Messages

In my 'perfect world', I could select a list of cards I would want to trash with Sauna, and it would only ask me when one of those cards was in my hand. The list would probably start as "Curse, Copper, Estate, <Ruins>, <Shelters>", and maybe late game I would start to keep the Estates.

I think there will be too many exceptions, plus I really like keeping the explanatory text simple and clear. So I would just have the autoplay option be, you turn off the Sauna question, like with Urchin.

All moments where different abilities could trigger are treated as windows of time in Dominion. That's why you can resolve several start-of-turn abilities after each other. First you can call Guide (which might entail a Tunnel Gold-gaining), then draw cards from a Caravan, then play a Princed card, then play a Summoned card etc. All the time it's still "the start of your turn". Otherwise you would only be able to resolve one start-of-turn ability each turn.

Correct. I think this is the ideal way to handle this in games (of interacting rules on cards) in general.

The rule (which I also found weird) is the following: When a window of time arrives, there's a collection of abilities that trigger in that window ("at the same time"). Let's say the window is "x" (where "x" could be "start of turn" or "when you gain a Treasure" or "when another player plays Attack" etc). The user picks which one to resolve first, then picks the next to resolve, etc. Nothing ever gets removed from the collection, but abilities can be added to it at any time before the window of time is over. That is to say, if the conditions are correct for an "x" ability to trigger at any time during the window, it's added to the collection, and never removed even if those conditions change.

Correct. This is because of Secret Chamber / Moat way back when. You reveal Secret Chamber to an attack and draw into Moat. Can you use it? People felt like they should be able to. Also nothing keeps you honest; you'd have to reveal all Reactions at the same time, before resolving them, and of course the cards were trying to fit how they worked on the cards.

2.  Were the boards randomly generated?  The odds of having Plaza-Witch on the board, on the deciding game in two consecutive matches is . . . well, astronomical, yes?

After the fact, the chance is 100%!

You never notice the coincidences that don't happen. When you factor them in, the actual coincidences stop looking impressive.

Also, why was the commentary mainly focused on Jsh?

I imagine it's because they chat with him on discord all the time.

Here's it using an Event:

Turn 1 - Lord Rattington
L plays 5 Coppers.
L buys a Trade.
L trashes nothing.
L draws 5 cards.

My round 2 match vs ClearlyClarely

I was sitting there chanting, "Artisan an Outpost!" So there's my vote on that play.

How odd.  What is the reason for excluding these particular cards?  I am assuming that each of these 9 is, for various reasons, difficult to code in, yes?  Or is there a less technical reason for this decision?

I personally requested that cards with setup not appear in the Black Market deck. It's confusing.

I'm with Jester on this if only because a user named "CuckingmeNancy" was apparently OK.

I do not find anything offensive about Jesters G-String, apart from the missing apostrophe.

I could see not allowing CuckingmeNancy, having done my urbandictionary research.

I suspect no-one would subscribe to Copper (and that Silver is close to unused now).

I think the long-term way to be friendlier to overwhelmed new players is to have the campaigns. Each one is just the main set plus one expansion, and introduces cards slowly.

So here is a proposal for a way to allow spectators for this particular tournament, provided that it's trivial for Stef, which he'll at least quickly know, and that the cons don't seem to outweigh the pros for people.

- just before the tournament starts, turn off visibility of hands to spectators, across the board, all games
- turn it back on after the tournament is over (weeks later)

Notes:
- since there is no interface needed, no new "tournament mode" option (a better solution for down the road), this should be an easy change
- spectators will still be able to see some hidden information, e.g. Native Village mat, but it seems minor enough to not encourage desperately trying to cheat this way
- spectators in non-tournament games will not be able to see hands! That's a downside; I don't know how much that matters.

I have no horse in this race but there you go.

Fortune Teller currently says: "Each other player reveals cards from the top of their deck until they reveal a Victory card or Curse. They put it on top and discard the rest."

Shouldn't this say "...on top of their deck"?  Or "onto their deck"?

The intentional wording is:

Fortune Teller: Action - Attack, $3
+$2
Each other player reveals cards from the top of their deck until they reveal a Victory card or Curse. They put it on top and discard the rest.

Cornucopia / Guilds has not gotten its layout for a new printing yet. So you could conceivably argue me into a wording change. That wording is looking good though. I am not seeing anyone wondering "top of what, man, top of what."

Your explanation was good, but I am compelled to correct:

The horizontal line is missing on Harem due to an oversight, but if you Crown a Harem it gives you two dollars, then two dollars again, but the victory points are something that happens when the game ends just like any normal victory card.

Note that the 2E Harem has the line.

Watchtower omits the horizontal line for purely aesthetic reasons.

No, that post was referring to Harem. Watchtower has the line.

I should be clearer. Expecting to receive the 2VPs, when my opponent played the Masquerade, I gave him a copper. I went from having three estates to four. To me that is gaining a victory card.

To me, it felt like gaining a card when I was passed a card, but did not feel like trashing a card when passing a card - it doesn't go to the trash. So initially it was gaining but not trashing. This bothered some people. Also it means you have to reveal the cards, so a 3rd player (who hasn't seen the card) can say "hey that's an Embassy, we gain Silver."

So as published it is not gaining and not trashing. That was in the original Intrigue rulebook; I knew Hinterlands was coming. And it's in the 2E rulebook, it has not changed.

But yeah in Magic, do they really have people who played in the tournament commentate? I thought that with any competition of that kind of scale they would have dedicated commentators. It would seem weird to me but I'm not educated on the issue.

I don't know if they do this today, but they definitely did in the murky past, at multiple tournaments IRL. You are correct that you could potentially list all such players ahead of time; "if Mic doesn't make it he's agreed to commentate." I don't see why anyone would then decide "oh therefore I'm not playing." Absolutely anyone can comment after the fact anyway.

I don't see how real-time spectating / commentating possibly works for an online tournament with a cash prize; there's no way to stop the players from spectating, and incentive for them to do so. I would just ban it even if both players agree to it; then no-one has to worry about it, and no-one is that awful person who thought their opponent might cheat. As noted you can see the games after the fact.

Moderators will decide about the commentators. If a player is unable or unwilling to have their match streamed or commentated by the selected commentator, they forfeit the match.

If the moderators want the authority to make people forfeit matches, it's pretty good practice to do it as objectively and transparently as possible. You don't want to get into the situation where this was the rule, we get to the QFs and the mods decide "OK we're having AdamH do the commentary" and all of a sudden people would rather forfeit the match. It could easily be seen as a move done by those dastardly evil mods -- "MWAHAHAHAHHAHHH I want Joebob to lose the tournament and I know he hates Adam, so I can make him forfeit by telling him Adam will commentate!!!!!" when it could have all been prevented by just listing all of the commentators before the tournament started. If I was a mod, I would want that rule to be written before the tournament starts so that I could just point at the rule and everyone's life is easier (except for people who join the tournament without reading the rules first. There's no helping them by making better rules, sadly).

It seems likely that commentators will be top players who have been eliminated from the tournament; thus it's not possible to specify them in advance?

I am just posting to say though, that if you are in a Magic: The Gathering Pro Tour, and make the quarterfinals, the match will be filmed, and there will be commentary, and you will have no say in any of that. And they have had players eliminated in earlier rounds do commentary, thus not possibly specifying them ahead of time. And that has all worked out, no-one ever forfeits to avoid that.