My favorite previewed card so far.
Don't Altar him!
Is your avatar supposed to be the Iso version of this?
Is the union of Woodcutter and Chancellor better than either of them? I don't know. But you can really have fun with the on-buy effect. Seems nice if you're playing a non-mirror, or if you just want to accelerate towards the end of the game due to being ahead.
My favorite previewed card so far.
Full disclosure: this is my favorite card in Adventures. I ruined many a game with it.
I assume this card has a quite interesting depth of openings, in that cards that you don't want multiples of become worse. Especially for player one.
There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking. ;)
I assume this card has a quite interesting depth of openings, in that cards that you don't want multiples of become worse. Especially for player one.
Wow, it's almost like Messenger gives the second player an advantage.
Hey guys, I found it! Gold star for me!
Players who like swindlers will also like messengers.
But you already have 5 gold stars.
Did I get it right: the gaining effect occurs when you buy Messenger, not when you buy something with Messenger in play?
Did I get it right: the gaining effect occurs when you buy Messenger, not when you buy something with Messenger in play?
Yes. But only if you didn't buy anything else this turn.
But only if you didn't buy anything else this turn.
But only if you didn't buy anything else this turn.
That part feels weird to me:
If you go for two or more buys you can choose whether you want to gain extra stuff or not, but if you only have one buy you have no such choice.
But only if you didn't buy anything else this turn.
That part feels weird to me:
If you go for two or more buys you can choose whether you want to gain extra stuff or not, but if you only have one buy you have no such choice.
But only if you didn't buy anything else this turn.
That part feels weird to me:
If you go for two or more buys you can choose whether you want to gain extra stuff or not, but if you only have one buy you have no such choice.
I'm guessing it's so you can't double up on Messenger's Santa Claus-ing.
But only if you didn't buy anything else this turn.
That part feels weird to me:
If you go for two or more buys you can choose whether you want to gain extra stuff or not, but if you only have one buy you have no such choice.
I'm guessing it's so you can't double up on Messenger's Santa Claus-ing.
I hope there's a Treasure/Duration card so (with a cost-reducer) you can Messenger a Mandarin, sending those suckers back on top of the deck. I don't know if that would be good since they'd still get the effects, but it could be fun.
Also, Messengering a Nomad Camp could be a fun way to disrupt your opponent's terminal draw or (if getting the Messenger from the Black Market) ensure your tribute gets you some +actions.
And of course the most obvious exploit would be to Messenger a card with only 1 left in the pile.
I hope there's a Treasure/Duration card so (with a cost-reducer) you can Messenger a Mandarin, sending those suckers back on top of the deck. I don't know if that would be good since they'd still get the effects, but it could be fun.
Also, Messengering a Nomad Camp could be a fun way to disrupt your opponent's terminal draw or (if getting the Messenger from the Black Market) ensure your tribute gets you some +actions.
And of course the most obvious exploit would be to Messenger a card with only 1 left in the pile.
Are Durations in play after your turn?
I hope there's a Treasure/Duration card so (with a cost-reducer) you can Messenger a Mandarin, sending those suckers back on top of the deck. I don't know if that would be good since they'd still get the effects, but it could be fun.
Also, Messengering a Nomad Camp could be a fun way to disrupt your opponent's terminal draw or (if getting the Messenger from the Black Market) ensure your tribute gets you some +actions.
And of course the most obvious exploit would be to Messenger a card with only 1 left in the pile.
I hope there's a Treasure/Duration card so (with a cost-reducer) you can Messenger a Mandarin, sending those suckers back on top of the deck. I don't know if that would be good since they'd still get the effects, but it could be fun.
Also, Messengering a Nomad Camp could be a fun way to disrupt your opponent's terminal draw or (if getting the Messenger from the Black Market) ensure your tribute gets you some +actions.
And of course the most obvious exploit would be to Messenger a card with only 1 left in the pile.
Are Durations in play after your turn?
Yep, Lighthouse says, "While this is in play..."
I hope there's a Treasure/Duration card so (with a cost-reducer) you can Messenger a Mandarin, sending those suckers back on top of the deck. I don't know if that would be good since they'd still get the effects, but it could be fun.
Also, Messengering a Nomad Camp could be a fun way to disrupt your opponent's terminal draw or (if getting the Messenger from the Black Market) ensure your tribute gets you some +actions.
And of course the most obvious exploit would be to Messenger a card with only 1 left in the pile.
Oh, man.. Messenger, Watchtower, Jester. Or Swindler, but Jester can give them two Curses.
I hope there's a Treasure/Duration card so (with a cost-reducer) you can Messenger a Mandarin, sending those suckers back on top of the deck. I don't know if that would be good since they'd still get the effects, but it could be fun.
Also, Messengering a Nomad Camp could be a fun way to disrupt your opponent's terminal draw or (if getting the Messenger from the Black Market) ensure your tribute gets you some +actions.
And of course the most obvious exploit would be to Messenger a card with only 1 left in the pile.
Oh, man.. Messenger, Watchtower, Jester. Or Swindler, but Jester can give them two Curses.
I don't think that works how you think it works.
I hope there's a Treasure/Duration card so (with a cost-reducer) you can Messenger a Mandarin, sending those suckers back on top of the deck. I don't know if that would be good since they'd still get the effects, but it could be fun.
Also, Messengering a Nomad Camp could be a fun way to disrupt your opponent's terminal draw or (if getting the Messenger from the Black Market) ensure your tribute gets you some +actions.
And of course the most obvious exploit would be to Messenger a card with only 1 left in the pile.
Oh, man.. Messenger, Watchtower, Jester. Or Swindler, but Jester can give them two Curses.
I don't think that works how you think it works.
Oh, you're right, for some reason the top-decking of Mandarin got me thinking everything was getting top-decked.
Messenger/trader, what happens (i.e. I take a curse and reveal trader to take a silver)? My feeling is no one gains anything ( except I gain the silver ).
Messenger/trader, what happens (i.e. I take a curse and reveal trader to take a silver)? My feeling is no one gains anything ( except I gain the silver ).
Yes, for the same reason Trader-ing an Ironworks gain doesn't give you a bonus. Ironworks and Messenger both say "gain a card, do something depending on it" not "choose a card, gain it, etc".
Messenger/trader, what happens (i.e. I take a curse and reveal trader to take a silver)? My feeling is no one gains anything ( except I gain the silver ).
Yes, for the same reason Trader-ing an Ironworks gain doesn't give you a bonus. Ironworks and Messenger both say "gain a card, do something depending on it" not "choose a card, gain it, etc".
Messenger doesn't actually say "depending on it", just "and". Ironworks has an if/then chart....
Why does Messenger restrict itself to being your first buy? Why not just have it be the first time you buy Messenger on a turn? I can see some sad days online when you accidentally buy a Province before Messenger.The text has to fit on the cards. We didn't know the Chancellor part would be scrunched, and with that on two lines you can't fit any more lines.
yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.
I assume this card has a quite interesting depth of openings, in that cards that you don't want multiples of become worse. Especially for player one.
Messenger/trader, what happens (i.e. I take a curse and reveal trader to take a silver)? My feeling is no one gains anything ( except I gain the silver ).I am not at home and so will consider this question some other time, when I have easy access to rulebooks and things.
Annette Hanshaw - I've Got It But It Don't Do Me No Goodyes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.
I don't know what "it" is, but he's got it.
Annette Hanshaw - I've Got It But It Don't Do Me No Goodyes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.
I don't know what "it" is, but he's got it.
Messenger/trader, what happens (i.e. I take a curse and reveal trader to take a silver)? My feeling is no one gains anything ( except I gain the silver ).
Yes, for the same reason Trader-ing an Ironworks gain doesn't give you a bonus. Ironworks and Messenger both say "gain a card, do something depending on it" not "choose a card, gain it, etc".
EDIT: Ah, but maybe the dispositive point is the 'would gain' clause on Trader: since you never gained the card Messenger tried to gains, there's nothing to dole out. Got it.
EDIT: Ah, but maybe the dispositive point is the 'would gain' clause on Trader: since you never gained the card Messenger tried to gain, there's no card to dole out.
Messenger doesn't actually say "depending on it", just "and". Ironworks has an if/then chart....
Which is shorthand for "if the card you gained with Ironworks is an..." Which is another way of saying "do something depending on what you gain".
yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.and "it" means the card that Messenger tried to gain, would not each other player gain a copy of that "it"?
Messenger/trader, what happens (i.e. I take a curse and reveal trader to take a silver)? My feeling is no one gains anything ( except I gain the silver ).
Yes, for the same reason Trader-ing an Ironworks gain doesn't give you a bonus. Ironworks and Messenger both say "gain a card, do something depending on it" not "choose a card, gain it, etc".
EDIT: Ah, but maybe the dispositive point is the 'would gain' clause on Trader: since you never gained the card Messenger tried to gain, there's no card to dole out.
Messenger doesn't actually say "depending on it", just "and". Ironworks has an if/then chart....
Which is shorthand for "if the card you gained with Ironworks is an..." Which is another way of saying "do something depending on what you gain".
Yes, that's what Ironworks says and means. My point though it that Messenger has no "if". It has an "and".
So if we accept the Clintonian assertion that:yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.and "it" means the card that Messenger tried to gain, would not each other player gain a copy of that "it"?
Messenger/trader, what happens (i.e. I take a curse and reveal trader to take a silver)? My feeling is no one gains anything ( except I gain the silver ).
Yes, for the same reason Trader-ing an Ironworks gain doesn't give you a bonus. Ironworks and Messenger both say "gain a card, do something depending on it" not "choose a card, gain it, etc".
EDIT: Ah, but maybe the dispositive point is the 'would gain' clause on Trader: since you never gained the card Messenger tried to gain, there's no card to dole out.
Messenger doesn't actually say "depending on it", just "and". Ironworks has an if/then chart....
Which is shorthand for "if the card you gained with Ironworks is an..." Which is another way of saying "do something depending on what you gain".
Yes, that's what Ironworks says and means. My point though it that Messenger has no "if". It has an "and".
So if we accept the Clintonian assertion that:yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.and "it" means the card that Messenger tried to gain, would not each other player gain a copy of that "it"?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. You are correct.
To me, that suggests simultaneity. Which would mean if you chose to gain a Curse, and revealed Trader, you'd get a Silver, and everyone else would get a Curse.
Oh no, if we apply the Witherweaver-Is-Always-Wrong axiom, that screws up everything.
So I guess Messenger/Gardens will be a thing?
With Watchtower in hand, this is a cheaper Ill-Gotten Gains.
I'm tempted to think it has the Ironworks-type ruling.
1) Buy Messenger
2) Attempt to gain Curse
3) Reveal Trader, gaining a Silver
4) Continue with Messenger: "Each other player gains a copy of it". There is no "it", because Messenger did not gain a card.
I'm like 0 for 100 on these ruling questions, though, so a good rule of thumb would be to assume the official rule is whatever isn't what I'm saying.
Also, this is a really neat card.
So I guess Messenger/Gardens will be a thing?
In a Gardens mirror, the on-buy is a wash because everybody gains the thing. It may be better if the others aren't going for Gardens. Messenger could help with emptying piles, and it comes with +1 Buy, so there's that too.With Watchtower in hand, this is a cheaper Ill-Gotten Gains.
Not quite... you end up with one Curse in the trash instead of still in the pile, and Messenger in your deck functions pretty differently from IGG in your deck.I'm tempted to think it has the Ironworks-type ruling.
1) Buy Messenger
2) Attempt to gain Curse
3) Reveal Trader, gaining a Silver
4) Continue with Messenger: "Each other player gains a copy of it". There is no "it", because Messenger did not gain a card.
I'm like 0 for 100 on these ruling questions, though, so a good rule of thumb would be to assume the official rule is whatever isn't what I'm saying.
I agree with this. Trader makes it so that Messenger failed to gain a card itself, so there is no "it" to copy. That's how it works with Ironworks as well. The salient points are the "would gain" on Trader and the "it" on Messenger/Ironworks. I don't think the "if" on Ironworks factors into it.
Also, this is a really neat card.
Looks like WAWA may have failed us for once, eHalcyon agrees with us at any rate.
But isn't Watchtower different? It says 'when you gain', not 'would gain'. So you actually do gain the card. So doesn't that mean:
1) Buy Messenger; Gain Curse.
2) Everyone gains a curse.
3) You (and anyone else) can now reveal Watchtower and say "ehhhhh, no thanks."
Looks like WAWA may have failed us for once, eHalcyon agrees with us at any rate.
But isn't Watchtower different? It says 'when you gain', not 'would gain'. So you actually do gain the card. So doesn't that mean:
1) Buy Messenger; Gain Curse.
2) Everyone gains a curse.
3) You (and anyone else) can now reveal Watchtower and say "ehhhhh, no thanks."
Yeah, there's no confusion with Watchtower here. You can go to the Transmogrify thread for that.
With Watchtower in hand, this is a cheaper Ill-Gotten Gains.Stop it! Ugh, was looking forward to this one.
Actually, I think the way to hand out Curses in the most convoluted way possible would be to have some cost reducer like Highway in play, buy Messenger, and choose to gain IGG.
Or maybe you're a jerk holding a Watchtower and you decide to hand out Curses in the most convoluted way possible. Man, what's your problem? Well, go for it, I guess.
Actually, I think the way to hand out Curses in the most convoluted way possible would be to have some cost reducer like Highway in play, buy Messenger, and choose to gain IGG.
Or maybe you're a jerk holding a Watchtower and you decide to hand out Curses in the most convoluted way possible. Man, what's your problem? Well, go for it, I guess.
Then, if you are playing multiplayer (say in that five-player game you suggest), a total of 20 curses will be gained, and if you reveal Watchtower each time, I'm guessing somebody is going to shoot you...
yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.
In other words, I think "it" is the card that Messenger gained, not tried to gain.
I assume this card has a quite interesting depth of openings, in that cards that you don't want multiples of become worse. Especially for player one.
I can imagine a game of Chapel Chicken: whoever buys one first opens himself to his opponent(s) sticking him with a second one.
So this would be like Ill-Gotten Gains, where you can give out curses and they can't use Moat or Lighthouse to stop it, right? But unless you have a Watchtower, (or perhaps a Trader depending on the ruling by Donald X), you will get a curse also. So would there ever be a rush to use this as a curser like Ill-Gotten Gains?
Not to mention that a lot of what makes the IGG rush so powerful is that it empties 2 piles at once, while giving something that can still buy things reasonably well. On the other hand, a Messenger Rush would involve buying a bunch of terminal Wood-Chancellors, and still only empty one pile (while not actually winning the curse split).So this would be like Ill-Gotten Gains, where you can give out curses and they can't use Moat or Lighthouse to stop it, right? But unless you have a Watchtower, (or perhaps a Trader depending on the ruling by Donald X), you will get a curse also. So would there ever be a rush to use this as a curser like Ill-Gotten Gains?
No, unless your deck can handle the cursing a lot better than you opponent's deck there's no reason to buy this turn after turn to share the curses. And since getting to a deck that can handle curses well takes time, you won't be seeing a IGG-like rush with this card.
yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.
The ruling was that "it" is the card ironworks DID gain, not the one it tried to gain. If it were the one it tried to gain, then you would still get the ironworks bonus with trader.
I assume this card has a quite interesting depth of openings, in that cards that you don't want multiples of become worse. Especially for player one.
I can imagine a game of Chapel Chicken: whoever buys one first opens himself to his opponent(s) sticking him with a second one.
I would certainly "solve" this by just buying chapel. Suppose we start out like...
I open Chapel ($3)
You buy Messenger, giving us both a Chapel ($4)
I buy messenger, giving us both a Silver ($4)
You buy Silver ($3)
... I wouldn't dare tell you who is in the better spot now. Second Chapel may be really bad if it collides with the first and a silver/messenger.
But it also may be a gift from heaven if they don't collide, as I still get to really trash down despite all the quick gains on the first shuffle.
Your "single chapel strategy" isn't near as good as normal either, because you already have 3 other cards you don't want to trash.
Off course a lot depends on the kingdom, but I assume we're talking about a kingdom where chapel is good in the first place.
Certainly interesting to think about though.
yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.
The ruling was that "it" is the card ironworks DID gain, not the one it tried to gain. If it were the one it tried to gain, then you would still get the ironworks bonus with trader.
So are you saying if you mistakenly tried to Messenger a curse and then revealed Trader, everyone would get a Silver?
Or is the ruling with Ironworks/Trader (remind me) that Ironworks didn't gain that Silver, Trader did?
yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.
The ruling was that "it" is the card ironworks DID gain, not the one it tried to gain. If it were the one it tried to gain, then you would still get the ironworks bonus with trader.
So are you saying if you mistakenly tried to Messenger a curse and then revealed Trader, everyone would get a Silver?
Or is the ruling with Ironworks/Trader (remind me) that Ironworks didn't gain that Silver, Trader did?
You would gain a card with Ironworks/Messenger.
You reveal Trader, gaining a Silver instead.
Ironworks/Messenger gives you a bonus based on the card that Ironworks/Messenger gained.
Ironworks/Messenger did not actually gain a card due to Trader interference, so the subsequent effects don't happen. There is no "it" for them to work from. Ironworks has no reference to determine its bonus and Messenger doesn't know what card should have copies distributed.
So does that mean you could actually use that intentionally if for some reason you actually wanted to get both a Messenger and a Silver, without giving out the Silver to everyone else? "I buy Messenger, gaining a baloney sandwich. Oops, no, here's Trader, I'll take a Silver instead." And of course no one gains a baloney sandwich.
[Ninja'd more succinctly]
So does that mean you could actually use that intentionally if for some reason you actually wanted to get both a Messenger and a Silver, without giving out the Silver to everyone else? "I buy Messenger, gaining a baloney sandwich. Oops, no, here's Trader, I'll take a Silver instead." And of course no one gains a baloney sandwich.
[Ninja'd more succinctly]
Yes. You could even buy Messenger to gain Silver, then use Trader to replace that Silver with Silver. Then nobody else gains a Silver but you do. And I like Gherald's idea of also using Trader to replace the Messenger itself with Silver. It still works because Messenger's thing is on-first-buy, not on-gain. Then you just gain two Silver.
(https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Yo-Dawg-Heard-You.jpg)
No, definitely not.yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.
The ruling was that "it" is the card ironworks DID gain, not the one it tried to gain. If it were the one it tried to gain, then you would still get the ironworks bonus with trader.
So are you saying if you mistakenly tried to Messenger a curse and then revealed Trader, everyone would get a Silver?
Or is the ruling with Ironworks/Trader (remind me) that Ironworks didn't gain that Silver, Trader did?Yes, this. The original gain never happened; so messenger/ironworks never gained a card.
So does that mean you could actually use that intentionally if for some reason you actually wanted to get both a Messenger and a Silver, without giving out the Silver to everyone else? "I buy Messenger, gaining a baloney sandwich. Oops, no, here's Trader, I'll take a Silver instead." And of course no one gains a baloney sandwich.
[Ninja'd more succinctly]
Yes. You could even buy Messenger to gain Silver, then use Trader to replace that Silver with Silver. Then nobody else gains a Silver but you do. And I like Gherald's idea of also using Trader to replace the Messenger itself with Silver. It still works because Messenger's thing is on-first-buy, not on-gain. Then you just gain two Silver.
(https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Yo-Dawg-Heard-You.jpg)
Does this mean that there's no way to reveal Trader for Cache to get three Silvers instead?
I guess with Trader, it's useful to think that it's preventing you from gaining something and then gaining something itself, rather than changing what you gain.
Does this mean that there's no way to reveal Trader for Cache to get three Silvers instead?
Now I want to play Bridge, buy Messenger, and give everyone a Cache. Just to be a dick.
QuoteDoes this mean that there's no way to reveal Trader for Cache to get three Silvers instead?
No, there is. Gain the Cache, trash it with Watchtower, reveal and discard Market Square, gain a Gold, reveal Trader to gain a Silver instead, then gain the two coppers, reveal Trader, gain two Silvers instead.
Also Embargo, Border Village, Haggler.
Has Donald ruled on the Messenger/Trader issue and I missed it?No.
(http://s.quickmeme.com/img/94/945f19637c025270208f6e0e3449fcf8ef342c825e64676ba5f0922784f3a227.jpg)
This is based on a comment he made during AdamH's Gokodom streaming match, where he suggested that Adam's optimal play was to use ambassador to return "at least one Silver."
Am I doing it right?
It's not so much about harming the engine as it is about helping the BM.Am I doing it right?
Yes you're doing it right but I can't believe WW is in this case.
Sure there are some engines you can stop with free silvers (village/smithy/no trashing) but most of them just say thank you very much.
Against say a Steward and a Workers Village it's already really bad.
The more I think about this, the more it seems really strong. I want to play this in Big Money and wreck your engine. Yeah, I said it. Just dishing out silvers all day long makes my money deck better, your engine... less clear. Definitely looking forward to it, anyway.
The more I think about this, the more it seems really strong. I want to play this in Big Money and wreck your engine. Yeah, I said it. Just dishing out silvers all day long makes my money deck better, your engine... less clear. Definitely looking forward to it, anyway.
Your problem here is that you have to buy a terminal for every Silver you want to dish out, and you don't want many terminals. Once you have 1 or 2 (or less if you have terminal draw), you'd much rather have just a Silver than a Silver and a Messenger.
The more I think about this, the more it seems really strong. I want to play this in Big Money and wreck your engine. Yeah, I said it. Just dishing out silvers all day long makes my money deck better, your engine... less clear. Definitely looking forward to it, anyway.
Your problem here is that you have to buy a terminal for every Silver you want to dish out, and you don't want many terminals. Once you have 1 or 2 (or less if you have terminal draw), you'd much rather have just a Silver than a Silver and a Messenger.
So I just buy a silver. Really, though, I imagine you can get quite a number of terminals - 3, 4? The silver isn't all that damaging anyway, it's more that it's not so helpful. And I, the money player, get to open triple Silver, following up with quite a bit more. I get my deck quite thick with silvers nice and quickly. And it's quite a while before I would rather have no Messenger than Messenger. Also, I have a decent amount of pile control for a money deck.
The more I think about this, the more it seems really strong. I want to play this in Big Money and wreck your engine. Yeah, I said it. Just dishing out silvers all day long makes my money deck better, your engine... less clear. Definitely looking forward to it, anyway.
Your problem here is that you have to buy a terminal for every Silver you want to dish out, and you don't want many terminals. Once you have 1 or 2 (or less if you have terminal draw), you'd much rather have just a Silver than a Silver and a Messenger.
So I just buy a silver. Really, though, I imagine you can get quite a number of terminals - 3, 4? The silver isn't all that damaging anyway, it's more that it's not so helpful. And I, the money player, get to open triple Silver, following up with quite a bit more. I get my deck quite thick with silvers nice and quickly. And it's quite a while before I would rather have no Messenger than Messenger. Also, I have a decent amount of pile control for a money deck.
But you don't get Silver any quicker than you would by just buying Silver normally.
There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking. ;)
There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking. ;)
Whoever* ::)
There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking. ;)
Whoever* ::)
There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking. ;)
Whoever* ::)
"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them". Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"? No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".
There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking. ;)
Whoever* ::)
"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them". Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"? No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".
This is a bit tricky though. I'm one of those people who (not whom) normally can't stand hearing the wrong use of who vs whom. But in this case upon first reading I thought whoever was correct (though I now see you are right). It's because "whomever was asking" by itself is wrong; it would be "whoever was asking".
There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking. ;)
Whoever* ::)
"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them". Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"? No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".
This is a bit tricky though. I'm one of those people who (not whom) normally can't stand hearing the wrong use of who vs whom. But in this case upon first reading I thought whoever was correct (though I now see you are right). It's because "whomever was asking" by itself is wrong; it would be "whoever was asking".
Gendo is right and Wero is wrong; the case of whoever is determined by the smallest clause it's actually in. It's acting as the subject of was asking. It's not the object of for; the object of for is the entire clause whoever was asking.
(That's the standard rule, anyway)
There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking. ;)
Whoever* ::)
"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them". Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"? No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".
This is a bit tricky though. I'm one of those people who (not whom) normally can't stand hearing the wrong use of who vs whom. But in this case upon first reading I thought whoever was correct (though I now see you are right). It's because "whomever was asking" by itself is wrong; it would be "whoever was asking".
Gendo is right and Wero is wrong; the case of whoever is determined by the smallest clause it's actually in. It's acting as the subject of was asking. It's not the object of for; the object of for is the entire clause whoever was asking.
(That's the standard rule, anyway)
There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking. ;)
Whoever* ::)
"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them". Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"? No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".
This is a bit tricky though. I'm one of those people who (not whom) normally can't stand hearing the wrong use of who vs whom. But in this case upon first reading I thought whoever was correct (though I now see you are right). It's because "whomever was asking" by itself is wrong; it would be "whoever was asking".
Gendo is right and Wero is wrong; the case of whoever is determined by the smallest clause it's actually in. It's acting as the subject of was asking. It's not the object of for; the object of for is the entire clause whoever was asking.
(That's the standard rule, anyway)
I think the problem is arising from the fact that English annoyingly abbreviates the starts of dependent clauses. To have no ambiguity, it should be "for him, who", but English let's you scrunch that up.
There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking. ;)
Whoever* ::)
"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them". Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"? No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".
This is a bit tricky though. I'm one of those people who (not whom) normally can't stand hearing the wrong use of who vs whom. But in this case upon first reading I thought whoever was correct (though I now see you are right). It's because "whomever was asking" by itself is wrong; it would be "whoever was asking".
Gendo is right and Wero is wrong; the case of whoever is determined by the smallest clause it's actually in. It's acting as the subject of was asking. It's not the object of for; the object of for is the entire clause whoever was asking.
(That's the standard rule, anyway)
I think the problem is arising from the fact that English annoyingly abbreviates the starts of dependent clauses. To have no ambiguity, it should be "for him, who", but English let's you scrunch that up.
So what you're saying is that we need more commas.
There's the +Buy card, for whomever was asking. ;)
Whoever* ::)
"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them". Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"? No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".
This is a bit tricky though. I'm one of those people who (not whom) normally can't stand hearing the wrong use of who vs whom. But in this case upon first reading I thought whoever was correct (though I now see you are right). It's because "whomever was asking" by itself is wrong; it would be "whoever was asking".
Gendo is right and Wero is wrong; the case of whoever is determined by the smallest clause it's actually in. It's acting as the subject of was asking. It's not the object of for; the object of for is the entire clause whoever was asking.
(That's the standard rule, anyway)
I think the problem is arising from the fact that English annoyingly abbreviates the starts of dependent clauses. To have no ambiguity, it should be "for him, who", but English let's you scrunch that up.
"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them". Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"? No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".Not so!
"Whom" is used in any case where you'd use an object pronoun, such as "me" or "him" or "them". Do you ever say "for I" or "for he" or "for they"? No, you say "for me" or "for him" or "for them", so you'd say "for whom", and since it doesn't matter which "whom" it is, it is "for whomever".Not so!
"Whom" is used in certain old expressions, such as "for whom the bell tolls," and in situations where you want to make a statement with your word choice. Otherwise people say "who." "Whom" is dying.
Maybe he's a hinting that today's preview card will be the Prescriptive Grammarian: each player gains a curse for every grammatical error made.(http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=73941&type=card)
I think the problem is arising from the fact that English annoyingly abbreviates the starts of dependent clauses. To have no ambiguity, it should be "for him, who", but English let's you scrunch that up.
I think the problem is arising from the fact that English annoyingly abbreviates the starts of dependent clauses. To have no ambiguity, it should be "for him, who", but English let's you scrunch that up.
In this case it would have been "for he who was asking." "For him, who was asking" means something different.
For a particularly vivid example, compare
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
with
"Let him, who is without sin, cast the first stone."
Go home, English, you're drunk.
Go home, English, you're drunk.
I hope we get a reaction/reserve card/event that benefits from shuffling the deck. Is that too much to ask for ?
Poor Stache... Always forgotten...I hope we get a reaction/reserve card/event that benefits from shuffling the deck. Is that too much to ask for ?(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/2/23/Stash.jpg)
Don't know how useful it is, but you can use Messenger to double cost reduction: with one Highway, you can get a 5$ card for 3$; with 2, a 6$ card for $2, etc. Of course, everybody else is also gaining that card, but it might be good if you are relying on Apprentice for draw and you just want fodder that they can't use, or something.
Don't know how useful it is, but you can use Messenger to double cost reduction: with one Highway, you can get a 5$ card for 3$; with 2, a 6$ card for $2, etc. Of course, everybody else is also gaining that card, but it might be good if you are relying on Apprentice for draw and you just want fodder that they can't use, or something.
Relying on Apprentice for draw + playing a Highway engine = bad times.