Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - YooperJake

#1
Other Bugs / Weird (bug?) behaviour in Black Cat game
19 September 2023, 09:38:21 PM
Game#: 130541634

Somewhere around turn 12 (?) I played an Artificer and discarded to gain an Estate.  My opponent reacted with Black Cat x3.  Somehow, those Curses ended up in my next hand, even though I hadn't shuffled.  Wondering if it's some weird unintended side affect of a React to an Artificer gain (which top-decks).

Thanks for any insight - Jake
#2
Thanks, @Ingix for the detailed explanation and time cues.  I had mostly resolved myself to the idea that this would be the explanation, essentially, that the whole group of gains is treated as a single, chained-event (I'll say, not referencing the card type).

While I can accept this on one level, I don't think this is how anyone would interpret the card text during an in-person game.  I guess that's the "unintuitive" part.  At the least, arguments would ensue.

What I don't understand is why it's treated as a chain/recursion?  Probably a Donald X post somewhere that decrees, "make it so", which practically closes the matter.

Still, The gain has already happened, so why doesn't the reduction take effect as soon as the gain has occurred. In basic logical thinking, such as if-then, the "then" part happens as soon as the "if" is satisfied.

Anyways, thanks, as always, for your moderator work.  Next time I'll know what to expect in the game (if the combo ever comes up)  :D

-Jake
#3
Game #124001770 on tokyo.

Not sure if this has been discussed, but I couldn't find any related results.

I was playing Inventor, gaining an Inventor, playing that with City-State, sometimes, at least once, I did that twice in a row, so the sequence would be:

buy inventor
gain inventor
play inventor with City-State
gain 2nd inventor
play 2nd inventor with City-State
...
at this point, the card costs were not reduced by $1, despite having played and gained a card from the 1st inventor.
...
instead, once I resolved the 2nd inventor, i.e. by gaining a 3rd one (but not playing it), only then did the costs of cards reduce (by $2, $1 for each Inventor played).

It seems wrong to me that the cost wasn't reduced after the first Inventor gain.

Thoughts?

Thanks!
Jake
#4
FYI: not sure if there is another main topic for this, but I've been having this problem for the last ~week.

Some more details, if helpful...

Browser:  Safari Version 15.4 (17613.1.17.1.13)

For me, it's all the piles, not just certain piles.  Nothing updates.  Glad to hear that switching to Chrome for a while may be a fix, will try it.

Update:  Chrome seems to work without issues.
#5
Hi Ingix,

I just ran into this problem for the first time today (game#:  81356152).  My opponent was kind enough to walk through a test run, and we confirmed that there still seems to be no way to choose WHICH Border Guard to TopDeck when multiple BGs are in play. 

This forces any player with both "The Horn" and a Border Guard that is set aside with Prince to choose between losing a "Prince'd" BG and nullifying the effect of "The Horn".

I am replying here because this thread is the most recent one I could find on the topic.  The point of my post is, shouldn't this be part of either the Known Card Bugs or Known Interface Bugs threads?  I don't see it listed on either one.  Just don't want the issue to get lost in the shuffle, so to speak.

Thanks!
Jake
#6
Bug Reports / Re: March using Way does not work
16 July 2021, 11:35:09 PM
Hi Ingix, really appreciate the follow-up on this, I'm not sure when I'll run into that situation again.  Thanks for the information!
#7
Bug Reports / Re: March using Way does not work
16 July 2021, 08:36:22 PM
Game#:  81177911

Does this work with Turtle?

I tried to March JOAT, then play at Turtle, but didn't know about clicking the Way(Turtle) instead of on JOAT.  If I clicked on Turtle, would it then prompt me to choose an Action from my Discard?

Cheers,
Jake
#8
Great, glad to hear that it's been recorded.  I wonder what the AI is getting "stuck" on, the decision of whether to trash Mining Village, perhaps?  In any case, I just wanted to make sure it was reported.  As you said, it's a fairly rare error to encounter.

Cheers!
Jake
#9
The Ratt has frozen after playing Mining Village.  Further confusing to me is that he had already played one, without freezing, then freezes after playing the second one.  His +Buy token was on Mining Village (from Seaway) if that is important somehow.

I searched the forum and didn't find this reported elsewhere under AI bugs.

Thanks,
Jake


game #76675622
#10
AI bugs / Re: Bot Freeze on Scepter
15 February 2019, 10:07:23 PM
I just had this same issue with LR freezing after playing Scepter. 

Game#:  23569146

I don't see where this is added to the Known Bot Issues thread.

http://forum.shuffleit.nl/index.php?topic=1218.msg3618#msg3618
#11
Card Bugs / Re: Overlord + Conspirator
17 March 2018, 05:24:16 PM
I just have to chime in on this. 

/*
Edit:  added portion after initial post

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I have read the wiki entries and understand what it says there, 
"Other Rules clarifications
You first play Band of Misfits, then you play it again as the card you chose to emulate
."

BAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhh maybe it all DOES Make sense, I'm still posting this...I...just..can't...done.
*/
Card text for BoM:
"Play this as if it were a cheaper action card in the Supply.  THIS IS THAT CARD until it leaves play". <my emphasis added>

Card text for Overlord:
"Play this as if it were an action card in the Supply costing up to 5.  THIS IS THAT CARD until it leaves play".   <my emphasis added>

Card text for Conspirator:
"+$2. If you've played 3 or more Actions this turn (including this), +1 Card and +1 Action."

Peddler card text:
"During your Buy phase, this costs $2 less per Action card you have in play, but not less than $0."


Let's assume the following scenario:
I open my turn by playing an Overlord and choose Mystic.  Next I play a Conspirator, giving me +$2.

Questions:
(A) Assuming I play no more Actions, and Peddlers are in the Supply, how much will they cost during my Buy phase?
(B) Do I also get +1 Action and +1 Card from playing the Conspirator?

To answer (A), we need to know how many Actions I have in play during my Buy phase.  To me, unlike question (B) above, this is a very easy answer.  It seems quite clear to me that I have 2 Actions in play.  Peddlers would therefore cost $4 during my Buy phase.


  • Do I have an Overlord in play?  - NO

  • Do I have a Mystic in play?  - YES

  • Do I have a Conspirator in play?  - YES


To know the answer to (B), we need to know how many Actions I have played this turn.


  • Have I played an Overlord this turn?  - No/Maybe (tricky part)
  • Have I played a Mystic this turn? - Yes/Maybe? (tricky part)
  • Have I played a Conspirator this turn?  - YES


For question one, what does, "Play this as if it were" mean?  Does it mean act like you're a Mystic, but really you are still an Overlord?  The latter portion of the card text clearly states that, while in play, it's literally NOT an Overlord, but a Mystic (meaning of the word IS for you 90s American politics fans).  ;)

Executing the meaning of the command "Play this..." literally means to put in play (what else can "play" mean?).  Therefore, if I put a card in play, "as if it IS" a Mystic, what have I done except played a Mystic?

Given that when in play, the Overlord card is no longer an Overlord, but a Mystic, we can say that the Overlord which was in my hand has transformed at some point into a Mystic.   The heart of the matter seems to be, when does this transformation take place? 

What does it mean to "have played" a card?  For me, the answer can only be that to play a card means to put it in play.  By this definition, it's very difficult to "play" an Overlord (or BoM).  The only scenario in which you can have an Overlord in play is if there are no eligible Action cards in the supply for it to transform into.  IMHO, that is the only scenario in which one could have an Overlord in play.  How then could we assert that I have played an Overlord in our scenario above?  I can't.

Looking forward to your feedback.

Cheers,
Jake
#12
I just played a long game in which it would have been very handy to be able to click-to-wish for Bat, Imp, etc. instead of having to type them in to the box (after playing Wishing Well).  The box works great compared to the old issue of not being able to even wish for certain cards, but I'd welcome the ability to "click-to-wish" on all card piles, whether in the supply or not.  Pretty sure you can click-to-wish for Spoils, but the Spirits (being newest) maybe haven't been set up yet.

Thanks!
Jake
#13
Feature Requests / Re: Autoplay for Torturer
01 March 2018, 09:22:35 PM
Quote from: ryan.echternacht on 15 January 2018, 10:05:52 PM
@allanfieldhouse I definitely agree it should probably be auto-off for the reason you mentioned (and a few crazy ones like you don't want to be forced to cycle from an opposing minion, you want to handicap a possession hand, or you're playing around triggering a weird shuffle).

The real reason I want is for pace of play -- it really slows down turns when I have to wait for opponents to respond to prompts every 5-10 seconds.

+1 [of course "auto-off" is the default for all autoplay AFAIK]
#14
Feature Requests / Re: Disable Undo for the game
01 March 2018, 07:44:08 PM
Quote from: Stef on 02 February 2018, 02:05:23 PM
Quote from: blamelewis on 02 February 2018, 01:53:04 AM
Ingix - it's because it *feels* rude to deny undos manually - and often provokes players to be abusive in response, no matter how much we hold the principle that undos are optional. Undos on/off as a matching criteria would avoid this social difficulty - as it established the attitude towards undos before a player commits to game.

I intend to build this feature, but I am also afraid you will be very disappointed by the results.
I have a feeling that selecting "I only want to be matched with people that never allow undos" will turn out to be annoyingly close to "I like to just sit & wait here while not getting matched". The people that at least want to allow some undo's are an overwhelming majority.

I agree wholeheartedly.  To date, I have played over 3,151 games of Dominion on this site.  In all those games, I feel confident stating that I have only had a problem with someone denying a reasonable undo request a handful of times.  Perhaps due, in part, to my low rate of undo requests, but moreover that the vast majority of players grant reasonable undo requests.

We've all experienced players who try to abuse the undo button, and those rare situations are, IMHO, what the deny button is for (and the blacklist).

Thanks for the game and your continuting efforts to make improvements.  The latest one I noticed was the feature making it easier to see what you are topdecking with Harbinger - well done!

Cheers,
Jake
#15
Feature Requests / Re: Disable Undo for the game
01 March 2018, 07:29:36 PM
Quote from: scottshauf on 03 October 2017, 01:39:11 AM
I wish it was simply a rule: If no new information has been revealed, an undo is allowed; otherwise it is not. No asking the other play for permission, and no denying it. I hate it when people ask for an undo after I've already started playing cards (especially if they then get mad when I deny it), and on the other hand it's annoying for people to deny undo requests in easy-mistake kind of situations.

I like this - I see it as an option, "auto-undo".  It would be set to True for me.  Especially on your own turn, when allowing an undo, for all intents and purposes has not given you an advantage.  When such a request is denied, that is what provokes my ire (and blacklist).  I request an undo less than once per game (easily).  I seek to recreate the FtF game environment in my online games.

That said, I would have no problem with an option for users to create games where "allow undo" is set to False.

Cheers,
Jake