Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
21 Posts

7 Ages» Forums » Rules

Subject: Vizier timing Q rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Truls Rostrup
United Kingdom
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmb
This situation came up, clarifications needed:

Player A hits player B with Empire Collapses. B cancels it with Rebels Foiled. Can A then use Vizier to get Empire Collapses back from the discard pile, or is Rebels Foiled considered to be the topmost card since it was the last one played?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Harry Rowland
Australia
O'Connor
ACT
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
The way we play is no you would have to pick up the empire collapses card immediately it is played, not after it is foiled.

Regards
Harry
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Peters
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The rules say, "Discard all played cards after use." So an event card, if not cancelled, goes into the discard pile after its effects are complete. If it is cancelled, it goes into the discard pile as part of the explicit instructions given for the cancellation event, after which the card for the (completed) cancellation event goes into the discard pile.

So the sequence that applies in this example, assuming no Vizier is played, is:

1. Empire Collapses is announced.
2. Anyone going to try to cancel Empire Collapses (or take it over with Blowback)?
3. Rebels Foiled is announced.
4. Anyone going to try to cancel Rebels Foiled? No one? Okay, it's successful.
5. Apply effects of Rebels Foiled event: (a) Empire Collapses event is determined to be unsuccessful; (b) Empire Collapses card goes into the discard pile; (c) Player who played Rebels Foiled gets a glory point (a special feature of Rebels Foiled that doesn't apply to other cancellation events).
6. Rebels Foiled card goes into the discard pile (now that its effects are complete).

So what are the implications for Vizier? The card says it can be played at "any time". That would imply that it can go between steps 5 and 6 of the sequence just described. So my answer is yes, you can use Vizier to pick up a cancelled Empire Collapses event, by playing Vizier after the effects of Rebels Foiled are complete but before the Rebels Foiled card hits the discard pile.

I am simply invoking some nice, logical principles that can be applied consistently to any imaginable situation involving card plays. So if I'm wrong -- as Harry's answer would seem to suggest -- then I want to know: What is the governing principle here? I want it spelled out in such a way that every possible situation is covered. I don't want similar questions to have to be asked and answered on an ad hoc case-by-case basis.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Harry Rowland
Australia
O'Connor
ACT
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
You forgot 2b, 2c & 4b & 4c

2b place Empires collapses in discard pile
2c Does anyone want to vizier Empires collapses?

4b place rebels foiled in discard pile
4c Does anyone want to vizier rebels foiled?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Peters
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Why "2b,2c" and "4b,4c"? I had Empire Collapses going into the discard pile in 5b and Rebels Foiled going into the discard pile in 6, following the most natural reading of the rules. ("Discard after use.") If an event card is already in the discard pile before a cancellation event is played, then why do the instructions on the cancellation events say to discard the targeted card?

As for "Does anyone want to play Vizier": I didn't "forget"; I deliberately simplified the sequence to make my point clearer. Vizier can be played at "any time", allegedly. So for completeness, a "Does anyone want to play Vizier" step would have to be added in several other places also -- along with "Does anyone want to play Copper Mine (etc.)", and several other "any time" activities. (Such as the removal of Heresy by an active religious leader -- any time during a civilise action. Or the imposition of a "marriage" by an active Hapsburg empire -- any time during an action.)

Sorry, Harry. I can't make sense of your response as written. Again, what is the general rule that governs the timing of a card hitting the discard pile?

I've been following your rulebook as written (at least, where the present issue is concerned). If I'm wrong, an official erratum is required.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Peters
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
To add to my previous comment:

It (literally!) doesn't make sense to put the discarding of Empire Collapses between steps 2 and 3 of my example. If the cancellation event has not yet been announced, then there is no sense in which another step can be performed after the "anyone wants to cancel?" step is done.

Therefore, if we're going to insist that an event card must go into the discard pile immediately after the event is announced (contrary to the rules as written, and potentially causing a host of needless complications), then surely "1b" would make more sense than "2b" for discarding Empire Collapses. Similarly, "3b" would make more sense than "4b" for discarding Rebels Foiled.

But if no one's going to comment, then maybe I should consider everyone to have conceded that my first response here is correct.

(Just kidding, Zeljko!)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zeljko
Serbia
Belgrade
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
the drin wrote:
The rules say, "Discard all played cards after use."


If 'use'='event finished' then you are right.
If 'use'='play' then:

1. Empire Collapses is announced and discarded.
2. Anyone wants to play Vizier and take Empire Collapses?
3. Anyone going to try to cancel Empire Collapses (or take it over with Blowback)?
4. Rebels Foiled is announced and discarded.
5. Anyone want to play Vizier and take Rebels Foiled?
4. Anyone going to try to cancel Rebels Foiled? No one? Okay, it's successful.
5. Apply effects of Rebels Foiled event.

the drin wrote:

So what are the implications for Vizier? The card says it can be played at "any time". That would imply that it can go between steps 5 and 6 of the sequence just described. So my answer is yes, you can use Vizier to pick up a cancelled Empire Collapses event, by playing Vizier after the effects of Rebels Foiled are complete but before the Rebels Foiled card hits the discard pile.


Technically speaking, there is no difference wheter somebody is discarding after 'effects complete' or after 'play announced'. Player with Vizier can in either way get the card he wants. Only difference is that, if there are two players with Vizier.

In 'discard after announced' Vizier advantage is always left to the player just discarded card.

Who has the advantage in 'discard after effects complete'? Player always left to the turn marker or left to the player just discarding a card.

DAA (Discard after announced) has one more significant advantage over DAEC 'discard after effects complete'. There is no need to keep record of the sequence of events played. This can be extremly complicated for 'Barrack Revolt'. There are randomizer and potentional battle cards played.

Example:
1. Barracks Revolt is played and discarded.
2. Randomizer1 is drawn. As a result three conflicts are fought.
3. Conflict1: Randomizer2 and Randomizer3 are drawn. Battle1 and Battle2 are played. Randomizer4 and Randomizer5 are drawn.
4. Conflict2: Randomizer6 and Randomizer7 are drawn.
5. Conflict3: Randomizer8 and Randomizer9 are drawn. Battle3 is played.

What is the discard order now? You have 1 event, 9 randomizer and 3 battle events played.

In DAA version, it is simple. Discard immediately, pick up immediately with Vizier interruption. It is very clear who has Vizier advantage, player left to the player discarding card.

In DAEC version you would have to remember who drawn which randomiser card to resolve which Vizier has priority.

To summarize: DAA and DAEC have the same effect on gameplay, only DAA is easier to implement and track.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zeljko
Serbia
Belgrade
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
TrUlster wrote:
This situation came up, clarifications needed:

Player A hits player B with Empire Collapses. B cancels it with Rebels Foiled. Can A then use Vizier to get Empire Collapses back from the discard pile, or is Rebels Foiled considered to be the topmost card since it was the last one played?


To reply to original question:

Player A plays Empire Collapses. Discards Empire Collapses.
Does anybody (starting from Player A to the left) want to Vizier Empire Collapses?
Player B plays Rebels Foiled. Discards Rebels Foiled.
Does anybody (starting from Player B to the left) want to Vizier Rebels Foiled?
At this moment, Empire Collapses cannot be taken by Vizier.

According to our house rules, any discarded card must be 'read' (Empire, artefact, event) loud by player discarding card. While he is speaking, anybody can Vizier it. After being 'read' it is considered that nobody want to Vizier it.

I can see potentional conflict here - player A would never Vizier Empire Collapses if he knew that player B had had Rebels Foiled.

Player A should have announced and completed Vizier action _before_ he knew that player B had Rebels Foiled.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Truls Rostrup
United Kingdom
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmb
Thanks all, will probably go with the last interpretation in the future, seems easier to implement, at least when all players are aware and agree on that (must use vizier immediately to pick up last card played) version.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zeljko
Serbia
Belgrade
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
TrUlster wrote:
Thanks all, will probably go with the last interpretation in the future, seems easier to implement, at least when all players are aware and agree on that (must use vizier immediately to pick up last card played) version.


Daniel, one more soul with me... devil
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Peters
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
morkin wrote:
Daniel, one more soul with me... devil

Ouch! But I still have some fight left in me. arrrh
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Peters
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
morkin wrote:
If 'use'='event finished' then you are right.

I think that's the most natural interpretation. Since an event is an effect of a card, the card is still being "used" as long as the event is ongoing.
morkin wrote:
If 'use'='play' then:

1. Empire Collapses is announced and discarded.
2. Anyone wants to play Vizier and take Empire Collapses?
3. Anyone going to try to cancel Empire Collapses (or take it over with Blowback)?
4. Rebels Foiled is announced and discarded.
5. Anyone want to play Vizier and take Rebels Foiled?
6. Anyone going to try to cancel Rebels Foiled? No one? Okay, it's successful.
7. Apply effects of Rebels Foiled event.

Yes, that works.
morkin wrote:
In 'discard after announced' Vizier advantage is always left to the player just discarded card.

I disagree.

From the Player's Guide:
Quote:
If several people want to play cards at the same time, the player with the turn marker gets first chance to play. The player to their left gets the next chance, and so on.

So it doesn't matter who discarded the card. The Vizier advantage always belongs first to the player with the turn marker, thence clockwise around the table. And it doesn't matter, for this purpose, whether the timing of the discard is "DAA" or "DAEC".
morkin wrote:
DAA (Discard after announced) has one more significant advantage over DAEC 'discard after effects complete'. There is no need to keep record of the sequence of events played.

But this is very easy. All you need to do is create a separate pile of cards for "events in progress". (There's plenty of room in the arctic icecap on the map, for example.) And as I pointed out already, DAEC does not cause any more need to remember who played an event than DAA does.
morkin wrote:
This can be extremly complicated for 'Barrack Revolt'.

Not at all! It's very easy.

Here's how Barracks Revolt works in a DAEC interpretation:

(A) The initial randomizer (that determines how many conflicts occur) is discarded immediately.

(B) Battle events and battle randomizers are handled the same way as in any other conflict. Specifically:
(B1) Battle randomizers are discarded when the conflict totals are calculated. (Attacker's card first.)
(B2) Treachery has a very quick effect, so it is discarded (nearly) immediately -- that is, as soon as it is determined that the event is successful.
(B3) Rout follows the same principles as Treachery.
(B4) Charge and Schwerpunkt (the one-round events) are discarded when the conflict totals are calculated -- just after the battle randomizers are discarded. (If both are played on the same round, they are discarded in the order in which they were played.)
(B5) All other battle-related events are discarded when the conflict outcome (attacker wins, defender wins, both sides are annihilated) is determined, just before all other "aftermath" effects. (If more than one is played in the same conflict, they are discarded in the order in which they were played.)

(C) Finally, the Barracks Revolt event card is discarded when the entire event is finished.

So what's the problem?
morkin wrote:
To summarize: DAA and DAEC have the same effect on gameplay, only DAA is easier to implement and track.

But the alleged difficulty with DAEC is based on (I think) an erroneous interpretation of who gets the Vizier advantage. It does not matter who discarded the card (i.e., the card potentially being grabbed by the Vizier), regardless of whether we're playing according to DAA or DAEC!

So I do not believe that DAA is any easier.

Also, I do not believe that DAA and DAEC have the same effect on gameplay. DAA opens up a large number of complications that do not exist with DAEC, because it implies that an event is essentially divorced from the card that caused it. Therefore, two or more events from the same card can co-exist and interfere with each other.

DAA Example:

1. Player A plays Empire Collapses on one of player B's empires, believing that Rebels Foiled, Vital Heir, and one of the two Bad Augury cards are safely buried in the discard pile where no one can get them. He hopes that no one has the other Bad Augury card. Empire Collapses goes into the discard pile.

2. Player B plays Bad Augury to cancel Empire Collapses. ("Drat!" says player A.) Bad Augury goes into the discard pile.

3. Player C plays Vizier to pick up the Bad Augury. Vizier goes into the discard pile. At this point, there are three potential events still pending; it has not yet been determined which are successful.

4. After a brief pause, it becomes clear that no one is going to try to cancel the Vizier. So the Vizier is declared successful.

5. Player C fishes under the Vizier card to pick up the Bad Augury card.

6. Player C (who agrees with player A that player B is too strong) plays the same Bad Augury card to cancel itself. (That is, to cancel its earlier manifestation.) Two potential Bad Augury events, both from the same card, are now pending.

7. After a brief pause, it becomes clear that no one is going to try to cancel the second Bad Augury. So the second Bad Augury is declared successful.

8. As a result, the first Bad Augury is declared unsuccessful. It still has not been determined whether the Empire Collapses event is successful. Further attempts to interfere with this event are still possible.

9. Player B plays Blowback to take control of the Empire Collapses event and direct it toward one of player C's empires. Blowback goes into the discard pile.

10. Player C plays Vizier (yes, he had both Vizier cards!) to pick up Blowback.

11. After a brief pause, it becomes clear that no one is going to try to cancel the Vizier. So the Vizier is declared successful.

12. Player C fishes under the Vizier card to pick up the Blowback card.

13. No one tries to cancel Blowback, so it is declared successful. It is still possible, in principle, to interfere with the Empire Collapses event. Player A is doubting his memory: "Did I really see the Vital Heir/Sumerians card get discarded? Maybe Player C has it. Why else would he look so calm?"

14. Player C plays Blowback to take over Empire Collapses and direct its effects back onto its original target.

15. The game breaks down into a heated argument over the rules. The players fail to notice that this problem would not have arisen if they had played according to DAEC.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Peters
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
(Going with DAA assumptions, for the sake of argument.)
morkin wrote:
Player A plays Empire Collapses. Discards Empire Collapses.
Does anybody (starting from Player A to the left) want to Vizier Empire Collapses?
Player B plays Rebels Foiled. [*] Discards Rebels Foiled.
Does anybody (starting from Player B to the left) want to Vizier Rebels Foiled?
At this moment, Empire Collapses cannot be taken by Vizier.

I agree that after Rebels Foiled has gone into the discard pile, Vizier cannot be directed at Empire Collapses. But since Vizier can be played at "any time" (according to the instructions on the card), why can't it be played at the moment I have marked with "[*]" (in the middle of the quotation above)? When Rebels Foiled is announced, the holder of a Vizier card can say "Wait a moment! I want to play Vizier on the Empire Collapses card before the Rebels Foiled card buries it." (Why not?)
morkin wrote:
According to our house rules, any discarded card must be 'read' (Empire, artefact, event) loud by player discarding card. While he is speaking, anybody can Vizier it. After being 'read' it is considered that nobody want to Vizier it.

But surely they can change their mind later, as long as the desired card has not been buried under other cards. This restriction (that a Vizier must be played immediately, or not at all) makes sense when another card is about to be discarded, but otherwise it's too harsh.
morkin wrote:
I can see potentional conflict here - player A would never Vizier Empire Collapses if he knew that player B had had Rebels Foiled.

Why not?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zeljko
Serbia
Belgrade
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
the drin wrote:
If several people want to play cards at the same time, the player with the turn marker gets first chance to play. The player to their left gets the next chance, and so on.


OK, my mistake.

the drin wrote:
But this is very easy. All you need to do is create a separate pile of cards for "events in progress". (There's plenty of room in the arctic icecap on the map, for example.) And as I pointed out already, DAEC does not cause any more need to remember who played an event than DAA does.


Lets identify the difference between DAA and DAEC and impact on a game play. Both systems have exactly the same impact on the game, except the play of Vizier (and consequently, some cards may be played twice).

DAA offers more flexibility and larger number of repeating counterevents because all cards end on Discard1 pile and are subject to Vizier. Drawback of this approach is that during normal gameplay it may be difficult to Vizier a card in a time. (Player with countercard, especially blowback is tempted to play it before somebody has opportunity to pick event card with Vizier).

DAEC offers less number of repeating counterevents since it is not possible to Vizier a card from Discard2 pile. Thus, Blowback can be played only once for any event.

drin wrote:
Here's how Barracks Revolt works in a DAEC interpretation:

(A) The initial randomizer (that determines how many conflicts occur) is discarded immediately.


Now I am confused. While Barrack Revolt lasts, some cards go to Discard1 and some cards go to Discard2. How do you tell the difference? Clear rule for DEAC is required.

Consider this scenario (we do not discuss effects, just discard order)
Event1 Start: Barracks Revolt is played.
Randomizer is played. Two battles are to be fought (and both are resolved in two rounds).
Battle1A is drawn
Battle1D is drawn
Event 2 Start: I Spy!
Event 3 Start: Outflanked
(conflict resolved)
Battle2A is drawn
Battle2D is drawn
Event 4 Start: Charge!
(conflict resolved)
Event 4 Complete
Event 3 Complete
Event 2 Complete
Battle3A is Drawn
Battle3D is Drawn
(conflict resoved)
Battle4A is Drawn
Battle4D is Drawn
(conflict resolved)
Event 1 Complete.

In the DAA version, discard pile looks like (bottom to top):
Barracks Revolt, Randomizer, I Spy!, Outflanked, Battle1A, Battle1D, Charge!,Battle2A, Battle2D, Battle3A, Battle3D, Battle4A, Battle4D.

If I understood correctly, in the DAEC version discard pile looks like (bottom to top):
Randomizer, Battle1A, Battle1D, Charge!, Battle2A, Battle2D, Outflanked, I Spy!, Battle 3A, Battle 3D, Battle 4A, Battle4D, Barracks Revolt.

the drin wrote:
Also, I do not believe that DAA and DAEC have the same effect on gameplay. DAA opens up a large number of complications that do not exist with DAEC, because it implies that an event is essentially divorced from the card that caused it. Therefore, two or more events from the same card can co-exist and interfere with each other.


Exactly! But this is not "complication", it adds flavour to the game.

the drin wrote:
DAA Example:


Exactly!

the drin wrote:
The game breaks down into a heated argument over the rules. The players fail to notice that this problem would not have arisen if they had played according to DAEC.


LOL! Not, since the rules are clear. You figured it out without problems. Seriously, it can be played both ways.

Personally, I think DAA is better. More combinations (complications) possible. Except discard order, 'DAA version' can be seen as special case of 'DAEC version with 7 Ages expansion' - with additional counter-cards.

Assume that there are 3 blowback cards in the deck. This is virtually the same as one blowback card +2 Vizier cards. With expansion, this is what you will get. More "complication".

And I will be happy to handle it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zeljko
Serbia
Belgrade
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
the drin wrote:
But since Vizier can be played at "any time" (according to the instructions on the card), why can't it be played at the moment I have marked with "[*]" (in the middle of the quotation above)?


No. Since 'announce play'='discard'

If you allow this, you would enter into interesting situations. Suppose that Plague event is in progress. Third randomizer card played is Bad Augury. It could be possible to Vizier it and cancel on-going Plague. It is not allowed. Once an event has started (not announced!), there is no way to cancel it.

It is similar with 'announce play'. Between 'announce play' and 'card hits discard pile' nothing can be done.

the drin wrote:
When Rebels Foiled is announced, the holder of a Vizier card can say "Wait a moment! I want to play Vizier on the Empire Collapses card before the Rebels Foiled card buries it. (Why not?)


Absolutely not. Because technically player can put card on a discard pile and announce this event simultaneously. So, player with vizier can't access Empire Collapses. After each discard there is miniphase "do you want to Vizier that?". So, player had a chance to Vizier it.

With literal interpretation of 'any time' we will end up with 'I spoke first' rule which nobody wants.

the drin wrote:
morkin wrote:
According to our house rules, any discarded card must be 'read' (Empire, artefact, event) loud by player discarding card. While he is speaking, anybody can Vizier it. After being 'read' it is considered that nobody want to Vizier it.

But surely they can change their mind later, as long as the desired card has not been buried under other cards. This restriction (that a Vizier must be played immediately, or not at all) makes sense when another card is about to be discarded, but otherwise it's too harsh.


Yes, you are right. Discarded card can be "Viziered" until next event is discarded.

the drin wrote:
morkin wrote:
I can see potentional conflict here - player A would never Vizier Empire Collapses if he knew that player B had had Rebels Foiled.

Why not?


I was never good with conditional sentences in English.
What I wanted to say is:

Player A plays Empire Collapses on player B and wants to keep Vizier for something better (he wants to discard his still 2nd age Japanese Empire, vizier it and start them in 5th Age - one of my group favourite tricks). However, as Player B played Rebels Foiled he regrets not using Vizier on Empire Collapses because destroying an empire of player B considers more impotrant.

(I like combination with Empire Collapses + Vizier, after played, a lot of people know what you have in your hand and are reluctant to attack you).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Peters
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
morkin wrote:
Let's identify the difference between DAA and DAEC and impact on a game play. Both systems have exactly the same impact on the game, except the play of Vizier (and consequently, some cards may be played twice).

Yes, that's the main difference.
morkin wrote:
DAA offers more flexibility and larger number of repeating counterevents because all cards end on Discard1 pile and are subject to Vizier.

Right. My fear is that with a greater variety of possible combinations of events, the task of de-bugging the game will be harder. (In my previous example, I imagined an argument about whether two Blowbacks on the same event are allowed.)
morkin wrote:
DAEC offers less number of repeating counterevents since it is not possible to Vizier a card from Discard2 pile. Thus, Blowback can be played only once for any event.

Right. (I assume that by "Discard2" you mean the events-in-progress pile, while "Discard1" is the discard pile.)

morkin wrote:
Now I am confused. While Barrack Revolt lasts, some cards go to Discard1 and some cards go to Discard2. How do you tell the difference?

The DAA/DAEC argument is about event cards, not about randomizers. Regardless of DAA/DAEC, conflict randomizers are discarded when conflict totals are calculated and the resulting unit losses are applied, assassination randomizers and Uprising randomizers are discarded when they are revealed, and all other randomizers are discarded immediately when drawn.

A conflict-related event will be finished (and discarded) when the conflict is finished, or (more likely) earlier. It does not matter (for this purpose) whether the conflict is part of a Barracks Revolt or not. So if we can agree on how to handle a conflict, then Barracks Revolt does not present any problems.

Granted, there is some ambiguity in DAEC. (1) When exactly is an event "complete"? (You have already read my answers to this, although most other people probably have not.) (2) If two or more events are completed at the same time, do we discard them as a "queue" (in the same order in which they were played) or as a "stack" (in the opposite order)? (Both answers are equally good, though I would go with "queue".)
morkin wrote:
Consider this scenario (we do not discuss effects, just discard order)

I have modified it slightly for clarity:

Event1 Start: Barracks Revolt is played.
Randomizer is played. Two battles are to be fought.
(start first conflict)
Battle1A is drawn
Battle1D is drawn
Event 2 Start: I Spy!
Event 3 Start: Outflanked
(round resolved)
Battle2A is drawn
Battle2D is drawn
Event 4 Start: Charge!
(round resolved)
Event 4 Complete
(conflict result determined)
Events 2 and 3 Complete
(end first conflict)
(start second conflict)
Battle3A is Drawn
Battle3D is Drawn
(round resolved)
Battle4A is Drawn
Battle4D is Drawn
(round resolved)
(conflict result determined)
(end second conflict)
Event 1 Complete.
morkin wrote:
If I understood correctly, in the DAEC version discard pile looks like (bottom to top):
Randomizer, Battle1A, Battle1D, Charge!, Battle2A, Battle2D, Outflanked, I Spy!, Battle 3A, Battle 3D, Battle 4A, Battle4D, Barracks Revolt.

Putting Outflanked before I Spy! indicates the "stack" option instead of the "queue" option. As I said, both are equally good, but I go with "queue".

The only other issue here is the placement of Charge!. The principle I use here is: If Procedure2 is a step within Procedure1, then an event that specifically affects Procedure2 should be considered complete before an event that affects Procedure1 as a whole. That is why I would discard Charge! before Outflanked and I Spy!. There remains some ambiguity about whether a one-round event (such as Charge!) should be discarded before or after that round’s randomizers. I have suggested "after".

So the discard order (the way I play it) would be:
Randomizer, Battle1A, Battle1D, Battle2A, Battle2D, Charge!, I Spy!, Outflanked, Battle3A, Battle3D, Battle4A, Battle4D, Barracks Revolt.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Peters
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
morkin wrote:
No. Since 'announce play'='discard'

I understood DAA to mean "discard after announcement". The announcement and the discarding are distinct steps, but the latter (normally) follows the former immediately. Putting an "=" sign between the announcement and the discarding is much more restrictive!
morkin wrote:
If you allow this, you would enter into interesting situations. Suppose that Plague event is in progress. Third randomizer card played is Bad Augury. It could be possible to Vizier it and cancel on-going Plague. It is not allowed. Once an event has started (not announced!), there is no way to cancel it.

I agree that this is not allowed. I do not agree that this case has any relevance to our discussion.
morkin wrote:
It is similar with 'announce play'. Between 'announce play' and 'card hits discard pile' nothing can be done.

Again, why not? I do not see any connection between this question and your Plague example.
morkin wrote:
Because technically player can put card on a discard pile and announce this event simultaneously.

I disagree. The fact that there are priority rules (to which we have agreed) implies that an event announcement and the discarding of the card are distinct procedures.

Example (DAA):

1. Player A announces Vizier to try to grab Empire Collapses.

2. Player B, with the turn marker, announces Vizier to try to grab Empire Collapses instead of player A. (Player A protests, "I spoke first!" Player B says, "That’s irrelevant." Players C, D, E all agree that player B is right. Player A relents after player C shows everyone a printout of a discussion from the BGG 7 Ages forum.) This is what I call "overriding": Player B's Vizier overrides player A's Vizier.

3. Player B's Vizier card goes onto discard pile.

4. No one cancels player B's Vizier, so it is declared successful.

5. Player B fishes for the Empire Collapses card.

(End of example.) Notice that player A's Vizier card never went into the discard pile. Or if it did so, it did so incorrectly.
morkin wrote:
So, player with vizier can't access Empire Collapses. After each discard there is miniphase "do you want to Vizier that?". So, player had a chance to Vizier it.

Yes, but I was suggesting that the announcement of the new event (Rebels Foiled in the original example) brings about one final opportunity for a player with Vizier to change his mind and grab the previous card before it gets buried. I don't see any problems caused by allowing this “one last chance” (unless the newly-announced event is also a Vizier, in which case I agree that squeezing a Vizier between the announcement and the discarding should be forbidden).
morkin wrote:
With literal interpretation of 'any time' we will end up with 'I spoke first' rule which nobody wants.

We agree about this: Nobody wants an "I spoke first" rule.

But I do not believe that the literal interpretation of "any time" puts us in any danger of getting closer to an "I spoke first" rule.

If we allow the "one last chance for Vizier" when the new event is also a Vizier, then we’ll have (in effect) an "I spoke second" rule (which is even worse than an "I spoke first" rule). So as I said, I agree that that case should not be allowed. But I don't see any problems if the new event is not a Vizier.

If we forbid the "one last chance for Vizier" in all cases, then a higher-priority player could use Copper Mine to bury a newly-discarded card so that no one could Vizier it. Should this be allowed? (You mentioned this case to me in your response to the NPG. I must confess that I still haven't read it in detail. But I will, I promise!)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Peters
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
the drin wrote:
My fear is that with a greater variety of possible combinations of events, the task of de-bugging the game will be harder.

This was silly of me. We're surely adequate to the task!

I feel like you may be converting me over to the DAA side. I did not expect that. Not at all.

But I'll need to "sleep on it".

DAEC still has the advantage that the events-in-progress pile gives you a nice tangible indicator of ongoing events. (And when a card is in the discard pile, that means that nothing related to that card is happening.) With DAA, on the other hand, there is nothing to "mark" an ongoing event.

(Okay, that is a very minor point.)
morkin wrote:
But this is not "complication", it adds flavour to the game.

Damn! You're good.

Very good.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zeljko
Serbia
Belgrade
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
the drin wrote:
I understood DAA to mean "discard after announcement". The announcement and the discarding are distinct steps, but the latter (normally) follows the former immediately. Putting an "=" sign between the announcement and the discarding is much more restrictive!


Perhaps 'announcement' is really too restrictive. I cant find right word, but I want to say:

Civilise action. Discard deck is empty, so Vizier cant be played. Nobody wants to play money event either. An empire plays event card. Card goes to discard pile. Now is the last chance to Vizier it. Several players want to cancel even card. Original event cannot be picked up any more, because one card is on its "way down" from hand to discard pile. In real life, this process can last several minutes while caceling event players agree who is going to cancel that event. If they cant agree, turn marker matters.

If you allow original event to be picked up during cancelation event negotiations, you actually allow "I spoke first" rule - is agreement between canceling event players reached before or after original event player expressed its wish to vizier original event?

On the other hand, in day-to-day playing it will be extremly boring to ask after which discard every player do you want to Vizier or play money event? So, to help game flow, my group has decided to go by-the-book only when it really matters. And it really matters only when Vizier is in play. These events are rare, most of examples mentioned here happen only once or two times in whole game.

the drin wrote:
morkin wrote:
If you allow this, you would enter into interesting situations. Suppose that Plague event is in progress. Third randomizer card played is Bad Augury. It could be possible to Vizier it and cancel on-going Plague. It is not allowed. Once an event has started (not announced!), there is no way to cancel it.

I agree that this is not allowed. I do not agree that this case has any relevance to our discussion.


Neither do I.

At the time when I was writing previous post, I thought that the text of Bad Augury card was "Cancel any event". Now I have checked and timing of event is precisely defined.

the drin wrote:
morkin wrote:
Because technically player can put card on a discard pile and announce this event simultaneously.

I disagree. The fact that there are priority rules (to which we have agreed) implies that an event announcement and the discarding of the card are distinct procedures.

Example (DAA):

1. Player A announces Vizier to try to grab Empire Collapses.

2. Player B, with the turn marker, announces Vizier to try to grab Empire Collapses instead of player A. (Player A protests, "I spoke first!" Player B says, "That’s irrelevant." Players C, D, E all agree that player B is right. Player A relents after player C shows everyone a printout of a discussion from the BGG 7 Ages forum.) This is what I call "overriding": Player B's Vizier overrides player A's Vizier.

3. Player B's Vizier card goes onto discard pile.

4. No one cancels player B's Vizier, so it is declared successful.

5. Player B fishes for the Empire Collapses card.

(End of example.) Notice that player A's Vizier card never went into the discard pile. Or if it did so, it did so incorrectly.


You are right. Prehaps "Discard after announcement" is not really happy choice of words. I would be happy with any better proposal since "discard after played" was not good enough.
'Announce' is not 'I want to use it', but 'I want to use it and it is my turn to use it". Perhaps 'Play'? soblue (back to square 1)

the drin wrote:
morkin wrote:
So, player with vizier can't access Empire Collapses. After each discard there is miniphase "do you want to Vizier that?". So, player had a chance to Vizier it.

Yes, but I was suggesting that the announcement of the new event (Rebels Foiled in the original example) brings about one final opportunity for a player with Vizier to change his mind and grab the previous card before it gets buried. I don't see any problems caused by allowing this “one last chance” (unless the newly-announced event is also a Vizier, in which case I agree that squeezing a Vizier between the announcement and the discarding should be forbidden).


I can see your point. However, I feel this should not be allowed.

First, cases when this is important are very rare, only when an event is countered with something that is not blowback or bad augury. If an event is blowbacked or bad augury is used, vizier can simply pick up and use again bad augury or blowback with same effect. Having in mind that chances for a player to have EXACT counter-card to the original event are small, I dont think that defender should be penalised more.

Second, I dont think that decision whteher Vizier is to be used or not should be based on information what other players hold in their hands.
Third, because Harry said so. No matter who spoke first, Harry has the turn marker.

the drin wrote:
If we forbid the "one last chance for Vizier" in all cases, then a higher-priority player could use Copper Mine to bury a newly-discarded card so that no one could Vizier it. Should this be allowed? (You mentioned this case to me in your response to the NPG. I must confess that I still haven't read it in detail. But I will, I promise!)


No. In my NPG comments, I mentioned that although both Copper Mine and Vizier can be played 'any time', Vizier has an advantage.
 
 Thumb up
5.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Peters
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
New example:
morkin wrote:
Civilise action. Discard deck is empty, so Vizier cant be played. Nobody wants to play money event either. An empire plays event card. Card goes to discard pile. Now is the last chance to Vizier it.

That's the point under dispute.
morkin wrote:
Several players want to cancel event card. Original event cannot be picked up any more, because one card is on its "way down" from hand to discard pile. In real life, this process can last several minutes while canceling event players agree who is going to cancel that event. If they can’t agree, turn marker matters.

If you allow original event to be picked up during cancelation event negotiations, you actually allow "I spoke first" rule - is agreement between canceling event players reached before or after original event player expressed its wish to vizier original event?

If you assume that there is no "one last chance to Vizier" when a new event is announced, then you're right: Vizier should not be allowed during these event negotiations, or else you'd have (in effect) a "who spoke first" rule.

But that assumption is exactly the thing we're arguing about! So this line of argument doesn't get us anywhere.
morkin wrote:
On the other hand, in day-to-day playing it will be extremly boring to ask after which discard every player do you want to Vizier or play money event? So, to help game flow, my group has decided to go by-the-book only when it really matters.

That makes sense. If the player with the cancellation event speaks up too quickly, so that the player with Vizier has not had a chance to respond to the original event, then of course you'd allow the Vizier to be played. In any game of this level of complexity, you have to allow some "wiggle room" (for lack of a better expression) in interpreting the rules. For most players, their sense of fair play will be a good guide. (And as for the rest, we don't want to play with them anyway.)

morkin wrote:
First, cases when this is important are very rare, only when an event is countered with something that is not blowback or bad augury. If an event is blowbacked or bad augury is used, vizier can simply pick up and use again bad augury or blowback with same effect. Having in mind that chances for a player to have EXACT counter-card to the original event are small, I don't think that defender should be penalised more.

That's a good point.
morkin wrote:
Second, I don't think that decision whether Vizier is to be used or not should be based on information what other players hold in their hands.

That's another.
morkin wrote:
Third, because Harry said so.

He said, "not after [the original event] is foiled." But (given that Harry favours DAA over DAEC) the original event is "foiled" (cancelled) only after the cancellation event card goes into the discard pile. So his response doesn't really address the "one last chance" question.

No matter. Two out of three anyway....
morkin wrote:
No matter who spoke first, Harry has the turn marker.

I agree, as long as his responses are clear and complete. Otherwise, I pester him. Unfortunately, he often ignores me after that. So then I make up my own general rules, where necessary. (Hence the NPG.) Usually, I try to make the general rules correspond to Harry's fragmentary answers, but occasionally I rebel.
morkin wrote:
No. In my NPG comments, I mentioned that although both Copper Mine and Vizier can be played 'any time', Vizier has an advantage.

That confirms what I said: You mentioned that case.

I brought up this possibility because you indicated (in your NPG response) that you don't think it should be possible to use Copper Mine to block a Vizier. I was leaning toward agreeing with you. But the implication of everything you have said in the present thread (up to this point) is that you CAN use Copper Mine to block a Vizier, if you have priority over the holder of the Vizier (based on who has the turn marker).

The "one last chance to Vizier" rule offers a way to avoid this Copper Mine trick. But this (extremely minor) point isn't a very strong argument in its favour, admittedly.

The other way is to change the priority rules, as in your NPG comments. (That is, to give Vizier an "advantage" over Copper Mine, as you said just now.) But I think there is no warrant for this, whether in the rules as written, or in the cards' event text as written, or in any of Harry's responses.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Peters
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Summary of the results of the thread so far (as I see it):

(1) DAA beats DAEC. (You win.) When an event is announced, its card goes directly into the discard pile. The only exception is that if the event is "overridden" by an event from a higher-priority player, then the original announcement is treated as if it didn't happen.

(2) The priority rule is simple: The player with the turn marker always has highest priority, then the player to his/her left, and so on.

(3) Each card that hits the discard pile triggers an immediate mini-phase in which an "any time" event can be played. The priority rule (see point #2) applies. Therefore, an instant-money event (such as Copper Mine) can prevent Vizier from being played on the previous card.

(4) There is no "one last chance to Vizier". (You win again.) When an event is announced, it is too late to Vizier the previous top card from the discard pile (as long as due allowance is made for the mini-phase described in point #3). In other words, a similar mini-phase for "any time" events cannot be squeezed into the gap between the announcement of an event and that card's arrival in the discard pile.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.