolve me not having Moat." And we don't know if I have Moat or not until I reveal this information.

Right, if Alice actually was the one choosing the order here, it wouldn't work, because the other players would have to tell her which reactions they have that triggered, before they even decide if they want to resolve them, so that she could say which one goes first etc. Nevertheless, they do trigger (that's why they can be resolved), and they all trigger at the same time (that's why we have rules for ordering them).

"Trigger" is just not the word I would use (and again is not defined as Dominion jargon).

"When x happens" causes mandatory things that say "when x happens" to "trigger" and become necessary to order for resolution, and then necessary to resolve even if the card with the rule goes away. "When x happens" optional things don't "trigger." They just have a window of time they can be used in.

When multiple things happen, there is the one player rule and the multiple players rule. When there's a window for doing things, there is also multiple player timing - go in turn order.

Just do make sure: If Bob plays Haunted Woods, then Cathy plays Swamp Hag, then Alice buys a card, Alice gets to decide whether to gain a Curse or top-deck her hand first, right?

Yes.

[Jeebus]

"Trigger" is just not the word I would use (and again is not defined as Dominion jargon).

Well, you have used it in this sense in at least the Dark Ages and Adventures rulebooks. You also used it for Tunnel, which is an optional Reaction. Which other word would be better?

"When x happens" causes mandatory things that say "when x happens" to "trigger" and become necessary to order for resolution, and then necessary to resolve even if the card with the rule goes away. "When x happens" optional things don't "trigger." They just have a window of time they can be used in.

To me they are the same, whether optional or not. Your option to do something has to be "activated" by something. For Moat that is "when another player plays an Attack". That "thing" "activates" Moat's reaction ability, which is you getting to choose to reveal it. Before it was "activated", the choice was not there. Also, there can be several abilities "activated" by the same "thing", some optional, some not. Like gaining a Border Village with Watchtower in hand. You can order these (the resolution of them), even though one is optional (to reveal the Watchtower) and the other not. If this "thing" (which is gaining the Border Village) is a trigger for Border Village, it makes sense that it's a trigger for Watchtower too.

To put it another way: "When x happens" causes both mandatory and optional things that say "when x happens" to "trigger" and become necessary to order for resolution.

[Donald X.]

"Trigger" is just not the word I would use (and again is not defined as Dominion jargon).

Well, you have used it in this sense in at least the Dark Ages and Adventures rulebooks. You also used it for Tunnel, which is an optional Reaction. Which other word would be better?

I just mean, I do not wish for someone to think that some extra unstated meaning is tied to "trigger." It's not defined Dominion jargon, it's just a word we're trying to use to communicate.

To put it another way: "When x happens" causes both mandatory and optional things that say "when x happens" to "trigger" and become necessary to order for resolution.

No.

"When X happens" causes mandatory things to happen (including mandatory things with optional parts), and also creates a window for doing optional things. You never need to "resolve not doing" Moat. You could mentally pass on doing it and then change your mind based on something else. In fact I could decide not to Moat, being ahead of Joe in turn order, and then when Joe Moats, decide, wait I want to Moat too then. It's still inside the window for doing these things. It's just that, if Joe and I both desperately want to Moat first, then turn order decides it.

Edit: And, to be clear again, we are talking about super-technical stuff that never matters, that would not be part of an online implementation or real played game of Dominion, except in that super-exotic case you can come up with, and then hooray we know how to handle that.

[Jeebus]

"When X happens" causes mandatory things to happen (including mandatory things with optional parts), and also creates a window for doing optional things. You never need to "resolve not doing" Moat. You could mentally pass on doing it and then change your mind based on something else. In fact I could decide not to Moat, being ahead of Joe in turn order, and then when Joe Moats, decide, wait I want to Moat too then. It's still inside the window for doing these things. It's just that, if Joe and I both desperately want to Moat first, then turn order decides it.

Hmm, I'm struggling to understand this. First of all, as you say, order can matter (e.g. Beggar - and the Silvers run out). So you do need to "resolve not doing" a reaction (sometimes). It's like for Torturer: Each player decides in turn order whether to discard or gain a Curse, and sometimes the order matters. I really don't see your point here.

Second, what about the Border Village/Watchtower example? Are you saying that BV and Watchtower don't both trigger on the same thing happening? What does it mean that BV is a mandatory thing and Watchtower happens in a window? I mean, you get to order them, because they triggered on the same thing, right? I mean, they triggered at the same time.

Or do you mean that Watchtower is different from Moat or Beggar in this sense?

Edit: And, to be clear again, we are talking about super-technical stuff that never matters, that would not be part of an online implementation or real played game of Dominion, except in that super-exotic case you can come up with, and then hooray we know how to handle that.

This would certainly be part of an online implementation of Dominion if I made it, because it goes to the core of how timing works when things trigger for several players. The alternative is to special-case code certain of these cards or interactions. I would make an engine that could incorporate new cards (that don't have entirely new mechanics of course), but more importantly, that would work for interactions between existing cards that nobody thought about yet. There are so many cards now, it's impossible to cover each potentially weird interaction with special-case coding from the get-go.

[Donald X.]

Second, what about the Border Village/Watchtower example? Are you saying that BV and Watchtower don't both trigger on the same thing happening? What does it mean that BV is a mandatory thing and Watchtower happens in a window? I mean, you get to order them, because they triggered on the same thing, right? I mean, they triggered at the same time.

X happens (e.g. gaining Border Village).
1. mandatory things go on a list of things to resolve (e.g. Border Village's rule).
2. either resolve one or do an optional thing (e.g. reveal Watchtower from hand).
2.b. resolving things can add mandatory things to the list; nothing removes list items except resolving them.
3. continue at 2 until there are no mandatory things and no-one wants to do an optional thing.

If multiple players want to reveal Moat and care about the order, they go in turn order. If, after someone reveals Moat, multiple players want to reveal Moat (including ones who passed the first time), they go in turn order.

Moat can be revealed in a window of time, "when an attack card blah blah blah." It can be revealed during that window as long as the window is open. When finally no-one wants to do "when attack" stuff and no-one has to do any, that's when you finally lose the chance to Moat.

[pacovf]

Probably not relevant, but you can't revela a Moat to a bought Noble Brigand, unless I am mistaken.

[Joseph2302]

Probably not relevant, but you can't revela a Moat to a bought Noble Brigand, unless I am mistaken.

No, because they aren't playing the card, they're just using its on-buy effect.
Moat says "when another player plays an attack card".

[Jeebus]

X happens (e.g. gaining Border Village).
1. mandatory things go on a list of things to resolve (e.g. Border Village's rule).
2. either resolve one or do an optional thing (e.g. reveal Watchtower from hand).
2.b. resolving things can add mandatory things to the list; nothing removes list items except resolving them.
3. continue at 2 until there are no mandatory things and no-one wants to do an optional thing.

If multiple players want to reveal Moat and care about the order, they go in turn order. If, after someone reveals Moat, multiple players want to reveal Moat (including ones who passed the first time), they go in turn order.

Moat can be revealed in a window of time, "when an attack card blah blah blah." It can be revealed during that window as long as the window is open. When finally no-one wants to do "when attack" stuff and no-one has to do any, that's when you finally lose the chance to Moat.

Ok, I think I'm starting to finally understand what you're saying now. (I would still say that optional things "trigger" in the sense that the option is now activated, but that's beside the point of what we're talking about, I think. It's just semantics.)

But one question remains. You're talking about "optional things" instead of talking about "Reactions". So this would include an Urchin in play. According to what you're saying, Urchin doesn't go on a list of things to resolve, but can be resolved whenever in the window, right? So then you could trash Urchin after Moats are revealed? But that's not what you said before.

Like this?
Alice plays an Attack with Urchin in play. Alice gets to do optional things first. Does Alice want to trash the Urchin? No. Then Bob gets a chance to do optional things. He doesn't. Now Cathy gets a chance, but Alice can also do optional things now. Cathy discards a Beggar, and says she doesn't want to do more optional things. Now both Alice and Bob can do optional things. Bob decides to reveal a Secret Chamber, and then discard a Beggar. Now both Alice and Cathy can do optional things again. Alice decides to trash her Urchin.

[Jeebus]

I also realize that 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. I think it doesn't work correctly online...? Another interaction where this timing could matter.

[Davio]

X happens (e.g. gaining Border Village).
1. mandatory things go on a list of things to resolve (e.g. Border Village's rule).
2. either resolve one or do an optional thing (e.g. reveal Watchtower from hand).
2.b. resolving things can add mandatory things to the list; nothing removes list items except resolving them.
3. continue at 2 until there are no mandatory things and no-one wants to do an optional thing.

If multiple players want to reveal Moat and care about the order, they go in turn order. If, after someone reveals Moat, multiple players want to reveal Moat (including ones who passed the first time), they go in turn order.

Moat can be revealed in a window of time, "when an attack card blah blah blah." It can be revealed during that window as long as the window is open. When finally no-one wants to do "when attack" stuff and no-one has to do any, that's when you finally lose the chance to Moat.

Ok, I think I'm starting to finally understand what you're saying now. (I would still say that optional things "trigger" in the sense that the option is now activated, but that's beside the point of what we're talking about, I think. It's just semantics.)

But one question remains. You're talking about "optional things" instead of talking about "Reactions". So this would include an Urchin in play. According to what you're saying, Urchin doesn't go on a list of things to resolve, but can be resolved whenever in the window, right? So then you could trash Urchin after Moats are revealed? But that's not what you said before.

Like this?
Alice plays an Attack with Urchin in play. Alice gets to do optional things first. Does Alice want to trash the Urchin? No. Then Bob gets a chance to do optional things. He doesn't. Now Cathy gets a chance, but Alice can also do optional things now. Cathy discards a Beggar, and says she doesn't want to do more optional things. Now both Alice and Bob can do optional things. Bob decides to reveal a Secret Chamber, and then discard a Beggar. Now both Alice and Cathy can do optional things again. Alice decides to trash her Urchin.

I think it would have been valid for Urchin to have the Reaction subtype to remind you that it can react to something later on.

That being said, the timing of things always starts with the player whose turn it is.

So when it's time for both Moat and Urchin trashing, Urchin goes first.

[Jeebus]

I think it would have been valid for Urchin to have the Reaction subtype to remind you that it can react to something later on.

That being said, the timing of things always starts with the player whose turn it is.

So when it's time for both Moat and Urchin trashing, Urchin goes first.

Yes, Alice gets to do Urchin first if she wants. But as I wrote, if Urchin works like Moat (and other reactions), then Alice can still do Urchin later in the window, after Moat.

[Donald X.]

Like this?
Alice plays an Attack with Urchin in play. Alice gets to do optional things first. Does Alice want to trash the Urchin? No. Then Bob gets a chance to do optional things. He doesn't. Now Cathy gets a chance, but Alice can also do optional things now. Cathy discards a Beggar, and says she doesn't want to do more optional things. Now both Alice and Bob can do optional things. Bob decides to reveal a Secret Chamber, and then discard a Beggar. Now both Alice and Cathy can do optional things again. Alice decides to trash her Urchin.

Close.

I'm not sure why you say "but Alice can also do optional things now." Technically if Cathy passes then Alice *can't* use Urchin; obv. there has to be a way for everyone to pass and to know we're done considering that. Cathy doing something gives Alice another chance to do things.

And when Cathy uses Beggar, it's Alice's turn next, not Cathy's.

This is tentative because it absolutely never comes up and no-one has ever asked. But irl when I Moat, someone else may be all, oh man Moat, yes I have Moat, and they are going out of order, and I would like that to be full-on okay. There will be no "Oh technically I don't get to Moat now? This game sucks."

It looks unremarkable when it's one player. I have a bunch of reserve cards and durations; I have to order the durations and until I move on by playing an Action card you can think I just haven't said yes/no on the reserve cards yet, and when I finally play an Action that includes me saying no to the rest of them. But really there's no way to say no to them; you just don't say yes and then don't have a chance to anymore.

[Jeebus]

First and most importantly: So are you now saying that Urchin works like Moat and Beggar, and not the way you described it initially in this thread? You can trash it after your opponents' reactions? I just want to make sure.

I'm not sure why you say "but Alice can also do optional things now." Technically if Cathy passes then Alice *can't* use Urchin; obv. there has to be a way for everyone to pass and to know we're done considering that. Cathy doing something gives Alice another chance to do things.

Ok, I see. I thought that Bob passing gave Alice another chance. But you're saying that you only get a chance after something actually happens in the game, and "not resolving" something doesn't cut it.

And when Cathy uses Beggar, it's Alice's turn next, not Cathy's.

Right. Alice gets a chance (and Bob too) before Cathy gets to do another reaction.

This is tentative because it absolutely never comes up and no-one has ever asked. But irl when I Moat, someone else may be all, oh man Moat, yes I have Moat, and they are going out of order, and I would like that to be full-on okay. There will be no "Oh technically I don't get to Moat now? This game sucks."

I didn't even consider that optional things work this way before you said it now recently in this thread. I thought all players got one shot at doing any or all their reactions, in turn order. The question was more about why you get to order certain things you trigger (NB, Embargo) but not reactions that your trigger - which you now said is because the reactions are optional.

[Donald X.]

First and most importantly: So are you now saying that Urchin works like Moat and Beggar, and not the way you described it initially in this thread? You can trash it after your opponents' reactions? I just want to make sure.

I will think it over again in uh some days. I am there for the people who have to ask these questions, but they don't affect gameplay and I need to restrict how much time I devote to this stuff.

[Jeebus]

This is tentative because it absolutely never comes up and no-one has ever asked. But irl when I Moat, someone else may be all, oh man Moat, yes I have Moat, and they are going out of order, and I would like that to be full-on okay. There will be no "Oh technically I don't get to Moat now? This game sucks."

I didn't even consider that optional things work this way before you said it now recently in this thread. I thought all players got one shot at doing any or all their reactions, in turn order.

I wondered why I had the strong impression that you only get one chance to do reactions, in turn order. I found this post on BGG from 2010:

Normally, no-one cares and we all just flash our Moats in whatever order. If it does matter or someone cares, you go in turn order. Once you are done with your Reactions completely, the next player goes. You don't get a second chance after they're done.

Here's another post from this forum where you say the same thing:

We go in turn order. The first player responds all they want - using Secret Chamber, then Moat, then Secret Chamber again, or what have you. Then the next player responds, and so on. After the last player, we're done - the first player doesn't get another chance.

I think this does affect game play. Sometimes you want to wait with your reaction(s) until you see what other players do (as in the example by the OP on BGG). And previously you've said you can't do that...

[Donald X.]

I think this does affect game play. Sometimes you want to wait with your reaction(s) until you see what other players do (as in the example by the OP on BGG). And previously you've said you can't do that...

If we all want to wait then no-one did anything. Obv. a rule has to cover that but that's what it would be; if everyone passes then for sure no-one gets another chance to do things.

I am liking the idea of "oh wait I have Moat too" not ever ever encountering "yeeha I can rules lawyer you, no Moat for you." I dunno it's a thing to consider.

The only thinking-on-this I have accomplished is, there was this deal with Secret Chamber and Moat, where you get to Moat if you drew it off of Secret Chamber, because there had to be a rule to cover the situation and that was one way to go and I picked that one. That particular bit makes it clear that "when x happens" creates a window in time to do multiple things that have that trigger. The whole, we can order optional and mandatory things, adding mandatory ones that come up and potentially adding optional ones, falls out of that. It does not however require it to be that going around we get another chance if someone does something.

[Davio]

So what's the conclusion?

Here's what I would logically conclude: When I play Urchin after another attack and my opponent could reveal a Beggar, there are two things waiting to resolve at the same time. This means I get to choose the order; I could say: "Reactions go first" and wait for my opponents - at which point there is a window for them - or trash first, is that it? And after this window for my opponents closes, they can't resolve after I trashed?

[Jeebus]

So what's the conclusion?

Here's what I would logically conclude: When I play Urchin after another attack and my opponent could reveal a Beggar, there are two things waiting to resolve at the same time. This means I get to choose the order; I could say: "Reactions go first" and wait for my opponents - at which point there is a window for them - or trash first, is that it? And after this window for my opponents closes, they can't resolve after I trashed?

No, you don't get to choose when other players can react. That much is clear.

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.

Or, if it's an "open window for all": Every time someone does something (reacts), everybody who still has things to react with gets a chance in turn order, until everybody passes. (It's unclear whether Urchin falls into the category of "reacting", or if it has to be resolved first or not at all.)

I think that's an accurate summary.

[Jeebus]

I am liking the idea of "oh wait I have Moat too" not ever ever encountering "yeeha I can rules lawyer you, no Moat for you." I dunno it's a thing to consider.

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."

But actually I don't think either of these scenarios would happen, except by real dicking players who would always find ways to screw up the game anyway (like revealing Secret Chamber 1000 times). And actually, most people assumed that the rule in rulebooks about things happening in turn order also covered reacting - and even more so because of your previous statements to that effect - and still I don't think "no Moat for you" has really been a problem.

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.