#9811: "Downsized Castle/Keep did not ripple"
Hvad handler denne rapport om?
Hvad skete der? Vær venlig og vælg nedenunder
Hvad skete der? Vær venlig og vælg nedenunder
Vær sød at undersøge, om der allerede er sendt en besked om emnet
Hvis ja, venligst STEM for denne rapport. Rapporter med flest stemmer er dem der får PRIORITET!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Detaljeret beskrivelse
-
• Venligst kopier/indsæt fejlmeddelelsen du ser på din skærm, hvis der er en.
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.
-
• Venligst forklar hvad du ønsker at gøre, hvad du gjorde og hvad der skete
approximately move # 197
• Hvilken browser bruger du?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Venligst kopier/indsæt tekst vist på engelsk i stedet for dit sprog. Hvis du har et skærmbillede af denne fejl (god praksis), kan du bruge en billedlagertjeneste efter eget valg (snipboard.io for eksempel) til at uploade det og kopiere/indsætte linket her. er der adgang til denne tekst i oversættelsessystem? Hvis ja, er det blevet oversat inden for 24 timer?
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.
• Hvilken browser bruger du?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Forklar venligst dit forslag præcist og sammenfattende, så det er så let som muligt at forstå, hvad du mener.
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.
• Hvilken browser bruger du?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Hvad blev der vist på skærmen, da du blev blokeret (Blank skærm? Noget af spilbrugerfladen? Fejlmeddelelse?)
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.
• Hvilken browser bruger du?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Hvilken del af reglerne blev ikke respekteret ved BGA-tilpasningen
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.
-
• Er regel-brudddet synligt i e
approximately move # 197
• Hvilken browser bruger du?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Hvad var den spilhandling du ønskede at udføre?
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.
-
• Hvad forsøgte du at gøre for at udløse denne spilhandling?
approximately move # 197
-
• Hvad skete der, da du forsøgre at gøre dette (fejlmeddelelse, meddelelsesstatusbjælke, ...)?
• Hvilken browser bruger du?
Google Chrome v66
-
• I hvilket stadie af spillet opstod problemet (hvad var den daværende spilinstruktion)?
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.
-
• Hvad skete der, da du forsøgte at udføre denne spilhandling (fejlmeddelelse, meddelelsesstatusbjælke, ...)?
approximately move # 197
• Hvilken browser bruger du?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Venligst beskriv display problemet. Hvis du har et skærmbillede af denne fejl (god praksis), kan du bruge en billedlagertjeneste efter eget valg (snipboard.io for eksempel) til at uploade det og kopiere/indsætte linket her.
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.
• Hvilken browser bruger du?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Venligst kopier/indsæt tekst vist på engelsk i stedet for dit sprog. Hvis du har et skærmbillede af denne fejl (god praksis), kan du bruge en billedlagertjeneste efter eget valg (snipboard.io for eksempel) til at uploade det og kopiere/indsætte linket her. er der adgang til denne tekst i oversættelsessystem? Hvis ja, er det blevet oversat inden for 24 timer?
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.
• Hvilken browser bruger du?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Forklar venligst dit forslag præcist og sammenfattende, så det er så let som muligt at forstå, hvad du mener.
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.
• Hvilken browser bruger du?
Google Chrome v66
Rapporthistorik
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.
Tilføj noget til denne rapport
- Et andet bord-ID / træk ID
- Løste F5 problemet?
- Skete problemet flere gange? Hver gang? Tilfældigt?
- Hvis du har et skærmbillede af denne fejl (god praksis), kan du bruge en billedlagertjeneste efter eget valg (snipboard.io for eksempel) til at uploade det og kopiere/indsætte linket her.
