Messages

Bornstein. Yes, it comes down to whether the remarks are sarcastic or not, which you can't really be sure of via text. So the decision is which is more likely: Player saying GG, thus admitting defeat, and either forgetting to disconnect, or coincidentally having his server go out (which is a little too far fetched for me), or possibly a server glitch after he disconnected (I think we would have heard more about this happening though); or the player making a sarcastic comment which is very consistent with the following disconnect. To me it seems a bit more likely to be the latter.

Like all cards that allow you to gain, you can only gain from the supply. Had to look this up myself. Here's the wiki page for the card, it is mentioned in "other rules clarification" http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Changeling

I interpret those remarks very different than bornstein. Disconnecting instead of resigning is a super D**k move. For me it isn't hard to interpret what was said through someone trying to be a d***. I've had this happen many times, but without comments from the other person. Super annoying. Nothing can be done except blacklisting them.

My point was in regards to how we define "new info". With palace, if a player cared enough (or was an AI), he could know (and maybe would know) the exact contents of his deck. In other words, the info from buying a Gold when Palace is in play is not information he could have attained otherwise. Or maybe more simply said, the player has the ability to go through the log and see exactly how many coppers/silvers/and golds he has. This is knowledge that any player COULD have if they cared enough to have it. So to me, strictly speaking it is not "new info" in that sense.
If we talk about "new info" in the sense that the opponent did not possess the knowledge initially (not that he couldn't have it, but that he doesnt have it), then yes the palace scenario would not be ok (which i agree with). With this understanding of "new info", the wolf den scenario would also not be ok. I easily could have had that knowledge(and should have), but I didn't consider the effect. *As an aside, I think I left out the fact that there were 8 duchies in the supply, so it was very obvious that I did not have one already, I just didn't consider how wolf den would effect*.

Thanks for pointing out that most use discord. This was pretty much my first post here, so I am rather ignorant on that matter.

My point about not being worried about being blacklisted was that in my 4000 games (I am not proud of that number lol), this would result in maybe 3 users blacklisting me, tops.

In sum, I understand (and even agree) that undo's should be veto'd only on the grounds of new info. We disagree on what constitutes as new info. If you have a game with goons/groundskeeper/vineyard, villain might buy the last village for a 3-pile thinking that all the effects of those 3 cards will give him the win. You can argue for both sides of an undo on the basis of "new knowledge". A perfect opponent (or an AI) would be fully aware of how many points he would have after the purchases. It's not that a player is incapable of having the knowledge of the consequences of his buy, it's that he wasn't careful enough throughout the game to keep track. Which is a different take than saying he was unaware of the consequences of his buy thus the knowledge was "new" to him.

I was just about to reply to your first edition of your post before the new edits, about how I disagree with what counts as new information.
It seemed at first that you were advocating for new info meaning any information that could not possibly be attained in the current system. With this definition, the wolf den situation is exactly the same as the enhance in terms of new info. It's also the same as the palace scenario and the page scenario. It's almost like the standard is whether or not a completely competent player (or maybe just an AI) would have had the knowledge. This is a fine way to apply "no new information", and probably the most straight forward. 

Another way would be whether the knowledge is new to the player. In other words, did the opponent even realize something to be an option. With this more subjective version of new knowledge, both the wolf den scenario and the enhance scenario would not be ok, since the interactions and effects of enhance and wolf den were not understood at the time that the actions happened. This is very similar to palace and even similar to page. The difference is that page and wolf den were much easier for an average opponent to catch then would have been palace which requires you to keep a mental running tally of every single card in your deck. This version is much more subjective to what your opponent was considering and his intents.

Another option would be a variant of the subjective version just mentioned, which seems to be what you are advocating after the edits. That would be something like "how reasonable is it for my opponent to have been aware of this knowledge". For something like palace it is rather unreasonable (it is unusual for opponents to keep a mental running tally of their deck), but for something like wolf den, page, enhance these are far more reasonable. So if it is reasonable for an average opponent to have had this knowledge then we don't consider it "new". I would argue this is more messy than the second option.

Again, I normally don't even stop to consider whether undo's are justified before I grant them. Exceptions are very late game, card drawn, or we are in a later turn. I always give the opponent to make an argument for himself. I have maybe not allowed 3 or so undo's in late game ever, and the other two were far less grey. And when I did make not grant a more controversial one, I went to the forum to ask others for their opinions. Because of this I think it is really unlikely that all of my opponents will blacklist me leaving me with no one to play against.

PS. I have made that same mistake with page. I did not request an undo. It doesn't feel right to me to ask my opponent to let me do something different so I can go back and win a close game.

Randomusername. I definitely see it as very similar in the sense of "I now realize that I can't win after executing my INTENDED plan".

To anyone still following this, let me boil this down to a broader family of question. This is now not about justifying my previous game, but about how undo's should be handled late game.
Let's assume that in a different hypothetical hand, Villain is on his last turn and if he doesn't end the game, Hero will. Villain has different ways he can play out his last turn. One way would give him a 5% chance of victory, another 20%, another 50%, another 80%, and another immediate victory.
Villain, unaware currently of other plans, chooses to go with the 5% plan. After executing he realizes that this leaves him with roughly a 5% chance of victory.
He reconsiders and realizes there was a plan that would give him a better opportunity, and requests undo to go with the 20% plan. After executing he realizes that this leaves him with roughly a 20% chance of victory.
He reconsiders and realizes there was a plan that would give him a better opportunity, and requests undo to go with the 50% plan. After executing he realizes that this leaves him with roughly a 50% chance of victory.
He reconsiders and realizes there was a plan that would give him a better opportunity, and requests undo to go with the 80% plan. After executing he realizes that this leaves him with roughly a 80% chance of victory.
He reconsiders and realizes there was a plan that would give allow him to win immediately. He requests undo and goes on to win outright.

I assume most would agree that something is wrong with villain doing this (but maybe I'm wrong in that assumption). At what point does it become wrong? Should this maybe just be granted once (although that doesn't really seem justifiable)? Is this scenario different if the probabilities changed (such as changing 100% win to 70% win as the upper limit, or maybe even something low like 30%)?
Most people who have responded to this thread make it sound like the following information does not matter: villain only considering other options after he played out his entire buy phase as INTENDED to then realize that the victory counters looks very unfortunate for him winning.

Totally agree with this pet peeve, although I don't see it as commonly as you say. Maybe like every 5th opponent? Its one thing to buy an extra card or two, but its still poor sportsmanship. If you don't look at your VP counter, then whatever, but I am in doubts that many people ignore their VP counter.
Interesting that you mention sports. In most sports it's actually extremely unsportsmanlike to run up the score at end game. If a football team is up by multiple touchdowns and could win the game by kneeling, but decide to keep trying to score, they will get boo'd like crazy, create bad blood between the teams, many articles will be written about it, it will be covered on espn. In basketball, fights have broken out because of trying to run up the score in the last seconds.

As much as this annoys me, it's definitely nowhere near as bad as disconnecting instead of resigning end of game. Just thinking about this gets me triggered 🤣🤣

Yikes! Lots of judgement from bluey, wasn't expecting that.
As michaeljb pointed out, villain is a super standard term to use when reffering to opponents in hand analysis with poker. I know this terminology (villain and hero) is used in other games too, but didn't realize it was quite so foreign to dominion at this point.
I think that adding how strong our decks are is completely relevant and also critical to the conversation. If our decks weren't strong, then there would be at least a somewhat descent chance for him to get another turn. With strong engines, this is pretty unlikely to happen in a game with 1 province left. In this game there was certainly less than %5. So no, that statement was not arrogant. It was meant to point out that villain was aware of being in dire straits after his buys.

It could have been an "autoplay treasures" accident, but I feel confident this wasn't the case. It wasn't an obvious play. It would have played out differently.

Yes, undo's are super important. Definitely a pet peeve of mine too.
"I almost never even consider not granting undo's. The only times I consider are when there are draws and when it's very late game. Otherwise, I like literally don't even stop to consider the reason for it, I just click grant. I think this for the most part is best for the game."

It's worth noting that I have been on the other side and asking for an undo does not seem right AT ALL. Around this same time, I was in a game where I had bought all provinces to tie game with 6 coins left and 3 buys. I bought a duchy but it was cancelled out by "wolf den". I could just have easily bought 3 estates to win. I'd argue that this is more grey than the other example since 3 estates vs 1 duchy accomplishes the exact same thing in most games at end of match, and it would only have been 1 buy undo. It didn't seem right to request it since I overlooked part of the scoring system; bad strategy on my part. I had the first turn, thus a tie was a loss for me.

Yeah, I think skyhard is right when he said that the purpose of undo's is not to simulate a turn and then backtrack.

To Bornstein - I think that not allowing the undo is perfectly reasonable. I think the question I am really asking is more like is it better for the game as a whole to allow these kinds of undos. Or maybe like which results in being a better sport? Mixed with is this viewed by most players as being a poor sport. Something around there

Anyways, no I don't feel guilty. There was barely any chat other then me asking him why he wants an undo. We went on to play another game, so I assume he understood that it was iffy.

I almost never even consider not granting undo's. The only times I consider are when there are draws and when it's very late game. Otherwise, I like literally don't even stop to consider the reason for it, I just click grant. I think this for the most part is best for the game.

What was different about this is following through with your intended plan, and then only afterward realizing that said plan leaves you in a really bad spot likely to lose. At this point it doesn't seem right to be given another chance to reassess what you did after the consequences are laid out.

But then again, I am biased since it's my win at stake. Which is why I posted.

There are 4 provinces left. Villain is down by 19 with 30 monies and 4 buys on his turn. I on the other hand have a very strong engine, and can easily generate at least 3 provinces.
He has the ability to put out all but 2 golds, leaving him with 24, to buy 2 provinces and enhance the other 2 golds into provinces, thus winning the game. Villain does not realize this at first. He buys 3 provinces, and tanks for 10 seconds or so to decide what to do with 6 monies. Instead of buying a gold, he requests an undo all the way back to beginning of buy. I ask why and he says so he can enhance gold. I deny.

I normally am very lenient with undo's. I tried to put into words why I veto'd, and wasn't able to articulate it well. Something doesn't seem right about going through with several buys on your last turn, and then after seeing your buys leaves you in a very unlikely to win state, reconsider and see if there was anything that you could do differently so to avoid said undesirable state, and then that "post-mortem" allows you to win out-right.

Needless to say, after I veto his undo, I go onto win.

Should this undo have been allowed? Who should have won this game given he bought 3 provinces and requested undos?

I would like to play.