#9811: "Downsized Castle/Keep did not ripple"
這是關於哪方面的案件？
發生什麼事? 請從下方選擇
發生什麼事? 請從下方選擇
請檢查是否已有同課題案件
若肯定，請「投票」給這樁案件。最高票的案件將「優先」處理！
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
細節描述
-
• 如果可以的話，請轉貼螢幕顯示的錯誤訊息。
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.
-
• 請說明你當時想做什麼，你做了什麼，然後發生了什麼事
approximately move # 197
• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？
Google Chrome v66
-
• 請轉貼未翻譯的英文字句。 如果您有此錯誤的螢幕截圖（這是個好習慣），您可以使用您選擇的圖片託管服務（例如snipboard.io）上傳它，然後將連結複製/貼上到這裡。 這些文字存在於 翻譯系統 中嗎？若為真，其是否已被翻譯超過 24 小時？
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.
• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？
Google Chrome v66
-
• 請簡明精確地解釋你的建議，以便讓人一目了然。
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.
• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？
Google Chrome v66
-
• 當你不能動作時，螢幕上顯示什麼？（螢幕全黑？部份遊戲介面？錯誤訊息？）
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.
• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？
Google Chrome v66
-
• 遊戲規則的哪部分在 BGA 版本有所錯漏？
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.
-
• 這項違反規則之處可否在遊戲重播中看到？若可以是在哪步？（重播時左上角資訊）
approximately move # 197
• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？
Google Chrome v66
-
• 你當時想採取哪個遊戲行動？
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.
-
• 你想觸發這個遊戲行動時做了什麼？
approximately move # 197
-
• 當你試著這麼做時發生了什麼（錯誤訊息、遊戲狀態條訊息...）？
• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？
Google Chrome v66
-
• 問題發生在遊戲的哪一步？（目前遊戲指示是什麼）
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.
-
• 當你試著進行遊戲動作時發生了什麼（錯誤訊息、遊戲狀態條訊息...）？
approximately move # 197
• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？
Google Chrome v66
-
• 請描述顯示問題。 如果您有此錯誤的螢幕截圖（這是個好習慣），您可以使用您選擇的圖片託管服務（例如snipboard.io）上傳它，然後將連結複製/貼上到這裡。
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.
• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？
Google Chrome v66
-
• 請轉貼未翻譯的英文字句。 如果您有此錯誤的螢幕截圖（這是個好習慣），您可以使用您選擇的圖片託管服務（例如snipboard.io）上傳它，然後將連結複製/貼上到這裡。 這些文字存在於 翻譯系統 中嗎？若為真，其是否已被翻譯超過 24 小時？
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.
• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？
Google Chrome v66
-
• 請簡明精確地解釋你的建議，以便讓人一目了然。
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.
• 你的瀏覽器是什麼？
Google Chrome v66
案件沿革
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.
為本案件添加內容
- 其他同樣狀況的桌號／步數
- 按 F5 是否解決了這個問題？
- 問題是否發生了好幾次？每次都發生？時好時壞？
- 如果您有此錯誤的螢幕截圖（這是個好習慣），您可以使用您選擇的圖片託管服務（例如snipboard.io）上傳它，然後將連結複製/貼上到這裡。
