Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Rules Questions => Topic started by: Udzu on February 20, 2019, 12:34:57 pm
-
Can a Gladiator trash a Gladiator that's in the Supply but is covered by a Fortune?
With the official cards this is very unlikely to happen but it is possible: a 2-player game with Ambassador (and possibly Possession) could result in Gladiator and then a Fortune being returned to their pile. With unofficial cards it may be more likely: I thought of this scenario while experimenting with a "return a card to the supply, gain two cards costing less than it" card.
-
I couldn't offhand point to the precise rule but it's definitely the case that you can only gain the top card in a Supply pile, so I'm pretty sure that's also the only card you can trash.
(Well, unless we ever get an effect that explicitly says otherwise, of course.)
As a related question, the rules say that "players may count the number of cards left in any pile in the Supply", but I've just realised it doesn't say they may inspect any card except the top one. If you can't remember, are you even allowed to look to see if there's a Gladiator under the Fortune that's on top of the pile?
-
As a related question, the rules say that "players may count the number of cards left in any pile in the Supply", but I've just realised it doesn't say they may inspect any card except the top one. If you can't remember, are you even allowed to look to see if there's a Gladiator under the Fortune that's on top of the pile?
My best guess is that yes, it is allowed to look at each individual card in the pile. My reason for this is that the Knights and Ruins rules both state that the cards in the pile go face down, except for the top card. This rule allows you to count the cards without seeing what order they are in. If you count the Gladiator pile (or Castles pile), you would almost automatically see each card as part of counting it.
This is very similar to the way that you can count your draw pile, but not your discard. It's because your discard pile is face up, so counting them would allow you to see them.
-
If you could trash a Gladiator that wasn't on top, then you could also use Lurker to trash a Knight, Ruins, or action-Castle that wasn't on top. I'm quite sure this isn't allowed.
However, looking through both the second edition base game rules, and the second edition Intrigue rules, I can't find this rule.
The problem is that there's no an obvious place to put this rule. It would be confusing to put it in the base game rules, because you couldn't ever trash from the supply. It would be confusing to put it in the Intrigue rules, because it never matters which card in a pile you trash with Lurker. It would be confusing to put it in the Dark Ages rules, because even though you have piles with different cards, you can't trash them from the supply with just Dark Ages.
-
Surely Salt the Earth and Castles have made this question matter in a specific expansion, right? What's the ruling? Or is the ruling "no, no one ever salted any castles because that event is never bought"?
-
Can a Gladiator trash a Gladiator that's in the Supply but is covered by a Fortune?
No, only the top card of the pile is accessible.
-
If you could trash a Gladiator that wasn't on top, then you could also use Lurker to trash a Knight, Ruins, or action-Castle that wasn't on top. I'm quite sure this isn't allowed.
Good point!
No, only the top card of the pile is accessible.
Thanks.
-
Donald has confirmed earlier that you can look through split piles.
The rules do state (or imply) that you can only choose cards that are on top of piles, for instance with Band of Misfits. Given this as a rule, it's pretty clear that you can't choose to Salt the Earth a Castle hidden in the pile. It's not immediately clear that trashing a hidden Gladiator with Gladiator falls under this rule though. But Donald's ruling makes the rules consistent.
-
I couldn't offhand point to the precise rule
.
I think this is covered by the lose track rule: Gladiator A expects Gladiator B on top of its pile, but Gladiator B is in the middle, so Gladiator A loses track and cannot trash Gladiator B.
-
I think this is covered by the lose track rule: Gladiator A expects Gladiator B on top of its pile, but Gladiator B is in the middle, so Gladiator A loses track and cannot trash Gladiator B.
That's not Lose Track. Gladiator A never had track of Gladiator B, so it couldn't lose track of it.
-
It's not? I guess it makes sense that is has to "have" track first, but I thought the card just had to be somewhere where it isn't expected at the time it has to be moved. I could be wrong though.
-
It's not? I guess it makes sense that is has to "have" track first, but I thought the card just had to be somewhere where it isn't expected at the time it has to be moved. I could be wrong though.
You are right about this, as we see in the famous Throne Room + Mining Village example.
But the Gladiator doesn't refer to any specific card, so it can't lose track of it. It's like when a Marauder is played, you can't choose any of the lower Ruins, but that's not because the Marauder is losing track of any particular Ruins. It's just because that's the rule, only the top card is available.
-
But the Gladiator doesn't refer to any specific card, so it can't lose track of it. It's like when a Marauder is played, you can't chose any of the lower Ruins, but that's not because the Marauder is losing track of any particular Ruins. It's just because that's the rule, only the top card is available.
Oh, that makes sense. Thanks.