Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Rules Questions => Topic started by: Jeebus on September 14, 2021, 02:14:55 pm
-
Before the new rule for playing cards (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19893.msg871558#msg871558), how does this interaction work? You play Captain, and next turn you play a Smithy in the supply, leaving it there, then Citadel replays it - and puts it into play? Meaning that the Smithy is now yours without you having gained it?
After the rules change, I guess it's very similar. You play Captain, and next turn you choose a Smithy, but instead of Captain playing it, Citadel plays it and puts it into play, and then plays it again. You get the Smithy.
Am I missing something?
-
Before the new rule for playing cards (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19893.msg871558#msg871558), how does this interaction work? You play Captain, and next turn you play a Smithy in the supply, leaving it there, then Citadel replays it - and puts it into play? Meaning that the Smithy is now yours without you having gained it?
After the rules change, I guess it's very similar. You play Captain, and next turn you choose a Smithy, but instead of Captain playing it, Citadel plays it and puts it into play, and then plays it again. You get the Smithy.
Am I missing something?
Isn't this essentially the same as the situation that has existed with Throne Room from the very start, i.e. the second play of the card doesn't cause it to be put into play if it's not already there?
-
I may be reading this wrong, but isn't it the Captain that gets played twice on the first turn, not the card it's playing from the supply?
-
Isn't this essentially the same as the situation that has existed with Throne Room from the very start, i.e. the second play of the card doesn't cause it to be put into play if it's not already there?
Hmm, Throne Room loses track when the card moves from play. So yes, you're right - by the old rule, Citadel expected the card to be in play, and lost track of it since it wasn't there (it was in the supply).
But by the new rule, Citadel plays the card from the start. Let's say you play a Smithy from your hand normally, with Citadel. Citadel kicks in before you even put it in play, and puts it from your hand into play. So it expects it to be where it was when you were going to play it. Or consider a Smithy set aside with Summon. Citadel is able to put it into play. Likewise, with Captain Citadel must be able to put the Smithy from supply into play. So it seems by the new rule, you get the Smithy.
-
I may be reading this wrong, but isn't it the Captain that gets played twice on the first turn, not the card it's playing from the supply?
On the turn you're playing Captain, yes Captain will be played twice if you have Citadel and if Captain was the first card you played. But that isn't relevant. Let's say Captain was NOT the first card you played (to not confuse things). The next turn, the Smithy is the first card you play, and Citadel kicks in.
-
But by the new rule, Citadel plays the card from the start. Let's say you play a Smithy from your hand normally, with Citadel. Citadel kicks in before you even put it in play, and puts it from your hand into play. So it expects it to be where it was when you we're going to play it. Or consider a Smithy set aside with Summon. Citadel is able to put it into play. Likewise, with Captain Citadel must be able to put the Smithy from supply into play. So it seems by the new rule, you get the Smithy.
I view Citadel as changing how cards are played, instead of actually playing a card. It's now closer to a text-modifier instead of Royal Carriage. So in the Summon example, Citadel basically turns Summon's text into "at the start of your next turn, play it twice." And Captain becomes "play a non-Duration non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to 4 twice." And this is why the card you play with Captain doesn't go into play, because Citadel isn't playing the card; Captain (which is modified by Citadel) is playing the card.
-
I view Citadel as changing how cards are played, instead of actually playing a card. Citadel I think is now closer to a text-modifier instead of Royal Carriage. So in the Summon example, Citadel basically turns Summon's text into "at the start of your next turn, play it twice." And Captain becomes "play a non-Duration non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to 4 twice." And this is why the card you play with Captain doesn't go into play.
I don't see much to support this in the card text. And Donald has errataed away all "shape shifters", so it would be weird if he made Citadel into one. In any case, the thing is that Citadel says "play it twice instead". Whatever play effect it was, it's now "play it twice". Just like the first version of Trader, which did "gain a Silver instead" of whatever gain effect it was, and "gain a Silver" is literally that, take a Silver from the supply and put it in your discard pile, "play it twice" must be literally that.
-
I view Citadel as changing how cards are played, instead of actually playing a card. Citadel I think is now closer to a text-modifier instead of Royal Carriage. So in the Summon example, Citadel basically turns Summon's text into "at the start of your next turn, play it twice." And Captain becomes "play a non-Duration non-Command Action card from the Supply costing up to 4 twice." And this is why the card you play with Captain doesn't go into play.
I don't see much to support this in the card text. And Donald has errataed away all "shape shifters", so it would be weird if he made Citadel into one. In any case, the thing is that Citadel says "play it twice instead". Whatever play effect it was, it's now "play it twice". Just like the first version of Trader, which did "gain a Silver instead" of whatever gain effect it was, and "gain a Silver" is literally that, take a Silver from the supply and put it in your discard pile, "play it twice" must be literally that.
I see what you mean by Trader, but I still don't see what you mean by Citadel playing a card. You said: "consider a Smithy set aside with Summon. Citadel is able to put it into play." Surely the thing that's able to put the Smithy into play is Summon? Why is Citadel playing a card that Summon is trying to play? And how does this lead to a Captain'd Smithy going into your play area?
-
Citadel can never "put a card into play" because of the stop-moving rule. Citadel always assumes that the card you just played is already in play, so that's where it looks for it; it tries to move it from in-play to in-play. If the card isn't in-play, then Citadel can't move it. If the card is in-play, then Citadel doesn't need to move it.
At least that's true for old Citadel. New-wording Citadel would require clarification for things like Captain; clearly the intent wouldn't ever be to move the Captain'd Smithy into play; the new rule or the new Citadel just needs some clarification about what "play it twice instead" means in situations where it isn't getting moved into play when you're playing it normally (like with Captain).
-
At least that's true for old Citadel. New-wording Citadel would require clarification for things like Captain; clearly the intent wouldn't ever be to move the Captain'd Smithy into play; the new rule or the new Citadel just needs some clarification about what "play it twice instead" means in situations where it isn't getting moved into play when you're playing it normally (like with Captain).
To expand on this; I just realized how similar this is to the old Torturer + Trader question. (Or any number of things that change your default gain destination). The ruling is that Trader isn't just replacing your gained Curse with a Silver, rather it's replacing "Gain a curse to your hand" with "gain a Silver". Thus the Silver goes to your discard pile.
If Citadel were ruled to work the exact same way, then you would say that it replaces "Play a card from the supply, leaving it there" with "play a card from the supply twice". But I think this clearly is not the intent nor would it be the final ruling; as playing a card from the supply while putting it into play would cause all sorts of obvious issues.
So rather, it must make more sense that new Citadel is intended to simply alter the number of times a card gets played; NOT replace the event "play a card" with "play 2 cards". How that is justified from the wording I don't know.
-
I see what you mean by Trader, but I still don't see what you mean by Citadel playing a card. You said: "consider a Smithy set aside with Summon. Citadel is able to put it into play." Surely the thing that's able to put the Smithy into play is Summon? Why is Citadel playing a card that Summon is trying to play? And how does this lead to a Captain'd Smithy going into your play area?
Clearly Citadel triggers when you're about to play a card. It can't trigger after you already played it (like old Citadel did), because then it can't play it twice, which is the whole point of the errata.
So it triggers before you've actally played the card. When you "would play" it. And it's able to put the card into play even if it was not in your hand. That's why I wrote, "it expects it to be where it was when you were going to play it." You were going to use Summon to play a set-aside card, Citadel kicks it and plays it (twice) instead. When Citadel triggered, you were going to play a card from Summon's set-aside-land. That's the card Citadel plays instead, from that location.
Likewise, Citadel plays the card that Captain was going to play. But Citadel just says "play it twice", not "play it twice, leaving it there".
-
If Citadel were ruled to work the exact same way, then you would say that it replaces "Play a card from the supply, leaving it there" with "play a card from the supply twice". But I think this clearly is not the intent nor would it be the final ruling; as playing a card from the supply while putting it into play would cause all sorts of obvious issues.
So rather, it must make more sense that new Citadel is intended to simply alter the number of times a card gets played; NOT replace the event "play a card" with "play 2 cards". How that is justified from the wording I don't know.
This is beside your point, but I don't see how Citadel replaces the text in the way you said. The way I see it, Citadel doesn't kick in until you've chosen the card with Captain, then it cancels Captain's playing of that specific card and instead plays it twice. It doesn't alter the effect into "play a card from the supply...". It alters "play this Smithy, leaving it in the Supply" into "play this Smithy twice".
To your point. I agree that what I'm saying is probably unintended. But the card seems to support it. Donald has many times ruled from what the card says, even if it's not desirable. That's the whole reason to errata card text. Otherwise he could just rule that the card doesn't do what it seems to say.
-
If Citadel were ruled to work the exact same way, then you would say that it replaces "Play a card from the supply, leaving it there" with "play a card from the supply twice". But I think this clearly is not the intent nor would it be the final ruling; as playing a card from the supply while putting it into play would cause all sorts of obvious issues.
So rather, it must make more sense that new Citadel is intended to simply alter the number of times a card gets played; NOT replace the event "play a card" with "play 2 cards". How that is justified from the wording I don't know.
This is beside your point, but I don't see how Citadel replaces the text in the way you said. The way I see it, Citadel doesn't kick in until you've chosen the card with Captain, then it cancels Captain's playing of that specific card and instead plays it twice. It doesn't alter the effect into "play a card from the supply...". It alters "play this Smithy, leaving it in the Supply" into "play this Smithy twice".
To your point. I agree that what I'm saying is probably unintended. But the card seems to support it. Donald has many times ruled from what the card says, even if it's not desirable. That's the whole reason to errata card text. Otherwise he could just rule that the card doesn't do what it seems to say.
Do we know if new Citadel is printed anywhere? If not then another errata wouldn’t be needed; just changing existing errata. Or he can decide to not change the wording of Citadel and instead change the wording of the new playing cards rule to lets Citadel work. But I’m pretty sure the literal interpretation you’re talking about is basically impossible. Playing a card in the supply and putting it into play is simply a hole in the rules that is undefined. No rule says the card should be yours. But rules do say it goes in your discard pile during cleanup. So now you have a card that isn’t part of your deck in your discard pile. And no way to ever track that information. A ruling that simply reads the text literally doesn’t work without introducing other new rules as well.
And there have been times in the past that the ruling has been that the wording is simply not 100% literal; especially with first edition wordings.
-
Do we know if new Citadel is printed anywhere? If not then another errata wouldn’t be needed; just changing existing errata. Or he can decide to not change the wording of Citadel and instead change the wording of the new playing cards rule to lets Citadel work.
I don't know. Donald wrote in July (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19893.msg871558#msg871558), "I don't know when the next printing of Renaissance will hit stores, but we're doing the work now."
But I’m pretty sure the literal interpretation you’re talking about is basically impossible. Playing a card in the supply and putting it into play is simply a hole in the rules that is undefined. No rule says the card should be yours.
I'm pretty sure a card ending up in one of your "zones", is yours. We have several scenarios as precedent.
Inheritance: A card you set aside from the supply, is yours.
Possession: A card you set aside from the trash (and then put into your discard pile), is yours.
Fortress: A card you move from the trash into your hand, is yours.
Also, exchanging and exiling make the card yours.
And Masquerade.
We talked about this here. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20333.msg852870#msg852870)
-
Before the new rule for playing cards (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19893.msg871558#msg871558), how does this interaction work? You play Captain, and next turn you play a Smithy in the supply, leaving it there, then Citadel replays it - and puts it into play? Meaning that the Smithy is now yours without you having gained it?
After the rules change, I guess it's very similar. You play Captain, and next turn you choose a Smithy, but instead of Captain playing it, Citadel plays it and puts it into play, and then plays it again. You get the Smithy.
Am I missing something?
This is correct and of course not intended.
My tentative fix is "The first time you play an Action card from your hand during each of your turns, play it twice instead."
I don't know for sure if copies of Renaissance were printed with the errata, but that's my best guess, that they went out months ago.
Playing a card puts it into play, and if it wasn't yours before, it's yours now. However you can't put the card into play (and thus can't play it) if it isn't where it's expected to be.
-
This is correct and of course not intended.
My tentative fix is "The first time you play an Action card from your hand during each of your turns, play it twice instead."
I don't know for sure if copies of Renaissance were printed with the errata, but that's my best guess, that they went out months ago.
Playing a card puts it into play, and if it wasn't yours before, it's yours now. However you can't put the card into play (and thus can't play it) if it isn't where it's expected to be.
Of course that fix would mean that several cards that play a card at the beginning of your turn, won't work with Citadel as before. Citadel will skip them, instead doubling the first Action you play from your hand.
They are: Captain, Delay, Ghost, Mastermind, Innovation, Piazza, Prince, Summon, Way of the Turtle
-
But at least it’s not a power level change; Citadel is still letting you double an action each turn. Slightly worse because you might draw no actions in your nest hand; but made up for by having more control over what card you Citadel most of the time.
-
They are: Captain, Delay, Ghost, Mastermind, Innovation, Piazza, Prince, Summon, Way of the Turtle
I'm not sure how Mastermind applies here. It doesn't play a card from somewhere other than your hand.
-
I see what you mean by Trader, but I still don't see what you mean by Citadel playing a card. You said: "consider a Smithy set aside with Summon. Citadel is able to put it into play." Surely the thing that's able to put the Smithy into play is Summon? Why is Citadel playing a card that Summon is trying to play? And how does this lead to a Captain'd Smithy going into your play area?
Clearly Citadel triggers when you're about to play a card. It can't trigger after you already played it (like old Citadel did), because then it can't play it twice, which is the whole point of the errata.
So it triggers before you've actally played the card. When you "would play" it.
I see that Donald X. has already responded, perhaps making this moot, but I don't see how this reading is supported by the (original version of the) revised Citadel text. It says "the first time you play an Action card", not "the first time you would play an Action card"; for it to be the "first time you play an Action card", the card has to already be played by the time that kicks in.
-
I see that Donald X. has already responded, perhaps making this moot, but I don't see how this reading is supported by the (original version of the) revised Citadel text. It says "the first time you play an Action card", not "the first time you would play an Action card"; for it to be the "first time you play an Action card", the card has to already be played by the time that kicks in.
See reply #10 above, where I address this. The whole point of the new text is that Citadel plays the card twice instead of the original ability playing it at all. If Citadel played the card twice after the original ability played it, it would end up getting played three times.
-
Before the new rule for playing cards (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19893.msg871558#msg871558), how does this interaction work? You play Captain, and next turn you play a Smithy in the supply, leaving it there, then Citadel replays it - and puts it into play? Meaning that the Smithy is now yours without you having gained it?
After the rules change, I guess it's very similar. You play Captain, and next turn you choose a Smithy, but instead of Captain playing it, Citadel plays it and puts it into play, and then plays it again. You get the Smithy.
Am I missing something?
This is correct and of course not intended.
My tentative fix is "The first time you play an Action card from your hand during each of your turns, play it twice instead."
I don't know for sure if copies of Renaissance were printed with the errata, but that's my best guess, that they went out months ago.
Playing a card puts it into play, and if it wasn't yours before, it's yours now. However you can't put the card into play (and thus can't play it) if it isn't where it's expected to be.
Wouldn't it be easier to add somthing bracketed like "( a "leaving it there" clause continues)"?
-
Wouldn't it be easier to add somthing bracketed like "( a "leaving it there" clause continues)"?
That sounds baffling to me. "Why does it say to leave it there? What am I missing?"
-
I don't see how the twice-playing of Citadel contradicts the "leave it there" of Captain.
-
I don't see how the twice-playing of Citadel contradicts the "leave it there" of Captain.
It doesn't contradict it, it replaces it. Instead of playing it, leaving it there, you play it twice (and Citadel doesn't say anything about leaving it there, so you don't).
-
Since we are offering suggestions, I can repeat what I posted in another thread - keeping Citadel exactly as is (or as was), and instead rephrasing the new rule:
"An effect that tries to play a card can only do so when the card is where the effect expects it to be. However, an effect that replays cards can always replay a card that has been successfully played."
(I would actually phrase it a bit differently, to include the concept of losing track.)
-
Since we are offering suggestions, I can repeat what I posted in another thread - keeping Citadel exactly as is (or as was), and instead rephrasing the new rule:
"An effect that tries to play a card can only do so when the card is where the effect expects it to be. However, an effect that replays cards can always replay a card that has been successfully played."
(I would actually phrase it a bit differently, to include the concept of losing track.)
This direction is sounding promising, though there is still a printing of Citadel with the "instead" wording.