#9811: "Downsized Castle/Keep did not ripple"
Quel est le sujet de ce rapport ?
Que s'est-il passé ? Merci de choisir ci-dessous
Que s'est-il passé ? Merci de choisir ci-dessous
Veuillez vérifier s'il existe déjà un rapport sur le même sujet
Si oui, veuillez VOTER pour ce rapport. Les rapports ayant le plus de votes auront la PRIORITÉ !
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Description détaillée
-
• Merci de copier-coller le message d'erreur qui s'affiche à l'écran, s'il y a lieu.
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.
-
• Veuillez expliquer ce que vous vouliez faire, ce que vous avez fait et ce qu'il s'est passé
approximately move # 197
• Quel est votre navigateur ?
Google Chrome v66
-
• SVP copiez / collez ici le texte affiché en anglais au lieu de votre langue. Si vous disposez d'une capture d'écran du bug (bonne pratique), vous pouvez utiliser le service d'hébergement de votre choix (snipboard.io par exemple) pour la télécharger et en copier/coller le lien ici. Ce texte est-il disponible dans le système de traduction ? Si oui, a-t-il été traduit depuis plus de 24 heures ?
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.
• Quel est votre navigateur ?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Merci d'expliquer votre suggestion de manière précise et concise, de façon à ce qu'il soit aussi simple que possible de comprendre ce que vous voulez dire.
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.
• Quel est votre navigateur ?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Qu'affichait l'écran lorsque vous avez été bloqué(e) (Un écran vierge ? Une partie de l'interface du jeu ? Un message d'erreur ?)
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.
• Quel est votre navigateur ?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Quelle partie des règles n'a pas été respectée par l'adaptation BGA ?
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.
-
• La violation de règle est-elle visible dans le replay de la partie ? Si oui, à quel numéro de coup ?
approximately move # 197
• Quel est votre navigateur ?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Quelle action de jeu vouliez-vous faire ?
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.
-
• Qu'avez-vous essayé de faire pour déclencher cette action de jeu ?
approximately move # 197
-
• Que s'est-il passé lorsque vous avez essayé de faire cela (message d'erreur, message dans la barre d'état du jeu...) ?
• Quel est votre navigateur ?
Google Chrome v66
-
• À quelle étape de la partie le problème est-il apparu ? Quelles instructions le jeu affichait-il ?
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.
-
• Que s'est-il passé lorsque vous avez essayé de faire cette action de jeu (message d'erreur, message dans la barre d'état du jeu...) ?
approximately move # 197
• Quel est votre navigateur ?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Veuillez décrire le problème d'affichage. Si vous disposez d'une capture d'écran du bug (bonne pratique), vous pouvez utiliser le service d'hébergement de votre choix (snipboard.io par exemple) pour la télécharger et en copier/coller le lien ici.
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.
• Quel est votre navigateur ?
Google Chrome v66
-
• SVP copiez / collez ici le texte affiché en anglais au lieu de votre langue. Si vous disposez d'une capture d'écran du bug (bonne pratique), vous pouvez utiliser le service d'hébergement de votre choix (snipboard.io par exemple) pour la télécharger et en copier/coller le lien ici. Ce texte est-il disponible dans le système de traduction ? Si oui, a-t-il été traduit depuis plus de 24 heures ?
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.
• Quel est votre navigateur ?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Merci d'expliquer votre suggestion de manière précise et concise, de façon à ce qu'il soit aussi simple que possible de comprendre ce que vous voulez dire.
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.
• Quel est votre navigateur ?
Google Chrome v66
Historique du rapport de bug
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.
Ajouter à ce rapport
- Un autre n° de table / n° de coup
- Appuyer sur F5 a-t-il résolu le problème ?
- Le problème est-il apparu plusieurs fois ? À chaque fois ? Aléatoirement ?
- Si vous disposez d'une capture d'écran du bug (bonne pratique), vous pouvez utiliser le service d'hébergement de votre choix (snipboard.io par exemple) pour la télécharger et en copier/coller le lien ici.
