#9811: "Downsized Castle/Keep did not ripple"
Mille kohta see veateade on?
Mis juhtus? Palun vali alt
Mis juhtus? Palun vali alt
Palun kontrolli, kas samal teemal on juba aruanne olemas
Kui jah, siis HÄÄLETAGE selle raporti poolt. Kõige rohkem hääli sisaldavatele aruannetele antakse PRIORITEET!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Detailne kirjeldus
-
• Kui näed ekraanil veateadet, kopeeri see siia.
Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.
-
• Kirjelda, mida sa soovisid teha, mida sa tegid ja mis juhtus
approximately move # 197
• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Palun kopeeri/kleebi kuvatud tekst inglise keeles, mitte sinu oma keeles. Kui sul on sellest veast kuvatõmmis (hea tava), saad kasutada nimetatud teenuseid (snipboard.io for example) pildi üleslaadimiseks ja kopeerida viite siia. Kas see tekst on kättesaadav tõlkesüsteemis ? Kui jah, kas see on tõlgitud rohkem kui 24 tundi tagasi?
Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.
• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Palun selgita oma ettepanekut täpselt ja lühidalt, et oleks võimalikult lihtne mõista, mida silmas pead.
Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.
• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Mis oli ekraanil, kui sind blokeeriti? (Tühi ekraan? Osa mänguliidesest? Veateade?)
Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.
• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Millist osa BGA kohandamisest ei järgitud
Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.
-
• Kas reeglite rikkumist on mängu taasesitusel näha? Kui jah, siis mitmendal käigul?
approximately move # 197
• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Milline oli mängu tegevus, mida tahtsid sooritada?
Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.
-
• Mida püüdsid teha, et seda mängu tegevust käivitada?
approximately move # 197
-
• Mis juhtus, kui seda proovisite (veateade, mängu olekuriba teade, ...)?
• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Millises mängu etapis esines probleem (Mis oli selle mänguetapi instruktsioon)?
Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.
-
• Mis juhtus, kui proovisite sooritada seda mängu käiku (veateade, mängu olekuriba sõnum, ...)?
approximately move # 197
• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Kirjelda kuvamise probleemi. Kui sul on sellest veast kuvatõmmis (hea tava), saad kasutada nimetatud teenuseid (snipboard.io for example) pildi üleslaadimiseks ja kopeerida viite siia.
Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.
• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Palun kopeeri/kleebi kuvatud tekst inglise keeles, mitte sinu oma keeles. Kui sul on sellest veast kuvatõmmis (hea tava), saad kasutada nimetatud teenuseid (snipboard.io for example) pildi üleslaadimiseks ja kopeerida viite siia. Kas see tekst on kättesaadav tõlkesüsteemis ? Kui jah, kas see on tõlgitud rohkem kui 24 tundi tagasi?
Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.
• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Palun selgita oma ettepanekut täpselt ja lühidalt, et oleks võimalikult lihtne mõista, mida silmas pead.
Whenever a building is downsized in Might (or Faith) so long as its shadow is the same type, same size and same owner the shadow should always be destroyed, and then the new downsized building should be rippled forward to replace it. In this case, the shadow building was left alone even though it met the requirement of same type, same size and same owner. Instead, it failed to ripple (it did not even destroy the shadow) because of a claimed conflict of hierarchy. The downsized building (castle to a keep) should have destroryed the shadow Castle, the rippled the new Keep into the domain regardless of potential "conflicts"... this is quite clear in the rules and in the FAQ on file with BGG. If a conflict of Hierarchy occurs, then the conflicting buildings (after being rippled) should be downsized by choice of the effecting player, with his own buildings being prioritized over those of other players.
• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?
Google Chrome v66
Aruande ajalugu
Table 39642880 move #197 (about); The is complete... the bug caused me to lose the game btw.. :p
imgur.com/gallery/7Ss4nex
What happened:
My placing the hamlet in Might (circled in red) merged two domains, each with a Castle... my Castle had superior strength, and so won the contest. Red player downsized his Castle to a keep and then the system claimed "Ripple Cancelled due to Conflict of Hierarchy". Nothing was changed in Faith or Reason.
What should have occurred:
The castle in Faith (marked with a red "X" in my diagram) should have downsized to a keep with the same footprint as the Keep in Might (circled in Red). This should have caused a conflict of hierarchy with the Black player's Keep already in that same domain, however it is clear in the rules that such a conflict is allowed to occur but must be immediately resolved by the effecting player. I should've been allowed to then choose which Keep would win the conflict (if i had a Keep of my own in the contest, then I would've had to downsize it first, but i did not). I was planning to choose the black keep to downsize... then, no matter where the black player located his downsized Watchtower, the City in the upper right corner would've been 'isolated' in a domain without any religious buildings. I then would've used one of my last 2 actions to place a chapel in that domain and claim 5 additional points for the final scoring, allowing me to win by 3 points, instead of losing by 1 point.
The system needs to learn to ignore conflicts when resolving separations of domains due to downsized buildings. It also needs to learn the timing of events... the shadows are always destroyed first, and the the ripple of the new building is placed -- so, even if something prevents the downsize in Faith or Reason, the original building is still destroyed in those realms (and ruin renovations are lost in Reason).
Your bug has probably been fixed already, or was linked to a temporary failure of BGA service.
In any case, when filling a bug report, make sure to have an explicit title linked to the incident (ex: with error message), so other players can recognize it and vote for it.
Lisa midagi sellele raportile
- Teine laua ID / käigu ID
- Kas F5 lahendas probleemi?
- Kas probleem esines mitmel korral? Igal korral?
- Kui sul on sellest veast kuvatõmmis (hea tava), saad kasutada nimetatud teenuseid (snipboard.io for example) pildi üleslaadimiseks ja kopeerida viite siia.
