Rule clarification - Venom.

[pills34]

I had venom on a card. At that time I had $0. We were playing on Map 4 which allows selling a card for $3. I was connected to the corner to allow this. My plan was to play Cards at 4, get 2 then sell 1 for $3 then pay off venom for $2. The game wouldn't allow it because I couldn't undo a Cards action. It felt like the game wasn't reading that we had Map 4 ability. I feel like you should be able to pay the venom $2 right until you confirm turn end. Thoughts? I understand this is a combination of factors, but I was curious if I perhaps am missing something? Game was #469630646. It was around Turn 112-120. Cheers!

[Monkeyunit]

Rules wise that should totally work.
Commercial Harbor is tricky one it seems.
Submit as bug I think?

[pills34]

Okay, thanks. I'll submit it. Cheers.

[pjt33]

It's been filed before. To slightly misquote Monty Python, you can argue until you're blue in the face but you won't convince the programmer behind the BGA implementation to fix the bug. I wasn't even able to convince them to fix it so that you can use upgraded Cards to draw a visible card, sell that, pay the venom, and then keep drawing, despite the rules saying that you can use the Map 4 ability at any point in your turn.

[Tisaac]

It's been filed before. To slightly misquote Monty Python, you can argue until you're blue in the face but you won't convince the programmer behind the BGA implementation to fix the bug. I wasn't even able to convince them to fix it so that you can use upgraded Cards to draw a visible card, sell that, pay the venom, and then keep drawing, despite the rules saying that you can use the Map 4 ability at any point in your turn.

It's not about convincing me that it's a bug or not, it's about difficulty to implement it. The problem with venom is that it can leads to blocked tables, so the adaptation is trying as much as possible to avoid that, by sometimes being too restrictive rather that not enough (eventhough there are still issue with Animals II at strength 5 that I havent be able to fix completely yet). So I am not sure how best to make it more permissive without introducing more blocking state, and it's not my top priority at the moment. If anyone wants to try to improve it, feels free to contact me and I will show you the codebase

[Jellby]

Add a new rule: if as a result of your actions the table ends up in a blocked state, you lose

[Tisaac]

Add a new rule: if as a result of your actions the table ends up in a blocked state, you lose

Yeah that could be one solution but many players are relying on the interface instead of actually thinking their turn through.

[kaikulimu]

Add a new rule: if as a result of your actions the table ends up in a blocked state, you lose

That wouldn't be fair to a player playing completely normally but accidentally ran into a bug.

[Jellby]

Since when are bugs fair?

[kaikulimu]

Since when are bugs fair?

It should be a draw though, if the game bugs out. Neither player deserves the loss.

Edit: Or better, the game result should be cancelled.