#9811: "Downsized Castle/Keep did not ripple"
Mitä tämä raportti koskee?
Mitä tapahtui? Valitse alta
Mitä tapahtui? Valitse alta
Ennen ilmoituksen tekoa, tarkista onko sellainen jo olemassa samasta aiheesta
Jos kyllä, ole ystävällinen ja ÄÄNESTÄ tätä raporttia. Eniten ääniä saaneet raportit laitetaan ETUSIJALLE!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Tarkka kuvaus
-
• Kopioi/liitä virheilmoitus näytöltäsi, jos sait sellaisen.
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.
-
• Selitä mitä halusit tehdä, mitä teit ja mitä tapahtui
approximately move # 197
• Mikä on selaimesi?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Ole hyvä ja kopioi teksti englanniksi oman kielesi sijasta. Jos sinulla on kuvakaappaus tästä bugista (hyvä käytäntö), voit käyttää valitsemaasi kuvien isännöintipalvelua (snipboard.io ladataksesi sen ja kopioidaksesi/liittääksesi linkin tähän. Onko tämä teksti saatavilla käännösjärjestelmässä? Jos on, onko sen käännöksestä yli 24 tuntia?
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.
• Mikä on selaimesi?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Selitä ehdotuksesti tarkasti ja ytimekkäästi, jotta se on ymmärrettävissä niin helposti kuin mahdollista.
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.
• Mikä on selaimesi?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Mitä näytöllä näkyi kun olit estettynä (Tyhjä ruutu? Osa pelin käyttöliittymästä? Virheilmoitus?)
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.
• Mikä on selaimesi?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Mitä osaa säännöistä BGA:n sovellus ei noudattanut
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.
-
• Onko sääntörikkomus nähtävillä pelin toistossa? Jos kyllä, mikä on siirron numero?
approximately move # 197
• Mikä on selaimesi?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Minkä pelin toiminnon halusit suorittaa?
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.
-
• Mitä yritit tehdä tämän pelitoiminnon käynnistymiseksi?
approximately move # 197
-
• Mitä tapahtui kun yritit tehdä tämän (virheilmoitus, pelin tilapalkin viesti, ...)?
• Mikä on selaimesi?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Missä vaiheessa peliä ongelma ilmeni (mikä oli silloinen pelin ohje)?
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.
-
• Mitä tapahtui kun yritit tehdä tämän pelin toiminnon (virheilmoitus, pelin tilapalkin viesti, ...)?
approximately move # 197
• Mikä on selaimesi?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Kuvaile näyttöongelmaa. Jos sinulla on kuvakaappaus tästä bugista (hyvä käytäntö), voit käyttää valitsemaasi kuvien isännöintipalvelua (snipboard.io ladataksesi sen ja kopioidaksesi/liittääksesi linkin tähän.
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.
• Mikä on selaimesi?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Ole hyvä ja kopioi teksti englanniksi oman kielesi sijasta. Jos sinulla on kuvakaappaus tästä bugista (hyvä käytäntö), voit käyttää valitsemaasi kuvien isännöintipalvelua (snipboard.io ladataksesi sen ja kopioidaksesi/liittääksesi linkin tähän. Onko tämä teksti saatavilla käännösjärjestelmässä? Jos on, onko sen käännöksestä yli 24 tuntia?
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.
• Mikä on selaimesi?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Selitä ehdotuksesti tarkasti ja ytimekkäästi, jotta se on ymmärrettävissä niin helposti kuin mahdollista.
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.
• Mikä on selaimesi?
Google Chrome v66
Raportin historia
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.
Lisää jotain tähän raporttiin
- Toinen pöydän tunnus / siirron numero
- Ratkaisiko F5 ongelman?
- Ilmestyykö ongelma useita kertoja? Joka kerta? Satunnaisesti?
- Jos sinulla on kuvakaappaus tästä bugista (hyvä käytäntö), voit käyttää valitsemaasi kuvien isännöintipalvelua (snipboard.io ladataksesi sen ja kopioidaksesi/liittääksesi linkin tähän.
