#9811: "Downsized Castle/Keep did not ripple"
무엇에 대한 보고입니까?
무슨 일이 발생했나요? 아래에서 선택하세요
무슨 일이 발생했나요? 아래에서 선택하세요
같은 내용에 대하여 이미 등록된 보고가 있는지 확인해주세요
그렇다면, 이 보고를 추천해주세요. 추천을 가장 많이 받은 보고부터 우선적으로 처리됩니다!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
상세한 설명
-
• 만약 오류 메세지가 화면에 나타났다면, 그 오류 메세지를 복사해서 붙여넣어 주시기 바랍니다.
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.
-
• 무엇을 하고 싶었고, 무엇을 했고, 무슨 일이 일어났는지를 설명해 주십시오
approximately move # 197
• 브라우저가 무엇입니까?
Google Chrome v66
-
• 현재 설정된 언어가 아니라 영어로 표시되는 문장을 복사 후 붙여넣어 주세요. 이 버그(좋은 예시)에 대한 스크린샷이 있으면, 호스팅 서비스의 그림을 업로드하고 링크를 복사/붙이기할 수 있습니다 (예를 들어 snipboard.io). 해당 문장이 번역 본부에서 표시됩니까? 만약 그렇다면, 번역된 지 24시간이 경과했습니까?
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.
• 브라우저가 무엇입니까?
Google Chrome v66
-
• 최대한 쉽게 그 뜻을 이해할 수 있도록 당신의 제안을 정확하고 명료하게 설명해 주십시오.
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.
• 브라우저가 무엇입니까?
Google Chrome v66
-
• 당신이 막혔을 때 화면에 무엇이 나타났습니까?(검은 화면? 게임 인터페이스? 오류 메시지?)
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.
• 브라우저가 무엇입니까?
Google Chrome v66
-
• 어느 규칙이 BGA 서비스에서 존중되지 않았습니까?
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.
-
• 게임 리플레이에서 룰 위반을 확인할 수 있습니까?만약 그렇다면, 몇번째 수에서 룰 위반이 있나요?
approximately move # 197
• 브라우저가 무엇입니까?
Google Chrome v66
-
• 당신이 하고 싶었던 게임 내 행동이 어느 것입니까?
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.
-
• 이 게임 행동을 하기 위해 무엇을 시도했습니까?
approximately move # 197
-
• 당신이 이것을 하려고 했을 때 무슨 일이 일어났습니까?(오류 메시지, 게임 상태창 메시지 등)
• 브라우저가 무엇입니까?
Google Chrome v66
-
• 어떤 부분에서 문제가 발생 하였나요(문제가 발생했을 당시 어떤 지시가 내려졌었나요)?
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.
-
• 당신이 게임 행동을 하려 했을 때 무슨 일이 일어났습니까?(오류 메시지, 게임 상태 막대 메시지, ...)
approximately move # 197
• 브라우저가 무엇입니까?
Google Chrome v66
-
• 디스플레이 문제를 설명해주세요. 이 버그(좋은 예시)에 대한 스크린샷이 있으면, 호스팅 서비스의 그림을 업로드하고 링크를 복사/붙이기할 수 있습니다 (예를 들어 snipboard.io).
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.
• 브라우저가 무엇입니까?
Google Chrome v66
-
• 현재 설정된 언어가 아니라 영어로 표시되는 문장을 복사 후 붙여넣어 주세요. 이 버그(좋은 예시)에 대한 스크린샷이 있으면, 호스팅 서비스의 그림을 업로드하고 링크를 복사/붙이기할 수 있습니다 (예를 들어 snipboard.io). 해당 문장이 번역 본부에서 표시됩니까? 만약 그렇다면, 번역된 지 24시간이 경과했습니까?
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.
• 브라우저가 무엇입니까?
Google Chrome v66
-
• 최대한 쉽게 그 뜻을 이해할 수 있도록 당신의 제안을 정확하고 명료하게 설명해 주십시오.
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.
• 브라우저가 무엇입니까?
Google Chrome v66
보고 이력
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.
리포트에 내용 추가하기
- 다른 테이블 번호 / 수 번호
- 새로고침을 해서 문제가 해결 되었습니까?
- 문제가 얼마나 자주 일어났습니까?
- 이 버그(좋은 예시)에 대한 스크린샷이 있으면, 호스팅 서비스의 그림을 업로드하고 링크를 복사/붙이기할 수 있습니다 (예를 들어 snipboard.io).
