Print

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

[Jeebus]

A couple of minor bugs, or at least wrongly implemented actions.

Inn has the wrong card text on isotropic. It doesn't say to reveal the cards you want to shuffle in, only to look at them. Isotropic follows this, and doesn't reveal them. The actual card text tells you to reveal the cards.

Ok, I just discovered the following wasn't a bug, just very misleading in the user interface. Played a game where I played Lighthouse and Scheme in the same turn. Now you won't be able to top-deck a newly played duration with Scheme. Isotropic says: "optionally return an action card to your deck> Scheme, Lighthouse (new), none".
If I choose "Lighthouse (new)", nothing happens, which is actually correct. The card does say to choose an action card in play, so it's technically correct that you can choose a newly played duration. But I can't see any situation why you would, it would be the same as choosing "none". Also the isotropic instruction doesn't say "choose a card", but rather "return a card", so this seems very misleading to me. Even if you're aware of this "trick" you have to be careful to never click any duration with "(new)" next to it.

Btw, does anyone have the impression that bugs on isotropic get corrected as a result of these threads?

[WanderingWinder]

As for the lighthouse one, while it may be misleading, by the rules, it must be this way, and if it were any other way, then it WOULD be wrong.

[DStu]

As for the lighthouse one, while it may be misleading, by the rules, it must be this way, and if it were any other way, then it WOULD be wrong.

But it could say something else than "optionally return an action card to your deck", because you what you are choosing is not the card to return, but the card to reveal, which, under certain conditions, then might be returned.
The way it is phrased it sounds as if you could return all these cards to the deck. Which is wrong. You can reveal all these cards.

But I doubt that this will prevent any missclicks...

[Deadlock39]

I would say the red "?!" would be a good thing for this situation, as well as perhaps more accurate wording. 

However, as always, it is questionable whether something like this will be deemed worth spending time on when the impending end of Iso keeps being brought up.

[DG]

I have found it very difficult to tidy up scheme and alchemists together. I suspect this is just very difficult to use through the interface, however I can't work out if it is correct since it's so difficult!

[guided]

Somebody reported a legitimate isotropic bug with Alchemist/Treasury and Scheme a little while ago. Dunno if it's been fixed, but the bug was that the Schemed card would always go back on top of the deck after the Alchemists/Treasuries, even if you tried to clean it up first.

As far as your comment about Lighthouse, the way you describe the mechanics is 100% correct. You are allowed to choose a card that won't be cleaned up this turn, in which case nothing happens. I do agree though that a "?!" would be warranted in this situation.

[Jeebus]

Yup, as I said I'm aware that it's technically correct. However, even disregarding the misleading wording, why would anyone ever choose a card that won't be discarded? It's the same thing as choosing none. The only way it can ever matter that I can think of, would be if a when-choose reaction would be introduced, and I'm 99.999% sure that will never happen. So I don't understand why the choice is even there.

And I don't agree that it would be wrong to remove it. The reason the card technically allows you to choose any action card, is obviously just for phrasing reasons. It's not because there's a game mechanic that will happen when you choose a card even if you don't discard it.

[guided]

And I don't agree that it would be wrong to remove it.

Scheme says you can choose an Action card in play. It would be wrong to forbid you from choosing one of your Action cards in play. End of story. The question of whether it's mechanically distinct (or will ever be mechanically distinct) from choosing nothing doesn't even enter into it.

[DStu]

The reason the card technically allows you to choose any action card, is obviously just for phrasing reasons.

"At the start of your clean-up phase, you may choose an Action card f rom you have in play and that you would discard this turn. Return it to your deck."
Does not sound so ugly in my ears.

[Karrow]

Since there's two more expansions and they are already coded into isotropic where I hear they are play-tested, there may be a reason it is the way it is.

But then again,
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..

Yea, there's a situation when you would want to do it more than once, but it requires other cards.  If Moat is the only reaction in hand there's no reason for isotropic to let you reveal it more than once.

[theory]

Since there's two more expansions and they are already coded into isotropic where I hear they are play-tested, there may be a reason it is the way it is.

But then again,
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..
Reveal Moat..

Yea, there's a situation when you would want to do it more than once, but it requires other cards.  If Moat is the only reaction in hand there's no reason for isotropic to let you reveal it more than once.

This has already been addressed.

[theory]

Yup, as I said I'm aware that it's technically correct. However, even disregarding the misleading wording, why would anyone ever choose a card that won't be discarded? It's the same thing as choosing none. The only way it can ever matter that I can think of, would be if a when-choose reaction would be introduced, and I'm 99.999% sure that will never happen. So I don't understand why the choice is even there.

And I don't agree that it would be wrong to remove it. The reason the card technically allows you to choose any action card, is obviously just for phrasing reasons. It's not because there's a game mechanic that will happen when you choose a card even if you don't discard it.

Mostly what guided said.  Isotropic, if you've noticed, is designed very very carefully to always adhere to exactly the text of the rules.  (Something you'll quickly notice is not true of the BSW implementation.)  It goes no further, and no less, and this makes it easy to adapt to crazy future expansion cards, and to let you do the 0.000001% thing that you would never think of doing except maybe in this crazy hypothetical.

(Actually, this is not strictly true.  Wishing Well and Contraband ought to allow you to name ANY card, not just cards in the supply, but that's the only example I can think of, and let's be honest, Contrabanding Black Lotus is only funny the first time.)

So this is a good example.  You could play your Banks before your other Treasures, you can choose to Forge two Colonies into nothing, you can choose to Scheme cards that you can't actually Scheme.  Isotropic won't stop you from any of that, because that's how the rules are written.

I agree that it should light up with the red ?!, but Isotropic's rigid adherence to the text is probably my favorite part about the server.

[guided]

One thing that may be interesting to note: Donald and the other playtesters use isotropic as a platform for working on unreleased cards. Who knows what crazy ideas they might be experimenting with? Could be something in there that cares about Scheming a card that won't be cleaned up, or there might be cards you don't even know whether you'll be cleaning them up this turn until later in the cleanup phase.

[Donald X.]

(Actually, this is not strictly true.  Wishing Well and Contraband ought to allow you to name ANY card, not just cards in the supply, but that's the only example I can think of, and let's be honest, Contrabanding Black Lotus is only funny the first time.)

Well it does let you name non-supply cards being used this game, e.g. prizes.

Scheme has the wording it does in order to behave understandably with one-shots / duration cards / throne rooms, and to be printable at all. Scheme also lets you use it on itself for exactly the same reason - the best phrasing happened to let you use it on itself.

It should be clear from the Trader fallout that a "would" phrasing would not have been preferable. And in general the possibility of a new way to misclick in isotropic due to its strict adherence to the rules is not going to get me to make a printed card's phrasing worse.

[Jeebus]

This is just simply not comparable to revealing the same Moat multiple times, or letting you trash cards that give no benefits, or letting you play cards in a stupid order etc. Most of these are judgment calls, and from a software viewpoint, would entail adding more functionality to check which options would be good or bad for you. Let's take Forging two Colonies as an example. There are absolutely instances when you want to Forge cards into nothing. We can't expect the software to judge when you shouldn't. And in any case Forging two Colonies does something. It makes a difference in the game.

The reasons for being able to react multiple times are known. In theory isotropic could check whether there could conceivably be any reasons to keep revealing the same reaction, and of not, not offer it. I would say that would actually make the interface better. But first of all, it would mean adding more functionality, which we have no reason to expect, and secondly, it would give the player hints when the option to react does show up. (I think that last part would be a small sacrifice to make in order to make the interface smoother, but I could certainly see other valid viewpoints.)

Choosing a card you can't top deck, on the other hand, does nothing -- not compared to clicking "none". As Donald has confirmed, the reason for the card text is clarity. Not that there might be a case where you would choose a card you can't top-deck. The isotropic software already knows which cards Scheme won't work on (it conveniently marks them "new"), so it shouldn't present them as options distinct from "none".

The very idea that some of you say it should light up with the read ?!, kind of says I'm right. I can't think of any other examples where I would want that introduced, including Forging two Colonies, or playing Banks before Coppers. I'm guessing you all agree on that.

But I concede that in the event there will be introduced cards which you don't know whether you'll discard until later in the clean-up face, this might be necessary. But judging from Donald's reply, this seems very unlikely. And in any event I'm betting that Dougz has had to go back and change the behavior of old cards before when other cards were introduced.

[guided]

Choosing a card you can't top deck, on the other hand, does nothing -- not compared to clicking "none".

Immaterial. The card text explicitly says you can do it.

[guided]

From a more practical standpoint, you're asking isotropic to change the nuts-and-bolts implementation of the cleanup phase to include an extra predictive step to figure out which cards will be cleaned up this turn, for the sole purpose of forbidding players from doing something a card specifically says they can do. Also hey, here are some equally useless things isotropic lets you do:

• Play Throne Room or King's Court even if you have no other action cards in hand and don't own a Diadem
• Play Chancellor instead of Woodcutter when your draw pile is empty
• Play basic Treasures in your buy phase even if you already have $11+ and only one buy, with no non-basic Treasures in your deck and no cards on the board with on-gain or on-buy effects

[Thisisnotasmile]

Also hey, here are some equally useless things isotropic lets you do:

• Play Throne Room or King's Court even if you have no other action cards in hand and don't own a Diadem

... Okay, I'll say it... Peddler.

I'm just nitpicking though, I agree with you on this.

[guided]

Dammit! I just knew I was going to forget a caveat I needed to add to one of those examples I even thought of the much-more-outlandish Diadem caveat (because I want to decrease my buying power for some reason???)

Point is, it's not isotropic's job to analyze every possible card combination and figure out whether something you're allowed to do could be useful. It's isotropic's job to faithfully implement the actual card texts (and FAQs, designer clarifications, etc) in the hope that any and all unanticipated combinations (possibly with future cards that haven't even been invented yet) work however the card texts imply they should work.

[timchen]

From a more practical standpoint, you're asking isotropic to change the nuts-and-bolts implementation of the cleanup phase to include an extra predictive step to figure out which cards will be cleaned up this turn, for the sole purpose of forbidding players from doing something a card specifically says they can do. Also hey, here are some equally useless things isotropic lets you do:

• Play Throne Room or King's Court even if you have no other action cards in hand and don't own a Diadem
• Play Chancellor instead of Woodcutter when your draw pile is empty
• Play basic Treasures in your buy phase even if you already have $11+ and only one buy, with no non-basic Treasures in your deck and no cards on the board with on-gain or on-buy effects

I don't agree; I think the OP has a very valid point here. The interface already knows some durations are old and some are new since it is noted. It makes no programming difference to just hide the new ones. So in terms of implementation this makes no difference at all. What you are saying are intrinsically different as you correctly point out that it requires additional judgement calls as well as additional implementations from the interface.

[Thisisnotasmile]

+1 Card; +1 Action
 At the start of Clean-up this turn, you may choose an Action card you have in play. If you discard it from play this turn, put it on your deck.

"Choose an Action card you have in play". Is that Wharf you played this turn "an Action card you have in play"? Then you can choose it. If Isotropic didn't let you do so, it would be an incorrect implementation of the card. That's pretty much all there is to it.

[guided]

The interface already knows some durations are old and some are new since it is noted. It makes no programming difference to just hide the new ones. So in terms of implementation this makes no difference at all.

Certainly you don't think isotropic already looks through the to-be-cleaned-up property of each action card in your play area to figure out which will be cleaned up before asking you what to Scheme?

The "judgment call" required here is not in some other category from the other judgment calls I've presented. To decide not to Scheme a card that won't be cleaned up, you have to judge whether the card will be cleaned up, and then think about how Scheme works and realize that when you had hoped that card would get top-decked, it won't actually happen. This is a simple judgment to make, but it's a reasoned analysis you have to make about a specific card combination. isotropic should not be in the business of analyzing card combinations for usefulness, especially not for the purpose of - I'm sounding like a broken record here - forbidding players from doing something the card explicitly allows. The only exception is when literally following the card text leads to the potential for abuse (like endlessly revealing the same Moat).

[timchen]

You are either anticipating something very complicated to happen in the following expansion, or just making things complicated. For all I know, the only cards that are not cleaned up are duration cards, and the TR or KC that directly played before them.

I don't know whether isotropic figures out the to-be-cleaned-up property before or after scheme; it probably does this on a card by card basis. In any case, since it distinguishes between a duration card played this turn and the turn before, it is trivial to hide it.

In your tone, it really sounds like you are proposing to have a text box provided, or at the very least a whole list of available cards, when you play contraband or wishing well. That is what you should do if you want to follow the rules strictly.

I am, as well as the OP, as far as I can tell, not asking isotropic to provide any judgement. Key difference between this case and the case you talked about, in case if you didn't notice:
(1) covered by TINAS
(2) this depends on the cards you have in hand.
(3) apparently depends on the hand and the board.

Compare to the case we are discussing:
independent of your hand, setup, deck, whatever. And there is no additional implementation required; whenever the interface decided to put a (new) next to a card, it instead just hide it. And for all I can tell there is no possibility of usefulness to choose a card you cannot top deck; you can always choose none if you want.

In my opinion, this is really in the realm of the Wishing Well and Contraband example. I don't see why you should put a much stronger tone one one issue rather than the other.

[guided]

And there is no additional implementation required

But there is. You keep saying "just don't show it" as if that requires less implementation. It doesn't: now for each action card you have to make a decision, "do I show this or don't I?" instead of just showing every action card in accordance with the actual card text.

Contraband and Wishing Well should have a write-in option to strictly follow the card texts, or at least they should have a clickthrough to a list of every extant card. But this will not matter in practice, so I respect Doug's decision not to clutter up the interface with extra stuff. Note you do get a big text list of Black Market or Prize cards, for example. FWIW, I would argue that an option to select a dummy card that doesn't actually exist would be an improvement to the isotropic interface in certain rare circumstances.

You're still making a false distinction between this judgment and the other judgments I presented. "Your judgments are more complicated than mine" does not absolve your judgment from being a judgment. Further, you're proposing isotropic change its implementation to introduce a deliberate bug that has the possibility (however remote) of conflicting with future cards.


In short: isotropic implements the actual card text, and anybody who calls it a bug is just wrong. If you believe introducing a new bug would be an improvement to the isotropic interface, I suggest you take it up with Doug.

[Jeebus]

The key here is that Scheme could have said something like:

At the start of Clean-up this turn, you may choose an Action card you have in play that will be discarded this turn. When you do discard it, put it on your deck.

I think this is functionally equivalent (barring the fact that it doesn't let you choose newly played durations of course), and even if it isn't, it could be tweaked so that it is. This is just to make a point.

Donald has confirmed that the above text was the intention of the card. The reason for the wording was not to have you choose a card first and then check later if it would be discarded. The players know which cards will be discarded, and so does isotropic. It's all cards except the durations played this turn. That's the only exception to the rule. It's not a judgment call. If the card text is as above, there is no "card combination" to analyze. What I'm trying to say is that the card doesn't allow this choice for any reason other than the phrasing happened to allow it. The card text could just as easily have been as above. Then this wouldn't have been a discussion and still everyone would be happy. Isotropic would have to figure out for you which cards you could Scheme! 

As for the other argument, that isotropic just has to follow the card text literally no matter what.  ...Wait, is that an argument? Ok then, why?
Isotropic already does other things wrong. It routinely reveals cards when it shouldn't and doesn't when it should. This is so because doing it right would be inconvenient. Exactly.