# Dominion Strategy Forum

## Dominion => Rules Questions => Topic started by: Barbarossa41 on January 06, 2020, 05:18:53 pm

Title: Cellar may have just broke
Post by: Barbarossa41 on January 06, 2020, 05:18:53 pm
Cellar: Discards 37 cards, with 4 in hand. Cannot resolve rest of discard effect, but still draws 37 cards?
Title: Re: Cellar may have just broke
Post by: GendoIkari on January 06, 2020, 08:58:07 pm
Cellar: Discards 37 cards, with 4 in hand. Cannot resolve rest of discard effect, but still draws 37 cards?

No... how do you discard 37 cards if you have 4 cards in hand? You simply can't discard more cards than you are holding, so "any number" has an implicit "up to the number you are holding". Even if you "chose" to discard 37 cards, the number you actually ended up discarding would be 4, and you draw "that many".
Title: Re: Cellar may have just broke
Post by: crj on January 06, 2020, 11:00:26 pm
Personally, I think OP's reading of the card text is actually correct and it's only the rulebook clears this one up: "draw as many cards as you actually discarded".

Using Second Edition phraseology, maybe it should actually read "Discard any number of cards, to draw that many"?
Title: Re: Cellar may have just broke
Post by: crj on January 06, 2020, 11:04:38 pm
No... how do you discard 37 cards if you have 4 cards in hand?
The same way you follow the "Discard 2 cards" instruction on Horse Traders if you have 1 card in hand?

Reading Cellar as "Pick a number N. Discard N cards. Draw N cards." isn't entirely unreasonable.
Title: Re: Cellar may have just broke
Post by: Barbarossa41 on January 07, 2020, 02:31:39 am
No... how do you discard 37 cards if you have 4 cards in hand?
The same way you follow the "Discard 2 cards" instruction on Horse Traders if you have 1 card in hand?

Reading Cellar as "Pick a number N. Discard N cards. Draw N cards." isn't entirely unreasonable.

This is what I was meaning.  So cellar is now essentially "+1 Action, Draw your deck"
Title: Re: Cellar may have just broke
Post by: markusin on January 07, 2020, 05:43:03 pm
Allow negative numbers to be chosen while we're at it. Choose -5, putting 5 cards from your discard pile into your hand, then topdeck 5 cards.
Title: Re: Cellar may have just broke
Post by: crj on January 07, 2020, 07:23:41 pm
I think we've long since established that a "number" in Dominion is a non-negative integer.
Title: Re: Cellar may have just broke
Post by: GendoIkari on January 08, 2020, 09:41:21 am
Of course you can pick whatever number you want. But the wording on the card is pretty clear to me that the number you draw is equal to the number that was discarded; "that many" has to refer to some number that was already mentioned, and the only number previously mentioned was the number of cards discarded.
Title: Re: Cellar may have just broke
Post by: GendoIkari on January 08, 2020, 09:42:30 am
Allow negative numbers to be chosen while we're at it. Choose -5, putting 5 cards from your discard pile into your hand, then topdeck 5 cards.

Of all the bad Dominion rules interpretations that we've seen come up as a result of various fan card wordings; I think the idea that somehow drawing -1 card is the same as topdecking or discarding 1 card is the worst.
Title: Re: Cellar may have just broke
Post by: markusin on January 08, 2020, 10:02:14 am
Allow negative numbers to be chosen while we're at it. Choose -5, putting 5 cards from your discard pile into your hand, then topdeck 5 cards.

Of all the bad Dominion rules interpretations that we've seen come up as a result of various fan card wordings; I think the idea that somehow drawing -1 card is the same as topdecking or discarding 1 card is the worst.

I would have expected more people to complain about -1 discard meaning put a card from your discard into your hand.
Title: Re: Cellar may have just broke
Post by: crj on January 08, 2020, 05:31:57 pm
"that many" has to refer to some number that was already mentioned, and the only number previously mentioned was the number of cards discarded
No - there's also the "any number".

What if Cellar read "discard 3 cards then draw that many"? Then I think most people would read it as meaning you draw 3, not the number you actually discarded.
Title: Re: Cellar may have just broke
Post by: GendoIkari on January 08, 2020, 10:14:44 pm
"that many" has to refer to some number that was already mentioned, and the only number previously mentioned was the number of cards discarded
No - there's also the "any number".

What if Cellar read "discard 3 cards then draw that many"? Then I think most people would read it as meaning you draw 3, not the number you actually discarded.

I'd agree in that case.

Fair enough; it's a silly discussion either way; as we all know how Cellar actually works. I suppose the other reading isn't completely obviously wrong (unless you consider intent in addition to wording).
Title: Re: Cellar may have just broke
Post by: Chris is me on January 09, 2020, 09:09:14 am
"That many" is referring to the actual number of cards you discarded.
Title: Re: Cellar may have just broke
Post by: GendoIkari on January 09, 2020, 10:30:29 am
"That many" is referring to the actual number of cards you discarded.

Yeah I don't think there was any question about this; we all agree. The only question is whether or not the other incorrect reading was obviously wrong from the wording alone.
Title: Re: Cellar may have just broke
Post by: mxdata on January 09, 2020, 02:14:28 pm
"That many" is referring to the actual number of cards you discarded.

Yeah I don't think there was any question about this; we all agree. The only question is whether or not the other incorrect reading was obviously wrong from the wording alone.

I'd say that technically it is ambiguous.  The first edition text, ironically, was less ambiguous, since it actually specified "+1 card per card discarded", while with the current reading it can be interpreted as
• Choose a number X
• Discard X cards
• Draw X cards

And by the usual principle of "do as much as you can", if X is larger than the number of cards in hand, you'd just discard as many as you can and then draw X (or as many as you can if X is larger than the number of cards in your deck).  The only question is whether X is "up to the number of cards in your hand" - obviously the intended meaning, but not technically spelled out
Title: Re: Cellar may have just broke
Post by: Jeebus on January 09, 2020, 06:26:18 pm
No - there's also the "any number".

What if Cellar read "discard 3 cards then draw that many"? Then I think most people would read it as meaning you draw 3, not the number you actually discarded.

That argument doesn't really work. Compare to playing Remodel without any cards in hand. "Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to \$2 more than it." In that case you could also argue that you tried to trash a gold so you gain a Province because what if the card had said "trash a Gold from your hand, gain a card costing up to \$2 more than it".

However, there are several 2nd-edition cards that are less clear than their 1st-edition counterparts. Haggler is one of them.
Title: Re: Cellar may have just broke
Post by: crj on January 09, 2020, 07:15:54 pm
That argument doesn't really work. Compare to playing Remodel without any cards in hand. "Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to \$2 more than it." In that case you could also argue that you tried to trash a gold so you gain a Province because what if the card had said "trash a Gold from your hand, gain a card costing up to \$2 more than it".
I'd say that Remodel's wording is closer in spirit to "Discard any number of cards that you have in your hand, then draw that many": Remodel constrains you to choose a card that is in your hand; if your hand is empty, you fail to choose rather than failing to trash your choice. The cellar equivalent would be requiring you to choose a number no greater than the number of cards in your hand.

Looked at the other way round, I'd say Cellar's wording is closer in spirit to "Choose a card and trash it from your hand. Gain a card costing up to \$2 more than it." If Remodel was worded that way, my interpretation would be that you could pick Gold even without one in your hand.
Title: Re: Cellar may have just broke
Post by: crj on January 09, 2020, 07:17:39 pm
(And yes, for the avoidance of doubt, I do agree that Cellar's intent is clear and the alternative interpretation makes no sense in this precise case.)
Title: Re: Cellar may have just broke
Post by: Jeebus on January 10, 2020, 12:21:28 pm
That argument doesn't really work. Compare to playing Remodel without any cards in hand. "Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing up to \$2 more than it." In that case you could also argue that you tried to trash a gold so you gain a Province because what if the card had said "trash a Gold from your hand, gain a card costing up to \$2 more than it".
I'd say that Remodel's wording is closer in spirit to "Discard any number of cards that you have in your hand, then draw that many": Remodel constrains you to choose a card that is in your hand; if your hand is empty, you fail to choose rather than failing to trash your choice. The cellar equivalent would be requiring you to choose a number no greater than the number of cards in your hand.

Looked at the other way round, I'd say Cellar's wording is closer in spirit to "Choose a card and trash it from your hand. Gain a card costing up to \$2 more than it." If Remodel was worded that way, my interpretation would be that you could pick Gold even without one in your hand.

I still don't agree. You are forgetting that Cellar's "discard" has an implicit "from your hand" (per the rules), so Cellar constrains you in the exact same way as Remodel to choose cards from your hand. Cellar's wording in spirit for Remodel would actually be "Choose a card from your hand and trash it", and would not allow you to choose Gold.