Print

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

[mameluke]

Let's say I have a Trader in hand and you play a Marauder. Ruined Market is on top. Do you give me the Ruined Market and reveal, say, a Ruined Village next, and then I reveal Trader and get a silver instead, and return Ruined Market (turning Ruined Village upside down), or do I show the Trader first, I get a silver, and we never reveal the card that is under Ruined Market?

[WanderingWinder]

Show the trader first, because Trader says 'when you WOULD gain'.

[mameluke]

I think Goko's mechanism is wrong, then, since the "gained" card shows up in my discard first, and then I get to reveal Trader and it goes back.

[LastFootnote]

I think Goko's mechanism is wrong, then, since the "gained" card shows up in my discard first, and then I get to reveal Trader and it goes back.

Correct. Goko's on-buy and would-gain effects happen after the card in question moves to your discard pile, but they should happen before.

[mameluke]

I tested the scenario in Goko, and buying a ruin with Trader in hand does indeed reveal the next ruin in the pile. Whoops.

I guess the edge case where this matters is with Fairgrounds, where you do indeed want to know if the next card is a different one from the one you're about to buy.

[Drab Emordnilap]

If you (on Goko) buy a Ruin with Talisman in play, and reveal a Trader, do you still get the Ruin like you're supposed to, or does it get confused here too?

[mameluke]

Top three cards were Ruined Market - Abandoned Mine - Abandoned Mine.

I played Talisman and bought a Ruin: I gained only Ruined Market.
Next turn: I played Talisman and bought a Ruin: I gained Abandoned Mine, and then gained a Abandoned Mine.

[eHalcyon]

If you (on Goko) buy a Ruin with Talisman in play, and reveal a Trader, do you still get the Ruin like you're supposed to, or does it get confused here too?

Well, it should prompt you to (potentially) reveal Trader a second time.

[Jeebus]

I didn't know about the problem on-buy effects on Goko. I tested it now. Although it's visually wrong -- and very misleading when it comes to lose-track -- it seems to work correctly. This is what should happen:

- Play Haggler.
- Buy Lab.
- Haggler when-buy: gain Smithy.
- Watchtower when-gain: topdeck Smithy.
- Gain Lab.
- Watchtower when-gain: topdeck Lab.

This is what happens on Goko:

- Play Haggler.
- Buy Lab. It's moved to your discard as if it's gained.
- Haggler when-buy: gain Smithy.
- Watchtower when-gain: topdeck Smithy.
- Watchtower when-gain: topdeck Lab.

So you can topdeck the Lab even though it was seemingly covered by the Smithy. You can topdeck it even if you don't topdeck the Smithy, seemingly fishing it out from below the Smithy.

***

However, when it comes to Border Village, it's just wrong.

This is what should happen:

Buy and gain BV.
BV when-gain: gain Market.
Watchtower when-gain: topdeck Market.
Now it's too late to topdeck the BV because it was covered by Market.

This is the other way:

Buy and gain BV.
Watchtower when-gain: topdeck BV.
BV when-gain: gain Market.
Watchtower when-gain: topdeck Market.

But on Goko, after gaining the BV, you get no choice of Watchtower when-gain. You must do BV when-gain. So you gain Market. BV should now be lost track of, but on Goko it isn't. Now you can reveal Watchtower, but there is no indication of which gain it's for. It's for the Market though. Afterwards you get to reveal for the BV, no matter if you topdecked the Market or left it on top of the BV.

This means you can topdeck the BV after the Market, which is actually impossible to achieve if the rules were followed.
This also means you can't topdeck the Market after the BV, which is possible if the rules were followed.

[Jeebus]

If you (on Goko) buy a Ruin with Talisman in play, and reveal a Trader, do you still get the Ruin like you're supposed to, or does it get confused here too?

If there's a copy of the same Ruins right under, you can Trader both or either, so it works like it's supposed to. Except both cards first fly to your discard and then back to Supply if you Trader them.

However, we now know that you should get two Silvers (or a Silver and a Ruins) even if the top two Ruins are different. This is because Talisman gains on-buy, so you gain the copy from Talisman before you gain the card you bought. If you Trader the copy, it stays in Supply so now you gain it from the buy -- and you can Trader it again if you want. This of course does not work on Goko.

[DG]

It's also an annoying interface, seeing the cards fly left and right across the screen. Trader and cache is tediously irritating. It appears that they have tried to make the UI into an exact replica of the game mechanics but ended up without a good UI and without an exact replica.

[Davio]

It's also an annoying interface, seeing the cards fly left and right across the screen. Trader and cache is tediously irritating. It appears that they have tried to make the UI into an exact replica of the game mechanics but ended up without a good UI and without an exact replica.

This is a problem that has concerned me from the beginning. If you try to copy what physically happens (or should happen) you will surely fail. Iso just tried to take Dominion's core and create a UI that fit it best. Goko tried to copy Dominion's physical UI and fit every mechanic into it.

I don't like how you're shown the backs of a player's entire discard pile when he is resolving Inn. Just show me the cards he picks, okay?

[Asper]

This is what should happen:

Buy and gain BV.
BV when-gain: gain Market.
Watchtower when-gain: topdeck Market.
Now it's too late to topdeck the BV because it was covered by Market.

This is the other way:

Buy and gain BV.
Watchtower when-gain: topdeck BV.
BV when-gain: gain Market.
Watchtower when-gain: topdeck Market.

But on Goko, after gaining the BV, you get no choice of Watchtower when-gain. You must do BV when-gain. So you gain Market. BV should now be lost track of, but on Goko it isn't. Now you can reveal Watchtower, but there is no indication of which gain it's for. It's for the Market though. Afterwards you get to reveal for the BV, no matter if you topdecked the Market or left it on top of the BV.

This means you can topdeck the BV after the Market, which is actually impossible to achieve if the rules were followed.
This also means you can't topdeck the Market after the BV, which is possible if the rules were followed.

The interaction between WT and cards that make you gain other cards on gain will probably forever stay one of my least favourite dominion interactions, followed by Possession/Outpost (and Black Market/Tactician). They all feel so un-intentional. Like... glitches. One thing's for sure, i'd never insist on WTs cover-up-lose-track-rule or the 3-card turn in a real game. I'd probably follow those rules, though, if the situation occurs.

[GendoIkari]

What do you mean about the "3-card turn"?

[eHalcyon]

What do you mean about the "3-card turn"?

Probably something funny with Outpost.  Probably something with Possession/Outpost, which he mentions.

[dpt]

What do you mean about the "3-card turn"?

Probably something funny with Outpost.  Probably something with Possession/Outpost, which he mentions.

If you play Outpost during an Outpost turn, you draw three cards but then don't get an extra turn, so your next turn will be abbreviated.  Worse (from the wiki):

If your opponent plays two Possessions, you take two extra turns from them; so if your opponent then makes you play an Outpost on the second Possessed turn, you will draw only 3 cards during that cleanup phase but will NOT get an extra turn, you will just take your turn with a 3-card hand.

[ftl]

It's a both a feature and a bug at the same time.


I mean, I assume that particular interaction wasn't intended, and Possession+Outpost is indeed annoying to both play and figure out. But in general, the fact that various cards have weird and clever interactions with each other is a good thing.