Messages

Even better if the bot were to take a second or two playing each card so that it could me mistaken for a real person, albeit one that played badly.  Then the idiots that deliberately slow roll could waste their time trying to get a bot to resign!

This is a pleasant bug but a bug none the less. In a game with a peasant, when u gain a teacher and play it ive encountered that the teacher reappears in my deck aproximately 5 turns later without me having to go trough all the upgrade stages from peasant and upwards. Its just there and not at the expense of my first teacher either, which remains active. A this time i had another peasant in my  deck but since the bug has happened before im not sure this always was the case.

It's possible that you have misunderstood how Teacher works.

Given that you say that your first Teacher is still 'active', I'm assuming that soon after you first played the Teacher (probably the very next turn) you called it to put a token on one of the Action piles.  When you call it, it goes into your play area.  Therefore at the end of that turn it gets discarded.  At some later stage your discard pile gets reshuffled and becomes your deck, so eventually the Teacher will find its way into your hand again.

It wasn't only because of the errataed shapeshifters that Death Cart et al needed to be errataed: Necromancer had already 'broken' the original versions.

One reason that I freely allow undos (that haven't revealed new information) both online and IRL is that given the choice of:

• My opponent plays quickly through to the point at which they can spot their error, and then requests an undo.
• My opponent sits for the maximum permitted time working out what their optimum move is.

I prefer the former.  Refusing undos that haven't revealed new information forces the latter.

I could be wrong, but I think the calculation of ratings isn't simply a case of adding in the new games.  I think the calculation has to start from the very beginning every time, which would certainly explain why it's a major overhead.  It's been stated that resigning against someone who is deliberately playing very slowly will have no effect on one's rating once that player is banned and their games expunged from the database.  That can surely only be true if the calculation of ratings is done ab initio every time.

When I was playing some preview games, I sometimes became confused when Throning an Action because I forgot that how the Action was played the first time had been determined by how I clicked on the card, so the question about the Way to play the Action was referring to the second play of it.

In games with Way of the Ox I also found that when confronted with multiple terminal Actions I would spend a few seconds deciding which one to Ox, and then thoughtlessly click on the wrong part of it.  Lord Rattington was of course always very obliging when I requested an undo, but a human opponent might not have been (especially in those instances when the incorrect play had drawn cards).

For both of the above reasons I would really like to be able to set an option that would cause the "Consider the Way" prompt to appear whenever I played an Action in a game where there is a Way.  Yes, I'd have to do a lot more clicking, but I already have to do that when discarding or trashing, given that I have the option set to request confirmation.  Overall this probably speeds my play up as I don't have to be so paranoid about the possibility that I'm making a mistake.

We'll look at the feedback and see what can be done to accomodate all players.

It's possible that some people might even prefer to be prompted every time they play an Action (much as they can opt to be prompted for confirmation for every trash or discard), horrendous though that would be for most people, so maybe an option to do so would be useful.  Based on the number of mistakes I've made in the games I've played so far against Lord Rattington, I might well opt for the extra clicking overhead.

With hundreds of players in the previews, some of them are bound to have extreme experiences of that kind.

And the lack of people replying "I've had Stockpile lots of times too" shows that I was one of the ones that had an extreme experience. 

I realise that the nature of random events means that rare occurrences must eventually happen to someone, but this is my experience this morning against Lord Rattington:

Played three games with Stockpile.
Resigned two games at the start because Stockpile had been drawn yet again.
Finally got a game with Bounty Hunter.
In the course of the next five games Stockpile appeared four times, Coven once.

Has anyone else had a similar experience?  Or have I merely been the person to whom a rare occurrence has occurred?

At least there should be an option for only playing against paid accounts.

I'd agree with that with one qualification: friends shouldn't be blocked by such an option.

I have a subscription and a rating of 50, have set my range to ±7, and always find a match within a few seconds (usually between UTC 1700 and UTC 2200), so I strongly suspect that the problem is that too many of the players in the queue do not have subscriptions!

I certainly like the suggestion!

I guess if you ask in German, most non-German players will immediately see that it is not in their languange and ignore the thread. Any German speaker will look into it and answer/respond, if they want to.

Höchstwahrscheinlich bin ich dann dieser deutschsprachige Nutzer.

Well, some non-German players would probably read it too, but if, like me, their ability to write German is vastly inferior to their ability to read it, you might have to put up with replies in another language.

I think the 3-pile rule adds greatly to the variability of games.  Without it every game would be about building an engine (or accumulating sufficient treasure if that's not possible) to buy Provinces.  With it there's scope in some kingdoms to get into an early lead and then clear three piles before your opponent's engine is working.

[Your]

I was playing Captain as Border Guard, with the Horn, and it only revealed 2 cards.

That's because Captain plays a Border Guard from the Supply, so that Border Guard is not yours, so does not benefit from Lantern's wording "Your Border Guards reveal 3 cards and discard 2." (my emphasis)