Alle rapporten
Cuttle rapporten
#157232: "Use 9 One-Off effect against point cards"
implemented: Deze suggestie werd uitgevoerd
1
Waarover gaat dit rapport?
Wat is er gebeurd? Selecteer uit het onderstaande
Suggestie: volgens mij zou het volgende de implementatie van dit spel enorm verbeteren
Gedetailleerde beschrijving
• Gelieve jouw suggestie precies en beknopt uit te leggen zodat het zo makkelijk mogelijk is om te begrijpen wat je bedoelt.
Tried to use a 9, but the ability was grayed out. It said move effect to top of pile. It should move any card to the top of the deck regardless of what it is.• Welke browser gebruik je?
Safari v18.3
Rapportgeschiedenis
10 feb 2025 14:40 • mrfixsimmons • Bug is nog niet gereproduceerd door de ontwikkelaars:
Could not use 9 ability. Not sure if this was from the deck 9 option that was checked.
10 feb 2025 16:53 • PatrickDNerd • Dit is geen bug:
I double-checked the rules on Pagat.com (the most definitive source I can find for Cuttle rules)
www.pagat.com/combat/cuttle.html
The 9 should only be able to target active Permanent Effects on the table (even with the Deck Nines alternative rule). The game appears to be acting correctly in this case.
www.pagat.com/combat/cuttle.html
The 9 should only be able to target active Permanent Effects on the table (even with the Deck Nines alternative rule). The game appears to be acting correctly in this case.
11 feb 2025 16:47 • PatrickDNerd • De ontwikkelaars hebben deze suggestie nog niet geanalyseerd:
Just clarified that cuttle.cards implementation allows the 9 to work against any card in play, not just effects.
Since the balanced rules are inspired by the cuttle.cards variant, I'm okay making this change, but I would like to make sure it would be good for the game.
Most of the changes cuttle.cards made from the base rules are clarified in a discussion on Discord or a Reddit thread, but I cannot find any reference to this difference.
I basically want to make sure it wasn't an accident that just continued to be propagated.
Since the balanced rules are inspired by the cuttle.cards variant, I'm okay making this change, but I would like to make sure it would be good for the game.
Most of the changes cuttle.cards made from the base rules are clarified in a discussion on Discord or a Reddit thread, but I cannot find any reference to this difference.
I basically want to make sure it wasn't an accident that just continued to be propagated.
11 feb 2025 17:18 • PatrickDNerd • De ontwikkelaars willen graag meer informatie over deze suggestie:
If anybody can find reference to why cuttle.cards chose to make this change from the traditional rules, please post a link to it here!
11 feb 2025 20:23 • mrfixsimmons • De ontwikkelaars willen graag meer informatie over deze suggestie:
I asked on the cuttle.cards discord. They have a little history and community for the game:
As noted in the "variations" section of the pagat page, this effect, as written is almost **entirely** useles, as the opponent can simply play the returned card on their next turn, at which poitn we are in the exact same situation with the sole change of the person who played the nine no longer having the nine in their hand
This means that in the exact wording on pagat, the only time where playing a 9 for its effect would matter at all is a time where it immediately wins you the game (because you targeted a jack), and the only time that this would be any more beneficial than simply playing the 9 for points is when the player with the 9 has exactly 11 points and their opponent has previously jacked a 10
That's an interesting scenario but it clearly doesn't succeed at delivering an effect that captures the feeling of "sending things back" while being paractiaclly useful
cuttle.cards actually predates the update to the "Variations" section where the suggestion for forcing opponents to wait an additional turn was added to the pagat page (only under variations)
When I was first learning the game with my sister back around 2013, it was quickly clear that the 9's effect as written wasn't useful. We aimed to make a minimal change to make the effect usable, while preserving its feel. That's why we landed on the same idea you now see in the pagat page: requiring the opponent to wait an additional turn to play the returned card
As noted in the "variations" section of the pagat page, this effect, as written is almost **entirely** useles, as the opponent can simply play the returned card on their next turn, at which poitn we are in the exact same situation with the sole change of the person who played the nine no longer having the nine in their hand
This means that in the exact wording on pagat, the only time where playing a 9 for its effect would matter at all is a time where it immediately wins you the game (because you targeted a jack), and the only time that this would be any more beneficial than simply playing the 9 for points is when the player with the 9 has exactly 11 points and their opponent has previously jacked a 10
That's an interesting scenario but it clearly doesn't succeed at delivering an effect that captures the feeling of "sending things back" while being paractiaclly useful
cuttle.cards actually predates the update to the "Variations" section where the suggestion for forcing opponents to wait an additional turn was added to the pagat page (only under variations)
When I was first learning the game with my sister back around 2013, it was quickly clear that the 9's effect as written wasn't useful. We aimed to make a minimal change to make the effect usable, while preserving its feel. That's why we landed on the same idea you now see in the pagat page: requiring the opponent to wait an additional turn to play the returned card
11 feb 2025 20:25 • PatrickDNerd • De ontwikkelaars willen graag meer informatie over deze suggestie:
That all makes sense, and is how the game is implemented here (card returned by 9 One-Off cannot be played on the next turn).
The specific question here is whether or not the 9 One-Off should be used only on Permanent Effects, or if it should be useable against point cards as well.
The specific question here is whether or not the 9 One-Off should be used only on Permanent Effects, or if it should be useable against point cards as well.
14 feb 2025 2:10 • PatrickDNerd • Deze suggestie werd uitgevoerd:
After some deliberation and research, I decided to implement this one.
It should be immediately active in all games, just refresh the page if necessary.
It should be immediately active in all games, just refresh the page if necessary.
15 feb 2025 5:00 • PatrickDNerd • Deze suggestie werd uitgevoerd:
Report short description
"9 did not let me use ability"
changed to
"Use 9 One-Off effect against point cards"
"9 did not let me use ability"
changed to
"Use 9 One-Off effect against point cards"
Dit rapport aanvullen
Gelieve hier alle informatie toe te voegen die relevant is om deze bug te reproduceren of jouw suggestie te begrijpen:
- Andere tafel ID / zet ID
- Loste F5 het probleem op?
- Kwam het probleem meerdere keren voor? Altijd? Willekeurig?
- Als je een schermafbeelding van deze bug hebt (goede gewoonte), kun je Imgur.com gebruiken om deze te uploaden, de link kopiëren en hier plakken.
