Witch & thief

Sorry to create a new post for this bugs, but it's early in the morning and I just can't look for it...

When the thief is bewitched, the gold pieces are not for the witch, but for the thief (game RapideFR5#009).

RoKeN

Yes, i'm also in this game:

[ciudadelas.frenopatico.net]

And there is a bug with the witch/thief...

Can you correct this?

(:
This is a ancient discussion. It is not a bug. The poll of the Rules section over the witch is principally for this subject, if the witch hability is for the current bewitching turn or the entire round. Now only work with the current bewitching turn. The poll is stopped, at the end of august i'll count all votes.



Achiles(X)

So what is the interest of bewitching the thief if you cannot rob the money...

this is absolutely nonsense!

I don't even understand why there is a poll...

Actually, on your site, if the witch bewitches the soldier, she can gain money from red quarters and then destroy in other cities...

So it is absolutely logical that if she bewitches the thief, she can rob the money...

There's no doubt that this is the way the game is conceived.

I dont see the point to play with the witch if she bewitches for nothing...


Another point that annoys me with your interpretation of rules is that some powers are mandatory and others not. (The wizard is allowed, but not obliged, to change his cards.... But the emperor is OBLIGED to pass the crown... i would'nt play it so...)

Sorry, benwa, but i like the games with rules precicess and exactly. Th rules of Bruno are far away of any exactly rule. I have interpreted all the rules. The witch of Bruno need a lot of more text and explain. I have interpreted that the witch make a special turn. In that special turn, she has the habilities of the bewitched character, but only in this special turn, no the whole round. so, the witch decides who are going to be stealed, but when the character to be stealed wake up, the with has passed that special turn, and the normal Thief gets the money. It is my point of view. For this, i put the poll, to know other points of view and, as you can see, are not only mine, other people thinks as me (not enough people, i'm afraid).
Respect to the obligated actions, again is interpreted by me. The crown pass obligatory with the king, for this i think the same for the emperor. In spanish and english text, I interpret that. Dont say specifically, but, for the gramatic, i think it's obligatory, as the king. I sure you that i would prefer to not interpretate nothing, but he is owfull writing rules. Later, in the FAQ he says "advices" to interprete the rules. Bruno says the advices as i thiks so, but not very sure. This make me ill...
For this, i consider necessary the polls. I would prefer all rules were perfect...



Achiles(X)

Well, I think that it's not so bad if the witch chooses the character to be stolen : the player who get the witch can try to choose a "with-no-gold" character, so that the thief receives nothing... Why not.

The rules say : "Witch : After you take an action, you announce which character you wish to bewitch, then immediately end your turn. When the player who has the bewitched character is called upon, he shows his character card and takes an action, then immediately ends his turn. You now resume this player's turn as if you were playing the bewitched character, using all that character's powers (including the one gold bonus of the Merchant or the two card bonus of the Architect) in your city. If the King is bewitched, the King player still receives the crown counter. If no one has the bewitched character, you do not resume your turn. The Thief cannot steal from the Witch or the character that the Witch bewitched.". We can understand this from two different ways :

1° - "then immediatly ends its turn" => the gold pieces are for the witch ;
2° - "the King player still receives the crown counter" => the thief power is "announcing a character from whom you wish to steal", and that's what the witch can do, but the gols is for the thief the same way the crown is for the king.

But in this last case, I suggest it to be specified in the "house rules", or add a thread like "house rules interpretation" for every case to be fixed.

RoKeN