Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Rules Questions => Topic started by: AJD on April 27, 2015, 12:12:40 pm
-
If my +Card token is on an Attack and I have Urchin in play, do I get +1 Card from the token before or after I trash the Urchin and get the Mercenary? Or do they happen at the same time (and therefore I choose the order)?
-
I am relatively sure that the +1 card token basically adds "+1 card" to the beginning of the card text. Which means that Urchin now reads:
+1 card
+1 card
+1 action
....
________
......
So you would get the Mercenary first, just like you get him before you draw the card for regular Urchin.
-
That could well be! On the other hand, the rules say "When the player whose token it is plays a card from that pile, that player first gets the bonus," and "when the player… plays a card" suggests the same timing as Urchin's "when you play another Attack".
-
If my +Card token is on an Attack and I have Urchin in play, do I get +1 Card from the token before or after I trash the Urchin and get the Mercenary? Or do they happen at the same time (and therefore I choose the order)?
You get the +1 Card first. First, it says first. It has to be timed and space is at a premium so all it says is "first." The rulebook example turn has it ahead of any resolution of the played card. For the most part it plays just like the +1 Card is on the card as a top line. But if it matters, that part happens first, like it says.
You do get to pointlessly choose the order between different tokens if you have more than one on a pile.
-
If my +Card token is on an Attack and I have Urchin in play, do I get +1 Card from the token before or after I trash the Urchin and get the Mercenary? Or do they happen at the same time (and therefore I choose the order)?
You get the +1 Card first. First, it says first. It has to be timed and space is at a premium so all it says is "first." The rulebook example turn has it ahead of any resolution of the played card. For the most part it plays just like the +1 Card is on the card as a top line. But if it matters, that part happens first, like it says.
You do get to pointlessly choose the order between different tokens if you have more than one on a pile.
Oh, the tokens don't trigger on when-play, but before that. Ok. So either this is a new time - a new trigger, or we could say that it's when-you-would-play, just like Band of Misfits. That would also explain exactly how you get the bonus from the tokens both on BoM and on the card you choose. Both the token bonus and the BoM instruction to choose a card happens at the same time. You choose the order, which doesn't matter. Then you're going to play the chosen card, but before that you get the token bonus from that pile too. Then you actually play the chosen card.
What about the trashing token? Does it trigger on when-buy, or before that? It matters, since there are other when-buy abilities.
-
If my +Card token is on an Attack and I have Urchin in play, do I get +1 Card from the token before or after I trash the Urchin and get the Mercenary? Or do they happen at the same time (and therefore I choose the order)?
You get the +1 Card first. First, it says first. It has to be timed and space is at a premium so all it says is "first." The rulebook example turn has it ahead of any resolution of the played card. For the most part it plays just like the +1 Card is on the card as a top line. But if it matters, that part happens first, like it says.
You do get to pointlessly choose the order between different tokens if you have more than one on a pile.
Oh, the tokens don't trigger on when-play, but before that.
This isn't how I read his response. Sounds like he was saying that they DO trigger on-play, but the normal thing of getting to order your when-play effects is overridden because these on-play effects specify that they are "first".
What about the trashing token? Does it trigger on when-buy, or before that? It matters, since there are other when-buy abilities.
Plan does not have the "first" in it's wording, so I'm guessing that you choose the order.
-
Oh, the tokens don't trigger on when-play, but before that.
This isn't how I read his response. Sounds like he was saying that they DO trigger on-play, but the normal thing of getting to order your when-play effects is overridden because these on-play effects specify that they are "first".
Well, when-play is a moment in time, when several things can happen simultaneously. (Then you get to order them to resolve them.) Since this is "first", meaning before all those events, it sounds like it's not at the same moment in time. There could be several tokens to resolve, and you get to order them. Per known Dominion rules up until now, you get to order events that happen at the same time. Since we're talking about two different groups of triggered events that you can order internally but not mix, it's a little weird to think of them as all happening at the same time.
-
What about the trashing token? Does it trigger on when-buy, or before that? It matters, since there are other when-buy abilities.
The trashing token creates a normal when-buy trigger, ordered however you want relative to other when-buy triggers that happen at the same time.
-
If my +Card token is on an Attack and I have Urchin in play, do I get +1 Card from the token before or after I trash the Urchin and get the Mercenary? Or do they happen at the same time (and therefore I choose the order)?
You get the +1 Card first. First, it says first. It has to be timed and space is at a premium so all it says is "first." The rulebook example turn has it ahead of any resolution of the played card. For the most part it plays just like the +1 Card is on the card as a top line. But if it matters, that part happens first, like it says.
You do get to pointlessly choose the order between different tokens if you have more than one on a pile.
This, to me, suggests that +1 Card token on Band of Misfits gives you +1 Card when you play Band of Misfits, because "first" happens before "Play this as".
-
What about the trashing token? Does it trigger on when-buy, or before that? It matters, since there are other when-buy abilities.
The trashing token creates a normal when-buy trigger, ordered however you want relative to other when-buy triggers that happen at the same time.
Thanks.
Any ruling on Throne Room on BoM with token (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12906.msg482539#msg482539)?
If the token bonus really comes before play, I can see a case for TR not giving the bonus on the second play.
-
Any ruling on Throne Room on BoM with token (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12906.msg482539#msg482539)?
If the token bonus really comes before play, I can see a case for TR not giving the bonus on the second play.
So far the ruling is, you get bonuses for tokens on BoM once and for ones on the card twice. I have +1 Card on BoM and +$1 on Chapel, I Throne Room BoM and pick Chapel, I get +1 Card +$2. BoM is no longer BoM the second time.
I like the notion that somehow things are more acceptable now due to the "first" on the tokens but I haven't given it any more thought.
-
Oh, the tokens don't trigger on when-play, but before that.
This isn't how I read his response. Sounds like he was saying that they DO trigger on-play, but the normal thing of getting to order your when-play effects is overridden because these on-play effects specify that they are "first".
Well, when-play is a moment in time, when several things can happen simultaneously. (Then you get to order them to resolve them.) Since this is "first", meaning before all those events, it sounds like it's not at the same moment in time. There could be several tokens to resolve, and you get to order them. Per known Dominion rules up until now, you get to order events that happen at the same time. Since we're talking about two different groups of triggered events that you can order internally but not mix, it's a little weird to think of them as all happening at the same time.
No, it's not "first" meaning before all those events. The events trigger at the exact same time ("when you play the card"). When you play the card, both things trigger.. the token's "when you play" and Urchin's "when you play". But even though both trigger at the same time, you can't choose the order like you normally could, because the order is chosen for you buy the fact that one of them says you have to resolve it "first".
-
No, it's not "first" meaning before all those events.
I was talking about when you resolve these event, so yes, it is. The rest (that is, the triggering) is open for interpretation. It could be two different times, like I said, or all at the same time with added rules about which events can be resolved before which other events, like you said. I just thought my interpretation was less complex and more in line with how things have worked up until now.
The actual cards/Events say "when you play" though, so your version is more in line with the that.
-
So, here's how I can reconcile having all current rulings on "playing stuff" work: you have a top-level instruction called "Play a card N times." Most things have you do it with N = 1, but Throne Room and friends have N = 2 or N = 3.
Play CARD N Times:
# Resolve any BoM-style effects
while CARD has any "play this as" effects:
A. if there are any +1 Bonus tokens on CARD's pile, process their instructions
CARD becomes whatever you're playing it as
move CARD into play
# "Lock in" Throne Room's idea of the card
INSTRUCTIONS = CARD's current instructions
N times:
B. resolve any "when you play" instructions (including tokens)
record "play" count for Conspirator, Crossroads, etc.
carry out INSTRUCTIONS
The issue I have is with the two steps labeled A and B. You must process +1 Bonus tokens in both those places: A to get tokens on BoM and again in B to get tokens on anything else.
And the question is: why? do those +1 tokens just have a special kind of "when you play" instruction that gets evaluated at both those times in the procedure? Or are we actually supposed to evaluate all "when you play" instructions at both A and B?
The answer now matters for Champion (with Diadem turning Actions into coins). If you play BoM-as-Woodcutter, do you treat Champion's "when you play" the same way you treat the token's "when you play" and evaluate at both A and B, coming out with one more action than you started with?
Or do you treat Champion's "when you play" effect differently from the tokens' "when you play" effects and only evaluate it at B, meaning you end up with the same number of actions you started with?
-
So, here's how I can reconcile having all current rulings on "playing stuff" work: you have a top-level instruction called "Play a card N times." Most things have you do it with N = 1, but Throne Room and friends have N = 2 or N = 3.
Play CARD N Times:
# Resolve any BoM-style effects
while CARD has any "play this as" effects:
A. if there are any +1 Bonus tokens on CARD's pile, process their instructions
CARD becomes whatever you're playing it as
move CARD into play
# "Lock in" Throne Room's idea of the card
INSTRUCTIONS = CARD's current instructions
N times:
B. resolve any "when you play" instructions (including tokens)
record "play" count for Conspirator, Crossroads, etc.
carry out INSTRUCTIONS
The issue I have is with the two steps labeled A and B. You must process +1 Bonus tokens in both those places: A to get tokens on BoM and again in B to get tokens on anything else.
And the question is: why? do those +1 tokens just have a special kind of "when you play" instruction that gets evaluated at both those times in the procedure? Or are we actually supposed to evaluate all "when you play" instructions at both A and B?
The answer now matters for Champion (with Diadem turning Actions into coins). If you play BoM-as-Woodcutter, do you treat Champion's "when you play" the same way you treat the token's "when you play" and evaluate at both A and B, coming out with one more action than you started with?
Or do you treat Champion's "when you play" effect differently from the tokens' "when you play" effects and only evaluate it at B, meaning you end up with the same number of actions you started with?
First of all, there's a mistake in your B. You resolve the tokens' effects before other when-play effects, so there are two steps there.
As per the ruling on Conspirator, only one card is played, and that is Woodcutter. So that's the only when-play Champion would trigger on.
The tokens are clearly different from other when-play triggers, that's why I thought it fit nicely to view them as being when-would-play. That effectively means they are triggered both on BoM and on Woodcutter, while all when-play effects just see one card played. Of course it also means they are always first.
-
As per the ruling on Conspirator, only one card is played, and that is Woodcutter. So that's the only when-play Champion would trigger on.
We know Conspirator only sees one play of a card, but I don't think we know it shares that timing with "when play" abilities. You can interpret it as working via a "when play" ability, but it's not phrased that way, so it could also be something with entirely different timing.
The tokens are clearly different from other when-play triggers
They're clearly different from something. The question is (ignoring that "first" wording for a moment) whether the tokens' "when play" abilities are different from all other "when play" abilities, or whether it's just that all "when play" abilities are different from Conspirator. Either would be valid as far as I can tell (and wouldn't have made a difference in anything before Adventures).
And that's the point of the Champion question. If the answer is "no extra action," that seems to mean your interpretation is correct and that some "when play" is different from other "when play." If the answer is "extra action," then that seems to mean all "when play" abilities share a timing (with the possible exception of that "first" thing) and Conspirator is the odd one out.
(For what it's worth, at this point, I'm leaning toward an interpretation similar to yours.)
-
As per the ruling on Conspirator, only one card is played, and that is Woodcutter. So that's the only when-play Champion would trigger on.
We know Conspirator only sees one play of a card, but I don't think we know it shares that timing with "when play" abilities. You can interpret it as working via a "when play" ability, but it's not phrased that way, so it could also be something with entirely different timing.
The tokens are clearly different from other when-play triggers
They're clearly different from something. The question is (ignoring that "first" wording for a moment) whether the tokens' "when play" abilities are different from all other "when play" abilities, or whether it's just that all "when play" abilities are different from Conspirator. Either would be valid as far as I can tell (and wouldn't have made a difference in anything before Adventures).
And that's the point of the Champion question. If the answer is "no extra action," that seems to mean your interpretation is correct and that some "when play" is different from other "when play." If the answer is "extra action," then that seems to mean all "when play" abilities share a timing (with the possible exception of that "first" thing) and Conspirator is the odd one out.
(For what it's worth, at this point, I'm leaning toward an interpretation similar to yours.)
All other rulings say that all "when-play" share a timing. It seems that these consist of the cards that React to an Attack being played, pluss Urchin and Champion. This is consistent with "when-gain", "when-buy", "when-would-gain", "when-discard-from-play", "when-trash", "at the start of turn"...
The tokens are the only ones that say "first", so that is what set them apart.
It doesn't have anything to do with Conspirator's timing. Conspirator counts Actions played. In your example one card is played, Woodcutter. Since Champion triggers on a card being played, it triggers once. There can be no other interpretation.
-
It doesn't have anything to do with Conspirator's timing. Conspirator counts Actions played. In your example one card is played, Woodcutter. Since Champion triggers on a card being played, it triggers once. There can be no other interpretation.
I'm fine with this interpretation, but it's certainly not entirely unambiguous. If a Throned BoM gives you the BoM tokens once and the copied card's tokens twice then that definitely seems to imply that two separate actions are played the first time. If not, then the tokens' effects seem to be hanging in limbo at some arbitrary point in the card's resolution. By the ruling on the Urchin question, it seems that all tokens resolve before anything else. However, BoM seems to have two possible interpretations: either you play it as BoM and it becomes another card after the first sentence, or it instantly becomes the other card and you effectively never play BoM. By the first interpretation, it seems that Throning it should give you the tokens from each pile once; by the second interpretation, it seems that Throning it should just give you the tokens on the copied pile twice, rendering tokens on BoM entirely ineffective. Donald's ruling of "BoM tokens once, copied tokens twice" really seems to imply that playing BoM should count as playing two actions, as both tokens are triggered. Obviously Donald's word is final and I'm fine with that, but I definitely think this is a contradiction.
-
This suddenly has me wondering if TR-Feast should lock in on gaining the same card twice.
-
This suddenly has me wondering if TR-Feast should lock in on gaining the same card twice.
It definitely shouldn't. The only reason a Throned BoM has to be the same card both times is because BoM effectively becomes that card once it's played. If you resolve the full text on Feast twice then there's no reason why it should have to be the same card you gain.
-
This suddenly has me wondering if TR-Feast should lock in on gaining the same card twice.
It definitely shouldn't. The only reason a Throned BoM has to be the same card both times is because BoM effectively becomes that card once it's played. If you resolve the full text on Feast twice then there's no reason why it should have to be the same card you gain.
It's a thought exercise, really.
TR locks in on the played action. In BoM's case it is: TR-BoM(as CardX) meaning the next time you play it, you get BoM(as CardX) which is why there is confusion about which tokens you get.
TR-CardX(+1 Buy) = CardX(+1 Buy) + CardX(+1 Buy)
TR-BoM(as CardX(+1 Buy)) = BoM(as CardX(+1 Buy)) + BoM(as CardX(+1 Buy))
TR-BoM(+1 Action)(as CardX(+1 Buy)) = BoM(+1 Action)(as CardX(+1 Buy)) + BoM(as CardX(+1 Buy))
It just seems counter-intuitive that you lose the BoM token on Throning. It can still lock in as that action card (i.e. BoM(as Feast)) because the action you chose was BoM(as Feast) to play twice.
If you Throne BoM as Feast, you get BoM(as Feast) + BoM(as Feast)
If your BoM has the +1 Action token, and you play it as Feast, you get BoM(+1 Action)(as Feast)
If you Throne your BoM(+1 Action) as Feast, why wouldn't it become BoM(+1 Action)(as Feast) + BoM(+1 Action)(as Feast) ?
This does not violate what Throne does, or what Band does.
-
This suddenly has me wondering if TR-Feast should lock in on gaining the same card twice.
It definitely shouldn't. The only reason a Throned BoM has to be the same card both times is because BoM effectively becomes that card once it's played. If you resolve the full text on Feast twice then there's no reason why it should have to be the same card you gain.
It's a thought exercise, really.
TR locks in on the played action. In BoM's case it is: TR-BoM(as CardX) meaning the next time you play it, you get BoM(as CardX) which is why there is confusion about which tokens you get.
TR-CardX(+1 Buy) = CardX(+1 Buy) + CardX(+1 Buy)
TR-BoM(as CardX(+1 Buy)) = BoM(as CardX(+1 Buy)) + BoM(as CardX(+1 Buy))
TR-BoM(+1 Action)(as CardX(+1 Buy)) = BoM(+1 Action)(as CardX(+1 Buy)) + BoM(as CardX(+1 Buy))
It just seems counter-intuitive that you lose the BoM token on Throning. It can still lock in as that action card (i.e. BoM(as Feast)) because the action you chose was BoM(as Feast) to play twice.
If you Throne BoM as Feast, you get BoM(as Feast) + BoM(as Feast)
If your BoM has the +1 Action token, and you play it as Feast, you get BoM(+1 Action)(as Feast)
If you Throne your BoM(+1 Action) as Feast, why wouldn't it become BoM(+1 Action)(as Feast) + BoM(+1 Action)(as Feast) ?
This does not violate what Throne does, or what Band does.
I don't see what this has to do with TR-Feast locking in on gaining the same card. BoM literally becomes the copied card (well, "literally" in the context of the game), so it has to be the same on the second play off of TR. It's the only card in the game that works that way. Throne Room doesn't double the effect of playing a card once, it just plays the card twice.
As for this interpretation of the TR-BoM w/ tokens issue, I think it's feasible, but I still don't think it makes the most sense. As I understand the wording on BoM, it sounds like you never actually "play" BoM. You just play the card it's copying. That interpretation is kind of unfortunate in that it would mean putting tokens on BoM is completely worthless (maybe barring a few edge cases, but I don't actually think so), but I also think it makes the most sense. There are a handful of other interpretations that I think could be justified (get the tokens on both piles twice, get the tokens on both piles once, get the tokens on BoM twice, and get the tokens on the copied pile twice could all potentially make sense depending on the precise meaning of the wording on BoM, I think), but I just don't understand the rationale behind getting the BoM tokens once and the copied pile's tokens twice.
For clarity (if anyone wants it), here are the reasons I think those 4 interpretations could be justified:
Tokens on both piles twice: BoM is a card from the BoM pile and an honorary card from the copied pile. Therefore, it gets both tokens on both plays.
Tokens on both piles once: It is BoM on the first play, becomes the copied card halfway through resolving it, and is the copied card on the second play.
Tokens on BoM twice: BoM, as a physical card, is from the BoM pile, so it only gets those tokens.
Tokens on copied pile twice: BoM, for all intents and purposes, becomes the copied card the instant you play it. It is no longer BoM at this point, so it only gets the tokens on the copied pile.
-
I'm fine with this interpretation, but it's certainly not entirely unambiguous. If a Throned BoM gives you the BoM tokens once and the copied card's tokens twice then that definitely seems to imply that two separate actions are played the first time. If not, then the tokens' effects seem to be hanging in limbo at some arbitrary point in the card's resolution. By the ruling on the Urchin question, it seems that all tokens resolve before anything else. However, BoM seems to have two possible interpretations: either you play it as BoM and it becomes another card after the first sentence, or it instantly becomes the other card and you effectively never play BoM. By the first interpretation, it seems that Throning it should give you the tokens from each pile once; by the second interpretation, it seems that Throning it should just give you the tokens on the copied pile twice, rendering tokens on BoM entirely ineffective. Donald's ruling of "BoM tokens once, copied tokens twice" really seems to imply that playing BoM should count as playing two actions, as both tokens are triggered. Obviously Donald's word is final and I'm fine with that, but I definitely think this is a contradiction.
I see what you're saying.
The line of reasoning on BoM / tokens is that people are going to think that BoM was played, they are going to expect to get that bonus; and they are going to think the other card was played too, they will expect that bonus. The second time you resolve a throned BoM, it's no longer BoM, so you don't get that token bonus.
The line of reasoning on BoM / Conspirator is that BoM was played as something else so only one thing was played.
Let's check the FAQ!
Band of Misfits: When you play this, you pick an Action card from the Supply that costs less than it, and treat this card as if it were the card you chose. Normally this will just mean that you follow the instructions on the card you picked. So if you play Band of Misfits and Fortress is in the Supply, you could pick that and then you would draw a card and get +2 Actions, since that's what Fortress does when you play it. Band of Misfits also gets the chosen card's cost, name, and types. If you use Band of Misfits as a card that trashes itself, such as Death Cart, you will trash the Band of Misfits (at which point it will just be a Band of Misfits card in the trash). If you use Band of Misfits as a duration card (from Seaside), Band of Misfits will stay in play until next turn, just like the duration card would. If you use Band of Misfits as a Throne Room (from Dominion), King's Court (from Prosperity), or Procession, and use that effect to play a duration card, Band of Misfits will similarly stay in play. If you use Throne Room, King's Court, or Procession to play a Band of Misfits card multiple times, you only pick what to play it as the first time; the other times it is still copying the same card. For example if you use Procession to play Band of Misfits twice and choose Fortress the first time, you'll automatically replay it as Fortress, then trash the Band of Misfits, return it to your hand (it's a Fortress when it's trashed, and Fortress has a when-trashed ability that returns it to your hand), and gain an Action card costing exactly $6 ($1 more than Band of Misfits, which has left play and so is no longer copying Fortress). If you use Band of Misfits as a card that does something during Clean-up, such as Hermit, it will do that thing during Clean-up. When you play Horn of Plenty (from Cornucopia), it counts Band of Misfits as whatever Band of Misfits was played as; for example if you play a Band of Misfits as a Fortress, and then play another Band of Misfits as a Scavenger, and then play Horn of Plenty, you will gain a card costing up to $3. Band of Misfits can only be played as a visible card in the Supply; it cannot be played as a card after its pile runs out, and cannot be played as a non-Supply card like Mercenary; it can be played as the top card of the Ruins pile, but no other Ruins, and can only be played as Sir Martin when that's the top card of the Knights pile.
This refers to "playing Band of Misfits" multiple times. I mean of course you can "play Band of Misfits." And if you play it, you played it, right? So getting a token bonus for BoM seems consistent, and Conspirator should count BoM as being played.
For the card you copy with BoM, either you should both get the token bonus and count it for Conspirator, or not get the token bonus and not count it for Conspirator. I am leaning towards getting the token bonus and counting the card. If Conspirator didn't count it then maybe there's some window of things a card does that's getting skipped and that could break something.
-
TR locks in on the played action. In BoM's case it is: TR-BoM(as CardX) meaning the next time you play it, you get BoM(as CardX) which is why there is confusion about which tokens you get.
TR-CardX(+1 Buy) = CardX(+1 Buy) + CardX(+1 Buy)
TR-BoM(as CardX(+1 Buy)) = BoM(as CardX(+1 Buy)) + BoM(as CardX(+1 Buy))
TR-BoM(+1 Action)(as CardX(+1 Buy)) = BoM(+1 Action)(as CardX(+1 Buy)) + BoM(as CardX(+1 Buy))
It just seems counter-intuitive that you lose the BoM token on Throning. It can still lock in as that action card (i.e. BoM(as Feast)) because the action you chose was BoM(as Feast) to play twice.
If you Throne BoM as Feast, you get BoM(as Feast) + BoM(as Feast)
If your BoM has the +1 Action token, and you play it as Feast, you get BoM(+1 Action)(as Feast)
If you Throne your BoM(+1 Action) as Feast, why wouldn't it become BoM(+1 Action)(as Feast) + BoM(+1 Action)(as Feast) ?
This does not violate what Throne does, or what Band does.
I don't see what this has to do with TR-Feast locking in on gaining the same card. BoM literally becomes the copied card (well, "literally" in the context of the game), so it has to be the same on the second play off of TR. It's the only card in the game that works that way. Throne Room doesn't double the effect of playing a card once, it just plays the card twice.
As for this interpretation of the TR-BoM w/ tokens issue, I think it's feasible, but I still don't think it makes the most sense. As I understand the wording on BoM, it sounds like you never actually "play" BoM. You just play the card it's copying. That interpretation is kind of unfortunate in that it would mean putting tokens on BoM is completely worthless (maybe barring a few edge cases, but I don't actually think so), but I also think it makes the most sense. There are a handful of other interpretations that I think could be justified (get the tokens on both piles twice, get the tokens on both piles once, get the tokens on BoM twice, and get the tokens on the copied pile twice could all potentially make sense depending on the precise meaning of the wording on BoM, I think), but I just don't understand the rationale behind getting the BoM tokens once and the copied pile's tokens twice.
For clarity (if anyone wants it), here are the reasons I think those 4 interpretations could be justified:
Tokens on both piles twice: BoM is a card from the BoM pile and an honorary card from the copied pile. Therefore, it gets both tokens on both plays.
Tokens on both piles once: It is BoM on the first play, becomes the copied card halfway through resolving it, and is the copied card on the second play.
Tokens on BoM twice: BoM, as a physical card, is from the BoM pile, so it only gets those tokens.
Tokens on copied pile twice: BoM, for all intents and purposes, becomes the copied card the instant you play it. It is no longer BoM at this point, so it only gets the tokens on the copied pile.
We I did type it as "playing the card twice" instead of "doubling the card" so I'm not sure if that was agreement or misunderstand.
I think it's counter-intuitive to think that BoM is only BoM the first time you play it. It's either never BoM, or it is BoM(as CardX) both times. This doesn't matter for Throne normally, but with tokens caring about piles, I don't see how it can pretend it doesn't exist on the second play.
We know TR-BoM "locks" in on the card.
TR-BoM(as CardX) = BoM(as CardX) + BoM(as CardX) <> BoM(as CardX) + CardX
[These effects are the same, but they are different concepts]
I'm saying, that intuitively, you should get the BoM tokens both times. The BoM is played twice, but it is played both times as BoM(as CardX). If that is not the case, then BoM is never played, and never gets bonuses from tokens.
I don't see how it can work only once.
-
TR locks in on the played action. In BoM's case it is: TR-BoM(as CardX) meaning the next time you play it, you get BoM(as CardX) which is why there is confusion about which tokens you get.
TR-CardX(+1 Buy) = CardX(+1 Buy) + CardX(+1 Buy)
TR-BoM(as CardX(+1 Buy)) = BoM(as CardX(+1 Buy)) + BoM(as CardX(+1 Buy))
TR-BoM(+1 Action)(as CardX(+1 Buy)) = BoM(+1 Action)(as CardX(+1 Buy)) + BoM(as CardX(+1 Buy))
It just seems counter-intuitive that you lose the BoM token on Throning. It can still lock in as that action card (i.e. BoM(as Feast)) because the action you chose was BoM(as Feast) to play twice.
If you Throne BoM as Feast, you get BoM(as Feast) + BoM(as Feast)
If your BoM has the +1 Action token, and you play it as Feast, you get BoM(+1 Action)(as Feast)
If you Throne your BoM(+1 Action) as Feast, why wouldn't it become BoM(+1 Action)(as Feast) + BoM(+1 Action)(as Feast) ?
This does not violate what Throne does, or what Band does.
I don't see what this has to do with TR-Feast locking in on gaining the same card. BoM literally becomes the copied card (well, "literally" in the context of the game), so it has to be the same on the second play off of TR. It's the only card in the game that works that way. Throne Room doesn't double the effect of playing a card once, it just plays the card twice.
As for this interpretation of the TR-BoM w/ tokens issue, I think it's feasible, but I still don't think it makes the most sense. As I understand the wording on BoM, it sounds like you never actually "play" BoM. You just play the card it's copying. That interpretation is kind of unfortunate in that it would mean putting tokens on BoM is completely worthless (maybe barring a few edge cases, but I don't actually think so), but I also think it makes the most sense. There are a handful of other interpretations that I think could be justified (get the tokens on both piles twice, get the tokens on both piles once, get the tokens on BoM twice, and get the tokens on the copied pile twice could all potentially make sense depending on the precise meaning of the wording on BoM, I think), but I just don't understand the rationale behind getting the BoM tokens once and the copied pile's tokens twice.
For clarity (if anyone wants it), here are the reasons I think those 4 interpretations could be justified:
Tokens on both piles twice: BoM is a card from the BoM pile and an honorary card from the copied pile. Therefore, it gets both tokens on both plays.
Tokens on both piles once: It is BoM on the first play, becomes the copied card halfway through resolving it, and is the copied card on the second play.
Tokens on BoM twice: BoM, as a physical card, is from the BoM pile, so it only gets those tokens.
Tokens on copied pile twice: BoM, for all intents and purposes, becomes the copied card the instant you play it. It is no longer BoM at this point, so it only gets the tokens on the copied pile.
We I did type it as "playing the card twice" instead of "doubling the card" so I'm not sure if that was agreement or misunderstand.
I think it's counter-intuitive to think that BoM is only BoM the first time you play it. It's either never BoM, or it is BoM(as CardX) both times. This doesn't matter for Throne normally, but with tokens caring about piles, I don't see how it can pretend it doesn't exist on the second play.
We know TR-BoM "locks" in on the card.
TR-BoM(as CardX) = BoM(as CardX) + BoM(as CardX) <> BoM(as CardX) + CardX
[These effects are the same, but they are different concepts]
I'm saying, that intuitively, you should get the BoM tokens both times. The BoM is played twice, but it is played both times as BoM(as CardX). If that is not the case, then BoM is never played, and never gets bonuses from tokens.
I don't see how it can work only once.
Well, I still don't understand what this has to do with TR-Feast, but I guess I'll just move past that. In the instance where I said you should only get the BoM tokens once, that was under the interpretation that BoM is BoM until you finish resolving the "Play this as if..." sentence. Therefore, it's no longer BoM for the second play. By that interpretation, you only get the BoM tokens once.
For the card you copy with BoM, either you should both get the token bonus and count it for Conspirator, or not get the token bonus and not count it for Conspirator. I am leaning towards getting the token bonus and counting the card. If Conspirator didn't count it then maybe there's some window of things a card does that's getting skipped and that could break something.
I like this ruling. Sort of like the way TR-Action counts as playing 3 actions for Conspirator, BoM copying an action could count as 2.
-
1. The "Feast locks in on the card gained" was a thought exercise based on what is being "locked in." Nothing more.
TR locks in on the played action. In BoM's case it is: TR-BoM(as CardX) meaning the next time you play it, you get BoM(as CardX) which is why there is confusion about which tokens you get.
TR-CardX(+1 Buy) = CardX(+1 Buy) + CardX(+1 Buy)
TR-BoM(as CardX(+1 Buy)) = BoM(as CardX(+1 Buy)) + BoM(as CardX(+1 Buy))
TR-BoM(+1 Action)(as CardX(+1 Buy)) = BoM(+1 Action)(as CardX(+1 Buy)) + BoM(as CardX(+1 Buy))
It just seems counter-intuitive that you lose the BoM token on Throning. It can still lock in as that action card (i.e. BoM(as Feast)) because the action you chose was BoM(as Feast) to play twice.
If you Throne BoM as Feast, you get BoM(as Feast) + BoM(as Feast)
If your BoM has the +1 Action token, and you play it as Feast, you get BoM(+1 Action)(as Feast)
If you Throne your BoM(+1 Action) as Feast, why wouldn't it become BoM(+1 Action)(as Feast) + BoM(+1 Action)(as Feast) ?
This does not violate what Throne does, or what Band does.
I don't see what this has to do with TR-Feast locking in on gaining the same card. BoM literally becomes the copied card (well, "literally" in the context of the game), so it has to be the same on the second play off of TR. It's the only card in the game that works that way. Throne Room doesn't double the effect of playing a card once, it just plays the card twice.
As for this interpretation of the TR-BoM w/ tokens issue, I think it's feasible, but I still don't think it makes the most sense. As I understand the wording on BoM, it sounds like you never actually "play" BoM. You just play the card it's copying. That interpretation is kind of unfortunate in that it would mean putting tokens on BoM is completely worthless (maybe barring a few edge cases, but I don't actually think so), but I also think it makes the most sense. There are a handful of other interpretations that I think could be justified (get the tokens on both piles twice, get the tokens on both piles once, get the tokens on BoM twice, and get the tokens on the copied pile twice could all potentially make sense depending on the precise meaning of the wording on BoM, I think), but I just don't understand the rationale behind getting the BoM tokens once and the copied pile's tokens twice.
For clarity (if anyone wants it), here are the reasons I think those 4 interpretations could be justified:
Tokens on both piles twice: BoM is a card from the BoM pile and an honorary card from the copied pile. Therefore, it gets both tokens on both plays.
Tokens on both piles once: It is BoM on the first play, becomes the copied card halfway through resolving it, and is the copied card on the second play.
Tokens on BoM twice: BoM, as a physical card, is from the BoM pile, so it only gets those tokens.
Tokens on copied pile twice: BoM, for all intents and purposes, becomes the copied card the instant you play it. It is no longer BoM at this point, so it only gets the tokens on the copied pile.
We I did type it as "playing the card twice" instead of "doubling the card" so I'm not sure if that was agreement or misunderstand.
I think it's counter-intuitive to think that BoM is only BoM the first time you play it. It's either never BoM, or it is BoM(as CardX) both times. This doesn't matter for Throne normally, but with tokens caring about piles, I don't see how it can pretend it doesn't exist on the second play.
We know TR-BoM "locks" in on the card.
TR-BoM(as CardX) = BoM(as CardX) + BoM(as CardX) <> BoM(as CardX) + CardX
[These effects are the same, but they are different concepts]
I'm saying, that intuitively, you should get the BoM tokens both times. The BoM is played twice, but it is played both times as BoM(as CardX). If that is not the case, then BoM is never played, and never gets bonuses from tokens.
I don't see how it can work only once.
Well, I still don't understand what this has to do with TR-Feast, but I guess I'll just move past that. In the instance where I said you should only get the BoM tokens once, that was under the interpretation that BoM is BoM until you finish resolving the "Play this as if..." sentence. Therefore, it's no longer BoM for the second play. By that interpretation, you only get the BoM tokens once.
For the card you copy with BoM, either you should both get the token bonus and count it for Conspirator, or not get the token bonus and not count it for Conspirator. I am leaning towards getting the token bonus and counting the card. If Conspirator didn't count it then maybe there's some window of things a card does that's getting skipped and that could break something.
I like this ruling. Sort of like the way TR-Action counts as playing 3 actions for Conspirator, BoM copying an action could count as 2.
I still don't understand how "it's no longer BoM for the second play." We know Throne locks in, based on Feast interaction. We can't have Throne lock in on ONLY the second half of Band's instructions. "This is that card until it leaves play."
Therefore, TR-BoM with tokens will either play BoM(as CardX) twice, or will play CardX twice. How can it play BoM(as CardX) once and CardX once? That is not what Throne does. "Play it twice."
So I think the only 3 possibilities are:
BoM token twice. (Unlikely)
CardX token twice. (More likely)
BoM and CardX tokens twice. (Most likely)
-
I'm fine with this interpretation, but it's certainly not entirely unambiguous. If a Throned BoM gives you the BoM tokens once and the copied card's tokens twice then that definitely seems to imply that two separate actions are played the first time. If not, then the tokens' effects seem to be hanging in limbo at some arbitrary point in the card's resolution. By the ruling on the Urchin question, it seems that all tokens resolve before anything else. However, BoM seems to have two possible interpretations: either you play it as BoM and it becomes another card after the first sentence, or it instantly becomes the other card and you effectively never play BoM. By the first interpretation, it seems that Throning it should give you the tokens from each pile once; by the second interpretation, it seems that Throning it should just give you the tokens on the copied pile twice, rendering tokens on BoM entirely ineffective. Donald's ruling of "BoM tokens once, copied tokens twice" really seems to imply that playing BoM should count as playing two actions, as both tokens are triggered. Obviously Donald's word is final and I'm fine with that, but I definitely think this is a contradiction.
Yes, that's what I was saying back in the preview thread. I was going by the previous rulings that (1) BoM is never played as BoM, only one card is played, the one you chose, and (2) you get the token bonuses from each pile. It didn't seem very consistent. As I was saying there, the only way it could make sense would be that the tokens looked at what pile the card was "from", and that BoM-as-x effectively was both "from" the BoM pile and the x pile.
But with the ruling that the tokens activate before anything else (even before other when-play effects), we could view them as activating before-play (or "when you would play card"). That's the same way we had been viewing BoM, since it's the only way it could let you choose a card before you actually play it (which was necessary given the ruling that you don't play BoM, just the chosen card). That would explain how the tokens from both piles give you bonuses, and it would also fit with the ruling that TR-BoM only give you the bonus from BoM once, but from "pile x" twice (given the special case ruling on TR-BoM).
So given the mentioned rulings, it's actually unambiguous. The tokens somehow activate before when-play effects, but that doesn't in itself mean that both BoM and the chosen card were played. In fact it can't mean that, given the mentioned rulings. So that also means Champion can only trigger once.
Anyway, it sounds like Donald might change several previous rulings now...
-
But with the ruling that the tokens activate before anything else (even before other when-play effects), we could view them as activating before-play (or "when you would play card"). That's the same way we had been viewing BoM, since it's the only way it could let you choose a card before you actually play it (which was necessary given the ruling that you don't play BoM, just the chosen card). That would explain how the tokens from both piles give you bonuses, and it would also fit with the ruling that TR-BoM only give you the bonus from BoM once, but from "pile x" twice (given the special case ruling on TR-BoM).
The tokens say "when you play" though. It seems easily most sensible for them to trigger "when play" but ahead of non-first "when play" things.
Anyway, it sounds like Donald might change several previous rulings now...
Do you have a handy list of rulings you expect changed?
-
I still don't understand how "it's no longer BoM for the second play." We know Throne locks in, based on Feast interaction. We can't have Throne lock in on ONLY the second half of Band's instructions. "This is that card until it leaves play."
I think you answered your own question. Let's say I play BoM, and I choose for it to emulate Scout, why not. "This is that card until it leaves play" is written on BoM, so I don't think there's any question that that particular BoM is now indistinct from a literal Scout card. They are both counted as Scout for the purpose of Horn of Plenty, they both cost $4, etc. Throne Room tells you to play a card from your hand twice. You play a BoM from your hand, and by the time it finishes resolving the first time it has become the exact same thing as a Scout card. You go to play that card again, and lo and behold, it's a Scout now. Throne Room is maybe a little confused because it's used to playing the same Action twice in a row, but it does its job and plays that Scout card again regardless.
I see what you're confused about. Playing the card twice could imply you repeat the "Play this as if..." clause. But for all intents and purposes the BoM card doesn't even say that the second time it's played; its text has been replaced with Scout's text.
-
But with the ruling that the tokens activate before anything else (even before other when-play effects), we could view them as activating before-play (or "when you would play card"). That's the same way we had been viewing BoM, since it's the only way it could let you choose a card before you actually play it (which was necessary given the ruling that you don't play BoM, just the chosen card). That would explain how the tokens from both piles give you bonuses, and it would also fit with the ruling that TR-BoM only give you the bonus from BoM once, but from "pile x" twice (given the special case ruling on TR-BoM).
The tokens say "when you play" though. It seems easily most sensible for them to trigger "when play" but ahead of non-first "when play" things.
Right. It would be a way to make sense of all the expected results, but like Nomad Camp and BoM (maybe), it wouldn't strictly match the rules on the cards/events.
The rulebook says, "When the player whose token it is plays a card from that pile, that player first gets the bonus." You could interpret that "first" as meaning "before he plays the card".
If you change it so that BoM is actually played in addition to the card you choose, then it would mean that you play the BoM (put it in play), then you choose a card, and then play the BoM as that card. So you're playing it from play. That will actually work of course. Champion will kick in twice, Conspirator will count two Actions played.
But it makes it even more difficult to see how the special case ruling of TR-BoM works. Now the BoM was actually played as itself first, so if TR locks in anything, it would seem to be BoM. Not until we start resolving the BoM does it change, and only after we make a choice. By that time TR must have finished locking in the card?
Do you have a handy list of rulings you expect changed?
Looking at it, I was wrong! It was only one ruling, that BoM isn't played as itself first. Sorry.
-
I disagree.
Band of Misfits says "play this as..." It does not say "when you play this, turn this into..." So you never play BoM, you play whatever card it emulates.
HOWEVER vanilla bonus tokens say "ah ah ah, do what we tell you before anything else."
You try to play BoM.
Almost before it hits the table, tokens on the BoM pile do something, just before BoM turns into another card. You now played that other card, and get its token effects.
I still only played one card. Conspirator saw me trying to play BoM, it saw the token effect, but BoM was never actually played. I played another thing. Conspirator sees only 1 Action has been played.
-
If you change it so that BoM is actually played in addition to the card you choose, then it would mean that you play the BoM (put it in play), then you choose a card, and then play the BoM as that card. So you're playing it from play. That will actually work of course. Champion will kick in twice, Conspirator will count two Actions played.
But it makes it even more difficult to see how the special case ruling of TR-BoM works. Now the BoM was actually played as itself first, so if TR locks in anything, it would seem to be BoM. Not until we start resolving the BoM does it change, and only after we make a choice. By that time TR must have finished locking in the card?
There's no special-case for Throne-BoM, there's a special-case for Throne-BoM-Feast.
Throne-BoM, the second time we try to play the card, it's not BoM any more. You can say, "Wait how does Throne Room work exactly;" do we buffer the card so we can repeat it later, or do we look at the card both times. We look at the card. This doesn't come up except here, so you can think of it as a special-case, but I do not.
Throne-BoM-Feast, the second time we try to play the card, it's BoM again, because it stopped being Feast when it hit the trash, and whatever you pick for it, it immediately stops being, since it's not in play. The idea was that no-one was ever guessing that, so it should just lock in, which is how I think everyone would play it.
-
Band of Misfits says "play this as..." It does not say "when you play this, turn this into..." So you never play BoM, you play whatever card it emulates.
"I play Band of Misfits as..." sure sounds like I played a Band of Misfits in there somewhere. I played it, as something.
I mean I think, ask anyone, did you play Band of Misfits, they will say yes. They played Band of Misfits. They had one action and used it to play Band of Misfits.
-
Band of Misfits says "play this as..." It does not say "when you play this, turn this into..." So you never play BoM, you play whatever card it emulates.
"I play Band of Misfits as..." sure sounds like I played a Band of Misfits in there somewhere. I played it, as something.
I mean I think, ask anyone, did you play Band of Misfits, they will say yes. They played Band of Misfits. They had one action and used it to play Band of Misfits.
Well, fine, but you're still only playing one card.
-
If you change it so that BoM is actually played in addition to the card you choose, then it would mean that you play the BoM (put it in play), then you choose a card, and then play the BoM as that card. So you're playing it from play. That will actually work of course. Champion will kick in twice, Conspirator will count two Actions played.
But it makes it even more difficult to see how the special case ruling of TR-BoM works. Now the BoM was actually played as itself first, so if TR locks in anything, it would seem to be BoM. Not until we start resolving the BoM does it change, and only after we make a choice. By that time TR must have finished locking in the card?
There's no special-case for Throne-BoM, there's a special-case for Throne-BoM-Feast.
Throne-BoM, the second time we try to play the card, it's not BoM any more. You can say, "Wait how does Throne Room work exactly;" do we buffer the card so we can repeat it later, or do we look at the card both times. We look at the card. This doesn't come up except here, so you can think of it as a special-case, but I do not.
Throne-BoM-Feast, the second time we try to play the card, it's BoM again, because it stopped being Feast when it hit the trash, and whatever you pick for it, it immediately stops being, since it's not in play. The idea was that no-one was ever guessing that, so it should just lock in, which is how I think everyone would play it.
Okay, I thought the lock-in happened just as you're playing the card, because at that time it's actually the card you picked (with BoM), it's not BoM anymore (per the previous ruling of "you never played a BoM"). So that's when TR sees what you're actually playing, and it would play that card again (for instance "Workshop" or "Feast"), even though the card is in trashed being named "BoM".
But you're saying TR looks at the card after you've already played it. That makes the TR-BoM-Feast special-case particularly crazy, but so be it.
-
Well, fine, but you're still only playing one card.
I see what you mean; I mean, that's where the BoM-Conspirator ruling came from.
-
So, TR and BoM both say "choose a card." And we agree that the card BoM chose is played twice. Does Throne attempt to play BoM again, but fails because BoM chose to be another card? This would allow TR-BoM(Feast) to work and matched the "BoM only played the first time.
-
Okay, I thought the lock-in happened just as you're playing the card, because at that time it's actually the card you picked (with BoM), it's not BoM anymore (per the previous ruling of "you never played a BoM"). So that's when TR sees what you're actually playing, and it would play that card again (for instance "Workshop" or "Feast"), even though the card is in trashed being named "BoM".
But you're saying TR looks at the card after you've already played it. That makes the TR-BoM-Feast special-case particularly crazy, but so be it.
Well I am open to suggestions/arguments. I don't want to mess up Throne-BoM or BoM-Feast to better handle the drastically rarer Throne-BoM-Feast. And there's a rulebook to agree with.
-
So, TR and BoM both say "choose a card." And we agree that the card BoM chose is played twice. Does Throne attempt to play BoM again, but fails because BoM chose to be another card? This would allow TR-BoM(Feast) to work and matched the "BoM only played the first time.
No, Throne plays the card again, noting that somehow this time it's no longer BoM.
-
I think we're still trying to determine how the BoM tokens only apply on the first play. Previous rulings just help give insight.
-
Okay, I thought the lock-in happened just as you're playing the card, because at that time it's actually the card you picked (with BoM), it's not BoM anymore (per the previous ruling of "you never played a BoM"). So that's when TR sees what you're actually playing, and it would play that card again (for instance "Workshop" or "Feast"), even though the card is in trashed being named "BoM".
But you're saying TR looks at the card after you've already played it. That makes the TR-BoM-Feast special-case particularly crazy, but so be it.
Well I am open to suggestions/arguments. I don't want to mess up Throne-BoM or BoM-Feast to better handle the drastically rarer Throne-BoM-Feast. And there's a rulebook to agree with.
TR-Feast works because TR looks at Feast and says "Okay, we're doing this twice."
TR-BoM entails TR looking at BoM and saying "Okay, we're... wait, the text changed! Guess we're doing that twice, instead."
TR-BoM_as_Feast should work, I think, like this: TR looks at BoM and says "Okay, we're... wait, the text changed! Guess we're doing that twice." And doesn't care that BoM is something different once it's trashed.
Procession cares that BoM is something different when it gains because it checks what's in the trash as a separate thing from it's doubling and trashing.
EDIT: On that note, while I have you here, Disciple gains a copy of whatever BoM emulates, not another BoM, right?
-
EDIT: On that note, while I have you here, Disciple gains a copy of whatever BoM emulates, not another BoM, right?
Woah. I could see this going either way. What if it's emulating Feast, does that matter?
-
If I tried to shoehorn the current way Conspirator and tokens work with BoM, I would be saying that the token on the BoM pile doesn't know that you aren't going to play BoM before you play actually "play" it and transforms into whatever card you are actually going to play. So it gives the bonus despite you never playing the BoM.
-
If I tried to shoehorn the current way Conspirator and tokens work with BoM, I would be saying that the token on the BoM pile doesn't know that you aren't going to play BoM before you play actually "play" it and transforms into whatever card you are actually going to play. So it gives the bonus despite you never playing the BoM.
Sort of. You play BoM. So you get its tokens. But you're playing it as something else. So you get those tokens, too.
You still only played one card.
-
Right. That was what I was trying to come up with, a consistent explanation that would have Conspirator count BoM as one card, but TR-BoM give you 1 time BoM's token bonus and 2 times the one on the card copied. That's what the original ruling given was? Or am I very confused?
-
Right. That was what I was trying to come up with, a consistent explanation that would have Conspirator count BoM as one card, but TR-BoM give you 1 time BoM's token bonus and 2 times the one on the card copied. That's what the original ruling given was? Or am I very confused?
That's right. Because the second time, you're not playing a BoM. You're playing the emulated card.
-
EDIT: On that note, while I have you here, Disciple gains a copy of whatever BoM emulates, not another BoM, right?
The "gain" instruction on Disciple is separate from the "play a card twice" instruction. It comes after. So it shouldn't have anything to do with the lock-in mechanism.
So I think it would look at the card you played, whatever it is then, and gain you a copy. If it's still in play, it would be whatever-you-played-BoM-as (for instance Workshop). If it's anywhere else (like in Trash) it would be a BoM and you would gain that.
-
EDIT: On that note, while I have you here, Disciple gains a copy of whatever BoM emulates, not another BoM, right?
The "gain" instruction on Disciple is separate from the "play a card twice" instruction. It comes after. So it shouldn't have anything to do with the lock-in mechanism.
So I think it would look at the card you played, whatever it is then, and gain you a copy. If it's still in play, it would be whatever-you-played-BoM-as (for instance Workshop). If it's anywhere else (like in Trash) it would be a BoM and you would gain that.
But, if it's in the trash, it should be lost track of and Disciple should remember what card it played BoM as, I think.
-
Okay, I thought the lock-in happened just as you're playing the card, because at that time it's actually the card you picked (with BoM), it's not BoM anymore (per the previous ruling of "you never played a BoM"). So that's when TR sees what you're actually playing, and it would play that card again (for instance "Workshop" or "Feast"), even though the card is in trashed being named "BoM".
But you're saying TR looks at the card after you've already played it. That makes the TR-BoM-Feast special-case particularly crazy, but so be it.
Well I am open to suggestions/arguments. I don't want to mess up Throne-BoM or BoM-Feast to better handle the drastically rarer Throne-BoM-Feast. And there's a rulebook to agree with.
Okay, so there are these rulings:
- TR-BoM is the same card both times. This is in the rulebook.
- BoM-Feast trashes itself and is BoM in the trash. This is in the rulebook.
- Ruling: TR-BoM-Feast is a Feast both times. This is not directly in the rulebook, but is implicit in 1.
- Ruling: BoM is never played, rather the card you chose is played. This means you chose the card before-play. It means Conspirator counts one played Action.
- Ruling: BoM gives you the token bonus of both piles.
- Ruling: TR-BoM gives you the token of BoM once, but of the other pile twice.
- The token bonuses are "first", per the rulebook, although this could mean they are before the card's abilities, at the same time as other when-plays like Urchin. The cards just say "when you play". However, ruling: The token bonuses are before other when-play abilities.
What is intuitive for most players?
1 and 2 are stated directly. Ok.
3 seems to be stated in 1.
4: I think most people would think you only played one card with BoM. It doesn't tell you to play another card like TR or Golem. And there's just one physical card that hit the table.
5: I don't think it's obvious that you get the token bonus from BoM. Maybe some people would think so, but it seems to contradict 4 without having to think too much about it. If I played one card, how can I get bonuses from two piles?
6: Given 5, I would think most people would assume it would work the same way both times: You get bonuses from both piles twice. But as I said I think it's more natural to think you only ever get bonuses from the other pile.
7: Most people would not think that the tokens happen before other when-plays. The "first" sounds like it means "before you resolve the card", which is the same timing as when-play abilities. And the cards also say "when you play". However, it only matters for Urchin I think, so not very important in itself.
If the token bonuses triggered before-play, and BoM also did, it would explain nicely how you get the bonuses exactly as in 5 and 6. It would also fit with all the rulings from 1 to 7.
However, regarding the tokens the cards and rulebook say "when you play", not "when you would play" or similar. We would have to claim that the "first" (which is only in the rulebook) means before you actually play the card, not only before you resolve it.
Looking more on how people would likely think it works, I would rather suggest that you change the recent rulings 5 and 6. Too bad this wasn't in the rulebook of course. The tokens could still be before other when-plays (just not before-play), although I don't think the rulebook claims this and it doesn't seem to be the intuitive reading.
-
EDIT: On that note, while I have you here, Disciple gains a copy of whatever BoM emulates, not another BoM, right?
The "gain" instruction on Disciple is separate from the "play a card twice" instruction. It comes after. So it shouldn't have anything to do with the lock-in mechanism.
So I think it would look at the card you played, whatever it is then, and gain you a copy. If it's still in play, it would be whatever-you-played-BoM-as (for instance Workshop). If it's anywhere else (like in Trash) it would be a BoM and you would gain that.
But, if it's in the trash, it should be lost track of and Disciple should remember what card it played BoM as, I think.
The lose-track rule only refers to moving cards around, not identifying them or gaining copies of them.
-
But, if it's in the trash, it should be lost track of and Disciple should remember what card it played BoM as, I think.
Lose-track doesn't work like that, although people frequently think so. Lose-track only has to do with moving a card: You can't move a card from a place where it's not.
Edit: ninja'ed.
-
Okay, so there are these rulings:
- TR-BoM is the same card both times. This is in the rulebook.
- BoM-Feast trashes itself and is BoM in the trash. This is in the rulebook.
- Ruling: TR-BoM-Feast is a Feast both times. This is not directly in the rulebook, but is implicit in 1.
- Ruling: BoM is never played, rather the card you chose is played. This means you chose the card before-play. It means Conspirator counts one played Action.
- Ruling: BoM gives you the token bonus of both piles.
- Ruling: TR-BoM gives you the token of BoM once, but of the other pile twice.
- The token bonuses are "first", per the rulebook, although this could mean they are before the card's abilities, at the same time as other when-plays like Urchin. The cards just say "when you play". However, ruling: The token bonuses are before other when-play abilities.
What is intuitive for most players?
5: I don't think it's obvious that you get the token bonus from BoM. Maybe some people would think so, but it seems to contradict 4 without having to think too much about it. If I played one card, how can I get bonuses from two piles?
6: Given 5, I would think most people would assume it would work the same way both times: You get bonuses from both piles twice. But as I said I think it's more natural to think you only ever get bonuses from the other pile.
I don't think it's obvious or intuitive (from the perspective of a player who doesn't think about the rules that hard) that if there are tokens on both Band of Misfits and the imitated card, you get both. But I think it's obvious and intuitive that if there's a token on Band of Misfits, you get that bonus, and I think it's obvious and intuitive that if there's a token on the imitated card, you get that bonus.
On the other hand, it's also obvious and intuitive that if you Throne Room an Herbalist you can top-deck two Treasures, and that's wrong, so maybe obvious-and-intuitive isn't the best guideline.
-
5: I don't think it's obvious that you get the token bonus from BoM. Maybe some people would think so, but it seems to contradict 4 without having to think too much about it. If I played one card, how can I get bonuses from two piles?
This is definitely how I feel about it. I was surprised to see the ruling that tokens on the BoM pile could do anything at all in normal circumstances.
-
EDIT: On that note, while I have you here, Disciple gains a copy of whatever BoM emulates, not another BoM, right?
The "gain" instruction on Disciple is separate from the "play a card twice" instruction. It comes after. So it shouldn't have anything to do with the lock-in mechanism.
So I think it would look at the card you played, whatever it is then, and gain you a copy. If it's still in play, it would be whatever-you-played-BoM-as (for instance Workshop). If it's anywhere else (like in Trash) it would be a BoM and you would gain that.
But, if it's in the trash, it should be lost track of and Disciple should remember what card it played BoM as, I think.
No, Jeebus has it right. "Lose track" only prevents cards from being moved; it never does anything else.
-
4. Ruling: BoM is never played, rather the card you chose is played. This means you chose the card before-play. It means Conspirator counts one played Action.
4: I think most people would think you only played one card with BoM. It doesn't tell you to play another card like TR or Golem. And there's just one physical card that hit the table.
The rulebook refers to "playing" Band of Misfits. So you clearly played that.
Let's say I BoM a Militia. Can you Moat it? Yes, you better be able to Moat that. So, Militia was played. You played both cards.
Conspirator is a confusing case; obv. I am sad it doesn't just count Action cards in play like Peddler. Conspirator counts Actions, not "cards," which helps a little; two Actions were played, BoM and whatever. So, Conspirator sees "I played BoM as Village" as "I played two Actions." A rulings reversal.
I am still happy with my ruling on the tokens, you should get tokens for both, which leads to getting one for BoM and two for the other card when Throning.
There remains the weird special case for Throne - BoM - Feast. Possibly I should drop it; the people who are never guessing how it works are never seeing it either. I guess there's still the chance to make the call as to what it means to play a card that instantly stops being itself; maybe that's fine, it still does everything, therefore Throne - BoM - Feast means you choose the second time and successfully play whatever you picked.
-
EDIT: On that note, while I have you here, Disciple gains a copy of whatever BoM emulates, not another BoM, right?
The "gain" instruction on Disciple is separate from the "play a card twice" instruction. It comes after. So it shouldn't have anything to do with the lock-in mechanism.
So I think it would look at the card you played, whatever it is then, and gain you a copy. If it's still in play, it would be whatever-you-played-BoM-as (for instance Workshop). If it's anywhere else (like in Trash) it would be a BoM and you would gain that.
But, if it's in the trash, it should be lost track of and Disciple should remember what card it played BoM as, I think.
No, Jeebus has it right. "Lose track" only prevents cards from being moved; it never does anything else.
Right, but does this mean that Disciple-BoM will gain whatever BoM was played as, unless it's no longer in play (Feast, reserves, etc); in which case it will gain you another BoM?
-
therefore Throne - BoM - Feast means you choose the second time and successfully play whatever you picked.
Would this apply to BoM'ing any self-trashing card, like Death Cart or Mining Village?
-
therefore Throne - BoM - Feast means you choose the second time and successfully play whatever you picked.
Would this apply to BoM'ing any self-trashing card, like Death Cart or Mining Village?
I can't imagine any reason at all that Feast would ever act differently than any other one-shot (or optional one-shot). I think Feast is just always used in these discussions because it's the most basic example.
-
EDIT: On that note, while I have you here, Disciple gains a copy of whatever BoM emulates, not another BoM, right?
The "gain" instruction on Disciple is separate from the "play a card twice" instruction. It comes after. So it shouldn't have anything to do with the lock-in mechanism.
So I think it would look at the card you played, whatever it is then, and gain you a copy. If it's still in play, it would be whatever-you-played-BoM-as (for instance Workshop). If it's anywhere else (like in Trash) it would be a BoM and you would gain that.
But, if it's in the trash, it should be lost track of and Disciple should remember what card it played BoM as, I think.
No, Jeebus has it right. "Lose track" only prevents cards from being moved; it never does anything else.
Right, but does this mean that Disciple-BoM will gain whatever BoM was played as, unless it's no longer in play (Feast, reserves, etc); in which case it will gain you another BoM?
Jeebus has it right!
So I think it would look at the card you played, whatever it is then, and gain you a copy. If it's still in play, it would be whatever-you-played-BoM-as (for instance Workshop). If it's anywhere else (like in Trash) it would be a BoM and you would gain that.
-
therefore Throne - BoM - Feast means you choose the second time and successfully play whatever you picked.
Would this apply to BoM'ing any self-trashing card, like Death Cart or Mining Village?
I can't imagine any reason at all that Feast would ever act differently than any other one-shot (or optional one-shot). I think Feast is just always used in these discussions because it's the most basic example.
Correct, there is nothing special about Feast specifically here, it's the same for all Throne - BoM - one-shot. Island is another example.
-
There remains the weird special case for Throne - BoM - Feast. Possibly I should drop it; the people who are never guessing how it works are never seeing it either. I guess there's still the chance to make the call as to what it means to play a card that instantly stops being itself; maybe that's fine, it still does everything, therefore Throne - BoM - Feast means you choose the second time and successfully play whatever you picked.
Okay so in other words—
Play Throne Room.
…Find Band of Misfits in hand. Play Band of Misfits.
……Select Feast from the supply. Play Band of Misfits as Feast. It is Feast until it leaves play.
………Trash Feast. It stops being Feast and becomes Band of Misfits again.
…Throne Room plays the played card a second time. That card is Band of Misfits. Play Band of Misfits.
……Select Scout from the supply. Play Band of Misfits as Scout. It is Scout until it leaves play.
—Band of Misfits / Scout never enters play. So the interpretation of "until it leaves play" is that Band of Misfits actually doesn't turn into Scout for any length of time, right? Not that it stays Scout permanently (because it's not in play, so it can't ever leave play), right?
-
There remains the weird special case for Throne - BoM - Feast. Possibly I should drop it; the people who are never guessing how it works are never seeing it either. I guess there's still the chance to make the call as to what it means to play a card that instantly stops being itself; maybe that's fine, it still does everything, therefore Throne - BoM - Feast means you choose the second time and successfully play whatever you picked.
Okay so in other words—
Play Throne Room.
…Find Band of Misfits in hand. Play Band of Misfits.
……Select Feast from the supply. Play Band of Misfits as Feast. It is Feast until it leaves play.
………Trash Feast. It stops being Feast and becomes Band of Misfits again.
…Throne Room plays the played card a second time. That card is Band of Misfits. Play Band of Misfits.
……Select Scout from the supply. Play Band of Misfits as Scout. It is Scout until it leaves play.
—Band of Misfits / Scout never enters play. So the interpretation of "until it leaves play" is that Band of Misfits actually doesn't turn into Scout for any length of time, right? Not that it stays Scout permanently (because it's not in play, so it can't ever leave play), right?
Yes, but you still get +1 Action and reveal the top 4 cards of your deck. Then put them back because you trashed all your Victory cards by turn 5.
-
4. Ruling: BoM is never played, rather the card you chose is played. This means you chose the card before-play. It means Conspirator counts one played Action.
4: I think most people would think you only played one card with BoM. It doesn't tell you to play another card like TR or Golem. And there's just one physical card that hit the table.
The rulebook refers to "playing" Band of Misfits. So you clearly played that.
Let's say I BoM a Militia. Can you Moat it? Yes, you better be able to Moat that. So, Militia was played. You played both cards.
Conspirator is a confusing case; obv. I am sad it doesn't just count Action cards in play like Peddler. Conspirator counts Actions, not "cards," which helps a little; two Actions were played, BoM and whatever. So, Conspirator sees "I played BoM as Village" as "I played two Actions." A rulings reversal.
I am still happy with my ruling on the tokens, you should get tokens for both, which leads to getting one for BoM and two for the other card when Throning.
There remains the weird special case for Throne - BoM - Feast. Possibly I should drop it; the people who are never guessing how it works are never seeing it either. I guess there's still the chance to make the call as to what it means to play a card that instantly stops being itself; maybe that's fine, it still does everything, therefore Throne - BoM - Feast means you choose the second time and successfully play whatever you picked.
But, if you are actually playing the BoM, then:
A) the ruling on the tr-BoM is problematic because if im playing the BoM, then the throne room should lock in, playing it again a second time and i should be able to choose a different card, and
B) the token ruling for tr-Bom is also problematic because the tr should play BoM twice and give me the BoM bonus twice.
I think jeebus was saying this earlier
-
4. Ruling: BoM is never played, rather the card you chose is played. This means you chose the card before-play. It means Conspirator counts one played Action.
4: I think most people would think you only played one card with BoM. It doesn't tell you to play another card like TR or Golem. And there's just one physical card that hit the table.
The rulebook refers to "playing" Band of Misfits. So you clearly played that.
Let's say I BoM a Militia. Can you Moat it? Yes, you better be able to Moat that. So, Militia was played. You played both cards.
Conspirator is a confusing case; obv. I am sad it doesn't just count Action cards in play like Peddler. Conspirator counts Actions, not "cards," which helps a little; two Actions were played, BoM and whatever. So, Conspirator sees "I played BoM as Village" as "I played two Actions." A rulings reversal.
I am still happy with my ruling on the tokens, you should get tokens for both, which leads to getting one for BoM and two for the other card when Throning.
There remains the weird special case for Throne - BoM - Feast. Possibly I should drop it; the people who are never guessing how it works are never seeing it either. I guess there's still the chance to make the call as to what it means to play a card that instantly stops being itself; maybe that's fine, it still does everything, therefore Throne - BoM - Feast means you choose the second time and successfully play whatever you picked.
But, if you are actually playing the BoM, then:
A) the ruling on the tr-BoM is problematic because if im playing the BoM, then the throne room should lock in, playing it again a second time and i should be able to choose a different card, and
B) the token ruling for tr-Bom is also problematic because the tr should play BoM twice and give me the BoM bonus twice.
I think jeebus was saying this earlier
But once in play, Band of Misfits is no longer Band of Misfits. The text on the card has changed, and Throne Room is now playing whatever it has turned into, and not Band of Misfits. Throning a Feast doesn't change the text on the card; Throning a Band of Misfits does.
-
4. Ruling: BoM is never played, rather the card you chose is played. This means you chose the card before-play. It means Conspirator counts one played Action.
4: I think most people would think you only played one card with BoM. It doesn't tell you to play another card like TR or Golem. And there's just one physical card that hit the table.
The rulebook refers to "playing" Band of Misfits. So you clearly played that.
Let's say I BoM a Militia. Can you Moat it? Yes, you better be able to Moat that. So, Militia was played. You played both cards.
Conspirator is a confusing case; obv. I am sad it doesn't just count Action cards in play like Peddler. Conspirator counts Actions, not "cards," which helps a little; two Actions were played, BoM and whatever. So, Conspirator sees "I played BoM as Village" as "I played two Actions." A rulings reversal.
I am still happy with my ruling on the tokens, you should get tokens for both, which leads to getting one for BoM and two for the other card when Throning.
There remains the weird special case for Throne - BoM - Feast. Possibly I should drop it; the people who are never guessing how it works are never seeing it either. I guess there's still the chance to make the call as to what it means to play a card that instantly stops being itself; maybe that's fine, it still does everything, therefore Throne - BoM - Feast means you choose the second time and successfully play whatever you picked.
But, if you are actually playing the BoM, then:
A) the ruling on the tr-BoM is problematic because if im playing the BoM, then the throne room should lock in, playing it again a second time and i should be able to choose a different card, and
B) the token ruling for tr-Bom is also problematic because the tr should play BoM twice and give me the BoM bonus twice.
I think jeebus was saying this earlier
But once in play, Band of Misfits is no longer Band of Misfits. The text on the card has changed, and Throne Room is now playing whatever it has turned into, and not Band of Misfits. Throning a Feast doesn't change the text on the card; Throning a Band of Misfits does.
Before reading this thread I assumed that you never actually play Bom. Therefore, if u throne it, u pick a target to emulate and play that twice. But now that u actually play BoM, then play it as another card, y shouldn't tr play the bom twice? Even if it's already a militia, or wtvr, tr still locked in to what was originally played, which is a BoM.
Im not sure y u brought in feast; that isnt really relevant to what im saying, I think
-
So hum have we reached any conclusion about anything? Or at least about what we haven't reached a conclusion about? I feel like I am reading the same arguments again and again, with no end in sight.
-
Before reading this thread I assumed that you never actually play Bom. Therefore, if u throne it, u pick a target to emulate and play that twice. But now that u actually play BoM, then play it as another card, y shouldn't tr play the bom twice? Even if it's already a militia, or wtvr, tr still locked in to what was originally played, which is a BoM.
Im not sure y u brought in feast; that isnt really relevant to what im saying, I think
Throne Room isn't locking in anything. Throne Room says "Choose a card, play it twice." You choose Band of Misfits. Throne Room plays Band of Misfits, which turns into a another card. Throne Room plays the card you chose again, but now it's a different card. It is not a Band of Misfits. "This is that card until it leaves play." If you Throne Room a Band of Misfits, you only play Band of Misfits once.
-
So hum have we reached any conclusion about anything? Or at least about what we haven't reached a conclusion about? I feel like I am reading the same arguments again and again, with no end in sight.
It sounds like donald is saying that wen u play BoM, ur playing BoM and also playing the card u chose in the supply. Therefore he overturned a previous ruling that stated that conspirator counts BoM as one action. It now counts as two.
Also, this whole BoM actually being played thing, would explain the bonuses from the adventures tokens and would mean champion gives u an extra action, the latter only matters for diadem as far as I can tell.
-
Before reading this thread I assumed that you never actually play Bom. Therefore, if u throne it, u pick a target to emulate and play that twice. But now that u actually play BoM, then play it as another card, y shouldn't tr play the bom twice? Even if it's already a militia, or wtvr, tr still locked in to what was originally played, which is a BoM.
Im not sure y u brought in feast; that isnt really relevant to what im saying, I think
Throne Room isn't locking in anything. Throne Room says "Choose a card, play it twice." You choose Band of Misfits. Throne Room plays Band of Misfits, which turns into a another card. Throne Room plays the card you chose again, but now it's a different card. It is not a Band of Misfits. "This is that card until it leaves play." If you Throne Room a Band of Misfits, you only play Band of Misfits once.
But y should tr play the card band of misfits turns into? it should play the card it played the first time, which is a band of misfits. Wats the difference if the band of misfits looks like a militia, it was a band when it was actually played. I would understand if it turned into a militia before it was played due to tr, then u would play a militia again. But if u irst play a band, then choose militia, I dont c y the tr shouldn't play the band again and allow u to choose another card.
-
In the post from donald I quoted he admitted that tr-bom-feast might work like this. Im not sure y that would be different for tr-bom-anything. Is it because in the former the card is now in the trash? Y does that matter?
-
In the post from donald I quoted he admitted that tr-bom-feast might work like this. Im not sure y that would be different for tr-bom-anything. Is it because in the former the card is now in the trash? Y does that matter?
Because Band of Misfits stays turned into the card it turns into until it leaves play. If you Throne–Band of Misfits–Scout, then on the second play, the Throne Room looks for the card it played the first time, finds that that card is a Scout, and plays that. If you Throne–Band of Misfits–Feast, the Throne Room looks for the card and finds it is a Band of Misfits (located in the trash).
-
So, TR and BoM both say "choose a card." And we agree that the card BoM chose is played twice. Does Throne attempt to play BoM again, but fails because BoM chose to be another card? This would allow TR-BoM(Feast) to work and matched the "BoM only played the first time.
No, Throne plays the card again, noting that somehow this time it's no longer BoM.
Okay, so basically what I said there:
Throne "Choose a Card"
- Choose Band of Misfits
- Band of Misfits "Choose a Card" + Get Tokens(BoM) function
- Choose CardX (no longer BoM)
- Play CardX + Get Tokens(CardX) functions
- Play CardX + Get Tokens(CardX) functions
This is the only way BoM will give only 1 token.
Throne: Choose an Action card in your hand. Play it twice.
Band: Play this as if it were an Action card in the Supply costing less than it that you choose. This is that card until it leaves play.
So both cards are based on "Choose an Action card" but you can only choose BoM on the first play.
I think the confusion came from the contradiction between "Play this as..." and "This is that card..." where one of those suggests that BoM is played each time, and the other suggests that BoM is not played at all.
-
—Band of Misfits / Scout never enters play. So the interpretation of "until it leaves play" is that Band of Misfits actually doesn't turn into Scout for any length of time, right? Not that it stays Scout permanently (because it's not in play, so it can't ever leave play), right?
BoM's "until it leaves play" actually means "until such a time as this is not in play."
Previously I argued that the sane interpretation here was that BoM was never Scout, however no-one was ever guessing that, so let's have Throne lock in. Now I am arguing that another sane interpretation is, BoM immediately stopped being Scout, but that's okay, we still execute the instructions on Scout.
-
So hum have we reached any conclusion about anything? Or at least about what we haven't reached a conclusion about? I feel like I am reading the same arguments again and again, with no end in sight.
I have reached conclusions, and posted them, and am waiting to see if people find holes in them or what.
-
So hum have we reached any conclusion about anything? Or at least about what we haven't reached a conclusion about? I feel like I am reading the same arguments again and again, with no end in sight.
I have reached conclusions, and posted them, and am waiting to see if people find holes in them or what.
I'm iffy on BoM emulating something counting as two Actions being played, but that's growing on me. It would make it more in line with Throne Room variant rules, except that it plays a card from the Supply rather than your hand. And turns into that card after/while doing so. I think it's probably the right call, and making it a little easier to activate Conspirators is worth having the tokens ruling line up with casual players' intuitions.
-
Ah so ajd and the rest of u guys r saying that since the band is NOW a scout, tr plays that a second time. I guess I originally thought if tr played band the first time, tr could play it again even if it doesnt anymore exist. Im starting to understand but im still not convinced. Shouldn't tr store the information that the card it's playing is a band of misfits and not a scout?
Another way to put this is: if I actually play a band of misfits, then that means choosing a card for bom to turn into and then actually becoming that card is part of the action I do, thats what is included in playing a bom. So dont I get to do that twice? I did it once, now im a scout. Great but the card I throned was a bom and part of playing bom is choosing a card and becoming it so let me do that action again.
Sorry if it seems like we're going in circles, I just want to understand what im missing. Am I the only one who thinks it should work this way?
-
Donald, here are all the current rule clarifications on the BoM wiki page. Anything you disagree with?
* You first play Band of Misfits, then you play the card you chose to emulate. In this sense, Band of Misfits plays like a Throne Room variant, and one play of Band of Misfits with a successful emulation counts as two Actions played; this matters for Conspirator. As such, vanilla bonus tokens on Band of Misfits do give their effect when Band of Misfits is played, since token effects happen before anything else a card does. If there are any vanilla bonus tokens on the card Band of Misfits is emulating, those effects occur as well, after the effects from tokens on Band of Misfits.
** If Band of Misfits is multiplied when tokens are on its pile, the token effect on Band of Misfits happens only once, since Band of Misfits is only being played once; once it is in play, it is a different card. However, tokens on a card Band of Misfits is emulating do have their effects multiplied. For example, if the +1 Card token is on Band of Misfits and the +$1 token is on Chapel, and you Throne Room a Band of Misfits, emulating Chapel, you would first get +1 Card, then +$2.
* If you use Throne Room on Band of Misfits, choosing to play Band of Misfits as a self-trashing card (for example, Feast), the Band of Misfits will be in the trash after the first play as Feast, meaning it has left play. Throne Room then plays Band of Misfits again, allowing you to make a new choice as to what Band of Misfits should emulate. However, since Band of Misfits is in the trash, you will only get the on-play effects of the emulated card. Similar logic applies to one-shots that do not trash themselves, but still leave play, such as Island.
* Note that when Band of Misfits is discarded or trashed from play, doing so activates the when-discarded or when-trashed abilities of the card it was imitating, even though once you discard or trash it the card is back to being a Band of Misfits again. It is the act of "trashing a Fortress" or "discarding a Hermit from play" that triggers those abilities, even if the card that actually gets discarded or trashed is no longer a Hermit or Fortress after the act of trashing or discarding is completed.
* Band of Misfits does not play well with Reserve cards. If you play Band of Misfits as a Reserve card it goes to your Tavern mat and stays there; you can't call it or otherwise recover it because it is now out of your play area and no longer has the abilities of the card it was imitating.
-
Ah so ajd and the rest of u guys r saying that since the band is NOW a scout, tr plays that a second time. I guess I originally thought if tr played band the first time, tr could play it again even if it doesnt anymore exist. Im starting to understand but im still not convinced. Shouldn't tr store the information that the card it's playing is a band of misfits and not a scout?
Another way to put this is: if I actually play a band of misfits, then that means choosing a card for bom to turn into and then actually becoming that card is part of the action I do, thats what is included in playing a bom. So dont I get to do that twice? I did it once, now im a scout. Great but the card I throned was a bom and part of playing bom is choosing a card and becoming it so let me do that action again.
Sorry if it seems like we're going in circles, I just want to understand what im missing. Am I the only one who thinks it should work this way?
You're stuck between the two meanings written on BoM. "Play this as..." and "This is that card..."
Because of the "This is that card..." line, Throne does not see another BoM once you play it. But the "Play this as..." part seems to suggest that you ARE playing Band both times.
-
Shouldn't tr store the information that the card it's playing is a band of misfits and not a scout?
Why should it do this?
(Donald's original ruling was yes, it did this. But there's nothing in the game rules that states that Throne Room should be able to do that, so I prefer the revised ruling.)
-
Shouldn't tr store the information that the card it's playing is a band of misfits and not a scout?
Why should it do this?
(Donald's original ruling was yes, it did this. But there's nothing in the game rules that states that Throne Room should be able to do that, so I prefer the revised ruling.)
If BoM said "Choose a card... Play this as that card." then you could get two different cards from Throne.
-
Shouldn't tr store the information that the card it's playing is a band of misfits and not a scout?
Why should it do this?
(Donald's original ruling was yes, it did this. But there's nothing in the game rules that states that Throne Room should be able to do that, so I prefer the revised ruling.)
Did donald revise this bit? I must have missed that. Could you point out where this happened?
-
Efynet, I understand tr does not see bom in play anymore, Im jst not sure y that matters, unless, as ajd says, donald changed how tr works
-
Donald, here are all the current rule clarifications on the BoM wiki page. Anything you disagree with?
* You first play Band of Misfits, then you play the card you chose to emulate. In this sense, Band of Misfits plays like a Throne Room variant, and one play of Band of Misfits with a successful emulation counts as two Actions played; this matters for Conspirator. As such, vanilla bonus tokens on Band of Misfits do give their effect when Band of Misfits is played, since token effects happen before anything else a card does. If there are any vanilla bonus tokens on the card Band of Misfits is emulating, those effects occur as well, after the effects from tokens on Band of Misfits.
** If Band of Misfits is multiplied when tokens are on its pile, the token effect on Band of Misfits happens only once, since Band of Misfits is only being played once; once it is in play, it is a different card. However, tokens on a card Band of Misfits is emulating do have their effects multiplied. For example, if the +1 Card token is on Band of Misfits and the +$1 token is on Chapel, and you Throne Room a Band of Misfits, emulating Chapel, you would first get +1 Card, then +$2.
* If you use Throne Room on Band of Misfits, choosing to play Band of Misfits as a self-trashing card (for example, Feast), the Band of Misfits will be in the trash after the first play as Feast, meaning it has left play. Throne Room then plays Band of Misfits again, allowing you to make a new choice as to what Band of Misfits should emulate. However, since Band of Misfits is in the trash, you will only get the on-play effects of the emulated card. Similar logic applies to one-shots that do not trash themselves, but still leave play, such as Island.
* Note that when Band of Misfits is discarded or trashed from play, doing so activates the when-discarded or when-trashed abilities of the card it was imitating, even though once you discard or trash it the card is back to being a Band of Misfits again. It is the act of "trashing a Fortress" or "discarding a Hermit from play" that triggers those abilities, even if the card that actually gets discarded or trashed is no longer a Hermit or Fortress after the act of trashing or discarding is completed.
* Band of Misfits does not play well with Reserve cards. If you play Band of Misfits as a Reserve card it goes to your Tavern mat and stays there; you can't call it or otherwise recover it because it is now out of your play area and no longer has the abilities of the card it was imitating.
Looks good except there is the edge case of nothing to copy, and I prefer "once it has been played."
** If Band of Misfits is multiplied when tokens are on its pile (and there's a card for it to emulate), the token effect on Band of Misfits happens only once, since Band of Misfits is only being played once; once it has been played, it is a different card. However, tokens on a card Band of Misfits is emulating do have their effects multiplied. For example, if the +1 Card token is on Band of Misfits and the +$1 token is on Chapel, and you Throne Room a Band of Misfits, emulating Chapel, you would first get +1 Card, then +$2.
-
I am confused by the phrase "this matters for Conspirator." It seems to contradict what is said in this thread here:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11518.0
-
I think this is obvious from the new rulings, but it hasn't been said yet:
If you play TR-BoM as Feast, then you get the token bonuses on BoM twice. Because 2nd time you did play a BoM again.
Right?
-
4. Ruling: BoM is never played, rather the card you chose is played. This means you chose the card before-play. It means Conspirator counts one played Action.
4: I think most people would think you only played one card with BoM. It doesn't tell you to play another card like TR or Golem. And there's just one physical card that hit the table.
The rulebook refers to "playing" Band of Misfits. So you clearly played that.
It's worth pointing out that there are other instances of rules that don't say what they really mean, so putting too much emphasis on making any rulings consistent with the above statement in the rulebook might not necessarily be the best approach, especially if it starts to produce results that are counterintuitive.
I suppose I'd better give an example of a rulebook 'error'. The original Dominion rules say "To play an Action, the player takes an Action card from his hand and lays it face-up in his play area." Notice the 'from his hand' in that sentence. If that rule were treated as absolutely correct, it would mean that Golem and Herald couldn't play the Action cards they find, but of course we all know that the original Dominion rulebook misspoke the rule.
Here's another example, again from the original Dominion rules: "Throne Room - You pick another Action card in your hand, play it, and play it again. The second use of the Action card doesn't use up any extra Actions you have." In fact neither use of the Action card uses up any extra Actions you have: the only Action used up is by the Throne Room.
So in the general case what I'm saying is that if there is any evidence that the rulebooks were in error and have thereby produced anomalies, Donald shouldn't get too hung up on making his rulings consistent with the rulebooks. In the specific case I'm saying that "When you play this" in the BoM rulebook description should perhaps not be interpreted as meaning that a BoM is indeed played, especially as the card itself says "Play this as if it were", thereby suggesting that it's the something else that is played.
I realise of course that there is a preference for treating the rulebooks as more accurate that card texts (which sometimes have to be briefer than might have been desirable), but on the other hand the card descriptions in the rulebooks are often described as FAQs that supposedly do no more than spell out what the card texts mean.
I don't think I've seen such an entertaining debate since the one about Ironworks on a Possession turn.
-
I am confused by the phrase "this matters for Conspirator." It seems to contradict what is said in this thread here:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11518.0
Donald X has reversed his ruling on that.
-
I think this is obvious from the new rulings, but it hasn't been said yet:
If you play TR-BoM as Feast, then you get the token bonuses on BoM twice. Because 2nd time you did play a BoM again.
Right?
I'm pretty confident this is correct, but I will defer to Donald.
-
The rulebook refers to "playing" Band of Misfits. So you clearly played that.
Let's say I BoM a Militia. Can you Moat it? Yes, you better be able to Moat that. So, Militia was played. You played both cards.
Conspirator is a confusing case; obv. I am sad it doesn't just count Action cards in play like Peddler. Conspirator counts Actions, not "cards," which helps a little; two Actions were played, BoM and whatever. So, Conspirator sees "I played BoM as Village" as "I played two Actions." A rulings reversal.
I am still happy with my ruling on the tokens, you should get tokens for both, which leads to getting one for BoM and two for the other card when Throning.
There remains the weird special case for Throne - BoM - Feast. Possibly I should drop it; the people who are never guessing how it works are never seeing it either. I guess there's still the chance to make the call as to what it means to play a card that instantly stops being itself; maybe that's fine, it still does everything, therefore Throne - BoM - Feast means you choose the second time and successfully play whatever you picked.
Okay, I can't find any problem with this.
You're reversing BoM/Conspirator, and also revising TR-BoM-Feast. These are "old" rulings, but of course how many people are actually aware of them. It's good to have well-defined rules though, to put in FAQs, to be able to teach people and believe it yourself that it's making sense, and to (maybe eventually) get correct on Goko. (How does Goko handle these two cases now btw?) Anyway, that's why we're here talking about this.
So now BoM is played, then changes itself to another card and plays itself (from play). Conspirator counts two actions, and Champion gives +1 Action twice. Tokens on both piles activate. We can drop the "when-you-would-play-this" interpretation on BoM (which wasn't on the card anywhere), so groovy.
I'm also (not so) secretly pleased that TR-BoM-Feast now works the way I argued for several pages that is should back in the day. I didn't realize at first that BoM in the Trash would never turn into another card, and when I did I thought that was it; it's either nothing happens the second time or a special-case ruling. But I like the new interpretation that it resolves once you play it even though it immediately stops being itself. It's in line with how BoM-Feast works in the first place. You resolve the whole ability of Feast (so you gain a $5 cost card), even though it stops being Feast in the middle. You triggered the on-play of Feast, so you resolve it. Similarly, for TR-BoM-Feast, when BoM is in the trash and you choose Scout, you triggered the on-play of Scout (per "play this as if it was"), so you resolve it, even though it turned back into BoM immediately. It's also comparable to trashing BoM-Fortress or Inherited-Estate-Fortress: You triggered the when-trash of Fortress, so you resolve it, even though the card is no longer Fortress. In all cases the instruction disappears from the card, but it's already triggered.
And of course, the second time you play the card, it's (usually) not BoM, so no token bonus from the BoM pile.
Also, now we don't have to think of TR working any other way than what is literally on the card. It plays the card you chose a second time, so if the card is something else now, of course that's what's gonna be played. No more locking-in mechanism.
-
Sorry if this was already brought up in this thread; if it was I didn't see it.
Say you King's Court, select Band of Misfits, choose Feast. So you play Feast, you trash Feast, now Band of Misfit's is in the Trash. You continue with King's Court, and play Band of Misfits again. You choose something not crazy (say, Village), and resolve. Now you continue with King's Court. Is it correct that you necessarily play Village, since Band of Misfits is now Village?
Actually, Simon talked about this in the puzzles thread. So at the second play, Band of Misfits doesn't actually go into play, right? So when you play it the third time, it's still in the trash and Band of Misfits, so you get to select another card?
-
If you want to know the details, I suggest that you read the thread I linked to. This is not the right place.
But I'll answer this one. Yes it is clear. On both plays 2 and 3, KC plays the card, and the card is Band of Misfits.
But when you play it the second time, it's Scheme.
It gets played as Scheme the 2nd time, but Band of Misfits has already left play, so it's only Scheme for a short moment and then goes back to being Band of Misfits again.
-
If you want to know the details, I suggest that you read the thread I linked to. This is not the right place.
But I'll answer this one. Yes it is clear. On both plays 2 and 3, KC plays the card, and the card is Band of Misfits.
But when you play it the second time, it's Scheme.
It gets played as Scheme the 2nd time, but Band of Misfits has already left play, so it's only Scheme for a short moment and then goes back to being Band of Misfits again.
Oh, it never goes back into play. Alright.
-
Sorry if this was already brought up in this thread; if it was I didn't see it.
Say you King's Court, select Band of Misfits, choose Feast. So you play Feast, you trash Feast, now Band of Misfit's is in the Trash. You continue with King's Court, and play Band of Misfits again. You choose something not crazy (say, Village), and resolve. Now you continue with King's Court. Is it correct that you necessarily play Village, since Band of Misfits is now Village?
By the new ruling no, you are not forced to play Village for the third KC play. BoM says it is the card it is played as until it leaves play. Well, it's still in the trash after playing it as Village for the second KC play (it never goes back into play), so it's a BoM by the time the third KC play comes around. That means you get to choose again.
-
What did we do???
-
What did we do???
Hey, in the end it's Donald's fault for making Band of Misfits in the first place. :)
-
What did we do???
Hey, in the end it's Donald's fault for making Band of Misfits in the first place. :)
What do you expect; they're misfits.
-
What did we do???
Hey, in the end it's Donald's fault for making Band of Misfits in the first place. :)
And Throne Room, and Feast, and Scout.
At least we still have Ironworks-Trader.
-
It's good to know that Scout can at least get some love in hypothetical discussions.
-
It's good to know that Scout can at least get some love in hypothetical discussions.
Hey, if Scout is the only Action under $5, I might pick one up with Seaway.
-
It's good to know that Scout can at least get some love in hypothetical discussions.
Hey, if Scout is the only Action under $5, I might pick one up with Seaway.
I'm sure Scout can be part of some weird concocted Distand Lands megaturn, where you gain them all to end the game of piles, then have to KC them all the same turn, but need Scouts to draw them.
-
It's good to know that Scout can at least get some love in hypothetical discussions.
Hey, if Scout is the only Action under $5, I might pick one up with Seaway.
I'm sure Scout can be part of some weird concocted Distand Lands megaturn, where you gain them all to end the game of piles, then have to KC them all the same turn, but need Scouts to draw them.
You trash your deck down to KC/University/Scout (there was a Raze in there somewhere). Gain 3 Distant Lands, draw them with Scout, play them. Empty piles.
-
It's good to know that Scout can at least get some love in hypothetical discussions.
Hey, if Scout is the only Action under $5, I might pick one up with Seaway.
I'm sure Scout can be part of some weird concocted Distand Lands megaturn, where you gain them all to end the game of piles, then have to KC them all the same turn, but need Scouts to draw them.
You trash your deck down to KC/University/Scout (there was a Raze in there somewhere). Gain 3 Distant Lands, draw them with Scout, play them. Empty piles.
Finally, Scout has its day in the sun! It's a good thing there are no other $4 cards that can draw 3 cards or else we would have yet another situation in which Scout is outclassed.
-
It's good to know that Scout can at least get some love in hypothetical discussions.
Hey, if Scout is the only Action under $5, I might pick one up with Seaway.
I'm sure Scout can be part of some weird concocted Distand Lands megaturn, where you gain them all to end the game of piles, then have to KC them all the same turn, but need Scouts to draw them.
You trash your deck down to KC/University/Scout (there was a Raze in there somewhere). Gain 3 Distant Lands, draw them with Scout, play them. Empty piles.
Finally, Scout has its day in the sun! It's a good thing there are no other $4 cards that can draw 3 cards or else we would have yet another situation in which Scout is outclassed.
You trash your deck down to KC/KC/University/University/Scout. Gain 4 Distant Lands, draw them with Scout, play them. Empty piles.
-
It's good to know that Scout can at least get some love in hypothetical discussions.
Hey, if Scout is the only Action under $5, I might pick one up with Seaway.
I'm sure Scout can be part of some weird concocted Distand Lands megaturn, where you gain them all to end the game of piles, then have to KC them all the same turn, but need Scouts to draw them.
You trash your deck down to KC/University/Scout (there was a Raze in there somewhere). Gain 3 Distant Lands, draw them with Scout, play them. Empty piles.
Finally, Scout has its day in the sun! It's a good thing there are no other $4 cards that can draw 3 cards or else we would have yet another situation in which Scout is outclassed.
You trash your deck down to KC/KC/University/University/Scout. Gain 4 Distant Lands, draw them with Scout, play them. Empty piles.
:D So do you want to write the combo article or shall I?
-
I'll let Robz do the honor. I couldn't bear the thought of taking this joy away from him.
-
So, have we come up with a concrete way that TR-BoM(as Feast) handles Tokens?
TR: Choose BoM
1. BoM(+A): Choose Feast(+B)
2. BoM(+A): Choose Feast(+B)
or
TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose Feast
1. Feast(+B)
2. Feast(+B)
I'm not sure if this has been specifically resolved. Or whether the primary instruction on BoM is "Play this as..." or "This is..." in a situation involving Tokens.
-
So, have we come up with a concrete way that TR-BoM(as Feast) handles Tokens?
TR: Choose BoM
1. BoM(+A): Choose Feast(+B)
2. BoM(+A): Choose Feast(+B)
or
TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose Feast
1. Feast(+B)
2. Feast(+B)
I'm not sure if this has been specifically resolved. Or whether the primary instruction on BoM is "Play this as..." or "This is..." in a situation involving Tokens.
The former. But you don't have to choose Feast the second time.
-
So, have we come up with a concrete way that TR-BoM(as Feast) handles Tokens?
TR: Choose BoM
1. BoM(+A): Choose Feast(+B)
2. BoM(+A): Choose Feast(+B)
or
TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose Feast
1. Feast(+B)
2. Feast(+B)
I'm not sure if this has been specifically resolved. Or whether the primary instruction on BoM is "Play this as..." or "This is..." in a situation involving Tokens.
The former. But you don't have to choose Feast the second time.
And therefore the interaction between TR-BoM and generic CardX should be the same, but without making the choice the second time?
TR: Choose BoM
1. BoM(+A): Choose CardX(+B)
2. BoM(+A): Must Choose CardX(+B)
or
TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose CardX
1. CardX(+B)
2. CardX(+B)
This would imply that BoM is played both times, but the choice cannot be changed as CardX is still in play.
So TR-BoM w/ Conspirator should read:
Throne(1): Choose BoM
1. BoM(2): Choose Conspirator(3)
2. BoM(4): Must Choose Conspirator(5)
or
Throne(1): Choose BoM(2): Choose Conspirator
1. Conspirator (3)
2. Conspirator (4)
----
Am I making sense?
(Edit for clarity)
-
** If Band of Misfits is multiplied when tokens are on its pile, the token effect on Band of Misfits happens only once, since Band of Misfits is only being played once; once it is in play, it is a different card. However, tokens on a card Band of Misfits is emulating do have their effects multiplied. For example, if the +1 Card token is on Band of Misfits and the +$1 token is on Chapel, and you Throne Room a Band of Misfits, emulating Chapel, you would first get +1 Card, then +$2.
It must be "you would first get +1 Card and +$1, then +$1", right? It could matter in certain circumstances.
-
** If Band of Misfits is multiplied when tokens are on its pile, the token effect on Band of Misfits happens only once, since Band of Misfits is only being played once; once it is in play, it is a different card. However, tokens on a card Band of Misfits is emulating do have their effects multiplied. For example, if the +1 Card token is on Band of Misfits and the +$1 token is on Chapel, and you Throne Room a Band of Misfits, emulating Chapel, you would first get +1 Card, then +$2.
It must be "you would first get +1 Card and +$1, then +$1", right? It could matter in certain circumstances.
Yes, yes, but this way is shorter and I think people will understand the implication.
-
So, have we come up with a concrete way that TR-BoM(as Feast) handles Tokens?
TR: Choose BoM
1. BoM(+A): Choose Feast(+B)
2. BoM(+A): Choose Feast(+B)
or
TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose Feast
1. Feast(+B)
2. Feast(+B)
I'm not sure if this has been specifically resolved. Or whether the primary instruction on BoM is "Play this as..." or "This is..." in a situation involving Tokens.
The former. But you don't have to choose Feast the second time.
And therefore the interaction between TR-BoM and generic CardX should be the same, but without making the choice the second time?
TR: Choose BoM
1. BoM(+A): Choose CardX(+B)
2. BoM(+A): Must Choose CardX(+B)
or
TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose CardX
1. CardX(+B)
2. CardX(+B)
This would imply that BoM is played both times, but the choice cannot be changed as CardX is still in play.
The second one is correct. BoM is not played the second time. It is only played a second time with Feast because it becomes BoM again when it goes to the trash. It's weird but is at least consistent.
-
So, have we come up with a concrete way that TR-BoM(as Feast) handles Tokens?
TR: Choose BoM
1. BoM(+A): Choose Feast(+B)
2. BoM(+A): Choose Feast(+B)
or
TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose Feast
1. Feast(+B)
2. Feast(+B)
I'm not sure if this has been specifically resolved. Or whether the primary instruction on BoM is "Play this as..." or "This is..." in a situation involving Tokens.
The former. But you don't have to choose Feast the second time.
And therefore the interaction between TR-BoM and generic CardX should be the same, but without making the choice the second time?
TR: Choose BoM
1. BoM(+A): Choose CardX(+B)
2. BoM(+A): Must Choose CardX(+B)
or
TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose CardX
1. CardX(+B)
2. CardX(+B)
This would imply that BoM is played both times, but the choice cannot be changed as CardX is still in play.
The second one is correct. BoM is not played the second time. It is only played a second time with Feast because it becomes BoM again when it goes to the trash. It's weird but is at least consistent.
A little further explanation:
BoM says that it is the card you chose untill it leaves play.
If you play it as a card that doesn't trash itself, then it keeps being that card. When TR plays it the 2nd time, it is still the chosen card, and therefore the chosen card is played again.
If you play BoM as a card that trashes itself, then after the trashing it goes back to being itself. When TR plays it the 2nd time, it's a BoM and therefore you can choose a card again and you get the bonuses on BoM again.
-
So, have we come up with a concrete way that TR-BoM(as Feast) handles Tokens?
TR: Choose BoM
1. BoM(+A): Choose Feast(+B)
2. BoM(+A): Choose Feast(+B)
or
TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose Feast
1. Feast(+B)
2. Feast(+B)
I'm not sure if this has been specifically resolved. Or whether the primary instruction on BoM is "Play this as..." or "This is..." in a situation involving Tokens.
The former. But you don't have to choose Feast the second time.
And therefore the interaction between TR-BoM and generic CardX should be the same, but without making the choice the second time?
TR: Choose BoM
1. BoM(+A): Choose CardX(+B)
2. BoM(+A): Must Choose CardX(+B)
or
TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose CardX
1. CardX(+B)
2. CardX(+B)
This would imply that BoM is played both times, but the choice cannot be changed as CardX is still in play.
The second one is correct. BoM is not played the second time. It is only played a second time with Feast because it becomes BoM again when it goes to the trash. It's weird but is at least consistent.
A little further explanation:
BoM says that it is the card you chose untill it leaves play.
If you play it as a card that doesn't trash itself, then it keeps being that card. When TR plays it the 2nd time, it is still the chosen card, and therefore the chosen card is played again.
If you play BoM as a card that trashes itself, then after the trashing it goes back to being itself. When TR plays it the 2nd time, it's a BoM and therefore you can choose a card again and you get the bonuses on BoM again.
But the original argument about Feast being "locked" was because the BoM cannot be "in play" while in the trash, and therefore cannot be any card.
-
It's good to know that Scout can at least get some love in hypothetical discussions.
Hey, if Scout is the only Action under $5, I might pick one up with Seaway.
AND if there's no other +buy available.
-
I think this is obvious from the new rulings, but it hasn't been said yet:
If you play TR-BoM as Feast, then you get the token bonuses on BoM twice. Because 2nd time you did play a BoM again.
Right?
yes of course
-
It's worth pointing out that there are other instances of rules that don't say what they really mean, so putting too much emphasis on making any rulings consistent with the above statement in the rulebook might not necessarily be the best approach, especially if it starts to produce results that are counterintuitive.
The card itself says "Play this as..." So you are playing it.
I suppose I'd better give an example of a rulebook 'error'. The original Dominion rules say "To play an Action, the player takes an Action card from his hand and lays it face-up in his play area." Notice the 'from his hand' in that sentence. If that rule were treated as absolutely correct, it would mean that Golem and Herald couldn't play the Action cards they find, but of course we all know that the original Dominion rulebook misspoke the rule.
The rulebooks would have zero hope of teaching anyone the game if every instruction had to be followed by pages of exceptions.
Here's another example, again from the original Dominion rules: "Throne Room - You pick another Action card in your hand, play it, and play it again. The second use of the Action card doesn't use up any extra Actions you have." In fact neither use of the Action card uses up any extra Actions you have: the only Action used up is by the Throne Room.
Not seeing a problem here.
So in the general case what I'm saying is that if there is any evidence that the rulebooks were in error and have thereby produced anomalies, Donald shouldn't get too hung up on making his rulings consistent with the rulebooks. In the specific case I'm saying that "When you play this" in the BoM rulebook description should perhaps not be interpreted as meaning that a BoM is indeed played, especially as the card itself says "Play this as if it were", thereby suggesting that it's the something else that is played.
I am exactly the right amount of hung up on being consistent with rulebooks.
-
It's worth pointing out that there are other instances of rules that don't say what they really mean, so putting too much emphasis on making any rulings consistent with the above statement in the rulebook might not necessarily be the best approach, especially if it starts to produce results that are counterintuitive.
The card itself says "Play this as..." So you are playing it.
So... It only says "Play this as..." on the first play?
TR: Choose BoM
1. BoM(+A): Choose CardX(+B)
2. BoM(+A): Must Choose CardX(+B)
Vs. "This is..." on the second play...
TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose CardX
1. CardX(+B)
2. CardX(+B)
-
It's worth pointing out that there are other instances of rules that don't say what they really mean, so putting too much emphasis on making any rulings consistent with the above statement in the rulebook might not necessarily be the best approach, especially if it starts to produce results that are counterintuitive.
The card itself says "Play this as..." So you are playing it.
So... It only says "Play this as..." on the first play?
If it hasn't left play, then yes it only says it on the first play. After that the card text has been replaced with the text of the card you chose.
-
It's worth pointing out that there are other instances of rules that don't say what they really mean, so putting too much emphasis on making any rulings consistent with the above statement in the rulebook might not necessarily be the best approach, especially if it starts to produce results that are counterintuitive.
The card itself says "Play this as..." So you are playing it.
So... It only says "Play this as..." on the first play?
TR: Choose BoM
1. BoM(+A): Choose CardX(+B)
2. BoM(+A): Must Choose CardX(+B)
Vs. "This is..." on the second play...
TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose CardX
1. CardX(+B)
2. CardX(+B)
Yeah it's either:
TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose CardX
1. CardX(+B)
2. CardX(+B)
Or:
TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose CardX
1. CardX(+B), trashes self
2.1. BoM(+A): Choose CardY
2.2. CardY(+C)
-
It's worth pointing out that there are other instances of rules that don't say what they really mean, so putting too much emphasis on making any rulings consistent with the above statement in the rulebook might not necessarily be the best approach, especially if it starts to produce results that are counterintuitive.
The card itself says "Play this as..." So you are playing it.
So... It only says "Play this as..." on the first play?
TR: Choose BoM
1. BoM(+A): Choose CardX(+B)
2. BoM(+A): Must Choose CardX(+B)
Vs. "This is..." on the second play...
TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose CardX
1. CardX(+B)
2. CardX(+B)
Yeah it's either:
TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose CardX
1. CardX(+B)
2. CardX(+B)
Or:
TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose CardX
1. CardX(+B), trashes self
2.1. BoM(+A): Choose CardY
2.2. CardY(+C)
I have to confess that I had been having real trouble reconciling the way the rulings on this subject had gone with my mental picture of the way playing a card worked. In particular I was having trouble with the idea that playing a Band of Misfits amounted to playing two Actions. The problem was that I was thinking that the player made the choice of what card BoM was to be before actually playing BoM. Overnight I've realised why that was wrong: one follows the instructions on a card as part of playing it. Therefore the instruction "Play this as if it were an Action card in the Supply costing less than it that you choose" can only take effect as part of playing BoM, so there are indeed two Actions played, namely BoM and then the transformed card.
Having now corrected my mental image of playing BoM, I've been able to answer a hypothetical question I'd been pondering ever since this discussion started, namely "If there were a card, Band of Confusion say, that said '+1 Action. Now play this as if it were an Action card in the Supply costing less than it that you choose. This is that card until it leaves play', how would it work?" Exactly as BoM with the +1 Action token on its pile.
So, I'm now happy with the way the rulings have gone, something of absolutely no consequence to anyone else in the world but of great importance to me as it means I can once again understand BoM by applying logical rules.
-
Here's another example, again from the original Dominion rules: "Throne Room - You pick another Action card in your hand, play it, and play it again. The second use of the Action card doesn't use up any extra Actions you have." In fact neither use of the Action card uses up any extra Actions you have: the only Action used up is by the Throne Room.
Not seeing a problem here.
It surprises me greatly that you don't see the problem - when I read the above sentence out to another Dominion player, he immediately replied "But neither does the first use of the Action card" so he could certainly see the problem - but the thread I started specifically on this subject on BoardGameGeek this morning (before reading your reply here) would be the more sensible place to discuss it further.
-
Here's another example, again from the original Dominion rules: "Throne Room - You pick another Action card in your hand, play it, and play it again. The second use of the Action card doesn't use up any extra Actions you have." In fact neither use of the Action card uses up any extra Actions you have: the only Action used up is by the Throne Room.
Not seeing a problem here.
It surprises me greatly that you don't see the problem - when I read the above sentence out to another Dominion player, he immediately replied "But neither does the first use of the Action card" so he could certainly see the problem - but the thread I started specifically on this subject on BoardGameGeek this morning (before reading your reply here) would be the more sensible place to discuss it further.
There is way more Dominion discussion here than at BGG these days. I mean you're welcome to post at both places, and also at r/dominion and the German forums, and if you find a 5th place I am interested in hearing about it. They talk about Dominion some at SomethingAwful but mostly I can't see that.
I see what you're saying, it doesn't say everything it could have. But it says something technically correct and it is not a source of great confusion so I am not feeling too bad about it.
-
Yeah, I've definitely never experienced anyone being confused by Throne Room. Then again all of my friends and I play a lot of deck-builders so we didn't even read the card FAQs unless we had a specific question. Then again I don't really see how the Throne Room FAQ could be misinterpreted. It doesn't say literally everything it can, but I don't really see how anyone could read it and think Throne Room works in a way it doesn't actually.
-
* If you use Throne Room on Band of Misfits, choosing to play Band of Misfits as a self-trashing card (for example, Feast), the Band of Misfits will be in the trash after the first play as Feast, meaning it has left play. Throne Room then plays Band of Misfits again, allowing you to make a new choice as to what Band of Misfits should emulate. However, since Band of Misfits is in the trash, you will only get the on-play effects of the emulated card. Similar logic applies to one-shots that do not trash themselves, but still leave play, such as Island.
I'm guessing this applies to Reserve cards as well, since they remove themselves from play, correct? I'm also guessing that if you Throne BoM, playing it first as a Feast and then as a Reserve card, it moves from the trash to your Tavern mat, but this doesn't count as "gaining," correct (even though it's yours again for purposes of Gardens/Vineyards)?
For that matter, if you King's Court BoM, playing it as Mining Village, Guide, and Mining Village (choosing to trash Mining Village each time), do you get $4 (I'm guessing the second trashing counts because it's on your Tavern mat rather than in the trash, in contrast to Throning Mining Village where it's already in the trash on the second play)?
-
* If you use Throne Room on Band of Misfits, choosing to play Band of Misfits as a self-trashing card (for example, Feast), the Band of Misfits will be in the trash after the first play as Feast, meaning it has left play. Throne Room then plays Band of Misfits again, allowing you to make a new choice as to what Band of Misfits should emulate. However, since Band of Misfits is in the trash, you will only get the on-play effects of the emulated card. Similar logic applies to one-shots that do not trash themselves, but still leave play, such as Island.
I'm guessing this applies to Reserve cards as well, since they remove themselves from play, correct? I'm also guessing that if you Throne BoM, playing it first as a Feast and then as a Reserve card, it moves from the trash to your Tavern mat, but this doesn't count as "gaining," correct (even though it's yours again for purposes of Gardens/Vineyards)?
For that matter, if you King's Court BoM, playing it as Mining Village, Guide, and Mining Village (choosing to trash Mining Village each time), do you get $4 (I'm guessing the second trashing counts because it's on your Tavern mat rather than in the trash, in contrast to Throning Mining Village where it's already in the trash on the second play)?
I don't think there's an official ruling on this case, but I think that BoM will have lost track of itself, so playing it as a Reserve would fail to move it from the trash onto your Reserve mat. This is so weird though.
-
I'm also guessing that if you Throne BoM, playing it first as a Feast and then as a Reserve card, it moves from the trash to your Tavern mat, but this doesn't count as "gaining," correct (even though it's yours again for purposes of Gardens/Vineyards)?
For that matter, if you King's Court BoM, playing it as Mining Village, Guide, and Mining Village (choosing to trash Mining Village each time), do you get $4 (I'm guessing the second trashing counts because it's on your Tavern mat rather than in the trash, in contrast to Throning Mining Village where it's already in the trash on the second play)?
Is there a new ruling? AFAIK one can't do the above tricks (bolded by me): if BoM gets played multiple times, it gets played in the second (and third) play as the card choosen on the first play, regardless wether it is still in play or elsewhere.
Edit: And last time, i read about BoM played as Reserve, i got the impression, that it stays there for the rest of the game, because there it is not a Reserve anymore: It is only an other card as long as it stays in play.
Edit 2: OK, read the whole thread and i am astonished: there is new ruling. I am also astonished, how a thread about tokens timing got to BoM.
But I think the Kings Court example above does not produce 4$, because the BoM-MV did not get trashed in third play. Also the BoM does not leave trash in second play, because Reserves only moves from play to Tavern. Am i right?
-
For that matter, if you King's Court BoM, playing it as Mining Village, Guide, and Mining Village (choosing to trash Mining Village each time), do you get $4 (I'm guessing the second trashing counts because it's on your Tavern mat rather than in the trash, in contrast to Throning Mining Village where it's already in the trash on the second play)?
I don't think there's an official ruling on this case, but I think that BoM will have lost track of itself, so playing it as a Reserve would fail to move it from the trash onto your Reserve mat. This is so weird though.
Well, let's look at the lose-track rule again:
"In rare circumstances an effect may try to move a card that is not where that effect expects the card to be. In those cases the card does not move—the effect has "lost track" of the card. Losing track of a card prevents it from being moved, but does not stop anything else from happening.... Cards do not lose track of cards that they move, only cards that other cards move.... Things lose track of a card if something moves it, if it is the top card of a deck and gets covered up, or if it is the top card of a discard pile and gets covered up."
So, there are two possible questions here:
1. Has the card been "moved" at all? The second time your KC plays Band of Misfits, it's in the trash and tries to play itself as Guide and move itself to the Tavern mat. For it to fail to make it to the Tavern mat, something else has to have moved it. But the card is in the trash continuously from when you start playing it to when you try to move it to the Tavern mat—in fact, it's been in the trash for longer than it would have been in play if you just played it from hand. However, the card was moved to the trash at an earlier time, before you tried to play it as Guide. Does this count as having been moved, for the purposes of the lose-track rule? It is true that the card "is not where that effect expects the card to be", but Donald X. has told us that it's the last sentence, not the first sentence, that defines when the lose-track rule applies.
2. If the card is considered to have moved, what moved it? Cards don't lose track of things that they themselves move. So here we have a Band of Misfits in the trash that was moved there by a Mining Village… but they're both the same actual card. So do we consider the card to have moved itself (and so the lose-track rule doesn't apply)? Or do we consider it to have been moved by something else, because what moved it was a Mining Village and it's not that anymore?
-
I think it makes more sense of have the BoM lose track of itself in that situation, but I think it's vague based on the current rules. Luckily there's no benefit to putting a BoM on your Tavern mat outside of edge cases (ie you don't want your opponent to Graverobber or Rogue the BoM out of the trash).
-
I'd consider BoM moved by Mining Village.
-
My reasoning is that Guide[BoM] expects to be in play after it's been played, so it tries to move itself from there. I also don't think you should be able to move cards out of the trash unless explicitly allowed to.
-
Yeah, I believe it is correct that you cannot move BoM from the trash to the Tavern mat. I'm basing that on this post: http://boardgamegeek.com/article/6057349#6057349
-
I'm guessing this applies to Reserve cards as well, since they remove themselves from play, correct? I'm also guessing that if you Throne BoM, playing it first as a Feast and then as a Reserve card, it moves from the trash to your Tavern mat, but this doesn't count as "gaining," correct (even though it's yours again for purposes of Gardens/Vineyards)?
Throne Room expects to find BoM in play, where Throne Room put it, and so can't move it into play from the trash.
BoM as Reserve card expects to see itself in play, because played cards are put into play. It didn't make it into play so it fails to move to the Tavern mat.
"Lose track" should list "failing to move" as a reason for losing track.
For that matter, if you King's Court BoM, playing it as Mining Village, Guide, and Mining Village (choosing to trash Mining Village each time), do you get $4 (I'm guessing the second trashing counts because it's on your Tavern mat rather than in the trash, in contrast to Throning Mining Village where it's already in the trash on the second play)?
It never makes it out of the trash, so you can't get $4..
-
When you play TR on a duration, TR is supposed to stay in play as long as it's still "doing something." How does that work with these new rulings?
For example, if you play TR on BoM, choosing Fishing Village, then the second play will be of Fishing Village. Does TR know that it indirectly "played" Fishing Village twice and needs to stay out? Or does it just know it played a BoM and then played the same card that was somehow a Fishing Village the second time, and doesn't know it "doubled" a duration?
In the case TR and friends can somehow see through the BoM to see what ultimately gets played, what about this: You KC a BoM, choosing Feast for the first play, so it'll be a BoM for the second and third plays. Both those times, you choose it to be Fishing Village. Does KC need to stay in play to mark that it "doubled" a Fishing Village? Or is that just a coincidental doubling (you could have picked Fishing Village and Woodcutter, after all), so it gets discarded?
-
When you play TR on a duration, TR is supposed to stay in play as long as it's still "doing something." How does that work with these new rulings?
For example, if you play TR on BoM, choosing Fishing Village, then the second play will be of Fishing Village. Does TR know that it indirectly "played" Fishing Village twice and needs to stay out? Or does it just know it played a BoM and then played the same card that was somehow a Fishing Village the second time, and doesn't know it "doubled" a duration?
In the case TR and friends can somehow see through the BoM to see what ultimately gets played, what about this: You KC a BoM, choosing Feast for the first play, so it'll be a BoM for the second and third plays. Both those times, you choose it to be Fishing Village. Does KC need to stay in play to mark that it "doubled" a Fishing Village? Or is that just a coincidental doubling (you could have picked Fishing Village and Woodcutter, after all), so it gets discarded?
It would definitely stay in play in both cases. The KC case is weird, but multiple FVs are taking effect the next turn so you need to keep the KC out to track it.
-
When you play TR on a duration, TR is supposed to stay in play as long as it's still "doing something." How does that work with these new rulings?
For example, if you play TR on BoM, choosing Fishing Village, then the second play will be of Fishing Village. Does TR know that it indirectly "played" Fishing Village twice and needs to stay out? Or does it just know it played a BoM and then played the same card that was somehow a Fishing Village the second time, and doesn't know it "doubled" a duration?
In the case TR and friends can somehow see through the BoM to see what ultimately gets played, what about this: You KC a BoM, choosing Feast for the first play, so it'll be a BoM for the second and third plays. Both those times, you choose it to be Fishing Village. Does KC need to stay in play to mark that it "doubled" a Fishing Village? Or is that just a coincidental doubling (you could have picked Fishing Village and Woodcutter, after all), so it gets discarded?
It would definitely stay in play in both cases. The KC case is weird, but multiple FVs are taking effect the next turn so you need to keep the KC out to track it.
But you need to remember that the KC is only tracking 2 FV next turn.
-
I'm guessing this applies to Reserve cards as well, since they remove themselves from play, correct? I'm also guessing that if you Throne BoM, playing it first as a Feast and then as a Reserve card, it moves from the trash to your Tavern mat, but this doesn't count as "gaining," correct (even though it's yours again for purposes of Gardens/Vineyards)?
BoM as Reserve card expects to see itself in play, because played cards are put into play. It didn't make it into play so it fails to move to the Tavern mat.
"Lose track" should list "failing to move" as a reason for losing track.
Ah, I didn't realize it could lose track of itself due to its own effect. Now that I see the reasoning behind Mining Village (that cards can lose track of themselves due to being moved by their own effects, as long as its not the effect of the same play), it makes sense (I'd always assumed you didn't get $2 for the second Mining Village because you can't trash a card that's already in the trash).
-
When you play TR on a duration, TR is supposed to stay in play as long as it's still "doing something." How does that work with these new rulings?
For example, if you play TR on BoM, choosing Fishing Village, then the second play will be of Fishing Village. Does TR know that it indirectly "played" Fishing Village twice and needs to stay out? Or does it just know it played a BoM and then played the same card that was somehow a Fishing Village the second time, and doesn't know it "doubled" a duration?
In the case TR and friends can somehow see through the BoM to see what ultimately gets played, what about this: You KC a BoM, choosing Feast for the first play, so it'll be a BoM for the second and third plays. Both those times, you choose it to be Fishing Village. Does KC need to stay in play to mark that it "doubled" a Fishing Village? Or is that just a coincidental doubling (you could have picked Fishing Village and Woodcutter, after all), so it gets discarded?
It would definitely stay in play in both cases. The KC case is weird, but multiple FVs are taking effect the next turn so you need to keep the KC out to track it.
But you need to remember that the KC is only tracking 2 FV next turn.
In a sense it's even worse than that: you would need to remember that the KC is only tracking 2 invisible FV (the BoM card is of course in the trash).
Let's try a mixture of your first and second examples:
Play TR
TR plays BoM
BoM plays itself as Feast and so gets trashed
TR plays BoM
BoM plays itself as FV
Now what's supposed to happen?
Does it help to consider TR+Tactician? We know (assuming my memory is correct) that TR is able to notice that only the first play of Tactician triggered the requirement for Tactician to stay out and that consequently TR knows its job is done and can be discarded from play. Does that mean that in the above example TR can notice that there has been only one play of FV and that consequently TR's job is done and it can be discarded from play? But if that were the case, it would still leave me unclear as to what should happen in your KC+BoM-Feast/BoM-FV/(BoM-)FV example. Given that KC would notice that it's job wasn't done, it presumably couldn't be discarded from play, but as you say, it would be necessary to remember that it was only marking two FV effects, not three (as well as remembering that the invisible card is FV).
-
When you play TR on a duration, TR is supposed to stay in play as long as it's still "doing something." How does that work with these new rulings?
For example, if you play TR on BoM, choosing Fishing Village, then the second play will be of Fishing Village. Does TR know that it indirectly "played" Fishing Village twice and needs to stay out? Or does it just know it played a BoM and then played the same card that was somehow a Fishing Village the second time, and doesn't know it "doubled" a duration?
In the case TR and friends can somehow see through the BoM to see what ultimately gets played, what about this: You KC a BoM, choosing Feast for the first play, so it'll be a BoM for the second and third plays. Both those times, you choose it to be Fishing Village. Does KC need to stay in play to mark that it "doubled" a Fishing Village? Or is that just a coincidental doubling (you could have picked Fishing Village and Woodcutter, after all), so it gets discarded?
Throne stays out if it directly played a duration card that's doing stuff on a future turn. It doesn't know about indirectly getting cards played, such as when you Throne Throne. That now includes Throne BoM, for that first play when it's not a duration card quite yet.
If you Throne BoM as Fishing Village, the 2nd time, Throne played Fishing Village, and that's doing stuff next turn, so Throne stays out.
If you KC BoM and the 2nd and 3rd times it's Fishing Village, those are doing stuff next turn so KC stays out. The tracking is poor here but the rules don't have a "how poor is the tracking" clause, they just leave out Thrones that directly played duration cards that have stuff left to do.
-
I'm guessing this applies to Reserve cards as well, since they remove themselves from play, correct? I'm also guessing that if you Throne BoM, playing it first as a Feast and then as a Reserve card, it moves from the trash to your Tavern mat, but this doesn't count as "gaining," correct (even though it's yours again for purposes of Gardens/Vineyards)?
BoM as Reserve card expects to see itself in play, because played cards are put into play. It didn't make it into play so it fails to move to the Tavern mat.
"Lose track" should list "failing to move" as a reason for losing track.
Ah, I didn't realize it could lose track of itself due to its own effect. Now that I see the reasoning behind Mining Village (that cards can lose track of themselves due to being moved by their own effects, as long as its not the effect of the same play), it makes sense (I'd always assumed you didn't get $2 for the second Mining Village because you can't trash a card that's already in the trash).
I'm not quite sure what you think so let's just be clear. When a card moves itself, the card expects that that worked, that it did move, wherever the card moved itself. So it doesn't lose track of itself there if the card does in fact move as expected (and this doesn't fall into another category where you lose track, such as covered up in a discard pile). It does lose track if the card did not move as expected.
With Throne / Mining Village with Mining Village trashed the first time, the "if you do" fails if you try to trash it the 2nd time. Throne Room fails to put the card into play due to losing track of it (it expected to find it in play), so it's not in play, so it was already in the trash, so you didn't trash it.
-
Let's try a mixture of your first and second examples:
Play TR
TR plays BoM
BoM plays itself as Feast and so gets trashed
TR plays BoM
BoM plays itself as FV
Now what's supposed to happen?
Throne Room did not play a duration card directly and so does not stay out (this is a change).
-
When you play TR on a duration, TR is supposed to stay in play as long as it's still "doing something." How does that work with these new rulings?
For example, if you play TR on BoM, choosing Fishing Village, then the second play will be of Fishing Village. Does TR know that it indirectly "played" Fishing Village twice and needs to stay out? Or does it just know it played a BoM and then played the same card that was somehow a Fishing Village the second time, and doesn't know it "doubled" a duration?
In the case TR and friends can somehow see through the BoM to see what ultimately gets played, what about this: You KC a BoM, choosing Feast for the first play, so it'll be a BoM for the second and third plays. Both those times, you choose it to be Fishing Village. Does KC need to stay in play to mark that it "doubled" a Fishing Village? Or is that just a coincidental doubling (you could have picked Fishing Village and Woodcutter, after all), so it gets discarded?
Throne stays out if it directly played a duration card that's doing stuff on a future turn. It doesn't know about indirectly getting cards played, such as when you Throne Throne. That now includes Throne BoM, for that first play when it's not a duration card quite yet.
If you Throne BoM as Fishing Village, the 2nd time, Throne played Fishing Village, and that's doing stuff next turn, so Throne stays out.
If you KC BoM and the 2nd and 3rd times it's Fishing Village, those are doing stuff next turn so KC stays out. The tracking is poor here but the rules don't have a "how poor is the tracking" clause, they just leave out Thrones that directly played duration cards that have stuff left to do.
Doesn't KC in chipperMDWs example, on the 2nd and 3rd play, play BoM? And then BoM played itself as a duration card? So KC didn't directly play a duration card, and therefore doesn't stay out. Or what?
-
When you play TR on a duration, TR is supposed to stay in play as long as it's still "doing something." How does that work with these new rulings?
For example, if you play TR on BoM, choosing Fishing Village, then the second play will be of Fishing Village. Does TR know that it indirectly "played" Fishing Village twice and needs to stay out? Or does it just know it played a BoM and then played the same card that was somehow a Fishing Village the second time, and doesn't know it "doubled" a duration?
In the case TR and friends can somehow see through the BoM to see what ultimately gets played, what about this: You KC a BoM, choosing Feast for the first play, so it'll be a BoM for the second and third plays. Both those times, you choose it to be Fishing Village. Does KC need to stay in play to mark that it "doubled" a Fishing Village? Or is that just a coincidental doubling (you could have picked Fishing Village and Woodcutter, after all), so it gets discarded?
Throne stays out if it directly played a duration card that's doing stuff on a future turn. It doesn't know about indirectly getting cards played, such as when you Throne Throne. That now includes Throne BoM, for that first play when it's not a duration card quite yet.
If you Throne BoM as Fishing Village, the 2nd time, Throne played Fishing Village, and that's doing stuff next turn, so Throne stays out.
If you KC BoM and the 2nd and 3rd times it's Fishing Village, those are doing stuff next turn so KC stays out. The tracking is poor here but the rules don't have a "how poor is the tracking" clause, they just leave out Thrones that directly played duration cards that have stuff left to do.
Doesn't KC in chipperMDWs example, on the 2nd and 3rd play, play BoM? And then BoM played itself as a duration card? So KC didn't directly play a duration card, and therefore doesn't stay out. Or what?
Yes, sorry. KC didn't play a duration card and so doesn't stay out.
-
If you Throne BoM as Fishing Village, the 2nd time, Throne played Fishing Village, and that's doing stuff next turn, so Throne stays out.
Hmmm... Is directly playing a duration just once enough to leave TR in play? Like, normally, even if TR plays a duration twice and one play of the duration doesn't carry over to next turn (Tactician with no cards in hand, Haven with nothing to set aside, Gear setting nothing aside, etc.), TR doesn't stay out because it's not tracking any doubling, right?
-
When you play TR on a duration, TR is supposed to stay in play as long as it's still "doing something." How does that work with these new rulings?
For example, if you play TR on BoM, choosing Fishing Village, then the second play will be of Fishing Village. Does TR know that it indirectly "played" Fishing Village twice and needs to stay out? Or does it just know it played a BoM and then played the same card that was somehow a Fishing Village the second time, and doesn't know it "doubled" a duration?
In the case TR and friends can somehow see through the BoM to see what ultimately gets played, what about this: You KC a BoM, choosing Feast for the first play, so it'll be a BoM for the second and third plays. Both those times, you choose it to be Fishing Village. Does KC need to stay in play to mark that it "doubled" a Fishing Village? Or is that just a coincidental doubling (you could have picked Fishing Village and Woodcutter, after all), so it gets discarded?
Throne stays out if it directly played a duration card that's doing stuff on a future turn. It doesn't know about indirectly getting cards played, such as when you Throne Throne. That now includes Throne BoM, for that first play when it's not a duration card quite yet.
If you Throne BoM as Fishing Village, the 2nd time, Throne played Fishing Village, and that's doing stuff next turn, so Throne stays out.
If you KC BoM and the 2nd and 3rd times it's Fishing Village, those are doing stuff next turn so KC stays out. The tracking is poor here but the rules don't have a "how poor is the tracking" clause, they just leave out Thrones that directly played duration cards that have stuff left to do.
Doesn't KC in chipperMDWs example, on the 2nd and 3rd play, play BoM? And then BoM played itself as a duration card? So KC didn't directly play a duration card, and therefore doesn't stay out. Or what?
Yes, sorry. KC didn't play a duration card and so doesn't stay out.
Is this true even if you don't do self-trashing shenanigans? I play KC, I play BoM, I choose Amulet - does KC stay out?
-
Is this true even if you don't do self-trashing shenanigans? I play KC, I play BoM, I choose Amulet - does KC stay out?
I that case it's clear, the second and third time it was Amulet, not BoM, since it was in play. So KC stays out.
-
Yeah, this new ruling works for TR-BoM, but seems to create contradictions with previous rulings about TR-Tactician, TR-Haven and TR-Gear.
The intent for TR-BoM-FV is obviously to keep TR in play to track that FV was played twice. The problem is that FV was played once by BoM and once by TR. So the new ruling says that TR stays even if it played a Duration only once, as long as it played a Duration directly. But what then of TR-Tactician, or TR-Haven not setting aside a card the second time? TR played a Duration twice, but only one of those times was a future effect set up. So the old ruling is that TR doesn't stay. But by the new ruling it seems like it has to stay. An option is to change the old ruling. It doesn't seem to be stated in a rulebook.
But I think I have a way to make it work with both rulings. The rule for cards playing Durations would be like this:
If a card plays a Duration and thereby causes that Duration to set up its future effect an extra time that turn, keep that card in play.
TR-BoM-FV by this rule: TR plays BoM. BoM plays FV setting up a future effect. TR plays the same FV setting up a future effect again. So TR stays.
TR-Tact by this rule: TR plays Tact setting up a future effect, TR plays the same Tact not setting up a future effect. So TR doesn't stay.
KC-BoM-Feast/FV/FV by this rule: KC plays BoM. BoM plays Feast. KC plays BoM. BoM plays FV setting up a future effect. KC plays BoM. BoM plays FV setting up a future effect again. At no time did KC play FV, so it doesn't stay.
-
But I think I have a way to make it work with both rulings. The rule for cards playing Durations would be like this:
If a card plays a Duration and thereby causes that Duration to set up its future effect an extra time that turn, keep that card in play.
Seaside's rulebook says: "If you play or modify a Duration card with another card, that other card also stays in front of you until it's no longer doing anything."
We can then argue about what "it's no longer doing anything" means. But what you're saying is consistent with the rulebook.
-
When you play TR on a duration, TR is supposed to stay in play as long as it's still "doing something." How does that work with these new rulings?
For example, if you play TR on BoM, choosing Fishing Village, then the second play will be of Fishing Village. Does TR know that it indirectly "played" Fishing Village twice and needs to stay out? Or does it just know it played a BoM and then played the same card that was somehow a Fishing Village the second time, and doesn't know it "doubled" a duration?
In the case TR and friends can somehow see through the BoM to see what ultimately gets played, what about this: You KC a BoM, choosing Feast for the first play, so it'll be a BoM for the second and third plays. Both those times, you choose it to be Fishing Village. Does KC need to stay in play to mark that it "doubled" a Fishing Village? Or is that just a coincidental doubling (you could have picked Fishing Village and Woodcutter, after all), so it gets discarded?
Throne stays out if it directly played a duration card that's doing stuff on a future turn. It doesn't know about indirectly getting cards played, such as when you Throne Throne. That now includes Throne BoM, for that first play when it's not a duration card quite yet.
If you Throne BoM as Fishing Village, the 2nd time, Throne played Fishing Village, and that's doing stuff next turn, so Throne stays out.
If you KC BoM and the 2nd and 3rd times it's Fishing Village, those are doing stuff next turn so KC stays out. The tracking is poor here but the rules don't have a "how poor is the tracking" clause, they just leave out Thrones that directly played duration cards that have stuff left to do.
Doesn't KC in chipperMDWs example, on the 2nd and 3rd play, play BoM? And then BoM played itself as a duration card? So KC didn't directly play a duration card, and therefore doesn't stay out. Or what?
Yes, sorry. KC didn't play a duration card and so doesn't stay out.
Hm, this is surprising to me. So it doesn't matter if the TR or KC is actually doing something next turn, it just matters if it directly played a Duration card? I would think it would make more sense to have the TR or KC stay out as long as it results in setting up multiple effects for a future turn (as the KC is doing in chipperMDW's example).
-
Hm, this is surprising to me. So it doesn't matter if the TR or KC is actually doing something next turn, it just matters if it directly played a Duration card? I would think it would make more sense to have the TR or KC stay out as long as it results in setting up multiple effects for a future turn (as the KC is doing in chipperMDW's example).
It doesn't need to have set up multiple future effects, but it does need to have set up a future effect. If it hasn't (e.g. Throne Tactician) it doesn't stay out.
-
It doesn't need to have set up multiple future effects, but it does need to have set up a future effect. If it hasn't (e.g. Throne Tactician) it doesn't stay out.
Given that TR-Tactician doesn't set up a future effect that keeps TR in play, what future effect does TR-BoM-FV set up to keep that TR in play? In the first case, TR directly plays a "live" duration and a "dud" duration; in the second case, TR directly plays a BoM and a "live" duration. Neither TR directly plays more than a single "live" duration, yet we're saying one TR stays out and one doesn't.
Unless we're going with the thing Jeebus suggested about TR being able to tell whether a duration card has been "used" before in a turn. ('Cuz, depending how you define that, it may also have weird implications (that nobody will ever notice) with Processioning durations then Graverobbing them and playing them again with TR in the space of a turn.)
-
The rule in the rule book is that Throne Room stays in play "until it is no longer doing anything". There are two things that "it" could mean there—the Duration card or the Throne Room. If "it" is the Duration card, that means that Throne Room stays in play with Tactician, which Donald has said is not correct. So "it" must be the Throne Room.
What does it mean for the Throne Room to be "doing anything"? Presumably the only sensible interpretation of that is, the Throne Room stays in play if the effect of having played the Throne Room is different from having just played the card without Throne Room. Whether the Throne Room played the Duration card once or twice is immaterial; what matters is if the act of having played a card twice—i.e., the effect of Throne Room—is still going to be resolving next turn.
(…Note that Royal Carriage only ever plays anything once, but it stays in play with Durations anyway.)
-
What does it mean for the Throne Room to be "doing anything"? Presumably the only sensible interpretation of that is, the Throne Room stays in play if the effect of having played the Throne Room is different from having just played the card without Throne Room. Whether the Throne Room played the Duration card once or twice is immaterial; what matters is if the act of having played a card twice—i.e., the effect of Throne Room—is still going to be resolving next turn.
The effect of having played KC-BoM-Feast-FV-FV is different from having played BoM-whatever without KC. But it was decided KC doesn't stay out for that because it never played any durations directly.
So it's not only a matter of whether the act of playing a card N times is still going to be resolving next turn. It also appears to have something to do with whether the plays of durations were directly through TR or indirectly through BoM.
TR-BoM-FV has only one direct play of a duration, and one direct play of a duration (with a future effect) is not sufficient elsewhere (TR-Tactician) to keep a TR in play. So it's not clear to me why TR should stay out in that case.
-
Hm, this is surprising to me. So it doesn't matter if the TR or KC is actually doing something next turn, it just matters if it directly played a Duration card? I would think it would make more sense to have the TR or KC stay out as long as it results in setting up multiple effects for a future turn (as the KC is doing in chipperMDW's example).
It doesn't need to have set up multiple future effects, but it does need to have set up a future effect. If it hasn't (e.g. Throne Tactician) it doesn't stay out.
But didn't the KC set up a future effect in the Feast/FV/FV to example? Hasn't it resulted in 2 FVs being played next turn, whereas without it there couldn't have been more than 1? I'm not sure I understand why it matters if it directly played a Duration. A TR modifying a BoM that becomes an FV stays out, doesn't it? But it's only directly playing one Duration card, so that rule doesn't really make sense to me.
-
What does it mean for the Throne Room to be "doing anything"? Presumably the only sensible interpretation of that is, the Throne Room stays in play if the effect of having played the Throne Room is different from having just played the card without Throne Room. Whether the Throne Room played the Duration card once or twice is immaterial; what matters is if the act of having played a card twice—i.e., the effect of Throne Room—is still going to be resolving next turn.
The effect of having played KC-BoM-Feast-FV-FV is different from having played BoM-whatever without KC. But it was decided KC doesn't stay out for that because it never played any durations directly.
The rule in the rule book is that Throne Room stays in play "until it is no longer doing anything" if it played a Duration. If it didn't play a Duration, Throne Room is cleaned up on the turn on which it's played no matter what.
TR-BoM-FV has only one direct play of a duration, and one direct play of a duration (with a future effect) is not sufficient elsewhere (TR-Tactician) to keep a TR in play. So it's not clear to me why TR should stay out in that case.
Okay but look.
1. Did the Throne Room play a Duration? Yes it did.
2. Does the Throne Room have something to do on a future turn? Yes, it has to track that the Fishing Village is being played a second time.
TR-BoM-FV passes both (1) and (2). KC-BoM-Feast-FV-FV fails (1), and TR-Tactician fails (2).
Again, in FV–Royal Carriage, the Royal Carriage produces only one direct play of a Duration (the first play of the Duration was the FV being played by itself the normal way), but that doesn't stop RC from staying in play with it.
-
The rule in the rule book is that Throne Room stays in play "until it is no longer doing anything" if it played a Duration. If it didn't play a Duration, Throne Room is cleaned up on the turn on which it's played no matter what.
Ok, that makes sense.
Okay but look.
1. Did the Throne Room play a Duration? Yes it did.
2. Does the Throne Room have something to do on a future turn? Yes, it has to track that the Fishing Village is being played a second time.
See, I'm seeing the answer to (2) as "no." Yeah, you and I know FV is getting played a second time partly thanks to TR, but as far as the TR's direct actions are concerned, it only played FV the one time, so it has no "second time" to track.
For me, in order to get the answer to (2) to be "yes," that means whenever TR plays a duration directly at any point, it also needs to go check to see whether it ever indirectly played that same duration through a BoM, even though it doesn't otherwise care about what it indirectly played. But maybe that's what happens.
Again, in FV–Royal Carriage, the Royal Carriage produces only one direct play of a Duration (the first play of the Duration was the FV being played by itself the normal way), but that doesn't stop RC from staying in play with it.
RC is doing something fundamentally different from TR. RC is explicitly acting on a card that's already been played. RC always produces an "extra" play, so it always has something to track for durations. (Though I wonder whether even RC might be ruled not to stay out when, e.g., replaying Gear without setting any cards aside.)
-
The rule in the rule book is that Throne Room stays in play "until it is no longer doing anything" if it played a Duration. If it didn't play a Duration, Throne Room is cleaned up on the turn on which it's played no matter what.
Ok, that makes sense.
Okay but look.
1. Did the Throne Room play a Duration? Yes it did.
2. Does the Throne Room have something to do on a future turn? Yes, it has to track that the Fishing Village is being played a second time.
See, I'm seeing the answer to (2) as "no." Yeah, you and I know FV is getting played a second time partly thanks to TR, but as far as the TR's direct actions are concerned, it only played FV the one time, so it has no "second time" to track.
For me, in order to get the answer to (2) to be "yes," that means whenever TR plays a duration directly at any point, it also needs to go check to see whether it ever indirectly played that same duration through a BoM, even though it doesn't otherwise care about what it indirectly played. But maybe that's what happens.
At first I thought that AJD's solution might be the only one that enabled all the relevant rules (as opposed to rulings) to stand, but now I'm not so sure.
Always keeping TR out when it has played a duration would in the case of Tactician clash with the Seaside rule that TR stays out until it is no longer doing anything.
Initially I thought that not keeping TR out when it had played BoM-Duration would clash with the Dark Ages rules, but on reviewing them I see that although they explicitly state (a) that BoM stays out when played as a duration and (b) that BoM stays out when played as TR/KC/Procession that plays a duration - I note in passing that even with Adventures we can't yet manage to make use of BoM as KC - they don't make any statement about what happens with TR+BoM-Duration. As such I think that Donald has scope to rule in one of two ways on TR+BoM-Duration: (a) TR does somehow become aware that it has something to track, so stays out, or (b) TR has only directly played the duration once, so it doesn't know that it has something to track and hence gets discarded from play even though the players know that there is something to track.
At this stage I'd like to raise a related issue, namely the clean-up timing of TR+Outpost. This was discussed somewhere in a topic either here or on BGG, but even with the aid of Google I have been unable to find the relevant topic amidst the morass of topics that have discussed TR+Outpost. The topic discussed the issue of what happens when someone plays Outpost and TR+Outpost. The answer given (if I recall correctly) was that this set up three Outpost effects, so all three cards stayed in play. Then the player chose one of those effects to take place and the Outpost turn was played. Then if the player had chosen the effect from the non-TR'ed Outpost, that card was discarded from play but the TR+Outpost remained in play until the next player's clean-up phase. If on the other hand the player had chosen one of the TR'ed Outpost effects, nothing was discarded from play until the next player's clean-up phase. How come the TR doesn't get discarded? It has finished doing something: there is only one of the two Outpost effects that it originally created left outstanding. If TR can spot on the turn that it's played that there is only one Tactician effect set up and hence allow itself to be cleaned up, why on the following turn can it not spot that there is only one Outpost effect remaining and hence allow itself to be cleanup up?
Again, in FV–Royal Carriage, the Royal Carriage produces only one direct play of a Duration (the first play of the Duration was the FV being played by itself the normal way), but that doesn't stop RC from staying in play with it.
RC is doing something fundamentally different from TR. RC is explicitly acting on a card that's already been played. RC always produces an "extra" play, so it always has something to track for durations. (Though I wonder whether even RC might be ruled not to stay out when, e.g., replaying Gear without setting any cards aside.)
Or indeed replaying Tactician! Why anyone might choose to do such a thing is beyond me, but the rules need to cover what to do with idiotic plays.
-
Always keeping TR out when it has played a duration would in the case of Tactician clash with the Seaside rule that TR stays out until it is no longer doing anything.
I (at least possibly) take that back. It might well be that Donald's ruling that the "it" in "If you play or modify a Duration card with another card, that other card also stays in your play area until it is no longer doing anything" refers back to the TR rather than the duration card is the only thing that makes keeping TR out after TR+Tactician incompatible with the Seaside rules. If that's the case then Donald also has the option of reversing that ruling, i.e. making the "it" refer back to the duration card instead, in which case TR would always stay out whenever it had played a duration, irrespective of the number of times it had played it or the number of effects that had been set up. That would also resolve the point I raised about clean-up timing of TR+Outpost. But having said all that, I think this option is the least attractive of the three because (a) the more natural reading of the sentence "If you play or modify a Duration card with another card, that other card also stays in your play area until it is no longer doing anything" is for the "it" to refer back to "another card", (b) if the "it" were to refer back to the duration card, the sentence would now cause a Golem that had played a duration card to stay out, and (c) this option would cause more instances of false tracking - having a TR+Duration still in play when there is just one effect or having just Duration when there is more than one effect - than either of the other two possibilities.
-
Let me see if I can say this concisely, to make sure I understand it.
TR->BoM->Duration - TR stays out (it played a Duration, and it was more than the first play of the card)
TR->BoM->Feast;BoM->Duration - TR does NOT stay out - it did not play a Duration, it played a Band of Misfits, which then turned into a Duration
-
See, I'm seeing the answer to (2) as "no." Yeah, you and I know FV is getting played a second time partly thanks to TR, but as far as the TR's direct actions are concerned, it only played FV the one time, so it has no "second time" to track.
For me, in order to get the answer to (2) to be "yes," that means whenever TR plays a duration directly at any point, it also needs to go check to see whether it ever indirectly played that same duration through a BoM, even though it doesn't otherwise care about what it indirectly played. But maybe that's what happens.
I don't think this is a case where it matters what TR "sees". There is nothing in the ability of TR that causes it to stay out, ever. Rather this is a rule strictly from the rulebook, meant to be checked by the players in Clean-up. The point AJD makes about Royal Carriage is very good, and fits with the explanation I made. If the card plays a Duration and causes an extra future effect for that Duration, it stays out with the Duration. That's exactly why Royal Carriage stays out, and it's exactly why TR stays out after having played BoM-Duration. When the player discards cards in Clean-Up, he checks whether TR or Royal Carriage did that.
RC is doing something fundamentally different from TR. RC is explicitly acting on a card that's already been played. RC always produces an "extra" play, so it always has something to track for durations. (Though I wonder whether even RC might be ruled not to stay out when, e.g., replaying Gear without setting any cards aside.)
To me it's not different, it's exactly the same. TR is also explicity playing a card that's already been played (usually by TR, sometimes by BoM). It produces an extra play, or rather an extra future effect, which is the important part.
If RC replays Gear without setting any cards aside, it doesn't stay out, because it didn't set up a future effect.
-
As such I think that Donald has scope to rule in one of two ways on TR+BoM-Duration: (a) TR does somehow become aware that it has something to track, so stays out, or (b) TR has only directly played the duration once, so it doesn't know that it has something to track and hence gets discarded from play even though the players know that there is something to track.
As I said in my previous post I don't think it matter what TR is "aware of". It's up to the player to discard correctly in Clean-Up according to what cards have set up a future effect.
At this stage I'd like to raise a related issue, namely the clean-up timing of TR+Outpost. This was discussed somewhere in a topic either here or on BGG, but even with the aid of Google I have been unable to find the relevant topic amidst the morass of topics that have discussed TR+Outpost. The topic discussed the issue of what happens when someone plays Outpost and TR+Outpost. The answer given (if I recall correctly) was that this set up three Outpost effects, so all three cards stayed in play. Then the player chose one of those effects to take place and the Outpost turn was played. Then if the player had chosen the effect from the non-TR'ed Outpost, that card was discarded from play but the TR+Outpost remained in play until the next player's clean-up phase. If on the other hand the player had chosen one of the TR'ed Outpost effects, nothing was discarded from play until the next player's clean-up phase. How come the TR doesn't get discarded? It has finished doing something: there is only one of the two Outpost effects that it originally created left outstanding. If TR can spot on the turn that it's played that there is only one Tactician effect set up and hence allow itself to be cleaned up, why on the following turn can it not spot that there is only one Outpost effect remaining and hence allow itself to be cleanup up?
Same point: It's not about TR spotting anything or allowing anything. But: Has the effect (extra turn) that TR caused been resolved at this point? In this case TR played Outpost directly twice, setting up an extra turn both times. I guess you could make a case that it was the second extra turn that caused TR to stay in play, so if the player chooses to resolve the second extra turn, TR doesn't stay in play. That would mean that the player can choose to discard the TR. I'm not sure if that's the only interpretation.
Or indeed replaying Tactician! Why anyone might choose to do such a thing is beyond me, but the rules need to cover what to do with idiotic plays.
Theoretically Goleming into a TR with only Tactician in hand, or playing TR-TR-Smithy and drawing Tactician.
-
Unless we're going with the thing Jeebus suggested about TR being able to tell whether a duration card has been "used" before in a turn. ('Cuz, depending how you define that, it may also have weird implications (that nobody will ever notice) with Processioning durations then Graverobbing them and playing them again with TR in the space of a turn.)
Are there is any real examples of what you're talking about? For your scenario to work, doesn't the TR have to play the Duration just once after it's Graverobbered? I don't see that happening. In any case, when a card is trashed and then fished out, I don't think it's considered the same card anymore for purposes of tracking how many times it's been played (since the trash is an unordered pile where there could be many of the same cards).
-
Here's the thread with TR + Outpost: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12051.0
On page 2 you can find this post:
If you play Throne Room-Outpost in your normal turn, can you then choose which of them you clean up in your Outpost turn?
I would think yes, because when your normal turn is over, you can choose whether to resolve the normal Outpost or the Throne Room generated Outpost first.
Yes, you pick which Outpost to resolve first.
Maybe I am just confused here (which seems likely) but it doesn't seem like there is a difference between the "2" Outposts. You play Throne Room, and it plays Outpost 2 times. There isn't a "normal Outpost" and a "Throne Room generated Outpost" is there? The Throne room played both Outposts. It stays out to remind you that you played it twice, but you don't have a "normal" one. I suppose the two "take an extra turn"s happen at the same time (after this one), so choosing which one to resolve first makes sense, but it shouldn't affect the outcome right?
Yes, Throne Room played both Outposts. Both plays of Outpost are that one Outpost card, facilitated by Throne Room. So you don't discard Outpost until a confusingly late point as previously discussed. That leaves the question of what your options are for discarding Throne Room.
The Seaside rulebook says (going from a text file, feel free to consult a printed rulebook): "If you play or modify a Duration card with another card, that other card also stays in front of you until it's no longer doing anything. For example if you play Throne Room on Merchant Ship, both cards stay in play until the Clean-up phase of your next turn. The Throne Room stays in play to remind you that you are getting the effect of Merchant Ship twice on that next turn."
[That "or modify" is there because once it seemed like I might conceivably make a card like "reveal this when you play a card, to add 1 to numbers in that card's text."]
So the question is, at what point is Throne Room "no longer doing anything." As always I just want the ruling to match the rulebook as well as it can.
Throne Room played Outpost twice. You could say that Throne Room is "doing anything" until the card has resolved twice; or that it's "doing anything" until the card has resolved once. I am tentatively going with, it's "doing anything" until the card has resolved twice.
-
Unless we're going with the thing Jeebus suggested about TR being able to tell whether a duration card has been "used" before in a turn. ('Cuz, depending how you define that, it may also have weird implications (that nobody will ever notice) with Processioning durations then Graverobbing them and playing them again with TR in the space of a turn.)
Are there is any real examples of what you're talking about? For your scenario to work, doesn't the TR have to play the Duration just once after it's Graverobbered? I don't see that happening.
Sure. Procession-Gear, setting aside 2 cards each time (gain whatever). Graverobber the Gear. TR-Gear, first setting aside 0 cards, then 2 cards. Your suggestion (possibly) means, even though TR set up only one future effect on the Gear, TR needs to stay out because that Gear set up future effects before it met TR.
In any case, when a card is trashed and then fished out, I don't think it's considered the same card anymore for purposes of tracking how many times it's been played (since the trash is an unordered pile where there could be many of the same cards).
That's possible. The card's also been in your deck, which would be an even better reason to not know which one it is (because maybe you really don't).
The point I'm trying to make with all this is that TR's "stay in play" rules could be specified in a straightforward, explicit way, and it seems like we almost got there yesterday, but now it seems we're instead going off in this weird, vaguely-specified direction that's open for interpretation and brings up potential questions about completely unrelated stuff. I think we're getting too complicated.
That's why I keep bringing up TR staying out with TR-BoM-FV. To me, that's the one ruling throwing a monkey wrench into having a simple explicit rule here.
-
I have +A token on BoM
I have +B token on Selftrasher
I have +C token on Duration
I play TR-BoM (Selftrasher-Duration)
+A +B +A +C ?
TR does not stay out?
If I played the Duration only, I would only get BoM token once and TR stays out?
-
I hope you guys are getting somewhere, and will check back later. I have not read all those posts.
At one point I ruled that Throne Throne duration duration left out the first Throne. The idea was to leave the cards out for tracking, and well there was more to remember there. But I gave up on that, and now go straight by the rulebook. Throne has to have played a duration card to stay out. And that duration card has to have an unresolved future effect.
BoM is weird because, as now interpreted, it plays itself, and so Throne gets cut out when that happens, although it can end up back in on it for the second play, when (if) BoM isn't BoM anymore.
-
Easy solution, if your Journey Token is face up, keep TR/BoM/KC in play no matter what they did. If not, discard no matter what.
It's that or reading tea leaves.
-
I hope you guys are getting somewhere
First the good news: we're getting somewhere.
Now the bad news: we're all going in different directions.
-
Related situation: You play Gear, setting aside zero cards. Gear will normally be discarded next clean-up. But then you play RC, replaying Gear, this time setting aside one or more cards. What happens? Probably Gear gets modified to stay out after all. Does RC also stay out? It did set up a future effect, but there's only one total future effect, and Gear will (presumably) be tracking that.
-
Related situation: You play Gear, setting aside zero cards. Gear will normally be discarded next clean-up. But then you play RC, replaying Gear, this time setting aside one or more cards. What happens? Probably Gear gets modified to stay out after all. Does RC also stay out? It did set up a future effect, but there's only one total future effect, and Gear will (presumably) be tracking that.
Related question: Suppose you play TR-Gear and set aside cards only on one play. Is there a difference between setting cards aside on the first play vs. on the second play?
-
Related situation: You play Gear, setting aside zero cards. Gear will normally be discarded next clean-up. But then you play RC, replaying Gear, this time setting aside one or more cards. What happens? Probably Gear gets modified to stay out after all. Does RC also stay out? It did set up a future effect, but there's only one total future effect, and Gear will (presumably) be tracking that.
Related question: Suppose you play TR-Gear and set aside cards only on one play. Is there a difference between setting cards aside on the first play vs. on the second play?
Or, just to muddy the waters even further, if you play TR-Gear and set aside one card per play you have two set-aside cards which can be resolved according to the text of a single Gear card.
Does the TR really need to stay out in order to keep track of this?
Actually, for that matter, if you play TR-Gear and set aside all four cards, you don't really need the TR to tell you what the set-aside cards are set-aside for.
From a purely tracking point-of-view, just leaving out the Gear card should cover it.
I mean, it makes sense to leave out the TR when you play it on, say, a Wharf.
You absolutely need it there to remind you that you draw four extra cards and get two extra buys on your next turn, from a purely practical standpoint.
Gear doesn't have a duplicated effect to keep track of at the beginning of your next turn, you simply take into hand however many cards you set aside.
So, why would you ever need to leave out the TR for Gear?
-
Related situation: You play Gear, setting aside zero cards. Gear will normally be discarded next clean-up. But then you play RC, replaying Gear, this time setting aside one or more cards. What happens? Probably Gear gets modified to stay out after all. Does RC also stay out? It did set up a future effect, but there's only one total future effect, and Gear will (presumably) be tracking that.
Related question: Suppose you play TR-Gear and set aside cards only on one play. Is there a difference between setting cards aside on the first play vs. on the second play?
Or, just to muddy the waters even further, if you play TR-Gear and set aside one card per play you have two set-aside cards which can be resolved according to the text of a single Gear card.
Does the TR really need to stay out in order to keep track of this?
Actually, for that matter, if you play TR-Gear and set aside all four cards, you don't really need the TR to tell you what the set-aside cards are set-aside for.
From a purely tracking point-of-view, just leaving out the Gear card should cover it.
I mean, it makes sense to leave out the TR when you play it on, say, a Wharf.
You absolutely need it there to remind you that you draw four extra cards and get two extra buys on your next turn, from a purely practical standpoint.
Gear doesn't have a duplicated effect to keep track of at the beginning of your next turn, you simply take into hand however many cards you set aside.
So, why would you ever need to leave out the TR for Gear?
If you TR Gear, setting aside 2 cards each time, 2 go under Gear, and 2 go under TR. Same deal as with Haven.
-
Related situation: You play Gear, setting aside zero cards. Gear will normally be discarded next clean-up. But then you play RC, replaying Gear, this time setting aside one or more cards. What happens? Probably Gear gets modified to stay out after all. Does RC also stay out? It did set up a future effect, but there's only one total future effect, and Gear will (presumably) be tracking that.
Related question: Suppose you play TR-Gear and set aside cards only on one play. Is there a difference between setting cards aside on the first play vs. on the second play?
Or, just to muddy the waters even further, if you play TR-Gear and set aside one card per play you have two set-aside cards which can be resolved according to the text of a single Gear card.
Does the TR really need to stay out in order to keep track of this?
Actually, for that matter, if you play TR-Gear and set aside all four cards, you don't really need the TR to tell you what the set-aside cards are set-aside for.
From a purely tracking point-of-view, just leaving out the Gear card should cover it.
I mean, it makes sense to leave out the TR when you play it on, say, a Wharf.
You absolutely need it there to remind you that you draw four extra cards and get two extra buys on your next turn, from a purely practical standpoint.
Gear doesn't have a duplicated effect to keep track of at the beginning of your next turn, you simply take into hand however many cards you set aside.
So, why would you ever need to leave out the TR for Gear?
If you TR Gear, setting aside 2 cards each time, 2 go under Gear, and 2 go under TR. Same deal as with Haven.
Okay, I forgot there was some precedence for this with Haven, but the question is: why?
As I said, it makes sense to keep TR out when you need it to keep track of something intangible, like the number of cards you draw, but slipping two cards under Haven or four cards under Gear seems like a perfectly acceptable way of keeping track of those extra cards.
It makes it seem like the TR being left out is a deliberate penalty, rather than a mechanism for tracking an effect.
-
Related situation: You play Gear, setting aside zero cards. Gear will normally be discarded next clean-up. But then you play RC, replaying Gear, this time setting aside one or more cards. What happens? Probably Gear gets modified to stay out after all. Does RC also stay out? It did set up a future effect, but there's only one total future effect, and Gear will (presumably) be tracking that.
Related question: Suppose you play TR-Gear and set aside cards only on one play. Is there a difference between setting cards aside on the first play vs. on the second play?
Or, just to muddy the waters even further, if you play TR-Gear and set aside one card per play you have two set-aside cards which can be resolved according to the text of a single Gear card.
Does the TR really need to stay out in order to keep track of this?
Actually, for that matter, if you play TR-Gear and set aside all four cards, you don't really need the TR to tell you what the set-aside cards are set-aside for.
From a purely tracking point-of-view, just leaving out the Gear card should cover it.
I mean, it makes sense to leave out the TR when you play it on, say, a Wharf.
You absolutely need it there to remind you that you draw four extra cards and get two extra buys on your next turn, from a purely practical standpoint.
Gear doesn't have a duplicated effect to keep track of at the beginning of your next turn, you simply take into hand however many cards you set aside.
So, why would you ever need to leave out the TR for Gear?
If you TR Gear, setting aside 2 cards each time, 2 go under Gear, and 2 go under TR. Same deal as with Haven.
Okay, I forgot there was some precedence for this with Haven, but the question is: why?
As I said, it makes sense to keep TR out when you need it to keep track of something intangible, like the number of cards you draw, but slipping two cards under Haven or four cards under Gear seems like a perfectly acceptable way of keeping track of those extra cards.
It makes it seem like the TR being left out is a deliberate penalty, rather than a mechanism for tracking an effect.
For consistency? You don't want to have different rules for different Duration cards.
There is actually a practical difference too. For the Gear example, suppose you play TR-Gear. On the first play you set aside a Tunnel. On the second play, you set aside an action card (or maybe 2). On your next turn, you could resolve the first Gear and put Tunnel in your hand, then call Guide (discarding Tunnel), then resolve the second Gear to put the action card(s) in your new hand. But if you put all the set aside cards under a single Gear, you may forget that they resolve separately. If you set aside more than one card each time, you may mix up which cards were set aside for each play, which can make a real difference.
-
Ah, resolving start of turn actions separately does indeed make a practical reason to track TR-Haven/Gear.
Sorry for the diversion, I think your question was a better one which I'd like to hear the answer to.
-
In any case, when a card is trashed and then fished out, I don't think it's considered the same card anymore for purposes of tracking how many times it's been played (since the trash is an unordered pile where there could be many of the same cards).
That's possible. The card's also been in your deck, which would be an even better reason to not know which one it is (because maybe you really don't).
Good point. It's even clearer then that there's no problem of tracking how many times a Duration has set something up.
The point I'm trying to make with all this is that TR's "stay in play" rules could be specified in a straightforward, explicit way, and it seems like we almost got there yesterday, but now it seems we're instead going off in this weird, vaguely-specified direction that's open for interpretation and brings up potential questions about completely unrelated stuff. I think we're getting too complicated.
That's why I keep bringing up TR staying out with TR-BoM-FV. To me, that's the one ruling throwing a monkey wrench into having a simple explicit rule here.
I don't think that's the only thing preventing a simpler rule. I assume you mean a rule saying that a card that plays a Duration more than once stays out. Instead we have this rule: If a card plays a Duration and thereby causes that Duration to set up its future effect an extra time that turn, keep that card in play. (As far as I can see, a rule like that covers the current rulings.) The point is that we also have Royal Carriage. That card only plays a Duration once. Nevertheless the rulebook explicitly states that it stays in play, "to track the fact that the Duration card has been played twice". (We know that it's not enough that the Duration was played twice of course, it needs to have set up a future effect twice.) So going by the rulebooks, we need this rule anyway.
-
Related situation: You play Gear, setting aside zero cards. Gear will normally be discarded next clean-up. But then you play RC, replaying Gear, this time setting aside one or more cards. What happens? Probably Gear gets modified to stay out after all. Does RC also stay out? It did set up a future effect, but there's only one total future effect, and Gear will (presumably) be tracking that.
I would think RC doesn't stay out, since a future effect was not set up more than once.
Related question: Suppose you play TR-Gear and set aside cards only on one play. Is there a difference between setting cards aside on the first play vs. on the second play?
Same answer.
-
Here's the thread with TR + Outpost: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12051.0
Throne Room played Outpost twice. You could say that Throne Room is "doing anything" until the card has resolved twice; or that it's "doing anything" until the card has resolved once. I am tentatively going with, it's "doing anything" until the card has resolved twice.
So by Donald's tentative ruling here, if a card (like TR) played a Duration so that the future effect was set up several times, you keep it in play until all the effects are resolved. You don't get to pick which effect was from TR and which wasn't. I think he perfectly well could have rules the other way too, and maybe it would be more consistent with how TR-Duration seems to work now. But honestly this is such a corner case, I mean it's only about TR-Outlook right?, so I wouldn't for instance care however Goko implemented it, or however a judge ruled it in a tournament. I'm making the shocking statement that this corner case doesn't really need a ruling that's consistent with everything else. TR-Outlook, or several Outlooks, are not correctly implemented anyway on Goko, and probably never will be, and I doubt almost anyone in the world are playing it correctly in the rare cases where it happens.
-
Related situation: You play Gear, setting aside zero cards. Gear will normally be discarded next clean-up. But then you play RC, replaying Gear, this time setting aside one or more cards. What happens? Probably Gear gets modified to stay out after all. Does RC also stay out? It did set up a future effect, but there's only one total future effect, and Gear will (presumably) be tracking that.
I would think TR doesn't stay out, since a future effect was not set up more than once.
Related question: Suppose you play TR-Gear and set aside cards only on one play. Is there a difference between setting cards aside on the first play vs. on the second play?
Same answer.
Let me start by saying that it also seems to me that neither TR nor RC should stay out in these situations. If the Duration has only produced an effect on one of the two plays, I don't see why it should matter which of the two plays the effect originated from.
But now let me refer you back to one of your earlier posts...
At this stage I'd like to raise a related issue, namely the clean-up timing of TR+Outpost. This was discussed somewhere in a topic either here or on BGG, but even with the aid of Google I have been unable to find the relevant topic amidst the morass of topics that have discussed TR+Outpost. The topic discussed the issue of what happens when someone plays Outpost and TR+Outpost. The answer given (if I recall correctly) was that this set up three Outpost effects, so all three cards stayed in play. Then the player chose one of those effects to take place and the Outpost turn was played. Then if the player had chosen the effect from the non-TR'ed Outpost, that card was discarded from play but the TR+Outpost remained in play until the next player's clean-up phase. If on the other hand the player had chosen one of the TR'ed Outpost effects, nothing was discarded from play until the next player's clean-up phase. How come the TR doesn't get discarded? It has finished doing something: there is only one of the two Outpost effects that it originally created left outstanding. If TR can spot on the turn that it's played that there is only one Tactician effect set up and hence allow itself to be cleaned up, why on the following turn can it not spot that there is only one Outpost effect remaining and hence allow itself to be cleanup up?
Same point: It's not about TR spotting anything or allowing anything. But: Has the effect (extra turn) that TR caused been resolved at this point? In this case TR played Outpost directly twice, setting up an extra turn both times. I guess you could make a case that it was the second extra turn that caused TR to stay in play, so if the player chooses to resolve the second extra turn, TR doesn't stay in play. That would mean that the player can choose to discard the TR. I'm not sure if that's the only interpretation.
If, as it seems from your comments in reply to chipperMDW, you're of the opinion that it doesn't matter which of the two plays produced the one effect that causes the Duration to stay in play on the turn it was played, why do you apparently feel it might be important when deciding whether the TR is still needed with the Outpost on the following turn?
Ah, I see that while I've been composing this post, you have made a subsequent post and now see the contradiction. I agree that it's a corner case, but I think it would be a good idea for Donald to change his tentative ruling so as to eliminate the contradiction.
The point I'm trying to make with all this is that TR's "stay in play" rules could be specified in a straightforward, explicit way, and it seems like we almost got there yesterday, but now it seems we're instead going off in this weird, vaguely-specified direction that's open for interpretation and brings up potential questions about completely unrelated stuff. I think we're getting too complicated.
That's why I keep bringing up TR staying out with TR-BoM-FV. To me, that's the one ruling throwing a monkey wrench into having a simple explicit rule here.
I don't think that's the only thing preventing a simpler rule. I assume you mean a rule saying that a card that plays a Duration more than once stays out. Instead we have this rule: If a card plays a Duration and thereby causes that Duration to set up its future effect an extra time that turn, keep that card in play. (As far as I can see, a rule like that covers the current rulings.) The point is that we also have Royal Carriage. That card only plays a Duration once. Nevertheless the rulebook explicitly states that it stays in play, "to track the fact that the Duration card has been played twice". (We know that it's not enough that the Duration was played twice of course, it needs to have set up a future effect twice.) So going by the rulebooks, we need this rule anyway.
I've been wondering what extra spanners might get thrown in the works if there were a card that read something like "+1 Card +1 Action. This card then becomes an Action card in the Supply costing less than it that you choose. This is that card until it leaves play." (a potentially useful card if Horn of Plenty were around) Such a card would benefit from your approach to resolving TR+BoM-Duration as RC would then know not to stay out if it were used to play the card 'again'.
-
I assume you mean a rule saying that a card that plays a Duration more than once stays out.
The "simple" rule I had in mind was something like: If a card directly plays the same duration card more than once, and more than one of those plays results in that duration setting up a future effect, the first card stays out for as long as any of those future effects remain.
I see that that doesn't work for RC, but I figured it'd be simpler to have a separate rule covering cards that do what RC does ("replaying" cards). (I haven't given much thought to what that rule might be, though.)
And I guess you're wanting to express a general rule that covers the behaviors of both TR and RC in one go.
-
This is why the rules should just be written in computer code.
-
The "simple" rule I had in mind was something like: If a card directly plays the same duration card more than once, and more than one of those plays results in that duration setting up a future effect, the first card stays out for as long as any of those future effects remain.
I see that that doesn't work for RC, but I figured it'd be simpler to have a separate rule covering cards that do what RC does ("replaying" cards). (I haven't given much thought to what that rule might be, though.)
And I guess you're wanting to express a general rule that covers the behaviors of both TR and RC in one go.
For sure I want to cover Royal Carriage.
The rulebook again:
If you play or modify a Duration card with another card, that other card also stays in front of you until it's no longer doing anything.
There's nothing there about playing it more than once, just playing it.
But wait: sadly, the Adventures rulebook does specifically refer to playing a card multiple times, despite then saying that Royal Carriage stays out in its FAQ.
Additionally, if a Duration card is played multiple times by a card such as Disciple or Throne Room, that card also stays in play until the Duration card is discarded, to track the fact that the Duration card was played multiple times.
That is just not doing the trick, missing both Royal Carriage and also stuff like Throne / Tactician. It's a great way to learn what happens here except in the weird cases. If this were the Seaside rule then that would sure simplify things; you would sometimes leave out useless Thrones that were confusing your tracking, but mostly it wouldn't come up.
As usual I like what Jeebus has to say.
If a card plays a Duration and thereby causes that Duration to set up its future effect an extra time that turn, keep that card in play.
This is the Seaside rule with a clarification for what "until it's no longer doing anything" means. And it covers Royal Carriage.
-
It just seems like things would be simpler if the "it" in
If you play or modify a Duration card with another card, that other card also stays in front of you until it's no longer doing anything.
referred to the duration card and not the other card. If a card directly plays a duration, it stays out with the duration. Simple. This would obviously mean a reversal of TR-Tac, but would just make everything so much simpler. Sometimes you'd end up with an extra TR staying out sure, but I feel like this clears up more issues than it creates.
-
It just seems like things would be simpler if the "it" in
If you play or modify a Duration card with another card, that other card also stays in front of you until it's no longer doing anything.
referred to the duration card and not the other card. If a card directly plays a duration, it stays out with the duration. Simple. This would obviously mean a reversal of TR-Tac, but would just make everything so much simpler. Sometimes you'd end up with an extra TR staying out sure, but I feel like this clears up more issues than it creates.
As I pointed out earlier, it would also cause a Golem (or a Herald) that had played a Duration to stay out, so it's not a good solution.
As usual I like what Jeebus has to say.
If a card plays a Duration and thereby causes that Duration to set up its future effect an extra time that turn, keep that card in play.
This is the Seaside rule with a clarification for what "until it's no longer doing anything" means. And it covers Royal Carriage.
It just needs expanding to define how long the card is kept in play...
If a card plays a Duration and thereby causes that Duration to set up its future effect an extra time that turn, keep that card in play until the Duration has fewer than two of those future effects outstanding.
This is why the rules should just be written in computer code.
I know that's a humorous comment, but I usually only feel that I've understood a rule properly if I can see conceptually how I would program it (hence my problems in another thread with the timings on on-buy, on-gain, on-discard, on-trash).
-
It just seems like things would be simpler if the "it" in
If you play or modify a Duration card with another card, that other card also stays in front of you until it's no longer doing anything.
referred to the duration card and not the other card. If a card directly plays a duration, it stays out with the duration. Simple. This would obviously mean a reversal of TR-Tac, but would just make everything so much simpler. Sometimes you'd end up with an extra TR staying out sure, but I feel like this clears up more issues than it creates.
As I pointed out earlier, it would also cause a Golem (or a Herald) that had played a Duration to stay out, so it's not a good solution.
I don't think that follows... Why is that result more undesirable than:
If a card plays a Duration and thereby causes that Duration to set up its future effect an extra time that turn, keep that card in play until the Duration has fewer than two of those future effects outstanding.
? I think it would make a lot of sense if Golem behaved like TR in this respect.
-
As usual I like what Jeebus has to say.
If a card plays a Duration and thereby causes that Duration to set up its future effect an extra time that turn, keep that card in play.
This is the Seaside rule with a clarification for what "until it's no longer doing anything" means. And it covers Royal Carriage.
It just needs expanding to define how long the card is kept in play...
If a card plays a Duration and thereby causes that Duration to set up its future effect an extra time that turn, keep that card in play until the Duration has fewer than two of those future effects outstanding.
I've realised that my proposed expansion doesn't work, at least not in quite the way that I had intended, so I'm probably about to make a volte-face on something I said earlier.
Although Duration+Outpost is an edge case, I think it's desirable that it should be clear what's supposed to happen. My proposal above was intended to allow TR to be discarded after the Outpost turn that followed TR+Outpost. That felt 'right' given that at that stage there would be just one effect outstanding and the Outpost remaining out alone would be sufficient to track it. Subsequently I've been thinking about the following (admittedly totally ridiculous) scenario:
Play Throne Room
TR plays Outpost for the first time
Call Royal Carriage to replay Outpost
TR plays Outpost for the second time
Jeebus's rule successfully keeps both the TR and the RC out on that turn. My proposed expansion on it would keep both the TR and the RC out following the Outpost turn even though it would seem 'right' that only one should stay to track that there were now just two effects outstanding. I think any expansion of Jeebus's rule that could give the 'right' answer in this situation would be horribly complicated. Therefore I've come to the conclusion that simplicity is the better approach, so suggest the following expansion instead:
If a card plays a Duration and thereby causes that Duration to set up its future effect an extra time that turn, keep that card in play until none of those future effects are outstanding.
You will notice that that gives the same result for TR+Outpost as Donald's provisonal ruling.
-
Jeebus's rule successfully keeps both the TR and the RC out on that turn. My proposed expansion on it would keep both the TR and the RC out following the Outpost turn even though it would seem 'right' that only one should stay to track that there were now just two effects outstanding. I think any expansion of Jeebus's rule that could give the 'right' answer in this situation would be horribly complicated. Therefore I've come to the conclusion that simplicity is the better approach, so suggest the following expansion instead:
If a card plays a Duration and thereby causes that Duration to set up its future effect an extra time that turn, keep that card in play until none of those future effects are outstanding.
You will notice that that gives the same result for TR+Outpost as Donald's provisonal ruling.
Yes, and then it becomes clear why the ruling on TR-Outpost is the simplest. It can also be expressed like this: Discard the card in the Clean-up phase after all the Duration's effects are resolved. -- which is the same time the Duration is discarded.
So:
Leave a played Duration in play in the Clean-up phase if it has set up a future effect that isn't resolved yet. If a card plays a Duration and thereby causes that Duration to set up its future effect an extra time this turn, leave that card in play too. Discard these cards in the Clean-up phase after all the Duration's effects are resolved.
-
The more I think about it, the more I feel like the rule that would make the most sense is if Throne Room, King's Court, etc. just never stayed out. I mean, it's not like the Throne Room actually has any direct effect on the next turn. If you TR a Fishing Village, then yeah, you get two FV effects at the start of next turn, but that's all set up by the FV itself, not TR. I understand keeping it out for tracking purposes, but with the weird rules regarding TR and Outpost, Tactician, etc. I feel like it ends up being less confusing to just never leave them out, even if that means making tracking more difficult. Unfortunately, completely backtracking on a rule that's been printed in an official rulebook since the second expansion isn't very realistic, so I'm not sure what the best ruling would be at this point.
-
The more I think about it, the more I feel like the rule that would make the most sense is if Throne Room, King's Court, etc. just never stayed out. I mean, it's not like the Throne Room actually has any direct effect on the next turn. If you TR a Fishing Village, then yeah, you get two FV effects at the start of next turn, but that's all set up by the FV itself, not TR. I understand keeping it out for tracking purposes, but with the weird rules regarding TR and Outpost, Tactician, etc. I feel like it ends up being less confusing to just never leave them out, even if that means making tracking more difficult. Unfortunately, completely backtracking on a rule that's been printed in an official rulebook since the second expansion isn't very realistic, so I'm not sure what the best ruling would be at this point.
It's more than tracking; it also affects power level. Not keeping them out makes TR+durations stronger.
-
The more I think about it, the more I feel like the rule that would make the most sense is if Throne Room, King's Court, etc. just never stayed out. I mean, it's not like the Throne Room actually has any direct effect on the next turn. If you TR a Fishing Village, then yeah, you get two FV effects at the start of next turn, but that's all set up by the FV itself, not TR. I understand keeping it out for tracking purposes, but with the weird rules regarding TR and Outpost, Tactician, etc. I feel like it ends up being less confusing to just never leave them out, even if that means making tracking more difficult. Unfortunately, completely backtracking on a rule that's been printed in an official rulebook since the second expansion isn't very realistic, so I'm not sure what the best ruling would be at this point.
It's more than tracking; it also affects power level. Not keeping them out makes TR+durations stronger.
While it's true that Throne Room staying out affects power level, it's not what's driving the ruling. The Throne Room stays out to remind you that the duration effect is (usually) happening twice next turn. That reminder is worth having a few confusing edge cases that almost never happen.
It would be better if Throne Room said "you may". Then you wouldn't even play Throne Room/Outpost or Throne Room/Tactician; there'd be no point.
-
It would be better if Throne Room said "you may". Then you wouldn't even play Throne Room/Outpost or Throne Room/Tactician; there'd be no point.
Well, you might find yourself playing it and then wondering what possessed you to do so. After dismissing the TR+Outpost+RC example I used earlier as being ridiculous it occurred to me that it could happen in a game involving Possession if one player had been fool enough to build an appropriate deck. I suspect that Possession is a good reason to explore many of the oddest nooks and crannies of the rules.
-
It would be better if Throne Room said "you may". Then you wouldn't even play Throne Room/Outpost or Throne Room/Tactician; there'd be no point.
Well, you might find yourself playing it and then wondering what possessed you to do so. After dismissing the TR+Outpost+RC example I used earlier as being ridiculous it occurred to me that it could happen in a game involving Possession if one player had been fool enough to build an appropriate deck. I suspect that Possession is a good reason to explore many of the oddest nooks and crannies of the rules.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you play Possession then Outpost of an Outpost extra turn, can you choose to play the Possession turn first, then another Outpost turn? If so, doesn't that mean you can theoretically lock your opponent out of the game? It would also mean that you can't be sure Outpost won't be doing something on a later turn when played during an Outpost turn.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you play Possession then Outpost of an Outpost extra turn, can you choose to play the Possession turn first, then another Outpost turn? If so, doesn't that mean you can theoretically lock your opponent out of the game? It would also mean that you can't be sure Outpost won't be doing something on a later turn when played during an Outpost turn.
If I've understood your question properly and I've interpreted the rules correctly, you can't. At the end of your turn there are two things waiting to happen next, namely the Outpost turn and the Possession turn. You can't, however, choose which happens first. One of them (the Outpost turn) is trying to happen to you, while the other (the Possession turn) is trying to happen to the next player. They have to occur in player order. A similar situation arises when buying Mission at the end of a turn in which you've played Possession: the Mission turn has to take place before the Possession turn.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you play Possession then Outpost of an Outpost extra turn, can you choose to play the Possession turn first, then another Outpost turn? If so, doesn't that mean you can theoretically lock your opponent out of the game? It would also mean that you can't be sure Outpost won't be doing something on a later turn when played during an Outpost turn.
If I've understood your question properly and I've interpreted the rules correctly, you can't. At the end of your turn there are two things waiting to happen next, namely the Outpost turn and the Possession turn. You can't, however, choose which happens first. One of them (the Outpost turn) is trying to happen to you, while the other (the Possession turn) is trying to happen to the next player. They have to occur in player order. A similar situation arises when buying Mission at the end of a turn in which you've played Possession: the Mission turn has to take place before the Possession turn.
Ah yeah, player turn order resolution. I forgot about that.
-
If someone has an Outpost turn and a Possession turn at the same time, you get to choose. I don't see how this can lock anybody out of the game, is there something I'm missing?
-
If someone has an Outpost turn and a Possession turn at the same time, you get to choose. I don't see how this can lock anybody out of the game, is there something I'm missing?
If two different people had an Outpost turn and a Possession turn and you got to choose, you could keep alternating between Possession and Outpost turns and never let the other player get a normal turn. But you don't get to choose, so it's not a problem.
-
It would be better if Throne Room said "you may". Then you wouldn't even play Throne Room/Outpost or Throne Room/Tactician; there'd be no point.
Well, if your +1 Card token was on Tactician, you'd get the benefit twice:
Throne Room
... +1 Card
... Tactician, discard, get bonus
... +1 Card
... Tactician, discard, get bonus
-
I still find TR/Durations confusing because you can have the following scenarios:
- A single TR tied to a single Duration, say Wharf
- A single TR tied to multiple Durations, because it was TR'ed itself
- A Duration which was TR'ed, but no longer has a TR attached to it (Procession)
So the TR staying out only to indicate how many times a Duration was played is a bit hit and miss for me.
That's why I proposed tokens to track the Durations instead of attaching TRs.
-
I still find TR/Durations confusing because you can have the following scenarios:
- A single TR tied to a single Duration, say Wharf
- A single TR tied to multiple Durations, because it was TR'ed itself
- A Duration which was TR'ed, but no longer has a TR attached to it (Procession)
So the TR staying out only to indicate how many times a Duration was played is a bit hit and miss for me.
That's why I proposed tokens to track the Durations instead of attaching TRs.
The rules are designed around the common situations that happen a lot, and then they don't necessarily work as nicely when they come up against obscure cases. Granted, TR+TR+Duratoin+Duratoin isn't super edge casey or anything, but still not nearly as common as simply TR+Duration.
-
I still find TR/Durations confusing because you can have the following scenarios:
- A single TR tied to a single Duration, say Wharf
- A single TR tied to multiple Durations, because it was TR'ed itself
- A Duration which was TR'ed, but no longer has a TR attached to it (Procession)
So the TR staying out only to indicate how many times a Duration was played is a bit hit and miss for me.
That's why I proposed tokens to track the Durations instead of attaching TRs.
We tried having a Throne stay out if it was played on a Throne played on a Duration. The rulebook never stated it but that was my ruling for a while there. It did not work out, it was more confusing.
-
We now have another card which has "first" text. MOAT. Which is faster, Moat, or +1 card token? (Very edge case) Urchin's trash is latter?
-
We now have another card which has "first" text. MOAT. Which is faster, Moat, or +1 card token? (Very edge case) Urchin's trash is latter?
Moat might be the only printed Reaction that says "first", but all second edition versions now say it. They are used in Dominion online.
More about it here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16556.0
-
We now have another card which has "first" text. MOAT. Which is faster, Moat, or +1 card token? (Very edge case) Urchin's trash is latter?
Moat might be the only printed Reaction that says "first", but all second edition versions now say it. They are used in Dominion online.
More about it here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16556.0
You get the +1 Card first because it's your turn. Effects go in turn order.