#9811: "Downsized Castle/Keep did not ripple"
Worum geht es bei dieser Meldung?
Was ist passiert? Bitte wähle unten aus
Was ist passiert? Bitte wähle unten aus
Bitte überprüfe, ob bereits eine Meldung zum gleichen Thema existiert
Wenn ja, STIMME bitte für diese Meldung. Meldungen mit mehr Stimmen erhalten höhere PRIORITÄT!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Detaillierte Beschreibung
-
• Falls du eine Fehlermeldung auf dem Bildschirm siehst, bitte kopieren und einfügen.
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.
-
• Bitte erkläre, was du machen wolltest, was du dann getan hast und was dann passiert ist
approximately move # 197
• Welchen Browser benutzt du?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Bitte kopiere den Text, der in Englisch anstatt in deiner Sprache angezeigt wird, und füge ihn hier ein. Wenn du einen Screenshot dieses Fehlers hast (empfohlene Vorgehensweise), kannst du einen Bild‑Hosting‑Dienst deiner Wahl verwenden (snipboard.io zum Beispiel), um ihn hochzuladen und den Link hier einzufügen. Ist dieser Text auf der Übersetzungsseite verfügbar? Wenn ja, wurde dieser vor mehr als 24 Stunden übersetzt?
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.
• Welchen Browser benutzt du?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Bitte erkläre deinen Vorschlag so präzise und genau wie möglich, damit er leicht zu verstehen ist.
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.
• Welchen Browser benutzt du?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Was wurde auf dem Bildschirm angezeigt, als du blockiert wurdest (weißer Bildschirm? Teil der Spieloberfläche? Fehlermeldung?)
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.
• Welchen Browser benutzt du?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Welcher Teil der Spielregel wurde durch die BGA-Adaption nicht beachtet?
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.
-
• Ist der Regelverstoß in der Spielwiederholung zu sehen? Falls ja, bei welcher Zugnummer?
approximately move # 197
• Welchen Browser benutzt du?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Welche Spielaktion wolltest du durchführen?
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.
-
• Was versuchst du, um diese Spielaktion auszulösen?
approximately move # 197
-
• Was passiert, wenn du dies versuchst (Fehlermeldung, Statusmeldung des Spiels, ...)?
• Welchen Browser benutzt du?
Google Chrome v66
-
• An welcher Stelle im Spiel ist das Problem aufgetreten? Was war die aktuelle Spielanweisung?
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.
-
• Was passiert, wenn du die Spielaktion ausführen möchtest (Fehlermeldung, Statusmeldung des Spiels, ...)?
approximately move # 197
• Welchen Browser benutzt du?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Bitte beschreibe die Anzeigeschwierigkeiten. Wenn du einen Screenshot dieses Fehlers hast (empfohlene Vorgehensweise), kannst du einen Bild‑Hosting‑Dienst deiner Wahl verwenden (snipboard.io zum Beispiel), um ihn hochzuladen und den Link hier einzufügen.
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.
• Welchen Browser benutzt du?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Bitte kopiere den Text, der in Englisch anstatt in deiner Sprache angezeigt wird, und füge ihn hier ein. Wenn du einen Screenshot dieses Fehlers hast (empfohlene Vorgehensweise), kannst du einen Bild‑Hosting‑Dienst deiner Wahl verwenden (snipboard.io zum Beispiel), um ihn hochzuladen und den Link hier einzufügen. Ist dieser Text auf der Übersetzungsseite verfügbar? Wenn ja, wurde dieser vor mehr als 24 Stunden übersetzt?
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.
• Welchen Browser benutzt du?
Google Chrome v66
-
• Bitte erkläre deinen Vorschlag so präzise und genau wie möglich, damit er leicht zu verstehen ist.
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.
• Welchen Browser benutzt du?
Google Chrome v66
Meldungshistorie
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.
Ergänze diese Meldung
- Eine weitere Tisch-ID/Zug-ID
- Konnte F5 das Problem lösen?
- Trat das Problem öfter auf? Jedes Mal? Zufällig?
- Wenn du einen Screenshot dieses Fehlers hast (empfohlene Vorgehensweise), kannst du einen Bild‑Hosting‑Dienst deiner Wahl verwenden (snipboard.io zum Beispiel), um ihn hochzuladen und den Link hier einzufügen.
