Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Dominion General Discussion => Topic started by: Donald X. on March 06, 2020, 03:00:10 am
-
And here we are with... more cards.
(https://imgur.com/XEcAITa.png)
I warned you that there were more Duration cards. Here's Mastermind, which is like King's Court but slower. You can King's Court a King's Court in one turn; with Mastermind that's play Mastermind, next turn Mastermind a Mastermind, next turn actually play three things three times.
Menagerie has two minor themes I didn't mention yet. Surprise! The first one is reaction cards; there are five of them. Five! Four of them do the trick Sheepdog did of letting you play them at an unusual time; Black Cat is one of those. It's a Witch they have to activate for you. I will just point out now: when they gain a Province and that lets you use Black Cat, the other players gain Curses and that lets them use Sheepdogs.
The other minor theme is cards with weird costs; there are four of these, including Animal Fair. Wayfarer's weird cost is whatever the previous card cost. You could play Bureaucrat, gain a Silver, then Wayfarer costs $3. Or with two Buys, buy a Copper, now Wayfarer costs $0. Or buy an Engineer for 4 Debt and well now Wayfarer costs 4 Debt.
That's all the previews you were expecting! The cards will continue to be playable online through the weekend, then vanish, then come out properly online when the physical version is out. We still expect it around March 18.
This time for no special reason I am going to keep previewing cards until the set comes out or the rulebook is posted. These cards won't be playable online (until the whole set comes out), they will just be images to look at and ponder. I'll do one a day, and if people request stuff they'd like to see, I'll try to pick one of those things. They can be kingdom cards or sideways ones.
-
I love Black Cat. Could be very interesting in multiplayer. Especially if multiple people react with Black Cat
This raises a rules question. If player A gains a Victory card, and players B and C both respond with Black Cat, what order are the curses distributed in? Supposing A B C D is play order. Presumably B's reaction would trigger first, but who gets the first curse from B's reaction? Does it go from B, so that C gets the first curse, or does it go from A, so that A gets the first curse?
Wayfarer would have a nice interaction with Supplies. Since Supplies causes you to gain a Horse, then if you'd played that, Wayfarer's cost would be $3
-
Presumably Wayfarer also counts cards gained by other players? So giving out a Curse or Ruins sets the cost to $0.
-
Is Black Cat the first Attack-Reaction card? I can't think of any other cards with that combination of types
-
I'm sure there are plenty of ways to gain a card and then change how much that same card would cost--various Peddler tricks, for example--but I'm guessing none of that matters and all Wayfarer cares about is how much the gained card cost at the time it was gained?
Guessing also that overpay doesn't matter and if you pay $5 while buying a Doctor then Wayfarer still costs $3?
Less sure about what happens if you put the Ferry token on the Wayfarer pile. Suppose you haven't gained any cards yet in a turn, and buy a reduced-cost Wayfarer for $4... would a second Wayfarer then cost $2, and a third $0?
-
Curses are handed out in turn order, so for B's Black Cat it would be A, then C then D. Then it is again B's turn to play Reactions (maybe they had more than 1 Black Cat, maybe they draw one from the first). When C plays their Black Cat, Curses go to A, then B then D.
Yes, Wayfarer takes into account gains by all players, so handing out Curses/Ruins drop the cost to $0 (until the next gain)
Yes, I also think it is the first Reaction-Attack card.
-
I'm sure there are plenty of ways to gain a card and then change how much that same card would cost--various Peddler tricks, for example--but I'm guessing none of that matters and all Wayfarer cares about is how much the gained card cost at the time it was gained?
Nope, Wayfarer will continue to monitor the gained card and will change cost accordingly.
Guessing also that overpay doesn't matter and if you pay $5 while buying a Doctor then Wayfarer still costs $3?
Yes, that's right. Technically, you paid $3 for Doctor, and then as an on-buy effect paid $2 for overpay. This matters with Basilica, for example.
Less sure about what happens if you put the Ferry token on the Wayfarer pile. Suppose you haven't gained any cards yet in a turn, and buy a reduced-cost Wayfarer for $4... would a second Wayfarer then cost $2, and a third $0?
Cost reductions for Wayfarer are a bit unintuitive for me.
If during a turn nothing was gained yet, or only Wayfarers were gained, everything behaves as normal: Your first, second,... Wayfarers all cost $4 with your Ferry example. If you then gain something else (say a Silver from a Wayfarer playing), you only look at what Silver costs (after applying any reductions to Silver) and don't adjust any more. Since the Silver costs $3, so does the Wayfarer.
Another example: You have bought Canal (a Project that lower's all card's cost by $1 during your turns). Wayfarer costs $5 initially. If you buy a Silver, Wayfarer costs $2 now.
-
I'm sure there are plenty of ways to gain a card and then change how much that same card would cost--various Peddler tricks, for example--but I'm guessing none of that matters and all Wayfarer cares about is how much the gained card cost at the time it was gained?
Nope, Wayfarer will continue to monitor the gained card and will change cost accordingly.
So, just to make sure I understand this correctly: suppose that you've played three Actions, so that Peddler costs $2 (and assuming no other price reduction). You buy a Peddler, then a Wayfarer. The Wayfarer costs what you paid for the Peddler, i.e., $2, correct?
Suppose that you were then able to play another Action, via the Toil event say, so that it would now cost $0 to buy a Peddler. Is Wayfarer still $2, or is it now $0, the cost of Peddler at the time you're buying the Wayfarer?
-
Something I just realized - it's not "when another player buys a Victory", but when they gain one. So you could trigger the reaction yourself, for example, by using Ambassador to give your opponents Estates, or using Swindler to trash a $2 card into an Estate or a $5 card into a Duchy
-
Gaining a Wayfarer definitely causes a weird infinite loop in which the only real information available about the Wayfarer is "The cost of this is the cost of this." So if I gain a Curse, then a Wayfarer (costing $0), upon gaining the Wayfarer, does it revert to costing $6 or does it stay at its last-defined cost?
EDIT: Oh I realized that it says "last other card". Nice way to avoid self-referentiality, but now I want to break it. It's actually fairly easy; just gain a Curse, and then 2 Wayfarers. Now Wayfarer B has the cost of Wayfarer A, and Wayfarer A has the cost of Wayfarer B. But what is the cost?
Other fun fact: Wayfarer is the first card since Alchemy to interact with Apprentice's weird Potion clause.
-
Something I just realized - it's not "when another player buys a Victory", but when they gain one. So you could trigger the reaction yourself, for example, by using Ambassador to give your opponents Estates, or using Swindler to trash a $2 card into an Estate or a $5 card into a Duchy
Yeah, but then you're still playing the Black Cat on your turn, so it becomes a Lab, but doesn't give out a Curse. Three-player games with Ambassador and Black Cat will be a huge mess though.
-
Something I just realized - it's not "when another player buys a Victory", but when they gain one. So you could trigger the reaction yourself, for example, by using Ambassador to give your opponents Estates, or using Swindler to trash a $2 card into an Estate or a $5 card into a Duchy
Yeah, but then you're still playing the Black Cat on your turn, so it becomes a Lab, but doesn't give out a Curse. Three-player games with Ambassador and Black Cat will be a huge mess though.
Oh, duh. That's what I get for posting sleep-deprived. I completely overlooked the "if it's not your turn" clause
-
Gaining a Wayfarer definitely causes a weird infinite loop in which the only real information available about the Wayfarer is "The cost of this is the cost of this." So if I gain a Curse, then a Wayfarer (costing $0), upon gaining the Wayfarer, does it revert to costing $6 or does it stay at its last-defined cost?
EDIT: Oh I realized that it says "last other card". Nice way to avoid self-referentiality, but now I want to break it.
Other fun fact: Wayfarer is the first card since Alchemy to interact with Apprentice's weird Potion clause.
Hmm ... so that cost would still apply during your Action phase, right? E.g., for the purposes of trash-for-benefit cards? So, you play a Witch, and now it becomes worthless if you try to trash a Wayfarer with, say, Scrap. On the other hand, Exiling doesn't count as gaining, if I recall correctly, so Coven wouldn't reduce its cost. Man, the weirdness just keeps increasing with that card!
-
I'll do one a day, and if people request stuff they'd like to see, I'll try to pick one of those things. They can be kingdom cards or sideways ones.
If there is some sort of Veterinarian card I request that please. Someone in my play group is going to school for that, so it would be a real treat!
-
EDIT: Oh I realized that it says "last other card". Nice way to avoid self-referentiality, but now I want to break it. It's actually fairly easy; just gain a Curse, and then 2 Wayfarers. Now Wayfarer B has the cost of Wayfarer A, and Wayfarer A has the cost of Wayfarer B. But what is the cost?
It's "other" meaning "other than a Wayfarer." Which the rulebook clarifies.
-
Curses are handed out in turn order, so for B's Black Cat it would be A, then C then D. Then it is again B's turn to play Reactions (maybe they had more than 1 Black Cat, maybe they draw one from the first). When C plays their Black Cat, Curses go to A, then B then D.
Yes, Wayfarer takes into account gains by all players, so handing out Curses/Ruins drop the cost to $0 (until the next gain)
Yes, I also think it is the first Reaction-Attack card.
This can become tricky in that you may have to be strict about reaction order here (not like several people flashing Moats simultaneously). It's even worse: If B doesn't have a Black Cat but C reacts with a Black Cat, then when B gets a Curse B can react with a Sheepdog and draw a Black Cat. But then it's too late to react with that cat!
Edit: Not true, see comment (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20144.msg825631#msg825631)!
-
Oh, man, imagine a game where you buy the last Province. You think you're gonna win, but then, what's this? Your opponent happened to have 2 Black Cats in their hand. Now you just gained two Curses, and lost!
-
Some of the Renaissance previews were pretty
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/77/Fair.jpg/800px-Fair.jpg)
but I think that these Menagerie previews are
(http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/2/24/Wayfarer.jpg)
-
Oh, man, imagine a game where you buy the last Province. You think you're gonna win, but then, what's this? Your opponent happened to have 2 Black Cats in their hand. Now you just gained two Curses, and lost!
Twist: you had a sheepdog in hand which triggered upon gaining curses, thus drawing your vampire by which you gain a duchy and gain +3VP.
-
Oh, man, imagine a game where you buy the last Province. You think you're gonna win, but then, what's this? Your opponent happened to have 2 Black Cats in their hand. Now you just gained two Curses, and lost!
I actually had a similar experience before Menagerie where I could react to my opponent gaining the last Province with Fool's Gold for +5 VP through Keep.
-
How does Wayfarer work with Noble Brigand? If you gained both a Silver and a Gold from the trash with Noble Brigand, which one counts as "the last card gained"? Do you get to choose the order you gain the Treasures?
-
So, just to make sure I understand this correctly: suppose that you've played three Actions, so that Peddler costs $2 (and assuming no other price reduction). You buy a Peddler, then a Wayfarer. The Wayfarer costs what you paid for the Peddler, i.e., $2, correct?
Suppose that you were then able to play another Action, via the Toil event say, so that it would now cost $0 to buy a Peddler. Is Wayfarer still $2, or is it now $0, the cost of Peddler at the time you're buying the Wayfarer?
1) Correct.
2) Wayfarer now costs $0 (assuming the Action you played didn't cause a gain)
A similar effect to 2) would be if you last gained a Governor, and then buy Ferry put the -$2 cost token on the Governor pile. All Wayfarer's now cost $3.
-
Curses are handed out in turn order, so for B's Black Cat it would be A, then C then D. Then it is again B's turn to play Reactions (maybe they had more than 1 Black Cat, maybe they draw one from the first). When C plays their Black Cat, Curses go to A, then B then D.
This can become tricky in that you may have to be strict about reaction order here (not like several people flashing Moats simultaneously). It's even worse: If B doesn't have a Black Cat but C reacts with a Black Cat, then when B gets a Curse B can react with a Sheepdog and draw a Black Cat. But then it's too late to react with that cat!
That's no longer true. Look at this: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19930.0 (there is an even older thread where this originated that I can't find at the moment).
So once C's Black cat is handled, including all triggeres, then B has now a Black Cat in hand. The triggered effects for A gaining a Province aren't over, so A is asked again (probably has nothing), then B is asked, and they now have something they can play, so they can do it.
Only once every player from A to D has 'passed' in succession to do something on A gaining a Province, triggers for that event are over.
-
Does black cat interact with possession?
-
How does Wayfarer work with Noble Brigand? If you gained both a Silver and a Gold from the trash with Noble Brigand, which one counts as "the last card gained"? Do you get to choose the order you gain the Treasures?
Usually gained cards have to be gained in some order, as they can't physicllay the top card in your discard pile. I think you get to choose the order (which I don't think is implemented online).
-
Does black cat interact with possession?
Depends on what you mean. When possessing somebody, you can make them gain a Victory card, which then you gain instead. So you can make the Possessed player play Black Cat as Reaction. Since it is the possessed player's turn, they only draw 2 cards (which can be usefull if the gain happened during the Action phase), no Curses for anyone.
If you had something else in minde, please elaborate.
-
Does cost reduction apply to Wayfarer’s changed cost? Or does Wayfarer’s text set exactly what the cost now is?
-
Does black cat interact with possession?
A possessed player cannot gain cards, so you cannot make your opponent gain a victory card in order to trigger your own Black Cat.
-
One weird thing about Wayfarer is that the text basically makes it impossible to ever create a second card with the same ability; because then you could get a self-referential circle.
-
Does cost reduction apply to Wayfarer’s changed cost? Or does Wayfarer’s text set exactly what the cost now is?
If during a turn nothing was gained yet, or only Wayfarers were gained, cost reducers behave as normal and apply to the $6 cost of Wayfarer.
If a non-Wayfarer card was gained, then the cost of that card is calculated (taking cost reducers into account), and it becomes the new cost for Wayfarer (which doesn't apply cost reducers in addition). The cost of the gained card is continuously monitored, and if it changes (say Canal was bought), so changes the cost of Wayfarer.
Of course, everything resets when the next turn comes around.
-
Does cost reduction apply to Wayfarer’s changed cost? Or does Wayfarer’s text set exactly what the cost now is?
If during a turn nothing was gained yet, or only Wayfarers were gained, cost reducers behave as normal and apply to the $6 cost of Wayfarer.
If a non-Wayfarer card was gained, then the cost of that card is calculated (taking cost reducers into account), and it becomes the new cost for Wayfarer (which doesn't apply cost reducers in addition). The cost of the gained card is continuously monitored, and if it changes (say Canal was bought), so changes the cost of Wayfarer.
Of course, everything resets when the next turn comes around.
Ok, so Quarry will have no effect on Wayfarer’s cost if a treasure was the last card gained then. It’s not the way I would have intuitively read the text; but I suppose it was necessary to avoid a single Bridge having a double effect on the cost.
Part of it is just a MTG background and the fact that it works differently there... if something sets a creature’s power to 3, and something else gives creatures +1 power, the creature will end up with power 4, because the +1 is calculated after the setting to 3.
-
When you Mastermind a Duration, do they both stay out until the final target has resolved? Masterminding a Mastermind doesn't seem nearly that amazing anymore then.
-
When you Mastermind a Duration, do they both stay out until the final target has resolved? Masterminding a Mastermind doesn't seem nearly that amazing anymore then.
Yup, when a card plays a Duration, it stays out until the Duration goes away.
-
When you Mastermind a Duration, do they both stay out until the final target has resolved? Masterminding a Mastermind doesn't seem nearly that amazing anymore then.
They spend a lot of time thinking, you see.
-
Achievement I want to unlock:
Gain Platinum, buy Farmland, trash Wayfarer, gain Colony.
-
When you Mastermind a Duration, do they both stay out until the final target has resolved? Masterminding a Mastermind doesn't seem nearly that amazing anymore then.
Yup, when a card plays a Duration, it stays out until the Duration goes away.
Only if it plays it a second or further time. Vassal/Herald/Golem don't stay out, for example. Of course, Mastermind is playing a card thrice.
-
Achievement I want to unlock:
Gain Platinum, buy Farmland, trash Wayfarer, gain Colony.
Related pro tip: don't try to combo Ritual with Wayfarer
-
Procession-Wayfarer is pretty hilarious. It allows you to cycle through cards as you trash them instead of reaching the end at the top price point, but you have to be extremely careful about it.
-
Fun synergy I just spotted: having played Stonemason and chosen your first Action card to gain, your second choice can always be Wayfarer.
-
Fun synergy I just spotted: having played Stonemason and chosen your first Action card to gain, your second choice can always be Wayfarer.
This works for both playing and overpaying for Stonemason, right?
-
I love how Black Cat finally does the idea of a reaction that attacks while simultaneously answering the question of how people would moat it and not being worse than Embargoing the Provinces.
Also, KITTY!
And I like how Wayfarer has a built-in way to lower its own cost even if there are no other gainers or +buy available.
And finally, thanks Donald for another awesome previews week! It's like when my favorite musicians release a lead single but cooler. And I can't wait to see what's coming in the next few weeks as well.
-
Wayfarer is a brave soul in the shrinking realm of big-money enablers
-
Fun synergy I just spotted: having played Stonemason and chosen your first Action card to gain, your second choice can always be Wayfarer.
This works for both playing and overpaying for Stonemason, right?
Oh dang, that's true. Trash an Estate for a Copper and a Wayfarer. I think I'd take that deal.
-
I would like to request seeing another reaction card.
-
Black Cat is awesome!
-
EDIT: Oh I realized that it says "last other card". Nice way to avoid self-referentiality, but now I want to break it. It's actually fairly easy; just gain a Curse, and then 2 Wayfarers. Now Wayfarer B has the cost of Wayfarer A, and Wayfarer A has the cost of Wayfarer B. But what is the cost?
It's "other" meaning "other than a Wayfarer." Which the rulebook clarifies.
Too bad that "other than a Wayfarer" didn't make it onto the card (like on Golem, Rats, Vampire...). Now it has the same wording as Urchin but is functionally different it seems.
Or is it? Even if "other" just meant "other card", can it create cost loops? A basic rule is that gains always happen sequentially; you never gain two cards at once. So Wayfarer A would have the cost of the Curse, and Wayfarer B would have the cost of Wayfarer A, right? Does it ever make a difference that "other card" means "other than Wayfarer"?
-
The problem with Wayfarer is that we play offline with pre-errata rules (hard to remember errata rules when they're not printed!). So if I gain and play a Band of Misfits, what happens? I guess we do whatever we want.
I really like Black Cat and Coven, late-game cursing is a great space that I'm glad is getting explored more.
-
How does Wayfarer work with Noble Brigand? If you gained both a Silver and a Gold from the trash with Noble Brigand, which one counts as "the last card gained"? Do you get to choose the order you gain the Treasures?
You never gain two cards at once. Yes, you get to choose the order, for instance with Develop. If you trash a Treasure from several players with Noble Brigand, you get to choose the order.
-
EDIT: Oh I realized that it says "last other card". Nice way to avoid self-referentiality, but now I want to break it. It's actually fairly easy; just gain a Curse, and then 2 Wayfarers. Now Wayfarer B has the cost of Wayfarer A, and Wayfarer A has the cost of Wayfarer B. But what is the cost?
It's "other" meaning "other than a Wayfarer." Which the rulebook clarifies.
Too bad that "other than a Wayfarer" didn't make it onto the card (like on Golem, Rats, Vampire...). Now it has the same wording as Urchin but is functionally different it seems.
Or is it? Even if "other" just meant "other card", can it create cost loops? A basic rule is that gains always happen sequentially; you never gain two cards at once. So Wayfarer A would have the cost of the Curse, and Wayfarer B would have the cost of Wayfarer A, right? Does it ever make a difference that "other card" means "other than Wayfarer"?
No; Wayfarer A would have the cost of Wayfarer B, which is the last card you gained. Wayfarer B, which is not looking at itself, would seek that last gained card other than itself - which is Wayfarer A, since that was gained after the Curse.
-
No; Wayfarer A would have the cost of Wayfarer B, which is the last card you gained. Wayfarer B, which is not looking at itself, would seek that last gained card other than itself - which is Wayfarer A, since that was gained after the Curse.
Right, thanks. I forgot that the cost alteration applies to all Wayfarers wherever they are.
-
Does it ever make a difference that "other card" means "other than Wayfarer"?
I would think so. If you gain Village, followed by a Wayfarer (or two?), and then put Ferry on Village, then the cost would behave differently depending on whether it's tracking Village or Wayfarer.
-
Fun synergy I just spotted: having played Stonemason and chosen your first Action card to gain, your second choice can always be Wayfarer.
This works for both playing and overpaying for Stonemason, right?
Oh dang, that's true. Trash an Estate for a Copper and a Wayfarer. I think I'd take that deal.
Wait, how does trashing a Wayfarer with Stonemason work?
1. Play Stonemason, trash a $6 Wayfarer
2. ... gain a $3 Silver
Now Wayfarer costs $3. Do I gain a card costing less than $6, the cost of the card when I trashed it (hey look I could gain a Wayfarer), or do I gain a card costing less than $3, the current cost of the card I trashed?
-
Does cost reduction apply to Wayfarer’s changed cost? Or does Wayfarer’s text set exactly what the cost now is?
If during a turn nothing was gained yet, or only Wayfarers were gained, cost reducers behave as normal and apply to the $6 cost of Wayfarer.
If a non-Wayfarer card was gained, then the cost of that card is calculated (taking cost reducers into account), and it becomes the new cost for Wayfarer (which doesn't apply cost reducers in addition). The cost of the gained card is continuously monitored, and if it changes (say Canal was bought), so changes the cost of Wayfarer.
Of course, everything resets when the next turn comes around.
Ok, so Quarry will have no effect on Wayfarer’s cost if a treasure was the last card gained then. It’s not the way I would have intuitively read the text; but I suppose it was necessary to avoid a single Bridge having a double effect on the cost.
Part of it is just a MTG background and the fact that it works differently there... if something sets a creature’s power to 3, and something else gives creatures +1 power, the creature will end up with power 4, because the +1 is calculated after the setting to 3.
Yes, I agree that this is not intuitive. If Wayfarer has an alternate cost, it's still Wayfarer's cost, so there's no reason that it wouldn't be reduced by for instance Quarry. But it's an extra rule outside the card that presumably was created to avoid some bad scenario. I'm not sure if it's easier to play with this rule or without it; with cost reducers it seems comlicated both ways.
-
Does it ever make a difference that "other card" means "other than Wayfarer"?
I would think so. If you gain Village, followed by a Wayfarer (or two?), and then put Ferry on Village, then the cost would behave differently depending on whether it's tracking Village or Wayfarer.
You're right of course. It would make a difference. But I was more interested in whether it would create scenarios where the cost of several Wayfarers would refer to each other. And as Faust pointed out, it does!
-
Do I gain a card costing less than $6, the cost of the card when I trashed it (hey look I could gain a Wayfarer), or do I gain a card costing less than $3, the current cost of the card I trashed?
Probably the latter? By the same token, if you Develop a Wayfarer, the second card you gain would cost the same amount the Wayfarer did when you trashed it.
-
Wait, how does trashing a Wayfarer with Stonemason work?
1. Play Stonemason, trash a $6 Wayfarer
2. ... gain a $3 Silver
Now Wayfarer costs $3. Do I gain a card costing less than $6, the cost of the card when I trashed it (hey look I could gain a Wayfarer), or do I gain a card costing less than $3, the current cost of the card I trashed?
Good question. It's definitely not the cost right before you trashed it. We know from old Inheritance that the cost could change after it was trashed, and then we would look at that cost. But this is different, since the cost of the card actually changes between the two gain effects.
I would think it's like this: You're triggering two effects at once, both being "gain a card costing less than the trashed card." We resolve those sequentially. Each time we look at the cost of the trashed card. So that would mean the second card costs less than $3.
-
Wait, how does trashing a Wayfarer with Stonemason work?
1. Play Stonemason, trash a $6 Wayfarer
2. ... gain a $3 Silver
Now Wayfarer costs $3. Do I gain a card costing less than $6, the cost of the card when I trashed it (hey look I could gain a Wayfarer), or do I gain a card costing less than $3, the current cost of the card I trashed?
Good question. It's definitely not the cost right before you trashed it. We know from old Inheritance that the cost could change after it was trashed, and then we would look at that cost. But this is different, since the cost of the card actually changes between the two gain effects.
I would think it's like this: You're triggering two effects at once, both being "gain a card costing less than the trashed card." We resolve those sequentially. Each time we look at the cost of the trashed card. So that would mean the second card costs less than $3.
This is correct. This question also just came up on the discord at about the same time.
-
Wait, how does trashing a Wayfarer with Stonemason work?
1. Play Stonemason, trash a $6 Wayfarer
2. ... gain a $3 Silver
Now Wayfarer costs $3. Do I gain a card costing less than $6, the cost of the card when I trashed it (hey look I could gain a Wayfarer), or do I gain a card costing less than $3, the current cost of the card I trashed?
Good question. It's definitely not the cost right before you trashed it. We know from old Inheritance that the cost could change after it was trashed, and then we would look at that cost. But this is different, since the cost of the card actually changes between the two gain effects.
I would think it's like this: You're triggering two effects at once, both being "gain a card costing less than the trashed card." We resolve those sequentially. Each time we look at the cost of the trashed card. So that would mean the second card costs less than $3.
I thought I had heard of the idea of trashing something and its cost changing--I should have known to look at Inheritance :P
-
Achievement I want to unlock:
Gain Platinum, buy Farmland, trash Wayfarer, gain Colony.
Wait, wouldn't the last gained card in that case be the Farmland itself, or am I confused?
-
Achievement I want to unlock:
Gain Platinum, buy Farmland, trash Wayfarer, gain Colony.
Wait, wouldn't the last gained card in that case be the Farmland itself, or am I confused?
Oh, wait, never mind. I keep forgetting that buying and gaining are separate events. Farmland triggers on buying, not gaining, so at the time its ability triggers, the last gained card is still the Platinum
-
Thanks again, Donald for providing more of this great game. My wife and I are looking forward to putting it to the test soon once my preorder ships.
With extra plus buy available for purchase right away, those Wayfarer piles are going to empty out fast and really change the normal early game scenarios.
-
The cards will continue to be playable online through the weekend
How do you enable them online?
-
The cards will continue to be playable online through the weekend
How do you enable them online?
When you create a table, choose "Menagerie previews" under Advanced Options
-
Assuming I'm not misinterpreting the card, I think I can help illustrate how people are overthinking Wayfarer's Cost clause:
Imagine a card with bottom text which reads "this costs $2". You play a Bridge, and for an infinitesimal moment, the card would cost $1, but then you look at the card, and it says "No, I cost $2, remember?" Cost reductions may try to affect the card, but since its effect is persistent (doesn't matter if it's in play or not), it will always instantly reset itself to $2.
The difference between that card and WF? Well, sometimes WF says it costs $2, sometimes it says it costs $3, sometimes it says it costs $8, but whatever the case is, it always* explicitly says that it costs something. If it's telling you "I cost as much as that Estate you gained earlier", the Estate could be impacted by Bridges, but WF itself cannot, because every time you try to change its cost, it politely declines, "No, good sir, I keep telling you, I cost what that Estate you gained earlier cost".
In essence, one of the effects is going to have to fail since they're in conflict. Either Bridge tries to lower WF's cost, but can't, or WF tries to cost what the last gained card cost, but can't. The reason the former is more intuitive to me is because while both cards are trying to mess with WF's cost, bridge is doing so less precisely (it doesn't care what the card will actually cost, so long as it's non-negative), whereas WF has a precise number it's telling you it should cost, even if that number will change as your most recently gained card changes. At any point in time, WF has one specific number in mind.
*There is still the scenario where no cards have been gained this turn (or only Wayfarers have been), in which case I see no reason why Bridge couldn't reduce WF's cost. If no cards have been gained, WF's cost-locking effect isn't activated yet.
-
In essence, one of the effects is going to have to fail since they're in conflict. Either Bridge tries to lower WF's cost, but can't, or WF tries to cost what the last gained card cost, but can't. The reason the former is more intuitive to me is because while both cards are trying to mess with WF's cost, bridge is doing so less precisely (it doesn't care what the card will actually cost, so long as it's non-negative), whereas WF has a precise number it's telling you it should cost, even if that number will change as your most recently gained card changes. At any point in time, WF has one specific number in mind.
But to me, the fact that WF sets a specific number, while Bridge just says "1 less", leads me to the exact opposite intuition. When I see that specific number, I read it the same way I read the number printed in the lower-left of every card. Smithy says "this costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)", it just does so using standard icons rather than words. Yet even though Smithy says it costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), we can change that cost with Bridge.
In fact, I feel like Peddler uses the exact same wording, yet has the opposite rule. Peddler says "this costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) less..."; so it should cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) if you have 1 action card in play. But that could be reduced by Bridge to cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png). So in that case, we apply Peddler's wording first, and then Bridge's wording.* When I read Peddler's "this costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) less..." while 1 action card is in play, I have always read that as saying "this costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)". But now we know that Peddler cannot be interpreted to say "this costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)", because if it did say that, it really would be just like WF, and Bridge wouldn't work with it.
I suppose the standard rule that could apply correctly to both Peddler and WF would be "abilities on cards that sets its own price always happen after all cost reduction has been applied".
*Edit - I was wrong there; with Peddler it wouldn't matter which order you applied the wording; as long as when Peddler says "less" it means "less than the current cost" rather than "less than the normal cost of (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png)".
-
Assuming I'm not misinterpreting the card, I think I can help illustrate how people are overthinking Wayfarer's Cost clause:
Imagine a card with bottom text which reads "this costs $2". You play a Bridge, and for an infinitesimal moment, the card would cost $1, but then you look at the card, and it says "No, I cost $2, remember?" Cost reductions may try to affect the card, but since its effect is persistent (doesn't matter if it's in play or not), it will always instantly reset itself to $2.
The difference between that card and WF? Well, sometimes WF says it costs $2, sometimes it says it costs $3, sometimes it says it costs $8, but whatever the case is, it always* explicitly says that it costs something. If it's telling you "I cost as much as that Estate you gained earlier", the Estate could be impacted by Bridges, but WF itself cannot, because every time you try to change its cost, it politely declines, "No, good sir, I keep telling you, I cost what that Estate you gained earlier cost".
In essence, one of the effects is going to have to fail since they're in conflict. Either Bridge tries to lower WF's cost, but can't, or WF tries to cost what the last gained card cost, but can't. The reason the former is more intuitive to me is because while both cards are trying to mess with WF's cost, bridge is doing so less precisely (it doesn't care what the card will actually cost, so long as it's non-negative), whereas WF has a precise number it's telling you it should cost, even if that number will change as your most recently gained card changes. At any point in time, WF has one specific number in mind.
*There is still the scenario where no cards have been gained this turn (or only Wayfarers have been), in which case I see no reason why Bridge couldn't reduce WF's cost. If no cards have been gained, WF's cost-locking effect isn't activated yet.
There is a difference between those two scenarios you mentioned, however, in cases where the cost-reduction doesn't affect all cards. As mentioned previously, suppose you have Quarry in play. That reduces the cost of Action cards, but not Treasure or Victory cards. Suppose the last-gained card was a Silver. Now, if the cost-reduction applied directly to Wayfarer, then Wayfarer's cost would now be $1 ($3 being the cost of the Silver itself, minus $2 from Quarry). However, if the cost-reduction instead is indirect, affecting WF by changing the cost of what it's being compared to, then its cost is $3 (since Silver's cost is not reduced by Quarry). It's been confirmed previously that the second scenario is the case. And, of course, if Peddler was the last-gained card, then it has its own Peddler-specific cost-reduction in play, which can, theoretically, even change. For example, play a Village, then Kiln, then Peddler, using Kiln's ability to gain a copy of Peddler, and let's assume that's the only Actions you've played. During your Action phase, Peddler is worth $8, so the gained card was worth $8 at the time it was gained. However, since there are 3 Action cards, when you go into your Buy phase, Peddler's cost is now $2 (assuming no Quarry in play). How much does Wayfarer cost? As confirmed previously, its cost is now $2. It looks at the cost of the last-gained card as it stands at the time you're buying Wayfarer, not what it cost at the time that card was gained. So, it's actually quite simple. When you decide to buy Wayfarer, you say "What was the last card gained this turn, if any?" you identify that card (or answer "no card has been gained", in which case you stop there and treat it like a normal $6 Action card), then you ask "How much would it cost to buy that card right now?" (one slight weirdness here - it might not even be possible to buy that card if the pile is empty, but of course the price you'd pay if it were available is still defined), and then that's the cost of Wayfarer
-
Yeah, the Peddler comparison is direct evidence that the rule for Wayfarer cost reduction contradicts what the card actually says. Wayfarer and Peddler have the same kind of self-cost-modification but works differently with other cost reduction.
Mxdata, I think maybe you misunderstood what GendoIkari said? He was not talking about an interaction between Wayfarer and Peddler.
-
I suppose the standard rule that could apply correctly to both Peddler and WF would be "abilities on cards that sets its own price always happen after all cost reduction has been applied".
Yeah, for Peddler it doesn't really make a practical difference which order you apply the cost reduction. Is it "$8 - 2*Actions - other reductions" or is it "$8 - other reductions - 2*Actions"?
But for WF it is relevant. So, it's:
- This card costs $6
- If there's any cost-reduction, lower the price by the amount of reduction, but not below $0
- If any other cards have been gained this turn, replace the cost obtained in step 2 with the cost of that card
For Peddler it's
- This card costs $8
- If there's any cost-reduction, lower the price by the amount of reduction, but not below $0
- Subtract $2 per Action card played this turn from the result of step 2, but not below $0
Until Wayfarer came out, you could've swapped the order of steps 2 and 3 without any practical difference, but now it would be inconsistent with WF to do so, although it would still have no actual impact on Peddler's cost
EDIT: A general principle for variable-cost cards:
- Set a base price
- Apply any ordinary cost reductions (e.g., Quarry, Bridge, etc.)
- Apply card-specific cost changes
- In all cases, costs can never be negative
So far, we only have Peddler, Wayfarer, and Animal Fair in that category, but presumably any additional cards in that category will follow the same principle
-
Yeah, the Peddler comparison is direct evidence that the rule for Wayfarer cost reduction contradicts what the card actually says. Wayfarer and Peddler have the same kind of self-cost-modification but works differently with other cost reduction.
Mxdata, I think maybe you misunderstood what GendoIkari said? He was not talking about an interaction between Wayfarer and Peddler.
I wasn't replying to GendoIkari there, I was replying to the OP. I don't see how there's a contradiction with the card text, it's just a matter of what order you apply those effects. Does cost reduction happen first, then WF's cost clause, or does WF's cost clause happen first then cost reduction?
-
In essence, one of the effects is going to have to fail since they're in conflict. Either Bridge tries to lower WF's cost, but can't, or WF tries to cost what the last gained card cost, but can't. The reason the former is more intuitive to me is because while both cards are trying to mess with WF's cost, bridge is doing so less precisely (it doesn't care what the card will actually cost, so long as it's non-negative), whereas WF has a precise number it's telling you it should cost, even if that number will change as your most recently gained card changes. At any point in time, WF has one specific number in mind.
But to me, the fact that WF sets a specific number, while Bridge just says "1 less", leads me to the exact opposite intuition. When I see that specific number, I read it the same way I read the number printed in the lower-left of every card. Smithy says "this costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png)", it just does so using standard icons rather than words. Yet even though Smithy says it costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/2/2a/Coin4.png/16px-Coin4.png), we can change that cost with Bridge.
In fact, I feel like Peddler uses the exact same wording, yet has the opposite rule. Peddler says "this costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) less..."; so it should cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png) if you have 1 action card in play. But that could be reduced by Bridge to cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png). So in that case, we apply Peddler's wording first, and then Bridge's wording. When I read Peddler's "this costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/3/3d/Coin2.png/16px-Coin2.png) less..." while 1 action card is in play, I have always read that as saying "this costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)". But now we know that Peddler cannot be interpreted to say "this costs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/6/6f/Coin6.png/16px-Coin6.png)", because if it did say that, it really would be just like WF, and Bridge wouldn't work with it.
I suppose the standard rule that could apply correctly to both Peddler and WF would be "abilities on cards that sets its own price always happen after all cost reduction has been applied".
Right, and Peddlers text has to come after Bridges reduce it (barring Capitalism) since it says "during your buy phase".
I think the key difference is that Wayfarer says this costs X (which, of course is variable, but defined), where Peddler says this costs 2 less. (if it said "this costs 6 with 1 action in play, 4 with 2 in play, 2 with 3 in play, and 0 with 4 or more in play" then bridges' effect would be overridden.
-
Right, and Peddlers text has to come after Bridges reduce it (barring Capitalism) since it says "during your buy phase".
That's making an assumption that it matters how long the effect has been in play; rather than all effects being re-evaluated at all times. Just because the Bridge has been around longer than Peddler's text doesn't necessarily mean they are applied in that order.
I think the key difference is that Wayfarer says this costs X (which, of course is variable, but defined), where Peddler says this costs 2 less. (if it said "this costs 6 with 1 action in play, 4 with 2 in play, 2 with 3 in play, and 0 with 4 or more in play" then bridges' effect would be overridden.
I think you're right here... it hinges on the edit to my other post; that "less" doesn't mean "less than (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/4/47/Coin8.png/16px-Coin8.png)."
-
In essence, one of the effects is going to have to fail since they're in conflict. Either Bridge tries to lower WF's cost, but can't, or WF tries to cost what the last gained card cost, but can't.
Yes, that's how I think of it. And the ruling is that Wayfarer overrides the other things (after looking at how it could work back when).
As always long arguments about these things may gain some tiny amount from actually having the rulebook.
-
In essence, one of the effects is going to have to fail since they're in conflict. Either Bridge tries to lower WF's cost, but can't, or WF tries to cost what the last gained card cost, but can't.
Yes, that's how I think of it. And the ruling is that Wayfarer overrides the other things (after looking at how it could work back when).
As always long arguments about these things may gain some tiny amount from actually having the rulebook.
Rulings are great, but even better what backed by rules. Is there a general rule you can say that makes Wayfarer work that way; other than "Wayfarer is a special case"? Something like "abilities that set card costs to a specific value override cost reduction abilities". (In which case if you ever made a card with "while this is in play, all cards cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)", Bridge couldn't lower that cost).
Or, "Abilities on cards that change their own price are always evaluated after cost reduction". Or something.
-
Wayfarer is a brave soul in the shrinking realm of big-money enablers
Obviously it depends on the kingdom, but it's felt better in engines than big-money to me. With +Buy you can pick up your +Cards for cheap (this is normally the expensive part of your build), and you can focus on trashing down, using the free Silver gain to add payload when you want it. Silver isn't the best payoff, but when it comes for free and you can choose when to gain it, it gets better.
Mastermind is just straight busted.
-
It looks at the cost of the last-gained card as it stands at the time you're buying Wayfarer, not what it cost at the time that card was gained. So, it's actually quite simple. When you decide to buy Wayfarer, you say "What was the last card gained this turn, if any?" you identify that card (or answer "no card has been gained", in which case you stop there and treat it like a normal $6 Action card), then you ask "How much would it cost to buy that card right now?" (one slight weirdness here - it might not even be possible to buy that card if the pile is empty, but of course the price you'd pay if it were available is still defined), and then that's the cost of Wayfarer
Yeah I totally agree, although I don't think that's in conflict with what I said, is it? Bridge lowers the Estate, but not also the Wayfarer. So Wayfarer then costs $1, not $0.
I think we're in total agreement
-
I have come to my senses. I was thinking that all cost modificatition was always in effect. So Bridge would lower WF's cost to $5, but WF would set its cost to the last gained card, let's say $3 (from a gained Smithy now affected by Bridge), but then Bridge would lower it to $2. But if WF's own ability is also still in effect (just like the Bridge's), then it would reset itself to $3. Etc.
So yes, they are in conflict, and one has to win.
EDIT: So this means that (contrary to what I was saying earlier) we do need a special rule here. From the cards we can't know whether Bridge or WF takes precedence. But the rule could of course also had been that cost reductions take precedence, meaning that WF would end up costing $2. I feel like this would be a bit easier for players to grasp, and what people intuitively feel would happen: just always apply cost reducers.
-
"The other minor theme is cards with weird costs; there are four of these"
So, what might the other two be? We already had Peddler, which cares about the number of Action cards in play, and we now have Wayfarer that cares about the identity of the last gained card, and Animal Fair which is kind of like a Changeling in reverse. Instead of trashing itself to gain another card, it trashes another card to gain itself. Some other possibilities that come to mind:
- A card whose cost depends on how many cards you've gained that turn (unlike Wayfarer, it would have to limit itself to cards you gained rather than cards anyone gained, otherwise it would be broken with cursing or junking attacks in multiplayer)
- A card whose cost depends on how many Treasure cards you have in play
- A card whose cost can increase under specific conditions
- A card whose cost is lowered if you have copies of itself in play
- A card whose cost cares about how many differently-named cards are in play, which would suit the Expansion name
-
"The other minor theme is cards with weird costs; there are four of these"
So, what might the other two be? We already had Peddler, which cares about the number of Action cards in play, and we now have Wayfarer that cares about the identity of the last gained card, and Animal Fair which is kind of like a Changeling in reverse. Instead of trashing itself to gain another card, it trashes another card to gain itself. Some other possibilities that come to mind:
- A card whose cost depends on how many cards you've gained that turn (unlike Wayfarer, it would have to limit itself to cards you gained rather than cards anyone gained, otherwise it would be broken with cursing or junking attacks in multiplayer)
- A card whose cost depends on how many Treasure cards you have in play
- A card whose cost can increase under specific conditions
- A card whose cost is lowered if you have copies of itself in play
- A card whose cost cares about how many differently-named cards are in play, which would suit the Expansion name
I’d love to see another thing like Animal Fair, that has something you can pay other than coin. Come to think of it Duchess already did a similar thing, though it’s different because gaining a Duchess doesn’t use a buy.
-
"The other minor theme is cards with weird costs; there are four of these"
So, what might the other two be? We already had Peddler, which cares about the number of Action cards in play, and we now have Wayfarer that cares about the identity of the last gained card, and Animal Fair which is kind of like a Changeling in reverse. Instead of trashing itself to gain another card, it trashes another card to gain itself. Some other possibilities that come to mind:
- A card whose cost depends on how many cards you've gained that turn (unlike Wayfarer, it would have to limit itself to cards you gained rather than cards anyone gained, otherwise it would be broken with cursing or junking attacks in multiplayer)
- A card whose cost depends on how many Treasure cards you have in play
- A card whose cost can increase under specific conditions
- A card whose cost is lowered if you have copies of itself in play
- A card whose cost cares about how many differently-named cards are in play, which would suit the Expansion name
How about a card that cares about # of cards left in its supply pile. this could be your cost increase.
Also the " 5 or fewer" teaser.
"If there are 5 or fewer copies left in its supply pile, this card costs $1 more."
-
As always long arguments about these things may gain some tiny amount from actually having the rulebook.
But that's like, days away from being released. We've gotta pass the time somehow :P
Also, FIVE reactions! That's a big win as far as I'm concerned! Move over, Hinterlands
And I really like the idea of the minor themes of weird timings and weird costs. I imagine they are likely to be cards that hold people's interests longer
EDIT: as far as future previews go, if this set has an alt-VP, I'd definitely be interested in seeing it.
-
Rulings are great, but even better what backed by rules. Is there a general rule you can say that makes Wayfarer work that way; other than "Wayfarer is a special case"? Something like "abilities that set card costs to a specific value override cost reduction abilities". (In which case if you ever made a card with "while this is in play, all cards cost (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/images/thumb/7/7d/Coin5.png/16px-Coin5.png)", Bridge couldn't lower that cost).
Or, "Abilities on cards that change their own price are always evaluated after cost reduction". Or something.
It's the rule for Wayfarer; generalizing it doesn't do much until there's a second such card. I don't feel the compulsion to add rules like that. We thought through Wayfarer and time does not permit thinking through endless hypothetical cards.
-
"The other minor theme is cards with weird costs; there are four of these"
So, what might the other two be? We already had Peddler, which cares about the number of Action cards in play, and we now have Wayfarer that cares about the identity of the last gained card, and Animal Fair which is kind of like a Changeling in reverse. Instead of trashing itself to gain another card, it trashes another card to gain itself. Some other possibilities that come to mind:
- A card whose cost depends on how many cards you've gained that turn (unlike Wayfarer, it would have to limit itself to cards you gained rather than cards anyone gained, otherwise it would be broken with cursing or junking attacks in multiplayer)
- A card whose cost depends on how many Treasure cards you have in play
- A card whose cost can increase under specific conditions
- A card whose cost is lowered if you have copies of itself in play
- A card whose cost cares about how many differently-named cards are in play, which would suit the Expansion name
How about a card that cares about # of cards left in its supply pile. this could be your cost increase.
Also the " 5 or fewer" teaser.
"If there are 5 or fewer copies left in its supply pile, this card costs $1 more."
I don’t see that happening because it would require you to count the pile every time you go to buy it, during a certain portion of the game.
-
EDIT: as far as future previews go, if this set has an alt-VP, I'd definitely be interested in seeing it.
We know it doesn’t; it was said in the first previews thread.
-
"The other minor theme is cards with weird costs; there are four of these"
So, what might the other two be? We already had Peddler, which cares about the number of Action cards in play, and we now have Wayfarer that cares about the identity of the last gained card, and Animal Fair which is kind of like a Changeling in reverse. Instead of trashing itself to gain another card, it trashes another card to gain itself. Some other possibilities that come to mind:
- A card whose cost depends on how many cards you've gained that turn (unlike Wayfarer, it would have to limit itself to cards you gained rather than cards anyone gained, otherwise it would be broken with cursing or junking attacks in multiplayer)
- A card whose cost depends on how many Treasure cards you have in play
- A card whose cost can increase under specific conditions
- A card whose cost is lowered if you have copies of itself in play
- A card whose cost cares about how many differently-named cards are in play, which would suit the Expansion name
How about a card that cares about # of cards left in its supply pile. this could be your cost increase.
Also the " 5 or fewer" teaser.
"If there are 5 or fewer copies left in its supply pile, this card costs $1 more."
I don’t see that happening because it would require you to count the pile every time you go to buy it, during a certain portion of the game.
Maybe not. Though something like that could be handled in the FAQ: setup: put the bottom 5 cards of this pile perpendicular to the top 5. But I guess that's not likely. It just seems like a potentially interesting use of "5 or fewer".
-
This time for no special reason I am going to keep previewing cards until the set comes out or the rulebook is posted. These cards won't be playable online (until the whole set comes out), they will just be images to look at and ponder. I'll do one a day, and if people request stuff they'd like to see, I'll try to pick one of those things. They can be kingdom cards or sideways ones.
I'd like to see the other two cards with weird costs if that's possible.
-
This time for no special reason I am going to keep previewing cards until the set comes out or the rulebook is posted. These cards won't be playable online (until the whole set comes out), they will just be images to look at and ponder. I'll do one a day, and if people request stuff they'd like to see, I'll try to pick one of those things. They can be kingdom cards or sideways ones.
One a day, including on weekends? (i.e. do I need to set my alarm tonight for 3am again? :P)
My vote is for... wow, I just changed mind from the teasers, to the reactions, to exile cards,... well you get the picture. I'm happy with anything, really.
-
I think the Way you should go for the next preview is another Way. 8)
-
Fun synergy I just spotted: having played Stonemason and chosen your first Action card to gain, your second choice can always be Wayfarer.
This works for both playing and overpaying for Stonemason, right?
Not if the card you trash is a Destrier and the first gained card costs $1 less than it!
-
Fun synergy I just spotted: having played Stonemason and chosen your first Action card to gain, your second choice can always be Wayfarer.
This works for both playing and overpaying for Stonemason, right?
Not if the card you trash is a Destrier and the first gained card costs $1 less than it!
Just to make sure I follow...
Play Stonemason
1) trash Destrier ($6)
2) gain Livery ($5); Destrier now costs $5 because you've gained one card, Wayfarer costs $5 because you last gained a Livery
3) gain something costing less than $5 (Destrier's current cost)
-
Just to make sure I follow...
Play Stonemason
1) trash Destrier ($6)
2) gain Livery ($5); Destrier now costs $5 because you've gained one card, Wayfarer costs $5 because you last gained a Livery
3) gain something costing less than $5 (Destrier's current cost)
Correct.