Messages

Hmm, I see the problem. The game I was trying to load is a 1-player game apparently. It's game #66318559 in the card bug list. I didn't know that 1-player games existed and I don't know how to start them. When I try to start it, it just says "not enough players".

That is to say, I can load the game, but the "add bot" button seems to be missing, so I can't start the game. Has there been a change?

I thught the 4 minute timeout was because sometimes the turn is so complicated that you need that time to figure out what to do. (And you can't always play a Copper to reset the timer.)

Or from my rules document:
If you Mastermind another Mastermind, the first one stays in play as long as the Duration it played—the second Mastermind—stays in play. If you next turn use the second Mastermind on another Duration, both Masterminds stay in play as long as that Duration does.

[as long as the Duration does]

The first part of the wiki is correct. Under the old rule, both Throne Rooms would stay in play, but now under the new rule, they don't. However, as Ingix was saying, Mastermind is itself a Duration, as well as being a TR variant.

You play MM+MM+Duration.

Since the TR+TR+Duration rule was changed, that rule would not make the first Mastermind stay in play. However, there is another rule, which is the second one in the wiki quote: TR+Duration makes the TR (or TR variant) stay in play as long as the Duration does. The first MM (as a TR variant) stays as long as the second MM (as a Duration) does, and the second MM (as a TR variant) stays as long as the Duration does.

UNDO IS NOT A PART OF THE ACTUAL GAME.

Misclicking is not part of the actual game either.

Couldn't the clock just freeze while undo the undo is pending? (No need to only consider the extreme choice of resetting the clock.) Freezing the clock has the added benefit of giving your opponent and insentive to answer promptly.

Sorry for necroing, I just want to add my voice to those saying that the undo should be granted. IRL there is no reason to deny a player the opportunity to change their mind when no new info has been revealed - even on the last turn, obviously before you start counting points. The reason this is even a topic in online play is because some players confuse clicking buttons with playing Dominion. Clicking is not an integral part of playing Dominion.

Because of the online VP counter, there is some disagreement in this thread on what constitutes new info. When it comes to Wolf Den etc. - which rely on knowing the contents of your deck - you first have to realize that it matters, then you either have to remember the game state or go back through the log. If you didn't realize that it mattered (since you had forgotten to think about it), the score after your turn would alert you to it, and this would be new info for you (since you had forgotten). If you did realize, but you misremember the game state, or don't bother checking, the score after your turn would likewise be new info for you. (In any case, there is no way for the other player to know exactly why you made the mistake.)

If you played Treasures with a certain plan in mind, and realize during your turn that you shouldn't have, that is not based on new info. Maybe you could say that the point counter goes up as you're buying Provinces. I would not view this as new info, it's just that the VP counter is helping you add 6 to your score. You already knew that buying a Province would give you 6 VP. There is no way that is unforeseen or something you didn't think about. The reason you want to change your plan is based on your own brain power.

Stef, thanks for your explanation. "These" posts from me before have been mostly about Band of Misfits, Inheritance and Innovation (sometimes with some Landmarks). (Luckily, the Band of Misfits and Inheritance stuff is now moot.) With Innovation specifically, Donald had to make some new rulings because of the questions that came up. I understand that those questions were not asked before I asked them, which I wonder about. It would seem prudent to map that out during/before development, in order to get it right from the start, to whatever extent is possible given the problems you outline. I have never been asked if I would be available, for instance.

When it comes to the topic of this thread, it's a bit different, because the actual underlying rule was ill-defined until January last year. Donald knew how the cards interacted, but the rule was not well defined. Also, as you say, the effect of the missing stuff in the client was marginal, at least until now.

Ultimately, whatever you deem should reasonably be fixed is of course up to you. I just report it (and in this case got a bit frustrated that I was not believed). Of course, it's nice if you or Ingix tell me that it will be fixed at some point or it won't be fixed.

***

Way of the Mouse seems to create more Innovation-like craziness, like gain Death Cart and play Marauder (via Sheepdog/Mouse) before you gain the second Ruins. I don't know how you've handled this or even if it's something you want to include in the client.

That's not how abilities work in Dominion. You can't interweave two abilities that trigger at the same time. For instance, if you gain a Death Cart, both Death Cart and Watchtower (for gaining Death Cart) trigger, but you can't resolve Watchtower inbetween gaining two Ruins - you can't gain a Ruins, topdeck Deathcart, then gain another Ruins. Likewise, with two abilities that say "each other player", you have to resolve one of them completely before resolving the other. This is why my example shows the problem with your view.

With Duplicate and Embassy it's the same: There are only two abilities, Duplicate and Embassy. One has to come first. If Embassy said "each player" (so that you also gained a Silver), you couldn't call Duplicate on the Embassy in the middle of handing out Silvers.

Here's Donald explaining exactly this when it comes to Noble Brigand/Embargo: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4535.msg101911#msg101911

Your view would mean the that if you gain Haunted Castle, I could play Black Cat after you gain a Gold but before I topdeck. That's in the middle of resolving Haunted Castle and obviously wrong. (Black Cat triggers off you gaining Haunted Castle, not you gaining Gold.)

This rule is what we have to explain these interactions, and Donald has confirmed it. I didn't write that it was my personal theory. It's a bit frustrating that you're doubting it. You can go do the research and find out why this rule exists. If you want to propose an alternate rule that achieves the desired results for these interactions, you can formulate it and propose it to Donald.

Here is the thread about this: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19452.0

Lost City is incorrect both from your view and my view: When I gain it (on my turn), it let's my opponent draw a card before I can handle my triggers (Changeling in my tests).

That is incorrect from my view, yes. But how would it be correct from your view?

The thing with Embassy, Ill-Gotten Gains and Lost City, is that the "each other player" effect should belong to the player who gained the card.

And this is where we differ, I think they should belong to the other players and ordered by them.

What is it that should be ordered? With Embassy, are you saying that the other players should decide if you get to use Watchtower or Innovation before they gain Silvers? Should they take a vote to decide this? Or are you talking about the Silver gainings? They obviously go in turn order, there is no decision.

Also, this is the way we know who gets to order the gaining when you buy a card with Haggler in play and opponent's Swamp Hag in effect.

So in this example, always Haggler first and Swamp Hag second, or buying player decides (or something else)? I think gaining player decides, which also seems to go contrary to how I interpret your model.

Buying player decides. This is not an "each other player" effect. So mentioning this was a bit misleading from me. It's connected to the greater question of who abilities belong to, but it's complicated. I can get back to this if necessary.

I think you're failing to understand my first post. Maybe you can check the hypothetical example I wrote, and ask if you don't get why it shows that "each other player" has to belong to the player being addressed by the card.

See here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19913.msg812205#msg812205
You yourself have an example with Embassy that is correct, but that is apparently not how it works in the client.

How Changeling interacts with the Embassy gains is more complicated. Once for example player B has gained an Embassy, now 2 things have triggered:
1) the mandatory Silver gain for the other players by Embassy itself, and
2) the optional exchange for a Changeling.

Both triggers 'belong' to player B, so they get to decide which order they are executed in. They can choose to do 2) before 1) and thus exchange the Embassy for a Changeling before player A (and later C and D) gain their Silvers.

A few posts later in that thread, I talk about the "each other player" rule.

Maybe I'm not understanding you completely.

The thing with Embassy, Ill-Gotten Gains and Lost City, is that the "each other player" effect should belong to the player who gained the card. That player should get to order any other when-gain stuff (like Reactions) happening at the same time. So with Embassy and Watchtower: I choose which happens first: "I topdeck Embassy with Watchtower" or "each other player gains a Silver". It's exactly like the Lost City example.

EDIT: Ok, I see what you're saying now. You're saying that Embassy and IGG work correctly even though they don't work as I described above. But then why are you reading Lost City differently?

In any case, this is how "each other player" effects work. I can look for the ruling. But as I explained in my first post with the hypothetical example, it makes no sense that it's the other way. Also, this is the way we know who gets to order the gaining when you buy a card with Haggler in play and opponent's Swamp Hag in effect.

I don't know if this bug has been corrected, but it became more relevant with Menagerie.

You can gain Embassy, Ill-Gotten Gains or Lost City and react with Sheepdog using Way of the Mouse on an "each other player" attack. Let's say the Way of the Mouse card is Urchin, and you have a Sheepdog in hand, and you gain Lost City. Now it matters whether you play the Sheepdog (+ Urchin via Mouse) first or the other players draw for Lost City first. And that's your decision.