Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Rules Questions => Topic started by: hhelibebcnofnena on March 10, 2020, 11:01:49 am
-
You could make a thread in rules for this, present your case for your side; this thread is for bonus previews.
Since nobody else seems to be taking up this suggestion, here is another thread! This conversation will be much easier to follow over here. And people who are going to the previews to see the previews can go to the previews to see the previews!
Sure. But if that's what LastFootnote was saying, he was undermining his own point, and you are undermining yours too, which was that the ruling should change because that's somehow what the rulebook says.
This has been one of the oddest conversations I've had here (which says a lot):
-The Militia rule needs to change because of what the rulebook says.
-The rulebook doesn't say that.
-People are not computers.
-Do you mean that people would misinterpret the rulebook?
-People don't read rulebooks.
I agree, this is strange, and I do think the rule change seemed out of nowhere and unnecessary. Which rulebook states that only the top card is visible after Militia? I thought the only precedent for that was the online implementation?
But I also think you are leaving out some parts, which inherently takes other parts out of context. Perhaps that won't happen as much when this is in its own thread, and everything is relevant!
-
The rulebook states that when you discard multiple cards, you don't have to show people what they all are. They can see the top one though, because your discard pile is face up.
Unless I'm mistaken, no rulebook specifies whether Militia's discards are one-at-a-time or all-at-once. Now with Village Green that suddenly matters a lot more. At some points in the past, then (online only) ruling was that they were discarded one at a time. That sucks and creates more rules questions. Let's have them all discarded at once. In my experience, that's what people IRL actually do anyway.
EDIT: The big, most common rules question is: Let's say I have 4 cards in hand and somebody plays Militia. I discard Village Green, play it using the Reaction, and choose to get the effect now for some reason. Now I'm back up to 4 cards. Do I have to discard again? I had 3 cards in my hand at one point. Was that enough, or is the attack still resolving?
-
So before Village Green, this question came up because of Tunnel/Watchtower originally.
What does Dominion online do? Are you allowed to topdeck or trash your new Gold if you're discarding Tunnel and Watchtower to Militia?
And although I guess it hasn't been made publicly playable yet; what does Dominion online do for Village Green here?
I dunno, my instinct if just reading Militia's text; and not thinking about any other interactions or ruling, is that "discard down to 3" should be mechanically the same as "discard 2 cards" if you start with 5 cards in hand. And so as long as "discard 2 cards" means "at the same time", so should "discard down to 3". I feel like that's how the average person is going to think about getting hit with a Militia. They think "darn, I have to discard 2 cards now", not "darn, now I have to keep discarding cards until I only have 3 left".
Now there could have been a rule (probably too late now) that says that discarding is always a 1-at-a-time thing. I think that rule exists for drawing already... you can't draw 2 cards at the same time. Other than the updated shuffle rule, "+2 cards" is identical to "+1 card, +1 card". But as long as discarding multiple cards at the same time is a thing allowed by the rules (which it clearly is), then I feel like Militia reads that way.
-
I'm also pretty sure that the Village Green issue could happen before Village Green.
4 cards in hand, containing Watchtower (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Watchtower), Tunnel (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Tunnel), and Catacombs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Catacombs). You have your marker on both Sewers (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Sewers) and Innovation (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Innovation).
Opponent plays Militia. You discard Tunnel (3 cards in hand), reveal it to gain a Gold. Reveal Watchtower to trash that Gold (which is allowed under the previous ruling by Donald X). Sewers triggers, so you trash Catacombs from your hand (2 cards in hand). Catacombs' on-trash lets you gain a Smithy. Innovation sets Smithy aside and then plays it. You draw 3 cards. (5 cards in hand).
Are you done discarding to Militia? Under the current (not counting this week's potential change) rules, it seems like you would have to still keep discarding.
*Edit* Never mind, I see Innovation only works during your own turns. Darn.
-
Other than the updated shuffle rule, "+2 cards" is identical to "+1 card, +1 card".
I thought that was only true for Draw-to-X? If it's true in general, though, I agree that it makes sense for "Discard down to 3" to be equivalent to "Discard [(your hand size)-3] cards".
However, either way, I'm with Jeebus on the "should it be changed for the purpose a few obscure interactions" issue.
-
Other than the updated shuffle rule, "+2 cards" is identical to "+1 card, +1 card".
I thought that was only true for Draw-to-X? If it's true in general, though, I agree that it makes sense for "Discard down to 3" to be equivalent to "Discard [(your hand size)-3] cards".
However, either way, I'm with Jeebus on the "should it be changed for the purpose a few obscure interactions" issue.
Unless it changed with the new shuffle rule; it was definitely true originally. It mattered for Stash. With the new shuffle rule it is technically possible that you could draw 2 cards at the same time, but I don't know if it's written in the rules anywhere in second edition.
-
I'm also pretty sure that the Village Green issue could happen before Village Green.
4 cards in hand, containing Watchtower (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Watchtower), Tunnel (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Tunnel), and Catacombs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Catacombs). You have your marker on both Sewers (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Sewers) and Innovation (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Innovation).
Opponent plays Militia. You discard Tunnel (3 cards in hand), reveal it to gain a Gold. Reveal Watchtower to trash that Gold (which is allowed under the previous ruling by Donald X). Sewers triggers, so you trash Catacombs from your hand (2 cards in hand). Catacombs' on-trash lets you gain a Smithy. Innovation sets Smithy aside and then plays it. You draw 3 cards. (5 cards in hand).
Are you done discarding to Militia? Under the current (not counting this week's potential change) rules, it seems like you would have to still keep discarding.
*Edit* Never mind, I see Innovation only works during your own turns. Darn.
Instead of opponent playing Milita, it's your turn and you gain a Cursed Village and get Poverty. There you go.
-
Unless it changed with the new shuffle rule; it was definitely true originally. It mattered for Stash. With the new shuffle rule it is technically possible that you could draw 2 cards at the same time, but I don't know if it's written in the rules anywhere in second edition.
I don't think it ever was printed anywhere, but I asked Donald about how Stash worked back in the day, and he said that you draw one card at a time. Obviously this was actually a feature of Stash, since he even changed the card text to preserve it when the shuffle rule changed. I think the rule about drawing being one-at-a-time is irrelevant in practice now, but that was the latest ruling.
-
I'm also pretty sure that the Village Green issue could happen before Village Green.
4 cards in hand, containing Watchtower (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Watchtower), Tunnel (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Tunnel), and Catacombs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Catacombs). You have your marker on both Sewers (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Sewers) and Innovation (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Innovation).
Opponent plays Militia. You discard Tunnel (3 cards in hand), reveal it to gain a Gold. Reveal Watchtower to trash that Gold (which is allowed under the previous ruling by Donald X). Sewers triggers, so you trash Catacombs from your hand (2 cards in hand). Catacombs' on-trash lets you gain a Smithy. Innovation sets Smithy aside and then plays it. You draw 3 cards. (5 cards in hand).
Are you done discarding to Militia? Under the current (not counting this week's potential change) rules, it seems like you would have to still keep discarding.
*Edit* Never mind, I see Innovation only works during your own turns. Darn.
Instead of opponent playing Milita, it's your turn and you gain a Cursed Village and get Poverty. There you go.
Gaining the Cursed Village would use up Innovation, so it wouldn't happen later when you gain the Smithy.
-
I'm also pretty sure that the Village Green issue could happen before Village Green.
4 cards in hand, containing Watchtower (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Watchtower), Tunnel (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Tunnel), and Catacombs (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Catacombs). You have your marker on both Sewers (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Sewers) and Innovation (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Innovation).
Opponent plays Militia. You discard Tunnel (3 cards in hand), reveal it to gain a Gold. Reveal Watchtower to trash that Gold (which is allowed under the previous ruling by Donald X). Sewers triggers, so you trash Catacombs from your hand (2 cards in hand). Catacombs' on-trash lets you gain a Smithy. Innovation sets Smithy aside and then plays it. You draw 3 cards. (5 cards in hand).
Are you done discarding to Militia? Under the current (not counting this week's potential change) rules, it seems like you would have to still keep discarding.
*Edit* Never mind, I see Innovation only works during your own turns. Darn.
Instead of opponent playing Milita, it's your turn and you gain a Cursed Village and get Poverty. There you go.
Gaining the Cursed Village would use up Innovation, so it wouldn't happen later when you gain the Smithy.
Ok, so no Innovation. Instead, when you trash Catacombs, you gain Blessed Village (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Blessed_Village), and get The Sea's Gift (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/The_Sea's_Gift). This should work as long as you started with 5 cards instead of 4... (Discard Tunnel, trash Catacombs, draw from Sea; leaves you with 4 cards).
-
From the other thread:
Militia's a debate because you can choose "now" for Village Green. The question is, "what if I discard down to three, but then I react and play a Village Green so I have 4 cards? Do I have to discard another one?" If they're discarded at once, and then reactions take effect, then the answer is "no, you've already discarded." But if they're discarded one-at-a-time, the answer is, "yes, you have finished discarding a card, and you have reacted to it. Now you have to check if there are more than 3 cards in your hand. There are, so discard another one."
You're right in your analasys, but the debate was mostly about the need to change the rule. I don't think rules should keep changing for no good reason. Donald is changing his mind about an old ruling that has been confirmed several times, just because he's looking at the same information that was available all the time and coming to a different conclusion. In my view, that is not enough of a reason to change a ruling.
I see that the old ruling creates a new rules question with Village Green (although it could technically come up before in extremely unlikely scenarios). But changing a ruling just to avoid a rules question also seems like a bad idea, especially considering how many situations that already exist where players will have rules questions. Lots of people will play Village Green/Militia wrong (whatever the rule), and lots of people play other interactions wrong too. If they actually want to find out, they go online and look for the answer (again, whatever the rule). The changed ruling avoids the new rules question, but changes the answer to the old Militia/Tunnel/Watchtower question, so for people that look up answers online it's only bad, and for those who don't it's of no consequence.
-
The rulebook states that when you discard multiple cards, you don't have to show people what they all are. They can see the top one though, because your discard pile is face up.
Unless I'm mistaken, no rulebook specifies whether Militia's discards are one-at-a-time or all-at-once. Now with Village Green that suddenly matters a lot more. At some points in the past, then (online only) ruling was that they were discarded one at a time. That sucks and creates more rules questions. Let's have them all discarded at once. In my experience, that's what people IRL actually do anyway.
That's right, no rulebook states that. Which is why I'm still wondering what point you were trying to make when I pointed out exactly that.
-
You're right in your analasys, but the debate was mostly about the need to change the rule.
I know. I interpreted Minotaur's question as being about the rule change itself, rather than the debate. I could have been wrong in that; I sometimes misinterpret people.
As I have stated in this thread, I am (albeit less strongly than you) of the opinion that the rule shouldn't have been changed.
-
Unless it changed with the new shuffle rule; it was definitely true originally. It mattered for Stash. With the new shuffle rule it is technically possible that you could draw 2 cards at the same time, but I don't know if it's written in the rules anywhere in second edition.
I don't think it ever was printed anywhere, but I asked Donald about how Stash worked back in the day, and he said that you draw one card at a time. Obviously this was actually a feature of Stash, since he even changed the card text to preserve it when the shuffle rule changed. I think the rule about drawing being one-at-a-time is irrelevant in practice now, but that was the latest ruling.
Okay, then I think the rule change makes sense as a thing to have been the case originally. I still don't think it's enough to warrant a change, but at least it makes sense.
-
If the rule doesn't change, then there needs to be a clearly defined rule about how to deal with "discard down to" and reactions that trigger during this process that may cause you to draw more. The problem with the current "one at a time" rule is that there's no obvious answer about what is correct in regards to the Militia/Tunnel/Watchtower/Catacombs/Sewers/Blessed Village/Sea's Gift interaction... which is a combination that comes up all the time, I'm sure.
Ok, so now it's just the Militia/Village Green interaction. Same issue as above, but is going to come up way more often. If discarding is one at a time, I have no idea whether it makes sense to say that you should have to keep discarding after you draw a card from Village Green or not. Either option seems equally likely. If instead discard is all at once, then Militia is a single atomic action that can never "keep going" after you've done it.
Interestingly, while MTG rules are insanely complex, the way they work with triggers is much simpler than Dominion... because things can't be interrupted by other things. If something triggers during the resolution of a spell, it just sits and waits until the spell is done before the trigger actually doing anything. If Dominion were like that, then you would always finish discarding for Militia before you gained a Gold for Tunnel, etc.
-
Choosing the order is still tricky because you could discard two Village Greens. (If the "last" discard is a Village Green, you reached 3, if I understand correctly?) You also might want Village Green to go first and then discard a bunch more if you have three Diplomats in hand. Two Village Greens, and the ruling matters but there's no choice, unless the ruling is that "check handsize" and "react to discard" are both triggered by the same discard and you choose the order from there, as you do with "at start/end of turn" effects.
For symmetry with discard, they could change +N Cards to mean "Set aside N cards from your deck one at a time face down, and then put them all into your hand, triggering reshuffle as you go if necessary. You may inspect any number of the set aside cards at any time as you do so. Apply side effects of card draw for each card in any order, if any." But I suspect there are cases where this is not clear either.
-
One-at-a-time doesn't sound great to me because now the online version has to say what you discarded, and in real life, everyone can demand to see your discards, which takes more time and is only fair given the rules. Might as well skip the middleman and make all discard piles completely public at this point.
It's somewhat of a downer that online you don't get to pick the top card like in real life, but the interface hassle would be annoying. Maybe a toggled option to give the prompt each time would work, but it's a little heavy for something most people won't use. Like, I can lose fine either way, I don't see it making the difference for me.
-
One-at-a-time doesn't sound great to me because now the online version has to say what you discarded, and in real life, everyone can demand to see your discards, which takes more time and is only fair given the rules. Might as well skip the middleman and make all discard piles completely public at this point.
It's somewhat of a downer that online you don't get to pick the top card like in real life, but the interface hassle would be annoying. Maybe a toggled option to give the prompt each time would work, but it's a little heavy for something most people won't use. Like, I can lose fine either way, I don't see it making the difference for me.
Doesn’t the online implementation select the discard / topdeck order according to the order in which you selected the cards?
-
One-at-a-time doesn't sound great to me ... Might as well skip the middleman and make all discard piles completely public at this point.
If it were one-at-a-time, it would just be Militia-like-things that are "discard down to x". Discarding your hand during cleanup would still be all at once, as would "discard 2 cards."
-
One-at-a-time doesn't sound great to me because now the online version has to say what you discarded, and in real life, everyone can demand to see your discards, which takes more time and is only fair given the rules. Might as well skip the middleman and make all discard piles completely public at this point.
So, the previous ruling for Militia was "discard them one at a time, but you don't have to reveal them all somehow."
The way I would implement that electronically would be to allow discarding in batches. Have Militia repeatedly ask you, as long as you have more than 3 cards in hand, to discard a number of cards between 1 and {cards in hand minus 3}. If you want to discard them all in one go, then you do that and only reveal one. If you want to discard less than that, you do, you react, and then you can discard another batch. You reveal one card per batch you discard. Repeat until you're down to 3 cards in hand.
-
Ok, so now it's just the Militia/Village Green interaction. Same issue as above, but is going to come up way more often. If discarding is one at a time, I have no idea whether it makes sense to say that you should have to keep discarding after you draw a card from Village Green or not. Either option seems equally likely. If instead discard is all at once, then Militia is a single atomic action that can never "keep going" after you've done it.
I think Hhelibebcnofnena's take (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20150.msg826167#msg826167) has to be correct. Reacting with the Village Green triggers on discarding one card. After resolving that, Militia continues, checking how many cards you have.
Choosing the order is still tricky because you could discard two Village Greens. (If the "last" discard is a Village Green, you reached 3, if I understand correctly?) You also might want Village Green to go first and then discard a bunch more if you have three Diplomats in hand. Two Village Greens, and the ruling matters but there's no choice, unless the ruling is that "check handsize" and "react to discard" are both triggered by the same discard and you choose the order from there, as you do with "at start/end of turn" effects.
I'm not sure I understand you. But there is a ruling that when you discard several cards at once, when-discard abilities don't trigger until after you've discarded all the cards.
So, the previous ruling for Militia was "discard them one at a time, but you don't have to reveal them all somehow."
I didn't know that (or maybe I forgot). Are you sure Donald has ruled that you don't have to reveal all the cards when you discard one at a time for Militia? Do you have a link to that?
-
Choosing the order is still tricky because you could discard two Village Greens. (If the "last" discard is a Village Green, you reached 3, if I understand correctly?) You also might want Village Green to go first and then discard a bunch more if you have three Diplomats in hand. Two Village Greens, and the ruling matters but there's no choice, unless the ruling is that "check handsize" and "react to discard" are both triggered by the same discard and you choose the order from there, as you do with "at start/end of turn" effects.
I'm not sure I understand you. But there is a ruling that when you discard several cards at once, when-discard abilities don't trigger until after you've discarded all the cards.
I didn't know that (or maybe I forgot). Are you sure Donald has ruled that you don't have to reveal all the cards when you discard one at a time for Militia? Do you have a link to that?
If we encoded "check whether your handsize is at least 4" as a side effect of each discard event (single or combined ruling), then it would be one of two events triggered by the discards themselves. Eligible reactions are usually taken in the order chosen by whoever can/must perform them.
-
The option that you implicitly advocate is the lazy one (which is thankfully not the case here): a designer not caring about unclear stuff and updating the rules.
I don't think I'd go that far. I think a more charitable interpretation is that Jeebus advocates for an approach with greater pre-planning and consideration for how word/rule choices will impact future design space, which would actually take much more work up-front. Though you and I do agree that it's not realistic to expect to anticipate everything. Especially in a world with limited time where you actually need to start selling those expansions at some point.
I'm not even replying to Segura, because he's talking crazy talk, and again completely misrepresenting what I said. I was saying (to repeat myself again) that a rule change should have a good reason(!). I was not talking about pre-planning. Donald has made rulings based on trying to interpret the rules and cards as accurately as possible although I thought that the results would be unintuitive for players. One example is the ruling that you can take another player's Adventures tokens with Possession (at the time when Possession worked with all tokens), because he interpreted the Adventures rulebook that way. I tried to convince him that it's better to rule the other way, because that's what most players would think. And the result of that ruling was a bunch of more complex rules questions. In that case it would have been better to "reinterpret" the Adventures rulebook. But when a ruling is made in response to a specific interaction, I don't see that it should change just because it raises another rules question, which could easiliy be answered instead. That's the nature of introducing new stuff, it will often raise rules questions, as can be seen in this forum with the teasers.
-
I didn't know that (or maybe I forgot). Are you sure Donald has ruled that you don't have to reveal all the cards when you discard one at a time for Militia? Do you have a link to that?
I found the post I was remembering (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10683.msg355976#msg355976). Specifically (bolding mine):
I think it's more natural to discard one at a time to Militia, given the phrasing; especially considering it lines up with Library etc. This could give you an infinite loop with "when you discard this, +1 card" and well that card doesn't exist. I'd rather not have a special ruling and with no special ruling and nothing in the rulebooks, "discard down to 3" sounds to me like I keep discarding until I have 3 (or fewer dammit). However you don't need to reveal the cards below the top one because somehow the rulebook says this.
Maybe I'm incorrect in calling that a ruling. It looks like Donald was maybe still in the process of deciding there.
Ha, ha, he talks about "when you discard this, +1 card" in there.
-
I haven't seen anyone mention that the ruling here could force additional cards to be discarded after reaching the hand size.
Example:
I have bought Sewers and have five cards in hand, including Tunnel and Watchtower.
Opponent plays Militia.
I discard Tunnel.
I reveal Watchtower to trash the gained Gold.
I use Sewers to trash a card from my hand.
I now have three cards left in my hand.
If I discard until I have 3 cards left then I'm done, but if the number of cards to discard is decided when Militia is played I must still discard one more and will end up with just two cards left.
-
I haven't seen anyone mention that the ruling here could force additional cards to be discarded after reaching the hand size.
Example:
I have bought Sewers and have five cards in hand, including Tunnel and Watchtower.
Opponent plays Militia.
I discard Tunnel.
I reveal Watchtower to trash the gained Gold.
I use Sewers to trash a card from my hand.
I now have three cards left in my hand.
If I discard until I have 3 cards left then I'm done, but if the number of cards to discard is decided when Militia is played I must still discard one more and will end up with just two cards left.
This could be done, but I don't think anyone is going to specifically advocate for this interpretation. It feels sort of weird to finalize the number up front and stay locked in to it.
-
I haven't seen anyone mention that the ruling here could force additional cards to be discarded after reaching the hand size.
Example:
I have bought Sewers and have five cards in hand, including Tunnel and Watchtower.
Opponent plays Militia.
I discard Tunnel.
I reveal Watchtower to trash the gained Gold.
I use Sewers to trash a card from my hand.
I now have three cards left in my hand.
If I discard until I have 3 cards left then I'm done, but if the number of cards to discard is decided when Militia is played I must still discard one more and will end up with just two cards left.
This could not happen, because as I've said, the ruling is that when you discard several cards at once, when-discard abilities don't trigger until after you've discarded all the cards.
So you discard Tunnel and one more card, and then you gain Gold and trash. But Militia has already made you discard 2 cards and that's it.
-
I haven't seen anyone mention that the ruling here could force additional cards to be discarded after reaching the hand size.
Example:
I have bought Sewers and have five cards in hand, including Tunnel and Watchtower.
Opponent plays Militia.
I discard Tunnel.
I reveal Watchtower to trash the gained Gold.
I use Sewers to trash a card from my hand.
I now have three cards left in my hand.
If I discard until I have 3 cards left then I'm done, but if the number of cards to discard is decided when Militia is played I must still discard one more and will end up with just two cards left.
You're creating an odd scenario where you discard 1-at-a-time, to a set number determined at the start. I believe the two options are:
Discard 1 at a time until 3 cards or less in hand. (can react after each discard)
Discard all at once down to 3 cards or less in hand. (only react after all are discarded)
Now option 2 combined with Sewers and Tunnel and Watchtower can result in a 2-card hand, because you react after the discard, and choose to trash 1 of your remaining cards. But it's not because you have a discard leftover after reaching 3 cards. Option 1 you would discard 1-at-a-time and end after trashing.
I think though that for the discard-gain gold, trash something from hand, draw a card (Catacombs+Blessed Village, or just Overgrown Estate or Rats). This actually gets you to 3 cards and 2 discarded + 1 trashed either way. The only difference is whether you can discard the drawn card/watchtower or not.
Option 1 goes: discard-trash-draw, at 4 cards, discard again. Option 2 goes: discard 2 (at 3)-trash-draw, at 3 cards now. You'd need to be able to trash due to discard from outside your hand to cause the issue that Village Green causes.
So, option 1 you can discard the drawn card or Watchtower, whereas option 2 you must discard an original non-Watchtower card.
EDIT: it's also possible that option 1 terminates the discard while you're mid-reaction since you reached 3 cards at some point.
-
I didn't know that (or maybe I forgot). Are you sure Donald has ruled that you don't have to reveal all the cards when you discard one at a time for Militia? Do you have a link to that?
I found the post I was remembering (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10683.msg355976#msg355976). Specifically (bolding mine):
I think it's more natural to discard one at a time to Militia, given the phrasing; especially considering it lines up with Library etc. This could give you an infinite loop with "when you discard this, +1 card" and well that card doesn't exist. I'd rather not have a special ruling and with no special ruling and nothing in the rulebooks, "discard down to 3" sounds to me like I keep discarding until I have 3 (or fewer dammit). However you don't need to reveal the cards below the top one because somehow the rulebook says this.
Maybe I'm incorrect in calling that a ruling. It looks like Donald was maybe still in the process of deciding there.
Ha, ha, he talks about "when you discard this, +1 card" in there.
A couple things here... he says that the rulebook says you don't need to reveal the cards below the top one; but not sure exactly what he's talking about... if he's talking about the recently quoted "If you discard multiple cards at once, you do not need to reveal them all, just the one you put on top." then I don't see the exact relevance here... that rule isn't about Militia, it's a general rule... as Jeebus was saying earlier. Using that rule to say that with Militia opponents only see the top card is already assuming that Militia fits into the "multiple cards at once" category.
The other thing, he mentions a potential infinite loop. I'm curious if he actually meant infinite. With Village Green; you can only discard 10 Village Greens and then you're done. No way to make that go infinite, unless there's some other fancier combo he had in mind.
Finally, I looked into the second edition rulebook, in the Militia FAQ. It says:
"Players with 3 or fewer cards in hand do not discard any cards. Players with more cards discard until they only have 3."
The "until" there really makes it sound like it's one-at-a-time; though not necessarily definitively.
-
I haven't seen anyone mention that the ruling here could force additional cards to be discarded after reaching the hand size.
Example:
I have bought Sewers and have five cards in hand, including Tunnel and Watchtower.
Opponent plays Militia.
I discard Tunnel.
I reveal Watchtower to trash the gained Gold.
I use Sewers to trash a card from my hand.
I now have three cards left in my hand.
If I discard until I have 3 cards left then I'm done, but if the number of cards to discard is decided when Militia is played I must still discard one more and will end up with just two cards left.
I don't think this is a possible interpretation simply due to Diplomat (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Diplomat). We know for sure that revealing Diplomat to Militia would result in you ending at 3 cards after drawing 2, discarding 3, then discarding 1 more to Militia to get to 3. In other words, Diplomat changes Militia's "discard 2" into a "discard 1".
-
If I understand, flynd's scenario is like this:
Let D = N - 3, where N is the number of cards in your hand.
If N > 0, repeat N times:
Discard one card from your hand
Then the scenario plays out as described.
I do not advocate for that interpretation being implemented, but it's not illogical and it does have the same effect unless interactions with attack or discard are in effect.
-
If I understand, flynd's scenario is like this:
Let D = N - 3, where N is the number of cards in your hand.
If N > 0, repeat N times:
Discard one card from your hand
Then the scenario plays out as described.
I do not advocate for that interpretation being implemented, but it's not illogical and it does have the same effect unless interactions with attack or discard are in effect.
But Diplomat.
Unless N is checked after all the "first" stuff is done and we're onto actually resolving the card's instructions. I suppose that could then work under that interpretation. But I still think it would be a very awkward interpretation, one that people wouldn't naturally come to ever.
-
If I understand, flynd's scenario is like this:
Let D = N - 3, where N is the number of cards in your hand.
If N > 0, repeat N times:
Discard one card from your hand
Then the scenario plays out as described.
I do not advocate for that interpretation being implemented, but it's not illogical and it does have the same effect unless interactions with attack or discard are in effect.
No, Flynd was not saying that. He said (my bolding):
If I discard until I have 3 cards left then I'm done, but if the number of cards to discard is decided when Militia is played I must still discard one more and will end up with just two cards left.
And I replied above, saying why he's wrong.
EDIT: Sorry, that's what Flynd was saying. But he's still wrong for the same reason.
-
But Diplomat.
Unless N is checked after all the "first" stuff is done and we're onto actually resolving the card's instructions. I suppose that could then work under that interpretation. But I still think it would be a very awkward interpretation, one that people wouldn't naturally come to ever.
I don't think Diplomat is relevant. We do first do all the "first" stuff, which includes Diplomat. That is all over before we start resolving the Militia.
But Flynd's scenario is wrong because of what I stated above.
-
If I understand, flynd's scenario is like this:
Let D = N - 3, where N is the number of cards in your hand.
If N > 0, repeat N times:
Discard one card from your hand
Then the scenario plays out as described.
I do not advocate for that interpretation being implemented, but it's not illogical and it does have the same effect unless interactions with attack or discard are in effect.
No, Flynd was not saying that. He said (my bolding):
If I discard until I have 3 cards left then I'm done, but if the number of cards to discard is decided when Militia is played I must still discard one more and will end up with just two cards left.
And I replied above, saying why he's wrong.
Minotaur's post sounds exactly like what you just quoted flynd as saying... what do you think is different?
And flynd is talking about the rule of one-at-a-time. So your response of dealing with all triggers after all discards are done doesn't apply here.
-
Minotaur's post sounds exactly like what you just quoted flynd as saying... what do you think is different?
And flynd is talking about the rule of one-at-a-time. So your response of dealing with all triggers after all discards are done doesn't apply here.
Yes, I see now that Minotaur's description was accurate. But Flynd's post was a weird mix, just as Theorel said. If the number of cards to discard is decided when Militia is played, then Militia tells you to discard x cards, so there is no one-at-a-time. Tunnel doesn't trigger until x cards are discarded. That rule is indeed very relevant. Flynd's scenario cannot happen under any ruling.
-
The examples I saw early in this thread was of drawing additional cards while resolving Militia and whether the increased hand size would require additional cards to be discarded.
The point of my earlier post was to show that it could also be the other way around, i.e. reactions can reduces the hand size. If drawing additional cards would force additional discards it also means that reducing the hand size by reactions will result in fewer discards due to the attack.
I'm not advocating whether it should be "discard one card at a time until reaching 3" or "discard all cards at once and then react". I just wanted to show another scenario that will also be affected by the ruling.
-
The examples I saw early in this thread was of drawing additional cards while resolving Militia and whether the increased hand size would require additional cards to be discarded.
The point of my earlier post was to show that it could also be the other way around, i.e. reactions can reduces the hand size. If drawing additional cards would force additional discards it also means that reducing the hand size by reactions will result in fewer discards due to the attack.
I'm not advocating whether it should be "discard one card at a time until reaching 3" or "discard all cards at once and then react". I just wanted to show another scenario that will also be affected by the ruling.
But what you're missing is that in those scenarios, Militia does not lock in the number beforehand; it just tells you to keep discarding until you have 3.
-
I didn't know that (or maybe I forgot). Are you sure Donald has ruled that you don't have to reveal all the cards when you discard one at a time for Militia? Do you have a link to that?
I found the post I was remembering (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10683.msg355976#msg355976). Specifically (bolding mine):
I think it's more natural to discard one at a time to Militia, given the phrasing; especially considering it lines up with Library etc. This could give you an infinite loop with "when you discard this, +1 card" and well that card doesn't exist. I'd rather not have a special ruling and with no special ruling and nothing in the rulebooks, "discard down to 3" sounds to me like I keep discarding until I have 3 (or fewer dammit). However you don't need to reveal the cards below the top one because somehow the rulebook says this.
Maybe I'm incorrect in calling that a ruling. It looks like Donald was maybe still in the process of deciding there.
Ha, ha, he talks about "when you discard this, +1 card" in there.
A couple things here... he says that the rulebook says you don't need to reveal the cards below the top one; but not sure exactly what he's talking about... if he's talking about the recently quoted "If you discard multiple cards at once, you do not need to reveal them all, just the one you put on top." then I don't see the exact relevance here... that rule isn't about Militia, it's a general rule... as Jeebus was saying earlier. Using that rule to say that with Militia opponents only see the top card is already assuming that Militia fits into the "multiple cards at once" category.
The other thing, he mentions a potential infinite loop. I'm curious if he actually meant infinite. With Village Green; you can only discard 10 Village Greens and then you're done. No way to make that go infinite, unless there's some other fancier combo he had in mind.
Finally, I looked into the second edition rulebook, in the Militia FAQ. It says:
"Players with 3 or fewer cards in hand do not discard any cards. Players with more cards discard until they only have 3."
The "until" there really makes it sound like it's one-at-a-time; though not necessarily definitively.
You play Village Green when you discard it; you don't play "when you discard this, +1 Card." The latter goes infinite with one-at-a-time Militia; Village Green does not.
-
Finally, I looked into the second edition rulebook, in the Militia FAQ. It says:
"Players with 3 or fewer cards in hand do not discard any cards. Players with more cards discard until they only have 3."
The "until" there really makes it sound like it's one-at-a-time; though not necessarily definitively.
Didn't think about checking the Militia description. The first edition rulebook also says this. To me it's pretty definite that "discard until they have 3" is one at a time. So if the idea is to match the rulebooks, the ruling shouldn't be changed.
-
I didn't know that (or maybe I forgot). Are you sure Donald has ruled that you don't have to reveal all the cards when you discard one at a time for Militia? Do you have a link to that?
I found the post I was remembering (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=10683.msg355976#msg355976). Specifically (bolding mine):
I think it's more natural to discard one at a time to Militia, given the phrasing; especially considering it lines up with Library etc. This could give you an infinite loop with "when you discard this, +1 card" and well that card doesn't exist. I'd rather not have a special ruling and with no special ruling and nothing in the rulebooks, "discard down to 3" sounds to me like I keep discarding until I have 3 (or fewer dammit). However you don't need to reveal the cards below the top one because somehow the rulebook says this.
Maybe I'm incorrect in calling that a ruling. It looks like Donald was maybe still in the process of deciding there.
Ha, ha, he talks about "when you discard this, +1 card" in there.
A couple things here... he says that the rulebook says you don't need to reveal the cards below the top one; but not sure exactly what he's talking about... if he's talking about the recently quoted "If you discard multiple cards at once, you do not need to reveal them all, just the one you put on top." then I don't see the exact relevance here... that rule isn't about Militia, it's a general rule... as Jeebus was saying earlier. Using that rule to say that with Militia opponents only see the top card is already assuming that Militia fits into the "multiple cards at once" category.
The other thing, he mentions a potential infinite loop. I'm curious if he actually meant infinite. With Village Green; you can only discard 10 Village Greens and then you're done. No way to make that go infinite, unless there's some other fancier combo he had in mind.
Finally, I looked into the second edition rulebook, in the Militia FAQ. It says:
"Players with 3 or fewer cards in hand do not discard any cards. Players with more cards discard until they only have 3."
The "until" there really makes it sound like it's one-at-a-time; though not necessarily definitively.
You play Village Green when you discard it; you don't play "when you discard this, +1 Card." The latter goes infinite with one-at-a-time Militia; Village Green does not.
Ah, right.
-
A couple things here... he says that the rulebook says you don't need to reveal the cards below the top one; but not sure exactly what he's talking about... if he's talking about the recently quoted "If you discard multiple cards at once, you do not need to reveal them all, just the one you put on top." then I don't see the exact relevance here... that rule isn't about Militia, it's a general rule... as Jeebus was saying earlier. Using that rule to say that with Militia opponents only see the top card is already assuming that Militia fits into the "multiple cards at once" category.
Finally, I looked into the second edition rulebook, in the Militia FAQ. It says:
"Players with 3 or fewer cards in hand do not discard any cards. Players with more cards discard until they only have 3."
The "until" there really makes it sound like it's one-at-a-time; though not necessarily definitively.
The rules for discarding say that if you discard multiple cards, you only have to reveal the one that ends up on top of the discard pile. Militia says as you've quoted.
There is no conflict there; it could just be that you discard one at a time, and Militia means they'll see all the discarded cards. That fits the rulebook the best so that's compelling.
However, over the years, everyone has always thought that Militia was affected by that rule about revealed discards. So even "not changing" this changes it.
-
A couple things here... he says that the rulebook says you don't need to reveal the cards below the top one; but not sure exactly what he's talking about... if he's talking about the recently quoted "If you discard multiple cards at once, you do not need to reveal them all, just the one you put on top." then I don't see the exact relevance here... that rule isn't about Militia, it's a general rule... as Jeebus was saying earlier. Using that rule to say that with Militia opponents only see the top card is already assuming that Militia fits into the "multiple cards at once" category.
Finally, I looked into the second edition rulebook, in the Militia FAQ. It says:
"Players with 3 or fewer cards in hand do not discard any cards. Players with more cards discard until they only have 3."
The "until" there really makes it sound like it's one-at-a-time; though not necessarily definitively.
The rules for discarding say that if you discard multiple cards, you only have to reveal the one that ends up on top of the discard pile. Militia says as you've quoted.
There is no conflict there; it could just be that you discard one at a time, and Militia means they'll see all the discarded cards. That fits the rulebook the best so that's compelling.
Right, this is what I was meaning to say. That the rule about only seeing the top card doesn't necessarily deal with Militia unless a separate rule says that Militia is multiple at once.
However, over the years, everyone has always thought that Militia was affected by that rule about revealed discards. So even "not changing" this changes it.
Yeah, I agree; that's basically what I was saying in the other thread... that it's easy for people to already think of Militia as "discarding multiple cards" in general, and this rule simply confirms in those people's minds that "if multiple cards are discarded; they must be discarded all at once". Even though they are technically reading something into it that's not there.
I think the bigger issue with one-at-a-time is that if that's the rule, then you need another rule about how to handle Village Green. Or Tunnel/Watchtower/Sewer/Catacombs/Blessed Village. And either option you choose for that one seems equally confusing (either people assume that they've already been at 3 cards, so they shouldn't have to keep discarded. Or people assume that they didn't yet finish dealing with Militia until they got back up to 4 cards, so they should have to keep discarding).
-
Or Tunnel/Watchtower/Sewer/Catacombs/Blessed Village.
Minor issue: Isn't Theorel right that this combo doesn't raise the question? If you trash after discarding 1 card, you draw back up to 4, then discard again to Militia, ending up at 3 cards after having discarded 2. If you trash after discarding 2 cards, you draw back up to 3, and again there's no question. (We needed to draw more than 1 card.)
-
Is there A .a special rule that whenever you discard a group of cards, you must select one of those cards to reveal to all players, or is there B. a general rule that after each "thing" that happens, other players get a chance to see the state of the top card of your discard pile before you partake in the next "thing".
A. seems a little silly, but if it has always been A, then militia is necessarily discarding 2 cards, because otherwise we would view the first card discarded because it individually comprises a group of 1 card and at least one of that group of 1 must be revealed.
I feel like B still allows for two different interpretations of Militia, while most people seem to post that it only allows for one. The first interpretation is that Militia causes you to discard two cards. The second interpretation is that Militia has you recursively discard cards one at a time until you reach 3, but this entire process is considered a single "thing". Stacking the cards and discarding them is just, doing the "thing" so "quickly" that players can't pick up on some of the information about the process - though they are still able to glean information about the second card.
There are lots of spicy takes if I can convince people that second interpretation is plausible. For instance, if discarding three cards and gaining a gold for the Sky's Gift is a single thing you could use the gold to hide all three cards (but you could still also show the third one if they are decided to be separate events.)
(A few replies were posted while I was typing.)
-
Other than the updated shuffle rule, "+2 cards" is identical to "+1 card, +1 card".
I thought that was only true for Draw-to-X? If it's true in general, though, I agree that it makes sense for "Discard down to 3" to be equivalent to "Discard [(your hand size)-3] cards".
However, either way, I'm with Jeebus on the "should it be changed for the purpose a few obscure interactions" issue.
Unless it changed with the new shuffle rule; it was definitely true originally. It mattered for Stash. With the new shuffle rule it is technically possible that you could draw 2 cards at the same time, but I don't know if it's written in the rules anywhere in second edition.
What is the "new shuffle rule" that you reference?
-
Other than the updated shuffle rule, "+2 cards" is identical to "+1 card, +1 card".
I thought that was only true for Draw-to-X? If it's true in general, though, I agree that it makes sense for "Discard down to 3" to be equivalent to "Discard [(your hand size)-3] cards".
However, either way, I'm with Jeebus on the "should it be changed for the purpose a few obscure interactions" issue.
Unless it changed with the new shuffle rule; it was definitely true originally. It mattered for Stash. With the new shuffle rule it is technically possible that you could draw 2 cards at the same time, but I don't know if it's written in the rules anywhere in second edition.
What is the "new shuffle rule" that you reference?
Old school rules on shuffling was that when you draw 2 or more cards, you draw as many as you can, then stop and shuffle your discard pile into your deck, then continue drawing until you've drawn the number you're supposed to.
New rule is that when you draw 2 or more cards and can see already there's not going to be enough, you shuffle your discard piled face down, slide it underneath your deck, then draw all the cards you need all at once.
These are usually equivalent excepting for a couple narrow card interactions.
-
Or Tunnel/Watchtower/Sewer/Catacombs/Blessed Village.
Minor issue: Isn't Theorel right that this combo doesn't raise the question? If you trash after discarding 1 card, you draw back up to 4, then discard again to Militia, ending up at 3 cards after having discarded 2. If you trash after discarding 2 cards, you draw back up to 3, and again there's no question. (We needed to draw more than 1 card.)
The situation/question is the first one... you discard Tunnel, trash Catacombs (now have 3 cards) then draw 1 for Sea's Gift, putting you back to 4. You say “then discard again to Militia”, but that’s exactly what the question is... do you have to discard again to Militia or not? Yes because Militia's discard hasn’t finished until you finished everything and drew back up to 4? Or no because you did at some point in all of that get down to 3 cards, and then drew another one after? It’s the same basic question as Village Green, just with a lot more pieces needed to trigger the card draw as part of discarding.
-
Or Tunnel/Watchtower/Sewer/Catacombs/Blessed Village.
Minor issue: Isn't Theorel right that this combo doesn't raise the question? If you trash after discarding 1 card, you draw back up to 4, then discard again to Militia, ending up at 3 cards after having discarded 2. If you trash after discarding 2 cards, you draw back up to 3, and again there's no question. (We needed to draw more than 1 card.)
The situation/question is the first one... you discard Tunnel, trash Catacombs (now have 3 cards) then draw 1 for Sea's Gift, putting you back to 4. You say “then discard again to Militia”, but that’s exactly what the question is... do you have to discard again to Militia or not? Yes because Militia's discard hasn’t finished until you finished everything and drew back up to 4? Or no because you did at some point in all of that get down to 3 cards, and then drew another one after? It’s the same basic question as Village Green, just with a lot more pieces needed to trigger the card draw as part of discarding.
It's not the exact same question though, because it's not discarding to Militia that gets you to 3. With Village Green the question is whether Militia is satisfied after making you discard a card that gets you to 3, so it's enough that Militia is checking after each discard effect. In your scenario, Militia would be continually checking. To me, "discard cards until you have 3" is equivalent to "do this until you have 3: discard a card", which means Militia checks after each card discarded.
-
I think the bigger issue with one-at-a-time is that if that's the rule, then you need another rule about how to handle Village Green. Or Tunnel/Watchtower/Sewer/Catacombs/Blessed Village. And either option you choose for that one seems equally confusing (either people assume that they've already been at 3 cards, so they shouldn't have to keep discarded. Or people assume that they didn't yet finish dealing with Militia until they got back up to 4 cards, so they should have to keep discarding).
While we can set up a scenario where you Militia and I have Village Green and want the card right now, in practice it's not a thing. No-one gets confused because no-one wants the card then. So, that potential confusion shouldn't be a deciding factor in how the situation actually plays out.
In general we want the most clear intuitive thing for the vast number of cases of using the cards, and can have a rulebook or online FAQ for obscure situations.
-
Or Tunnel/Watchtower/Sewer/Catacombs/Blessed Village.
Minor issue: Isn't Theorel right that this combo doesn't raise the question? If you trash after discarding 1 card, you draw back up to 4, then discard again to Militia, ending up at 3 cards after having discarded 2. If you trash after discarding 2 cards, you draw back up to 3, and again there's no question. (We needed to draw more than 1 card.)
The situation/question is the first one... you discard Tunnel, trash Catacombs (now have 3 cards) then draw 1 for Sea's Gift, putting you back to 4. You say “then discard again to Militia”, but that’s exactly what the question is... do you have to discard again to Militia or not? Yes because Militia's discard hasn’t finished until you finished everything and drew back up to 4? Or no because you did at some point in all of that get down to 3 cards, and then drew another one after? It’s the same basic question as Village Green, just with a lot more pieces needed to trigger the card draw as part of discarding.
It's not the exact same question though, because it's not discarding to Militia that gets you to 3. With Village Green the question is whether Militia is satisfied after making you discard a card that gets you to 3, so it's enough that Militia is checking after each discard effect. In your scenario, Militia would be continually checking. To me, "discard cards until you have 3" is equivalent to "do this until you have 3: discard a card", which means Militia checks after each card discarded.
I would still think that the end ruling would have to match either situation, even if that specific difference does exist... the question was basically always whether Militia checks continually or only after each discard. if Militia only checks after each time you do a discard (which might come with some various other things that happened as part of that discard), then you have to discard again. If Militia continually checks, then don’t. I agree with you that checking after each discard is more natural.
The only way there is a difference in effect is if the rule is that Militia checks after each discard, but before all of the things that are included with that discard, but that seems stranger.
-
I think the bigger issue with one-at-a-time is that if that's the rule, then you need another rule about how to handle Village Green. Or Tunnel/Watchtower/Sewer/Catacombs/Blessed Village. And either option you choose for that one seems equally confusing (either people assume that they've already been at 3 cards, so they shouldn't have to keep discarded. Or people assume that they didn't yet finish dealing with Militia until they got back up to 4 cards, so they should have to keep discarding).
While we can set up a scenario where you Militia and I have Village Green and want the card right now, in practice it's not a thing. No-one gets confused because no-one wants the card then. So, that potential confusion shouldn't be a deciding factor in how the situation actually plays out.
In general we want the most clear intuitive thing for the vast number of cases of using the cards, and can have a rulebook or online FAQ for obscure situations.
A more likely scenario could be that Village Green has your +1 card token on it. Then we have the same question even if you don’t choose to use it now for some reason.
-
I would still think that the end ruling would have to match either situation, even if that specific difference does exist... the question was basically always whether Militia checks continually or only after each discard. if Militia only checks after each time you do a discard (which might come with some various other things that happened as part of that discard), then you have to discard again. If Militia continually checks, then don’t. I agree with you that checking after each discard is more natural.
The only way there is a difference in effect is if the rule is that Militia checks after each discard, but before all of the things that are included with that discard, but that seems stranger.
Yes, that was the way I was thinking about it, and the reason I saw a difference between the two scenarious. But I agree that it would be a very strange interpretation, which is why I rejected it and agreed with Hhelibebcnofnena that one-at-a-time means that you discard down to 3 in the end.
But I see now that another way to see it would be that Militia is continually checking. But yeah, I don't really see any good reason for interpreting it that way either.
-
However, over the years, everyone has always thought that Militia was affected by that rule about revealed discards. So even "not changing" this changes it.
Was that true before the online implementation started doing it that way? Just curious; I was a fan, but not part of the community, when that was the case. Anyway, that thought might change if the online version changed to reflect one-at-a-time Militia.
Also, with this tentative changed ruling, does the Watchtower-Tunnel thing not work anymore? Because I don't think the Village Green stop-discarding thing and the Tunnel-Watchtower thing can both work.
-
However, over the years, everyone has always thought that Militia was affected by that rule about revealed discards. So even "not changing" this changes it.
Was that true before the online implementation started doing it that way? Just curious; I was a fan, but not part of the community, when that was the case. Anyway, that thought might change if the online version changed to reflect one-at-a-time Militia.
I have not done a formal poll; feel free. Me, being me, I always felt like you didn't get to see both cards. The people around me, maybe they picked it up from me or came to me with it, dunno.
Also, with this tentative changed ruling, does the Watchtower-Tunnel thing not work anymore? Because I don't think the Village Green stop-discarding thing and the Tunnel-Watchtower thing can both work.
I don't feel like I attached the "tentative ruling" sticker yet.
I feel like a say this a lot, but, as usual, what I especially care about are:
- How things work in common real-life situations.
- Having intuitive rulings.
- Matching the rulebooks and card text.
- Having an answer for what happens in exotic scenarios, that can be worked out by the people who need to do this.
And I do not so much care about:
- What exactly happens in exotic scenarios.
A big question here is, for the people who never go online to talk about these things, do they think Militia is one at a time or all at once? I don't care how that makes Village Green or Tunnel play out; there will be an answer and that's good enough.
-
A big question here is, for the people who never go online to talk about these things, do they think Militia is one at a time or all at once? I don't care how that makes Village Green or Tunnel play out; there will be an answer and that's good enough.
Unfortunately that may depend on if they’ve read the Militia FAQ in the rulebook. From just the words on the card, I feel like it’s all at once. From the words in the FAQ, I feel like it’s one at a time.
I can say for sure that in practice, for in person games, probably no one plays it as one at a time. If my opponent plays Militia, I take a Copper and Estate from my hand and put them both in the discard pile. Maybe rarely if I have only 1 junk card, I might put that in the discard and continue to think about what other non-junk to discard. But rarely. In fact, I think in the one-junk scenario, I’m more likely to make sure I secretly hide my non-junk under the junk as I discard them both together, to keep information from my opponent in case it matters. Perhaps I’m breaking an existing rule there.
Of course, it might not matter how people physically do that IRL, because hey, people also play all their treasures at the same time IRL, even though we know for sure that they are getting played one at a time by the rules.
-
Yeah, what people physically do when they discard for Militia doesn't matter at all. What matters is how they think it works with Tunnel/Watchtower and with Village Green. Those are the two (known) situations where the rule matters at all.
What the rulebook says matters, what the card says matters, and what has been ruled online in the past matters. The more discrepancy between those three things (plus any new ruling), the more confusion.
-
Also, with this tentative changed ruling, does the Watchtower-Tunnel thing not work anymore? Because I don't think the Village Green stop-discarding thing and the Tunnel-Watchtower thing can both work.
I don't feel like I attached the "tentative ruling" sticker yet.
Here's the sticker. Maybe you've removed it though.
In order to match rulebook rulings (e.g., they only get to see one card), I think Militia has to be "pick the order, then discard them all at once." So that's my tentative ruling.
Also, with regards to the rest of that:
I feel like a say this a lot, but, as usual, what I especially care about are:
- How things work in common real-life situations.
- Having intuitive rulings.
- Matching the rulebooks and card text.
- Having an answer for what happens in exotic scenarios, that can be worked out by the people who need to do this.
And I do not so much care about:
- What exactly happens in exotic scenarios.
I'm more asking what would happen with regards to these scenarios after a ruling is decided upon for other reasons, rather than if you will base the ruling off of these scenarios. I can see how that was unclear though. Sorry if I'm just being difficult now.
I'm now neutral about whether the change happens, by the way.
-
Here's the sticker. Maybe you've removed it though.
Ah, from back in the other thread. Yeah I dunno. Given the new information of what the rulebook actually says (which yes I could have just looked up, but who has the time), it sounds more like one at a time.
I'm more asking what would happen with regards to these scenarios after a ruling is decided upon for other reasons, rather than if you will base the ruling off of these scenarios. I can see how that was unclear though. Sorry if I'm just being difficult now.
Yes you asked about Watchtower-Tunnel and I mean it will have an answer that I don't care about, depending on how it goes. It's utterly not urgent.
-
So what has Dominion online been doing this whole time? All-at-once or one-at-a-time? Or some mix (you can still reveal Watchtower to Tunnel, but opponent's only see the top card discarded).
-
All at once. Opponent only sees top card discarded, you can't discard Tunnel, gain Gold, topdeck Gold with Watchtower, then discard that Watchtower.
-
It only makes sense for it to be all at once. If you discarded the cards individually, one at a time, that would mean your opponent would get to see each card that was discarded.
If Militia makes you discard two cards, then you discard one, and it is now the top card of your discard pile, meaning your opponent should have been able to know what it is. It doesn't matter if it is on top or not in the end.
The rules state that the top card of your discard pile is visible at any time, and game logs always log the names of cards that happen to be on top after each discarding. Now if each card was discarded individually, they would each at some point be on top of the discard pile, and therefore each card discarded should be, by that logic, able to be discovered. But according to the rules (and Dominion online) that is not the case which is why cards are to be discarded simultaneously (with the discarding having been fully resolved) before resolving other things, such as Tunnel.
-
It only makes sense for it to be all at once. If you discarded the cards individually, one at a time, that would mean your opponent would get to see each card that was discarded.
If Militia makes you discard two cards, then you discard one, and it is now the top card of your discard pile, meaning your opponent should have been able to know what it is. It doesn't matter if it is on top or not in the end.
The rules state that the top card of your discard pile is visible at any time, and game logs always log the names of cards that happen to be on top after each discarding. Now if each card was discarded individually, they would each at some point be on top of the discard pile, and therefore each card discarded should be, by that logic, able to be discovered. But according to the rules (and Dominion online) that is not the case which is why cards are to be discarded simultaneously (with the discarding having been fully resolved) before resolving other things, such as Tunnel.
Dominion online is not a source of rules, though. They usually get these obscure rules right, but not always. They could have it implemented wrong.
-
It only makes sense for it to be all at once. If you discarded the cards individually, one at a time, that would mean your opponent would get to see each card that was discarded.
If Militia makes you discard two cards, then you discard one, and it is now the top card of your discard pile, meaning your opponent should have been able to know what it is. It doesn't matter if it is on top or not in the end.
The rules state that the top card of your discard pile is visible at any time, and game logs always log the names of cards that happen to be on top after each discarding. Now if each card was discarded individually, they would each at some point be on top of the discard pile, and therefore each card discarded should be, by that logic, able to be discovered. But according to the rules (and Dominion online) that is not the case which is why cards are to be discarded simultaneously (with the discarding having been fully resolved) before resolving other things, such as Tunnel.
Dominion online is not a source of rules, though. They usually get these obscure rules right, but not always. They could have it implemented wrong.
Of course, but as I see no evidence to the contrary I am giving the online implementation the benefit of the doubt. But my original point was that following basic logic: out of any group of cards that is discarded, the one which appears on the top of the discard pile must be visible. Now if the cards are discarded individually there are no groups (as the only card in each "group" is the one being individually discarded) and as such each player in any physical game has the right to demand the names of each card discarded individually, and that is absurd.
-
It only makes sense for it to be all at once. If you discarded the cards individually, one at a time, that would mean your opponent would get to see each card that was discarded.
If Militia makes you discard two cards, then you discard one, and it is now the top card of your discard pile, meaning your opponent should have been able to know what it is. It doesn't matter if it is on top or not in the end.
The rules state that the top card of your discard pile is visible at any time, and game logs always log the names of cards that happen to be on top after each discarding. Now if each card was discarded individually, they would each at some point be on top of the discard pile, and therefore each card discarded should be, by that logic, able to be discovered. But according to the rules (and Dominion online) that is not the case which is why cards are to be discarded simultaneously (with the discarding having been fully resolved) before resolving other things, such as Tunnel.
The rules don't say that Militia causes cards to be discarded simultaneously. They just say that when you discard cards simultaneously, your opponents only see the top card. As has been shown in this thread, the rulebook says that for Militia you discard until you have 3 cards, which at the very least implies that it's not simultaneous. And Donald has ruled previously (several times) that you can reveal Tunnel before discarding all the cards, so this has been a mistake in Dominion Online, up until now if Donald chooses to change the ruling.
Regarding what's visible in the discard pile in Dominion Online, this means very little, as you don't even get to choose what card to put on top when you discard, in clear violation of the rules. (To be clear, I'm not saying this should change.)
-
Most (all?) discard effects online have the last chosen card become the top card in the discard.
-
Most (all?) discard effects online have the last chosen card become the top card in the discard.
Ah, I wasn't aware of that.
-
I think Tunnel and Green Village are the only cards affected by this "change", besides the opponent now knowing all cards discarded. Faithful Hound's effect doesn't have anything that can be triggered of it, so it doesn't really need to be handled 'right now, before the next card is discarded'.
-
Here's the sticker. Maybe you've removed it though.
Ah, from back in the other thread. Yeah I dunno. Given the new information of what the rulebook actually says (which yes I could have just looked up, but who has the time), it sounds more like one at a time.
Has this ruling been changed? It matters for Village Green and Trail.
I see that the newest rulebook uses the same "discard until they only have 3" wording.
-
Here's the sticker. Maybe you've removed it though.
Ah, from back in the other thread. Yeah I dunno. Given the new information of what the rulebook actually says (which yes I could have just looked up, but who has the time), it sounds more like one at a time.
Has this ruling been changed? It matters for Village Green and Trail.
I see that the newest rulebook uses the same "discard until they only have 3" wording.
Rulebook text from Hinterlands 2E (and yes "reveal" should be "play"):
If you discard multiple cards at once (e.g. to Margrave), they are all discarded at once, and then the abilities happen one at a time. This means for example that if you discard two Trails to a Margrave, and playing the first Trail causes you to shuffle, you won't be able to reveal the second Trail (as it's lost in your deck at that point).
-
Here's the sticker. Maybe you've removed it though.
Ah, from back in the other thread. Yeah I dunno. Given the new information of what the rulebook actually says (which yes I could have just looked up, but who has the time), it sounds more like one at a time.
Has this ruling been changed? It matters for Village Green and Trail.
I see that the newest rulebook uses the same "discard until they only have 3" wording.
Rulebook text from Hinterlands 2E (and yes "reveal" should be "play"):
If you discard multiple cards at once (e.g. to Margrave), they are all discarded at once, and then the abilities happen one at a time. This means for example that if you discard two Trails to a Margrave, and playing the first Trail causes you to shuffle, you won't be able to reveal the second Trail (as it's lost in your deck at that point).
Thanks. That was surprising though, considering what the Dominion rulebook has said all along and still says, and the fact that you stated earlier that you care about matching rulings with rulebooks. Plus presumably it would matter somewhat that the opposite ruling has been standing for many years.
-
Thanks. That was surprising though, considering what the Dominion rulebook has said all along and still says, and the fact that you stated earlier that you care about matching rulings with rulebooks. Plus presumably it would matter somewhat that the opposite ruling has been standing for many years.
I mean. My sincere guess is that, for almost all games of Dominion ever played, it has not mattered.