Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Rules Questions => Topic started by: Tejayes on May 27, 2012, 12:41:14 am
-
I just played/rage quit a game using Navigator and Inn (by the way, if my opponents are reading this, I sincerely apologize for my behavior afterward). One turn, I played Navigator, saw that I had Witch among the top five cards of my deck, and decided to keep them. I then bought an Inn, and since I didn't want to shuffle, I opted not to shuffle that Inn into my deck. It was the only card in the discard pile at the time, too. However, I see that my next hand has no Witch in it. I didn't accidentally discard all of my cards, as after one anger-filled turn, my Witch shows up -- just before a reshuffle will force it back another few turns if I decide to play it. That was when I... um, did things I would rather not retell, if you don't mind...
After I calmed down, I took a look at the description of Inn from the Hinterlands rulebook. Here it is in full:
When you play this, you draw 2 cards, get +2 Actions, then discard 2 cards. The cards you discard can be one that were in your hand and/or ones you just drew. You discard cards if able, even if you were unable to draw 2 cards. When you gain this, you look through your discard pile (something normally not allowed), and shuffle any number of Action cards from it into your deck (leaving the rest of your discard pile in your discard pile). You do not have to shuffle any Action cards into your deck. You can shuffle the Inn you just gained into your deck; it is an Action card in your discard pile. Cards with two types, one of which is Action, are Action cards. You must reveal the Action cards that you choose to shuffle into your deck. It does not matter what order you leave your discard pile in afterwards. This ability functions if you gain Inn due to buying it, or gain Inn some other way.
There is nothing specifically saying that you must shuffle your deck when you gain Inn. The only reasoning I can see for the "shuffle anyway" deal is that "shuffle any number of Action cards into your deck" includes zero as a number (i.e. you are shuffling zero cards into your deck, but you are still shuffling). Still, I don't see why the deck must be shuffled if no discard-pile Action cards are going into it via Inn, especially if it's going to mess with the abilities of cards like Navigator or Courtyard or the like.
What say you, guys? Does the wording of the card require shuffling every time Inn is gained, even if its on-gain ability isn't really used?
-
If you choose zero action cards to shuffle in, you still shuffle.
-
If you choose zero action cards to shuffle in, you still shuffle.
Thanks, Donald. Good to know that it was a rule, not an Isotropic bug. Still a little peeved about that incident, though...
-
That makes sense...
Off topic: I wonder why iso. only lets you look at the actions in your discard pile, and not all the other cards.
-
Same with Counting House.
-
That makes sense...
Off topic: I wonder why iso. only lets you look at the actions in your discard pile, and not all the other cards.
Yeah, I was thinking about this the other day. Likewise, Philosopher's Stone doesn't let you see what's in your discard pile either.
I think that 'looking through your discard' in order to count it or find specific cards is just a side-effect of Dominion being a real-life card game. DougZ must not have thought it important enough to include. I'm fine with that. Also, I'd be fine with not having to reveal my hand when Bureaucrat or Cutpurse whiff. The computer knows I have no pertinent cards in hand.
-
That makes sense...
Off topic: I wonder why iso. only lets you look at the actions in your discard pile, and not all the other cards.
Yeah, I was thinking about this the other day. Likewise, Philosopher's Stone doesn't let you see what's in your discard pile either.
I think that 'looking through your discard' in order to count it or find specific cards is just a side-effect of Dominion being a real-life card game. DougZ must not have thought it important enough to include. I'm fine with that. Also, I'd be fine with not having to reveal my hand when Bureaucrat or Cutpurse whiff. The computer knows I have no pertinent cards in hand.
I'm OK with the P-Stone because it's a corner case (it's come up here before) and it's information that I could know anyway and have literally never cared about, but certainly an (admittedly minor) part of the bureaucrat or cutpurse attack is that I get to see my opponent's hand sometimes.
-
I'm OK with the P-Stone because it's a corner case (it's come up here before) and it's information that I could know anyway and have literally never cared about, but certainly an (admittedly minor) part of the bureaucrat or cutpurse attack is that I get to see my opponent's hand sometimes.
Sure, but the only reason that's the case is for accountability's sake. If the game were designed to be played electronically from day one, those cards wouldn't need that clause in the first place. Granted, a simulator should generally seek to mimic the game it's simulating as closely as possible, but isotropic already drops the ball on that in several respects. I would argue that not being able to see my opponents' hands when one of these attacks whiffs would be a change on par with not being able to see the top card of their discard pile, which isotropic also doesn't allow me to do.
I'm not arguing for a change in the way isotropic works, I'm just noting minor changes.
-
I'm OK with the P-Stone because it's a corner case (it's come up here before) and it's information that I could know anyway and have literally never cared about, but certainly an (admittedly minor) part of the bureaucrat or cutpurse attack is that I get to see my opponent's hand sometimes.
Sure, but the only reason that's the case is for accountability's sake. If the game were designed to be played electronically from day one, those cards wouldn't need that clause in the first place.
That may be the reason they originally got given the clause, but that clause's being in there results in corner cases that make use of being able to see your opponents' hands (Minion, Possession and Masquerade can all use the information, for example).
-
That may be the reason they originally got given the clause, but that clause's being in there results in corner cases that make use of being able to see your opponents' hands (Minion, Possession and Masquerade can all use the information, for example).
Yes, I'm well aware of that. Likewise, there are corner cases where being able to see the top card of your opponents' discard piles would make a difference.
-
If you choose zero action cards to shuffle in, you still shuffle.
Hmm... that seems to make IRL games obnoxious and unintuitive when you decide you don't want anything in your deck for some reason. "No no, you bought it and now you have to shuffle!" Any particular reason you didn't choose to put "you may" in the card text? It looks like it'll fit on the English card, at least. I always appreciate designer insight into stuff like this.
-
If you choose zero action cards to shuffle in, you still shuffle.
Hmm... that seems to make IRL games obnoxious and unintuitive when you decide you don't want anything in your deck for some reason. "No no, you bought it and now you have to shuffle!" Any particular reason you didn't choose to put "you may" in the card text? It looks like it'll fit on the English card, at least. I always appreciate designer insight into stuff like this.
I presume that in most casual IRL games, if you don't want to shuffle anything in you simply pick up your deck, say, 'shuffled', maybe wink, and set it back down, and your friends won't care. Unless there's some reason you know some of where your cards are (pearl diver, navigator, whatever).
-
If you choose zero action cards to shuffle in, you still shuffle.
Hmm... that seems to make IRL games obnoxious and unintuitive when you decide you don't want anything in your deck for some reason. "No no, you bought it and now you have to shuffle!" Any particular reason you didn't choose to put "you may" in the card text? It looks like it'll fit on the English card, at least. I always appreciate designer insight into stuff like this.
I presume that in most casual IRL games, if you don't want to shuffle anything in you simply pick up your deck, say, 'shuffled', maybe wink, and set it back down, and your friends won't care. Unless there's some reason you know some of where your cards are (pearl diver, navigator, whatever).
Yes, if we have no information about the order of your deck, there is no reason to shuffle it; it's shuffled.
I leave out "you may" when I can. Those things add up.
-
If you choose zero action cards to shuffle in, you still shuffle.
Hmm... that seems to make IRL games obnoxious and unintuitive when you decide you don't want anything in your deck for some reason. "No no, you bought it and now you have to shuffle!" Any particular reason you didn't choose to put "you may" in the card text? It looks like it'll fit on the English card, at least. I always appreciate designer insight into stuff like this.
I presume that in most casual IRL games, if you don't want to shuffle anything in you simply pick up your deck, say, 'shuffled', maybe wink, and set it back down, and your friends won't care. Unless there's some reason you know some of where your cards are (pearl diver, navigator, whatever).
Yes, if we have no information about the order of your deck, there is no reason to shuffle it; it's shuffled.
I leave out "you may" when I can. Those things add up.
Right, I know. I agree it makes no practical difference when you don't know the order of your deck. But, with a pedantic player or tournament, it's either obnoxious ("Ok, shuffling for no reason...") or it starts a fight ("It doesn't matter!" "But the rules say you have to... are you going to forfeit?"). I'm sure we all hate playing with people like that; why even give them the possibility of holding you hostage?
I don't really understand what you mean by "Those things add up". Do you mean they create analysis paralysis and/or make the game less accessible? To me, omitting "may" seems like it narrows the strategic space for rarely any benefit. I would have thought you'd rather err on the side of "you may" to increase the depth unless you have a very specific card balance reason not to (Haggler, Bishop, etc). It also has the benefit that if a player forgets to leverage an ability, they haven't actually broken the rules and, well, sucks for them.
At the risk of being pedantic myself, isn't this essentially what should have happened with Throne Room? I though I read a post from you saying something like "I should have made it say 'may', but oh well". Forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you.
I always feel weird disagreeing with you since, you know, you actually design and publish this game. I'm also keenly aware of the fact that you have plenty of armchair designers telling you the way they think it should be. I appreciate that you've already responded. If you choose to respond and explain in more depth, I'll appreciate that as well. :)
EDIT: Quick fix.
-
I don't really understand what you mean by "Those things add up". Do you mean they create analysis paralysis and/or make the game less accessible? To me, omitting "may" seems like it narrows the strategic space for rarely any benefit. I would have thought you'd rather err on the side of "you may" to increase the depth unless you have a very specific card balance reason not to (Haggler, Bishop, etc). It also has the benefit that if a player forgets to leverage an ability, they haven't actually broken the rules and, well, sucks for them.
At the risk of being pedantic myself, isn't this essentially what should have happened with Throne Room? I though I read a post from you saying something like "I should have made it say 'may', but oh well". Forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you.
I think the "those things add up" comment is about word count.
TR should have had "you may" because, as currently worded, it forces you to play the action if you have it, but there's no way for your opponent to verify if you have no actions in hand. The alternative fix is to add "or reveal a hand with no action cards" to the end.
By contrast, it's obvious if you have followed the rules of Inn or not -- did you pick up your deck and shuffle it?
-
Right, I know. I agree it makes no practical difference when you don't know the order of your deck. But, with a pedantic player or tournament, it's either obnoxious ("Ok, shuffling for no reason...") or it starts a fight ("It doesn't matter!" "But the rules say you have to... are you going to forfeit?"). I'm sure we all hate playing with people like that; why even give them the possibility of holding you hostage?
Don't play with people you don't like, seems straightforward? And a good move in general, way more likely to pay off in other situations than in this one. In a tournament, man, you may want to rethink your get-Inn-but-don't-shuffle-cards-in strategy. What are the other $5's? And if you have to pointlessly shuffle, get it done quick, these rounds are timed. In an online tournament, the program will do that pointless shuffling for you instantly, np.
I don't really understand what you mean by "Those things add up". Do you mean they create analysis paralysis and/or make the game less accessible? To me, omitting "may" seems like it narrows the strategic space for rarely any benefit. I would have thought you'd rather err on the side of "you may" to increase the depth unless you have a very specific card balance reason not to (Haggler, Bishop, etc). It also has the benefit that if a player forgets to leverage an ability, they haven't actually broken the rules and, well, sucks for them.
What adds up is complexity.
Every card in Dominion can be made better by making it more complex, provided you ignore complexity when evaluating betterness. But making cards better by adding complexity does not lead to a utopia of all awesome cards, it leads to a dystopia of an unplayably complex game. Complexity matters. Adding "you may" because someone you play with might think, oh you have to shuffle your shuffled deck, man, no question, I was never adding that. The cost is small but nonzero; the benefit might as well be zero. In one of the not-every-game games in which Inn is on the table, during one of the not-so-many turns in which you buy/gain Inn, if it is one of those pretty-rare-don't-you-think situations where you actually don't want to shuffle in any cards even though you did want an Inn, and we have no information about your deck order at this point, and you are playing against stupid unfriendly people, well, watch out. That shuffle, combined with your incredible rage at having to do it, could be what finally pushes you over the edge.
In general the strategic depth of "you may" is only worth it if it's common to pick either option. To give you an example, this was a real decision for Spice Merchant. Do you pick the Woodcutter often enough? Well you do pick it some. But you know, if you were picking it much less often, the card wouldn't give you the option, because options that you don't use just slow turns down and make the game more complex. Spice Merchant fell on the side of "okay let's keep it," but that's how unlikely I am to add "you may" for something that rarely happens - I strongly considered not giving you the Woodcutter on Spice Merchant. "You may" wants to be used where it's really worth something, where both decisions make sense a reasonable amount of the time. Or in special cases where it's the simplest wording (obv. "you may" on Throne Room is simpler than "or reveal a hand with no Actions"). The game does not need to gain tiny amounts of strategy in obscure situations via making all cards more complex.
At the risk of being pedantic myself, isn't this essentially what should have happened with Throne Room? I though I read a post from you saying something like "I should have made it say 'may', but oh well". Forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you.
Throne Room should say "you may" because it doesn't keep you honest, and as noted the other solutions are even wordier. Inn has no such problem; you have to shuffle, the end. The fact that you can save time by not shuffling, when you're already shuffled, that's just common sense, but if people miss that it doesn't matter.
-
I once asked Donald X. which of the existing cards could have been improved had there been infinite space and he could add as much wording as he wanted.
He responded "All of them."
-
I once asked Donald X. which of the existing cards could have been improved had there been infinite space and he could add as much wording as he wanted.
He responded "All of them."
Even Smithy?
-
I once asked Donald X. which of the existing cards could have been improved had there been infinite space and he could add as much wording as he wanted.
He responded "All of them."
Even Smithy?
Of course! I'm sure that there's some block of 4000 words you can add to it to make it .47% better. Except that 4000 words makes it worse of course...
-
Right, I know. I agree it makes no practical difference when you don't know the order of your deck. But, with a pedantic player or tournament, it's either obnoxious ("Ok, shuffling for no reason...") or it starts a fight ("It doesn't matter!" "But the rules say you have to... are you going to forfeit?"). I'm sure we all hate playing with people like that; why even give them the possibility of holding you hostage?
Don't play with people you don't like, seems straightforward? And a good move in general, way more likely to pay off in other situations than in this one. In a tournament, man, you may want to rethink your get-Inn-but-don't-shuffle-cards-in strategy. What are the other $5's? And if you have to pointlessly shuffle, get it done quick, these rounds are timed. In an online tournament, the program will do that pointless shuffling for you instantly, np.
I don't really understand what you mean by "Those things add up". Do you mean they create analysis paralysis and/or make the game less accessible? To me, omitting "may" seems like it narrows the strategic space for rarely any benefit. I would have thought you'd rather err on the side of "you may" to increase the depth unless you have a very specific card balance reason not to (Haggler, Bishop, etc). It also has the benefit that if a player forgets to leverage an ability, they haven't actually broken the rules and, well, sucks for them.
What adds up is complexity.
Every card in Dominion can be made better by making it more complex, provided you ignore complexity when evaluating betterness. But making cards better by adding complexity does not lead to a utopia of all awesome cards, it leads to a dystopia of an unplayably complex game. Complexity matters. Adding "you may" because someone you play with might think, oh you have to shuffle your shuffled deck, man, no question, I was never adding that. The cost is small but nonzero; the benefit might as well be zero. In one of the not-every-game games in which Inn is on the table, during one of the not-so-many turns in which you buy/gain Inn, if it is one of those pretty-rare-don't-you-think situations where you actually don't want to shuffle in any cards even though you did want an Inn, and we have no information about your deck order at this point, and you are playing against stupid unfriendly people, well, watch out. That shuffle, combined with your incredible rage at having to do it, could be what finally pushes you over the edge.
In general the strategic depth of "you may" is only worth it if it's common to pick either option. To give you an example, this was a real decision for Spice Merchant. Do you pick the Woodcutter often enough? Well you do pick it some. But you know, if you were picking it much less often, the card wouldn't give you the option, because options that you don't use just slow turns down and make the game more complex. Spice Merchant fell on the side of "okay let's keep it," but that's how unlikely I am to add "you may" for something that rarely happens - I strongly considered not giving you the Woodcutter on Spice Merchant. "You may" wants to be used where it's really worth something, where both decisions make sense a reasonable amount of the time. Or in special cases where it's the simplest wording (obv. "you may" on Throne Room is simpler than "or reveal a hand with no Actions"). The game does not need to gain tiny amounts of strategy in obscure situations via making all cards more complex.
At the risk of being pedantic myself, isn't this essentially what should have happened with Throne Room? I though I read a post from you saying something like "I should have made it say 'may', but oh well". Forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you.
Throne Room should say "you may" because it doesn't keep you honest, and as noted the other solutions are even wordier. Inn has no such problem; you have to shuffle, the end. The fact that you can save time by not shuffling, when you're already shuffled, that's just common sense, but if people miss that it doesn't matter.
Ok, thanks Donald. Interesting insight.
I was hoping you'd also address this point
It also has the benefit that if a player forgets to leverage an ability, they haven't actually broken the rules and, well, sucks for them.
but I imagine the response is "doesn't happen often enough to matter." But, as a player, it irks me when I'm obligated to tell somebody to take the benefit of their card when they'd otherwise forget it, in part because I may be helping them beat me and in part because it just delays the game.
Perhaps my profession alters my perspective on these things. As a software engineer, I have to take the approach of "if something can happen, it will happen". It's not OK for the system to go down in that .001% case and, in aggregate, that .001% case is actually pretty common. So I look for ways and wording and systems that remove any possibility of system failure or putting the system in an undefined state ("he just used a Navigator and bought an Inn and he was supposed to shuffle but he forgot... so what happens?").
I still don't think I agree that adding "you may" adds appreciable complexity, though. The argument that you could make all cards better by adding complexity seems like a red herring to me; that's not really the issue. "You may" is a well-understood and common mechanic; it's also two of the shortest words you could meaningfully put on a card. And it elegantly handles all of the (rare, I agree) awkward situations that I can see.
I think I'd always take the infinitesimal complexity to create a system that unambiguously handles all of the cases, but perhaps that why I'm writing software and you're designing games. :)
-
I was hoping you'd also address this point
It also has the benefit that if a player forgets to leverage an ability, they haven't actually broken the rules and, well, sucks for them.
but I imagine the response is "doesn't happen often enough to matter." But, as a player, it irks me when I'm obligated to tell somebody to take the benefit of their card when they'd otherwise forget it, in part because I may be helping them beat me and in part because it just delays the game.
Here's an interesting perspective on this. What you are saying is, I should change something, in such a way that, for certain players, it "sucks for them." Isn't that crazy? I don't want things to suck for anyone. Okay, you don't want to remind someone to gain a benefit; that just isn't as bad as missing out on the benefit.
For a while there was a card, "+$2, put this on your deck." I changed it to "you may" because one player just constantly forgot to do it. For sure I might say "you may" to make it so someone isn't breaking the rules accidentally constantly.
This obv. isn't one of those cases. It is pretty in-your-face when you buy Inn despite not wanting to shuffle in any cards from your discard pile. In general when you want to do something, it does not say "you may" unless you might also want not to (or the Throne Room example). There could be an exception like my hypothetical card, but it would need to really earn that "you may." And the issue you are citing isn't forgetting, it's not wanting to shuffle a shuffled deck when confronted with unfriendly opponents, man.
I still don't think I agree that adding "you may" adds appreciable complexity, though. The argument that you could make all cards better by adding complexity seems like a red herring to me; that's not really the issue. "You may" is a well-understood and common mechanic; it's also two of the shortest words you could meaningfully put on a card. And it elegantly handles all of the (rare, I agree) awkward situations that I can see.
There is no red herring here.
Here are two links to articles by Wizards of the Coast R&D members:
- http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/188
- http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/188
These articles are discussing, which is preferable for Magic: "You draw two cards," or "target player draws two cards?" How could that small of a difference in complexity matter? And yet "you" is currently winning this battle.
-
These articles are discussing, which is preferable for Magic: "You draw two cards," or "target player draws two cards?" How could that small of a difference in complexity matter? And yet "you" is currently winning this battle.
+1 for the insightful commentary, even if I also prefer the "You may". Of course, I haven't designed a SdJ winning game...
-
This is also one of those things where each incremental addition of complexity doesn't seem like much ("Just a 'you may' here, what harm can it do?"), but taken as a whole it all adds up.
For example, you could think of examples where Smithy could be "You may draw 3 cards" and argue about how that's better for Peddler and Menagerie and Horn of Plenty sometimes.
-
This is also one of those things where each incremental addition of complexity doesn't seem like much ("Just a 'you may' here, what harm can it do?"), but taken as a whole it all adds up.
For example, you could think of examples where Smithy could be "You may draw 3 cards" and argue about how that's better for Peddler and Menagerie and Horn of Plenty sometimes.
I actually can't think of a situation where any of those sound better...
-
This is also one of those things where each incremental addition of complexity doesn't seem like much ("Just a 'you may' here, what harm can it do?"), but taken as a whole it all adds up.
For example, you could think of examples where Smithy could be "You may draw 3 cards" and argue about how that's better for Peddler and Menagerie and Horn of Plenty sometimes.
I actually can't think of a situation where any of those sound better...
You don't want to trigger a reshuffle, but you want to get boost out of playing the card.
Witch in particular, would be slightly stronger if the card drawing was optional. Ever had both of your witches in your hand with 1 card left in deck?
RAAAAAAAAAAGE.
-
This is also one of those things where each incremental addition of complexity doesn't seem like much ("Just a 'you may' here, what harm can it do?"), but taken as a whole it all adds up.
For example, you could think of examples where Smithy could be "You may draw 3 cards" and argue about how that's better for Peddler and Menagerie and Horn of Plenty sometimes.
I actually can't think of a situation where any of those sound better...
You don't want to trigger a reshuffle, but you want to get boost out of playing the card.
Witch in particular, would be slightly stronger if the card drawing was optional. Ever had both of your witches in your hand with 1 card left in deck?
RAAAAAAAAAAGE.
Ok, yes, any draw card or lookahead card is better conditionally because of the reshuffle, I tend to ignore reshuffles for the puzzle cases.
But Menagerie *still* isn't ever better.
-
This is also one of those things where each incremental addition of complexity doesn't seem like much ("Just a 'you may' here, what harm can it do?"), but taken as a whole it all adds up.
For example, you could think of examples where Smithy could be "You may draw 3 cards" and argue about how that's better for Peddler and Menagerie and Horn of Plenty sometimes.
I actually can't think of a situation where any of those sound better...
You don't want to trigger a reshuffle, but you want to get boost out of playing the card.
Witch in particular, would be slightly stronger if the card drawing was optional. Ever had both of your witches in your hand with 1 card left in deck?
RAAAAAAAAAAGE.
Ok, yes, any draw card or lookahead card is better conditionally because of the reshuffle, I tend to ignore reshuffles for the puzzle cases.
But Menagerie *still* isn't ever better.
I think Frisk's point was, if you could play Smithy without drawing, that could be handy for cases when you have two Smithies and a Menagerie in hand.
-
I think Frisk's point was, if you could play Smithy without drawing, that could be handy for cases when you have two Smithies and a Menagerie in hand.
O's point is: if you could play the smithy for +3 cards... you wouldn't need to activate the menagerie
-
Maybe you have exactly 3 cards left in your deck, and you want to be able to play both Smithy and Menagerie for your Horn of Plenty without triggering a reshuffle.
I think the good folks of the Puzzles & Challenges forum could come up with a dozen more ways to improve Smithy given no constraints on card text complexity.
-
Maybe you have exactly 3 cards left in your deck, and you want to be able to play both Smithy and Menagerie for your Horn of Plenty without triggering a reshuffle.
I think the good folks of the Puzzles & Challenges forum could come up with a dozen more ways to improve Smithy given no constraints on card text complexity.
My favorite would be "Draw Up to 3 Cards From Your Deck". This would solve the Turn 4 proplem, where it misses the reshuffle in a way that Witch and Masquerade do not.
Of course - I don't view smithy as being too weak to need a boost in the form of "may".
Some cards don't have a may that actually make them new player unfriendly. Upgrade for example - would be a stronger card with it, but I think prefer it without because it rewards advanced play (do I risk playing it?).
University I think is an interesting one. I didn't even realize that it was a "may" until someone pointed it out to me on the forum. I tend to view University as a trap, so I think it benefits from the (slight) power boost, although I think that in the situations where university shines (many cards that are worth picking up), it doesn't matter.
Mine should have it for the same reason that Mint and King's Court do.
I would prefer it if Salvager had it... keep the buy, but make the trash for coin optional.
-
I would prefer it if Salvager had it... keep the buy, but make the trash for coin optional.
This isn't just a wording quibble though. A card that trashes for a buy (Salvager, Spice Merchant, Trade Route) is in a different category than cards that give buys without trashing.
-
First, I realized I may not have been totally clear in my earlier communications. I'm not saying that all aspects of all cards should default to "may". I'm specifically thinking of triggered abilities, which are often secondary to the purpose of a card and easy to forget. With that in mind, I have a some more thoughts.
I was hoping you'd also address this point
It also has the benefit that if a player forgets to leverage an ability, they haven't actually broken the rules and, well, sucks for them.
but I imagine the response is "doesn't happen often enough to matter." But, as a player, it irks me when I'm obligated to tell somebody to take the benefit of their card when they'd otherwise forget it, in part because I may be helping them beat me and in part because it just delays the game.
Here's an interesting perspective on this. What you are saying is, I should change something, in such a way that, for certain players, it "sucks for them." Isn't that crazy? I don't want things to suck for anyone. Okay, you don't want to remind someone to gain a benefit; that just isn't as bad as missing out on the benefit.
I don't think it's crazy and I'll tell you why. My point is not that I want things to suck for other players. My primary concerns are that, by not making abilities optional, you 1) create a real possibility of corrupted game state (i.e. rules violations), 2) you place what should be an individual responsibility (playing optimally) on one's opponents (people who are punished for fulfilling that responsibility), and 3) you prevent optimal play in more-interesting scenarios where an ability should be unintuitively skipped.
Also, here's 2, rephrased in a way that I think captures the essence of it. In what competitive game is it fun to help your opponent beat you? In a relaxed setting with friends or newbs, I have no problem reminding people to take their ability or asking if they want to take it. Those are teaching opportunities.
You seem concerned that it's more un-fun (if you will) for people to miss the benefit than it is to have to remind them to take it. But I think that's totally debatable. Nobody gets to win for free; you learn from your mistakes and part of the fun is improving. It seems like you're limiting tactical space because of the chance that somebody might make a mistake and... not enjoy that? Well, I don't think many players are going to quit Dominion because they forgot to leverage an ability. I think it's more likely that they'll say "let's play again; I'll remember that next time and beat you!". But maybe that's just my mentality. I also haven't conducted focus groups on this or anything and I don't know what research you've done about it.
For a while there was a card, "+$2, put this on your deck." I changed it to "you may" because one player just constantly forgot to do it. For sure I might say "you may" to make it so someone isn't breaking the rules accidentally constantly.
This obv. isn't one of those cases. It is pretty in-your-face when you buy Inn despite not wanting to shuffle in any cards from your discard pile. In general when you want to do something, it does not say "you may" unless you might also want not to (or the Throne Room example). There could be an exception like my hypothetical card, but it would need to really earn that "you may." And the issue you are citing isn't forgetting, it's not wanting to shuffle a shuffled deck when confronted with unfriendly opponents, man.
Inn isn't the particular ditch that I would choose to die in on this issue. It is, to me, just example of a principle that I would have done differently, for whatever that's worth.
I still don't think I agree that adding "you may" adds appreciable complexity, though. The argument that you could make all cards better by adding complexity seems like a red herring to me; that's not really the issue. "You may" is a well-understood and common mechanic; it's also two of the shortest words you could meaningfully put on a card. And it elegantly handles all of the (rare, I agree) awkward situations that I can see.
There is no red herring here.
Here are two links to articles by Wizards of the Coast R&D members:
- http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/188
- http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/188
These articles are discussing, which is preferable for Magic: "You draw two cards," or "target player draws two cards?" How could that small of a difference in complexity matter? And yet "you" is currently winning this battle.
Thanks for the links; these are really interesting. And I feel less bad about disagreeing when Mark Frickin' Rosewater thinks about this very much the same way I do. His argument is amazingly appropriate to the "may" issue. He covers all the points I would make. It's a common idea, it's a gateway to depth, and it allows players to feel clever / crystallize. I'm especially encouraged by their research showing that newer players do NOT get confused by targeted draw, as I just don't think they'll confused by "may", either.
On the flip side, this may be confirmation bias speaking, but I several issues with Zac Hill's article. The most prominent one is his ridiculous juxtaposition of "Option Charm" and "Divination". He's made the implicit assumption that there will never be other reasons you would want an opponent to draw cards. He's precluded the notion of an Enchantment that causes players to lose life when they draw, for example. Maybe that's a terrible card idea; that's not really the point. To me, the point is that he's restricting the set of interesting interatactions to prevent confusion that their own research suggests does not exist.
Also, one notable exception in their debate is that Magic phases sets in and out, while Dominion really doesn't (which, as a frugal person, I actually appreciate very much). They'll get an opportunity to revisit the issue in the next set. Dominion just won't, and that's another reason I would default towards a higher skill ceiling. The only people who will be playing it years after the final expansion gets printed are those who appreciate the extra choices. And I find it very hard to believe you'll lose even one sale to a default behavior of "you may". But, again, I have no particular evidence for that.
Theory also had a point I wanted to address:
This is also one of those things where each incremental addition of complexity doesn't seem like much ("Just a 'you may' here, what harm can it do?"), but taken as a whole it all adds up.
For example, you could think of examples where Smithy could be "You may draw 3 cards" and argue about how that's better for Peddler and Menagerie and Horn of Plenty sometimes.
Making cards "better" is a separate issue, to me. Choices always make cards "better" but I wouldn't argue that all cards need to be better or fit into every situation. For example, I don't think Inn is underpowered because it doesn't say "you may". But I do think it's an dangerously-subtle opportunity for corrupted game state and I also personally find it unintuitive.
I cited these before, but Bishop and Haggler are very good examples of where not allowing choice makes sense to me. It's central to playing the card and the lack of choice balances the card by creating an interesting trade-off for the player. These are also cases where removing choice on the card doesn't change the magnitude of the complexity; it just shifts the thinking from whether to leverage an ability to whether to play the card at all.
In my never-designed-or-published-a-game opinion, if you aren't going to change balance or the magnitude of the complexity by removing a choice, I would prefer to see it left in. Inn is an example where the choice does not greatly affect the balance of the card and, I believe, helps ensure game state validity while also being more intuitive.
EDIT: Quick fix.
-
And I feel less bad about disagreeing when Mark Frickin' Rosewater thinks about this very much the same way I do.
Not the way I read it! Mark specifically cites how the option adds complexity and therefore has to be worth it; then he argues that for his case it is. You cannot make that argument for Inn, the "you may" there adds zilch. And if you want Dominion to have more strategy, you get that by actually adding more strategy, not by adding pointless extra words to Inn.
And that's that! I continue to disagree with you eight ways from Sunday.
-
Seeing as how Donald is following this thread, I wonder if he can rule on Inn and Stash:
When you gain an Inn and have Stashes in both your deck and discard pile and need/want to Shuffle because of the Inn, you:
a) Don't get to place your Stashes anywhere
b) Get to place your Stashes in your deck
c) Get to place your Stashes in your discard pile
d) Get to place your Stashes in your deck and discard pile
-
Seeing as how Donald is following this thread, I wonder if he can rule on Inn and Stash:
When you gain an Inn and have Stashes in both your deck and discard pile and need/want to Shuffle because of the Inn, you:
a) Don't get to place your Stashes anywhere
b) Get to place your Stashes in your deck
c) Get to place your Stashes in your discard pile
d) Get to place your Stashes in your deck and discard pile
I feel like I answered this one here. When you shuffle your deck, you get to pick where Stash goes, but this doesn't let you move Stashes into your deck that are in other places. Think of it as, the back is marked, and that's okay, and that's all there is to it. The marked back means you will know where they go when you shuffle, every time you shuffle, including shuffling for Inn for example; but it doesn't mean anything more than that, it doesn't cause them to leap from your discard pile into your deck when you aren't shuffling the rest of your discard pile or any such thing.
-
Donald, what happens if I buy an Inn, but my opponent eats all my action cards before I get a chance to shuffle them in. Do I still have to shuffle?
I don't think there is anything in the rulebook that covers that....
-
Donald, what happens if I buy an Inn, but my opponent eats all my action cards before I get a chance to shuffle them in. Do I still have to shuffle?
I don't think there is anything in the rulebook that covers that....
Sit back and wait for heartburn to do its trick?
-
And I feel less bad about disagreeing when Mark Frickin' Rosewater thinks about this very much the same way I do.
Not the way I read it! Mark specifically cites how the option adds complexity and therefore has to be worth it; then he argues that for his case it is. You cannot make that argument for Inn, the "you may" there adds zilch. And if you want Dominion to have more strategy, you get that by actually adding more strategy, not by adding pointless extra words to Inn.
And that's that! I continue to disagree with you eight ways from Sunday.
Well, you're still hung up on Inn while I'm trying to make the point that defaulting "you may" is a lot like defaulting to "target". Mark gives a very well-reasoned argument that, while target on a draw card "adds complexity", it's complexity that is actually useful to hooking new players and improving their experience; most importantly, it doesn't confuse them. If it doesn't confuse anybody or create analysis paralysis, I'm not seeing the downside. So, IMO, the "complexity" is warranted and I don't think it's a stretch to extrapolate that to a general policy. People understand "you may" and choices, IMO, are not inherently bad.
Anyway, I suppose that is that. :) Thanks for engaging with me.
-
Well, you're still hung up on Inn while I'm trying to make the point that defaulting "you may" is a lot like defaulting to "target". Mark gives a very well-reasoned argument that, while target on a draw card "adds complexity", it's complexity that is actually useful to hooking new players and improving their experience; most importantly, it doesn't confuse them. If it doesn't confuse anybody or create analysis paralysis, I'm not seeing the downside. So, IMO, the "complexity" is warranted and I don't think it's a stretch to extrapolate that to a general policy. People understand "you may" and choices, IMO, are not inherently bad.
Anyway, I suppose that is that. :) Thanks for engaging with me.
There is no possible way that Mark will agree that most cards should say "you may." He will come down hard on the side of, do not include nearly useless options on cards. Ask him yourself, he answers a million questions daily on his tumblr page.
Further reading: http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/49
-
Well, you're still hung up on Inn while I'm trying to make the point that defaulting "you may" is a lot like defaulting to "target". Mark gives a very well-reasoned argument that, while target on a draw card "adds complexity", it's complexity that is actually useful to hooking new players and improving their experience; most importantly, it doesn't confuse them. If it doesn't confuse anybody or create analysis paralysis, I'm not seeing the downside. So, IMO, the "complexity" is warranted and I don't think it's a stretch to extrapolate that to a general policy. People understand "you may" and choices, IMO, are not inherently bad.
Anyway, I suppose that is that. :) Thanks for engaging with me.
There is no possible way that Mark will agree that most cards should say "you may." He will come down hard on the side of, do not include nearly useless options on cards. Ask him yourself, he answers a million questions daily on his tumblr page.
Further reading: http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/49
I'm sorry, Donald. I must be doing a poor job of explaining my position. Because I read this Rosewater article, I think it's insightful / correct, and it still hasn't changed my opinion. So let me re-evaluate how I'm saying it...
Maybe a better rephrasing is that I would start design with all cards having "you may" for triggered abilities. I would remove that "may" if doing so actively served the gameplay, and I would feel comfortable doing that because of all the bullets Rosewater laid out in the "target" article (it's well understood, yadda, yadda, crystallization, yadda).
With respect to the "Decisions" article, putting "may" on a card is not the same as adding a new triggered ability to a Magic card. It's more akin to putting a mana cost on an ability instead of saying "this always happens". The "may" is almost always implicit in Magic and, in fact, you must go beyond simply wanting it; you must also pay for it. I don't think it's unreasonable for triggered abilities in Dominion to have a default "mana cost" of "choosing it"; that's an extremely reasonable cost. It also sidesteps the other issues I keep bringing up (game integrity, learning, responsibility, etc).
Going back to the example of Inn, we agree that "may" doesn't particularly change the usefulness of the card. But it does preserve game integrity and, IMO, it makes the card more intuitive. Do you disagree about the intuition? It seems odd that if I want the card to be my village but I don't want to shuffle any cards in, I still *have* to shuffle. You seem to think that makes the card more straightforward ("always shuffle") but I think it runs counter to the way people grok cards. I thought of Inn as a cycling village that I could also gain to shuffle actions back into my deck when I want it to. You're saying it's a cycling village that shuffles my deck on gain and, if I want to, I can also shuffle actions into it. So it turns out the constant of the effect is... my deck gets shuffled? Do people really think about it like that? This is a case where a default policy of "you may" would remain because I think it fulfills the intuition about the card.
I realize I'm arguing from a subjective perspective here; if my intuition is counter the crowd's, it doesn't count for much. I suppose you could say it doesn't count for much either way, since I don't actually make the decisions. :)
-
I agree with GigaKnight regarding Inn specifically, in that I didn't expect you'd have to reshuffle if you choose to leave your action cards in the discard. But as far as "you may" goes, I think it's better that it isn't the default. Saying "you may" do something is not similar to putting a mana cost on an ability. "You may" means that there is no cost. You can use it or not, and there is no downside to the "option" (to use the terms given in the article). It's more interesting if you make it an actual "choice" as per Steward, Pawn, Torturer, Vault, Bishop. Those are choices, and taking the choices has a cost.
-
I agree with GigaKnight regarding Inn specifically, in that I didn't expect you'd have to reshuffle if you choose to leave your action cards in the discard. But as far as "you may" goes, I think it's better that it isn't the default. Saying "you may" do something is not similar to putting a mana cost on an ability. "You may" means that there is no cost. You can use it or not, and there is no downside to the "option" (to use the terms given in the article). It's more interesting if you make it an actual "choice" as per Steward, Pawn, Torturer, Vault, Bishop. Those are choices, and taking the choices has a cost.
I made a mistake earlier by talking about this in terms of "defaulting to 'you may'". I was really talking about triggered side-effects, not central things like +Cards, +Actions, attacks, etc. I mean, the discussion started about Inn, which has a relatively-awkward triggered side effect, not about Smithy, which is clear and concise. I did a poor job of framing the conversation at the beginning and I apologize about that.
As I've alluded to before, I don't object to requiring effect when playing the types of cards you mention; I think it it makes the cards more interesting and balanced. Also, note that the card there that significantly benefits from "you may" is Bishop, where you could get a $ and a point without trashing anything. Two of those cards have options that you could choose and ignore if you wanted (Steward, Pawn with +money, +actions). Vault has an effective "you may" in its triggered ability. And Torturer... drawing cards is almost always a benefit; the rare cases where you want to attack but don't want the cards do make things more itneresting. How does this relate to Inn? Purely shuffling your deck is almost never relevant and so I don't think it should be required.
Also, I meant it more as a design philosophy. Donald's policy is "don't put a may unless you really need it"; I think my policy would be "put a may unless removing it makes things better". There are lots of general cases where removing it makes things better, but I'd want to start with the wider set of interactions and narrow down as I test. And, obviously, somebody with Donald's experience quickly gets a sense of what should / shouldn't start with may. I just think Inn is an example where the restrictive default policy is a poor one that yields an unintuitive interaction (and, in general, has other negative side effects which I've beaten to death).
Also, I really do think "you may" is equivalent to adding a mana cost of 0. You still have to choose the ability; it doesn't just happen. You have to take responsibility for remembering your abilities and you also have the power to control which ones take effect.
-
I agree with GigaKnight regarding Inn specifically, in that I didn't expect you'd have to reshuffle if you choose to leave your action cards in the discard. But as far as "you may" goes, I think it's better that it isn't the default. Saying "you may" do something is not similar to putting a mana cost on an ability. "You may" means that there is no cost. You can use it or not, and there is no downside to the "option" (to use the terms given in the article). It's more interesting if you make it an actual "choice" as per Steward, Pawn, Torturer, Vault, Bishop. Those are choices, and taking the choices has a cost.
As I've alluded to before, I don't object to requiring effect when playing the types of cards you mention; I think it it makes the cards more interesting and balanced. Also, note that the card there that significantly benefits from "you may" is Bishop, where you could get a $ and a point without trashing anything. Two of those cards have options that you could choose and ignore if you wanted (Steward, Pawn with +money, +actions). Vault has an effective "you may" in its triggered ability. And Torturer... drawing cards is almost always a benefit; the rare cases where you want to attack but don't want the cards do make things more itneresting. How does this relate to Inn? Purely shuffling your deck is almost never relevant and so I don't think it should be required.
In the case of Pawn and Steward, choosing one option has the opportunity cost of NOT choosing another option. For example, if I play Pawn for +1 Card, +1 Buy and draw an action card, that card is dead (barring villages). On the other hand, maybe I just use +1 Card, +1 Action but draw a Bank with a big hand. Now I really wish I had taken the extra Buy.
With Bishop, Vault and Torturer, I actually was more focused on the choice given to the opponent. :)
And this isn't necessarily related to Inn. Was just opining on options vs. choices.
-
Maybe a better rephrasing is that I would start design with all cards having "you may" for triggered abilities. I would remove that "may" if doing so actively served the gameplay, and I would feel comfortable doing that because of all the bullets Rosewater laid out in the "target" article (it's well understood, yadda, yadda, crystallization, yadda).
So for example, Border Village should say "you may gain a card etc.?" That's crazy talk.
With respect to the "Decisions" article, putting "may" on a card is not the same as adding a new triggered ability to a Magic card. It's more akin to putting a mana cost on an ability instead of saying "this always happens".
Makes no sense. Mana costs are costs, they are vastly different from non-costs. Why would you say "mana cost" when in a subsequent post you clarify it to "a mana cost of zero?" Also Wizards doesn't like mana costs of zero, they are confusing. "Adding a new triggered ability to a Magic card" wasn't being discussed or compared to anything. If you are referring to the article, it's not focused on triggered stuff as opposed to whatever else.
In the article, note the bit about Expunge. Expunge has cycling 2 - you can discard this valuable creature-killer and get a new card. Mark thought that was a poor use of cycling because you are so unlikely to want to cycle it. You somehow see this as confirming your viewpoint, that "you may" should be ubiquitous?
Going back to the example of Inn, we agree that "may" doesn't particularly change the usefulness of the card. But it does preserve game integrity and, IMO, it makes the card more intuitive. Do you disagree about the intuition?
Giving players an option they never use makes cards less intuitive. They wonder why that option is there.
-
Also, I meant it more as a design philosophy. Donald's policy is "don't put a may unless you really need it";
At last we agree on something! That *is* my philosophy.
Here is another angle.
Let's say I have an awesome Dominion card. There isn't really room for it in this set though. As it happens it's a duration card and this set is Seaside, so that's that, this card is never happening.
If you're a playtester, maybe you are really sad. I liked that card! But Dominion doesn't *need* any particular card. It needs good cards, but it can have some other good card instead.
This is the extreme case. Normally, the card is not awesome, there is no room for it because it is not awesome, but someone liked it. There is other stuff for them to like, the fact that this card provided "thing they liked" does not mean that it's the only thing that does that, or that the expansion no longer has enough joy for them. It is easy to focus on that individual loss, which the public will never see, rather than considering the whole. It's a mistake though, and I will take out a card I like to make an expansion better, every time.
Okay so.
Adding "you may" to a card adds a decision. Even if the decision is almost always "why yes I will," it's still a decision. Maybe you value decisions. Therefore we need this decision! But we don't. We don't need any particular decision. The game needs decisions and has plenty of them. Any particular decision is not necessary.
Furthermore the game should focus on the best decisions. The ones that are interesting, that people enjoy. Pointless decisions are awful. They are so bad that I considered not putting a decision on Spice Merchant, that's how different my position is from yours.
-
Furthermore the game should focus on the best decisions. The ones that are interesting, that people enjoy. Pointless decisions are awful.
Anyone who disagrees should try playing "Miskatonic school for girls".
-
Maybe a better rephrasing is that I would start design with all cards having "you may" for triggered abilities. I would remove that "may" if doing so actively served the gameplay, and I would feel comfortable doing that because of all the bullets Rosewater laid out in the "target" article (it's well understood, yadda, yadda, crystallization, yadda).
So for example, Border Village should say "you may gain a card etc.?" That's crazy talk.
Crazy talk, huh?! :) Actually, I specifically said to eHalcyon there are many cases where I like the lack of choice, that I think it makes the cards more interesting. Border Village is one of them, as is Haggler. But Haggler is also a card where I relatively-frequently *want* to skip gaining the extra card. It's not uncommon for me to have played a Haggler, have an extra buy for $3 and not want anything that costs less than it; it happened in a random game last night, actually. So what I'm saying is that wouldn't approach these saying "they have to earn the may"; I'd put it there and see how often it mattered. With Haggler, I think it matters with non-negligible frequency and the only reason to remove the may, IMO, is card balance (and it think it works quite well as-is).
With respect to the "Decisions" article, putting "may" on a card is not the same as adding a new triggered ability to a Magic card. It's more akin to putting a mana cost on an ability instead of saying "this always happens".
Makes no sense. Mana costs are costs, they are vastly different from non-costs. Why would you say "mana cost" when in a subsequent post you clarify it to "a mana cost of zero?" Also Wizards doesn't like mana costs of zero, they are confusing. "Adding a new triggered ability to a Magic card" wasn't being discussed or compared to anything. If you are referring to the article, it's not focused on triggered stuff as opposed to whatever else.
The "Design" article has a section about whether to add both trample and first strike mana cost abilities to a creature. Rosewater says he doesn't like adding another because the choices don't generally interact in interesting ways (as a side note, if the example creature had a toughness >1, then I think the abilities would interact in more interesting ways).
Anyway, I'm saying that's a different dimension of game design than "you may". "You may" is deciding whether to just give the card first strike or requiring the user to take some action for it. The closest analogy to "you may" would be putting a mana cost of 0 on activating the first strike. But the analogy breaks down there because you always want first strike on your creature. "You may" is a release valve for things you don't want or don't want to care about. Inn is a good example of where players don't necessarily want to care about whether they shuffle their decks.
In the article, note the bit about Expunge. Expunge has cycling 2 - you can discard this valuable creature-killer and get a new card. Mark thought that was a poor use of cycling because you are so unlikely to want to cycle it. You somehow see this as confirming your viewpoint, that "you may" should be ubiquitous?
No, I don't see that as confirming my viewpoint. I think that's a separate issue, as is the ability example above. And I tried to clarify that I don't think "you may" should be ubiquitous; I think it should be the default. Removed for good reason instead of added for good reason.
Going back to the example of Inn, we agree that "may" doesn't particularly change the usefulness of the card. But it does preserve game integrity and, IMO, it makes the card more intuitive. Do you disagree about the intuition?
Giving players an option they never use makes cards less intuitive. They wonder why that option is there.
So, it has seemed obvious that you disagree with Rosewater about "target" on draw cards. How do you reconcile his positions on "decisions" and his position on "target"? He outlined the bullet points at the end of the article and I think they all apply to "may". Do you disagree with that or do you think he just didn't make a strong enough argument to include "target"?
Also, I feel like you totally ignored:
1) My point about grokking cards and Inn.
2) My point about making a player responsible for their own play.
3) My point about how making mistakes and learning can be fun, too.
And, if I may be so bold, I think that's because you're taking an unnecessarily-dogmatic approach to choices. You seem to hate them so much you don't care about the positives they can bring.
Furthermore the game should focus on the best decisions. The ones that are interesting, that people enjoy. Pointless decisions are awful. They are so bad that I considered not putting a decision on Spice Merchant, that's how different my position is from yours.
I really think I understand your perspective. Honestly. And I truly don't want to add decisions everywhere; I agree the game should focus on the best decisions. But I think it would do that even with "may" on a lot more cards. Maybe that's because I don't have trouble ignoring decisions I don't care about; perhaps other players find them to be a distraction.
But what has been the negative impact of having a decision on Spice Merchant? This is anecdotal, but that card has never confused me or anybody I talked to. Never. I didn't even realize it was a choice because it doesn't generally matter, because I grokked the purpose of the card and moved on. But now I have the ability to play a Spice Merchant and not trash and buy a cheaper Peddler. I can play a Spice Merchant, not trash, and activate a Conspirator. These are uber-rare case, but it comes at absolutely no cost that I have ever seen and it lets players feel clever. You did it because requiring trashing was unenforceable, but it has other benefits that I don't really see you addressing. I assume that's because you think they're irrelevant, but they're also kind of the focus of my argument. And unless we're arguing about the same thing, we're just talking at each other.
We've probably come full circle here, maybe even multiple times. I genuinely appreciate your continued response and I apologize if you think I'm just being dense. I tend to be... let's call it "tenacious" about these kinds of things but it's not my goal to exasperate anybody. And I definitely don't want to be the guy that nobody responds to because he won't shut up. :) I guess I've made my point as well as I can make it; I'll try not to respond again unless I have something genuinely new to add.
-
So, it has seemed obvious that you disagree with Rosewater about "target" on draw cards. How do you reconcile his positions on "decisions" and his position on "target"? He outlined the bullet points at the end of the article and I think they all apply to "may". Do you disagree with that or do you think he just didn't make a strong enough argument to include "target"?
I'm not going to re-read those articles to work this out for you. Again you could ask him yourself, he's around, and he knows himself better than I do. He's the one who said, Expunge was a poor use of cycling, Divination should be target player. Again note that R&D is against him on the target player thing, he lost that battle to multiple sensible people. You cannot ask those people though, Mark is the only one who is question-answering-crazy.
I do not think those cards should say "target player." "You draw 2 cards" is better than "target player draws 2 cards," and as Zac noted they still do use "target player" when it's X cards, where you actually use it to deck people. They let people have that fun in places where it makes sense.
Also, I feel like you totally ignored:
1) My point about grokking cards and Inn.
2) My point about making a player responsible for their own play.
3) My point about how making mistakes and learning can be fun, too.
1) Inn is one of the more complex cards in Hinterlands, but also a hit for certain players. If I were making Hinterlands today I would strongly consider simplifying a few cards - I did not expect the set to be viewed as a complex one. Inn and Mandarin are really the two cards where I can say, I dunno, I would like these as is but maybe I change them (as opposed to complex cards I def. leave as is, like Noble Brigand, and complex cards I def. simplify, like Trader). Nevertheless the problem is not that Inn is hard to grok, it is straightforward that when you get one you shuffle cards from your discard pile into your deck. I have never seen it confuse anyone. "Yeeha!" they would say, and shuffle in five cards, utterly unconfused.
2) I addressed this.
3) I don't know what this is referring to, but man, if making mistakes is awesome, then I want to put in awesome mistake-generating things, not lousy ones. Any particular mistake generator is not essential. See previous essay.
And, if I may be so bold, I think that's because you're taking an unnecessarily-dogmatic approach to choices. You seem to hate them so much you don't care about the positives they can bring.
wtf dude, choices are awesome. Useless choices are what's bad. Pawn is my favorite card in Intrigue, etc. etc. If you expect a lack of choices in Dark Ages then you are in for a surprise. But putting "you may" on something where I'm rarely picking "I will choose not to" is just so obviously stupid.
But what has been the negative impact of having a decision on Spice Merchant?
Well people think Hinterlands is a complex set. And I struggled to make it simple enough to be a standalone. So I mean. It should have been simpler. And that simplicity has to be somewhere, some cards need to lose text to get that. There's nothing confusing about Spice Merchant, that's not the issue there. And I went with the choice version. Oh man I see, you are misunderstanding me here. I am talking about, Spice Merchant could have been "You may trash a treasure from your hand. If you do, +2 Cards +1 Action." No Woodcutter option. It appears that you are talking about the "you may." That "you may" is like the one Throne Room doesn't have, it keeps you honest without adding a more cumbersome "or reveal a hand with no treasures."
-
Ok, I think I failed to convey my point to you, as I'm pretty sure it's not "obviously stupid", just different than your tastes. But time to call it quits. Thanks Donald. No so much for insulting me, but for at least continuing to discuss it. :)
Also one quick thing:
And, if I may be so bold, I think that's because you're taking an unnecessarily-dogmatic approach to choices. You seem to hate them so much you don't care about the positives they can bring.
wtf dude, choices are awesome. Useless choices are what's bad. Pawn is my favorite card in Intrigue, etc. etc. If you expect a lack of choices in Dark Ages then you are in for a surprise. But putting "you may" on something where I'm rarely picking "I will choose not to" is just so obviously stupid.
I want to apologize for my misrepresentation of you here. I realize how it sounds now that I read it again and it's ridiculous to say you don't like choices. Part of my poor communication, I suppose. Maybe it's more accurate to say I think you're too quick to judge choices as useless or dismiss the value and potential satisfaction in exploiting low-frequency cases.
-
If you expect a lack of choices in Dark Ages then you are in for a surprise.
I just wanted to cut this out and shout with joy.
That is all.
-
If you expect a lack of choices in Dark Ages then you are in for a surprise.
I just wanted to cut this out and shout with joy.
That is all.
I guess we owe GigaKnight a thank you for this extended conversation with Donald (and Donald a thank you for continuing it) so that we another tantalizing bit of information about Dark Ages.
-
I don't like unnecessary 'you may's.
Do Spice Merchant and Stables have "you may" because otherwise they would need a clause like ".. or reveal your hand with no treasure"?
I guess this is only useful when someone Golems into one and doesn't want to trash or discard his Gold.
-
I don't like unnecessary 'you may's.
Do Spice Merchant and Stables have "you may" because otherwise they would need a clause like ".. or reveal your hand with no treasure"?
I guess this is only useful when someone Golems into one and doesn't want to trash or discard his Gold.
Or for some weird situations with conspirator/peddler where you want to play the thing but don't want to discard/trash.
-
I want to apologize for my misrepresentation of you here. I realize how it sounds now that I read it again and it's ridiculous to say you don't like choices. Part of my poor communication, I suppose. Maybe it's more accurate to say I think you're too quick to judge choices as useless or dismiss the value and potential satisfaction in exploiting low-frequency cases.
Well maybe this is just a problem of perspective. From my perspective I have put many many hours into issues like, exactly when should cards say "you may." From your perspective there are just a few posts in a thread and for all you know I spend all of my time practicing square dance calls.
For me a good source of "satisfaction in exploiting low-frequency cases" is say Counting House. Dominion can't afford to have very many narrow cards, but it's good to have a few, because some people really like winning with a card that's normally weak, and you can only do that if some cards are normally weak. But as far as card interactions go, you can get this particular fun out of an unusual interaction without having an unused option. Like, a 5-card King's Court / Expand deck is an exotic thing you can discover, and I didn't have to stick in a choice people don't pick to get it.
-
From your perspective there are just a few posts in a thread and for all you know I spend all of my time practicing square dance calls.
No? Well now I'm disappointed. I mean, I had no reason to think so. But I had no reason not to, either!
-
I guess we owe GigaKnight a thank you for this extended conversation with Donald (and Donald a thank you for continuing it) so that we another tantalizing bit of information about Dark Ages.
This let me go all the way back and scan for new things... What a disappointment when the only thing is the quoted sentence.
To make up for my time, let me share my opinion on the "you may" issue.
I am sorry GigaKnight, while you seem like a nice person, your assertion is a little bit far-fetched.
Think this way: if "you may" is default as you suggested, for every card you play you will have the option whether to have the effect. But, if you don't want the effect, in most cases you will just choose not to play the card!
From the basic game mechanics perspective the "you may" is very awkward, as choosing whether to play the card or not is already sufficient. Another layer of choice over-complicates the rules in an unnecessary way. In fact, all the "you may" existed in the game are for situations uncheckable by opponents I think.
So the problem we have is actually just for part of the effect of the card. The problem then varies case by case. In the case of inn, I do agree that when you don't bring any cards into your pile it seems reasonable to expect not to shuffle. But as we said "you may" should not be a default option; does adding "you may" here provides enough benefit for its existence? I don't think so.
On the other point of "reminding other people's mistake only at your own disadvantage", I have a different opinion. I think the rule is only maintained by the players (very much like in a tennis game if both players call a ball out the judge has no say on it). I don't think you have to feel shameful to get some advantages by not pointing things out. Or if you feel shameful then just point it out and don't complain about it.
-
Hey timchen, no problem about the "you may" issue. I just have a different perspective, is all (and admittedly-limited experience).
I did want to address the rules / mistakes issues. For one, I like to play by the rules because that's what the game *is*. In soccer, for example, I despise things like shirt pulling; it's cheating, even if it's accepted by high-level players. In Dominion (or any game), selectively enforcing the rules is also cheating. I see few things as truly black and white but this one seems clear to me. If you have a set of rules and you are not playing by them, you're playing a different game.
Regardless of how I personally feel in situations where I can cheat, I want it to be detectable; I want the rules to be enforceable. One of my issues with requiring players to, e.g., gain a card with Haggler is that if they forget and their opponent remembers but chooses to keep silent, the opponent can simply claim he forgot. The rule is not enforceable. With "may", a forgotten ability is no more than a potential play mistake and an opportunity for learning and improving.
Beyond that, once the rules are irreversibly broken, the game state is corrupted. If the player who claims he forgot loses the game, he can also claim the game would have been different in the first player had played by the rules. Therefore, the game result is invalid and a new match must be played. Then you have to bring in the judges to decide when this was avoidable by placing the responsibility for even making the decision on the active player.
This is all kind of far-fetched potential-tourney-level stuff, I realize. But I care about stuff like that. No, Dominion doesn't "need" it, but I would prefer if it was there. My two cents.
And, P.S. this issue is avoided if all games are played electronically (where the rules are easily enforced), which I'm also totally fine with.
-
Regardless of how I personally feel in situations where I can cheat, I want it to be detectable; I want the rules to be enforceable. One of my issues with requiring players to, e.g., gain a card with Haggler is that if they forget and their opponent remembers but chooses to keep silent, the opponent can simply claim he forgot. The rule is not enforceable. With "may", a forgotten ability is no more than a potential play mistake and an opportunity for learning and improving.
So I don't get this. First, of course the rule is enforceable, you see the Haggler. The argument that they can claim they forgot, you can apply this to every rule:
So new rulesset here:
At the action phase, you may play 1 action. Or more, because hey, you might claim you have forgotten to count how many actions you already played. When you play a action, you may follow all the text on the card. Or maybe you mix the order up, because you may have forgotten this rule. Or you only do half of them, hey, forgotten. Maybe you also already play a treasure, because who knows if I remember correctly that this was not allowed. I actually think I'm the ruletext, so I should know, but maybe my memory is wrong, so better play this treasure if you like.
So, now we get to the buyphase. Just play any treasures left in your hand, and maybe also actions. And Victorycards, just try what happens if you play them, I don't remember exactly. Good, so count all the money you get from these treasures and victory cards, and buy a card costing up to that much. Or maybe a little more. Ah, just take as many cards as you like, and put them to the discard. Or somewhere else.
Cleanup, there we are... Take all the cards left in your hand, and from your play area, and maybe some more from somewhere else. Now draw 5 cards from your deck. Or some less. Or some more. With draw I mean to your hand. But maybe also put them somewhere else. If your draw deck is empty, and you have to want to draw some more cards (or maybe also at some other point), you shuffle it. If you don't remember what shuffling means, just invent you own definition, or ask oeste at BGG to remind you what it means. I can not enforce the correct shuffling anyway, so I better leave it to you what to do.
-
Regardless of how I personally feel in situations where I can cheat, I want it to be detectable; I want the rules to be enforceable. One of my issues with requiring players to, e.g., gain a card with Haggler is that if they forget and their opponent remembers but chooses to keep silent, the opponent can simply claim he forgot. The rule is not enforceable. With "may", a forgotten ability is no more than a potential play mistake and an opportunity for learning and improving.
So I don't get this. First, of course the rule is enforceable, you see the Haggler. The argument that they can claim they forgot, you can apply this to every rule:
So new rulesset here:
At the action phase, you may play 1 action. Or more, because hey, you might claim you have forgotten to count how many actions you already played. When you play a action, you may follow all the text on the card. Or maybe you mix the order up, because you may have forgotten this rule. Or you only do half of them, hey, forgotten. Maybe you also already play a treasure, because who knows if I remember correctly that this was not allowed. I actually think I'm the ruletext, so I should know, but maybe my memory is wrong, so better play this treasure if you like.
So, now we get to the buyphase. Just play any treasures left in your hand, and maybe also actions. And Victorycards, just try what happens if you play them, I don't remember exactly. Good, so count all the money you get from these treasures and victory cards, and buy a card costing up to that much. Or maybe a little more. Ah, just take as many cards as you like, and put them to the discard. Or somewhere else.
Cleanup, there we are... Take all the cards left in your hand, and from your play area, and maybe some more from somewhere else. Now draw 5 cards from your deck. Or some less. Or some more. With draw I mean to your hand. But maybe also put them somewhere else. If your draw deck is empty, and you have to want to draw some more cards (or maybe also at some other point), you shuffle it. If you don't remember what shuffling means, just invent you own definition, or ask oeste at BGG to remind you what it means. I can not enforce the correct shuffling anyway, so I better leave it to you what to do.
*sigh* The difference is that all these things you're mocking me with are done on every. turn. They aren't forgotten anymore than what an action is or what a buy is. Triggered effects are forgotten all the time, especially as more get added. "May" downgrades them from rules violations to play mistakes.
You're acting like I want to stick may before every thing in the game. I said I don't want it to be ubiquitous; I want it to be the default. Specifically, I want it to be the default for triggered effects. I also said I think there are lots of cases where not having "may" makes sense. I'll make that stronger by saying there are lots of cases where omitting "may" creates a vastly-improved experience. As an obvious example, there's currently no downside to having extra actions, $, or buys, and I personally believe it would be bad design to create cards that disincentivize those.
I'm annoyed that you take my opinion, stretch it to the extreme case, and then mock it. There's a continuum of choices and just because I want Dominion to be shifted in the continuum doesn't mean I want it all the way to that end.
-
I just don't see how it's not enforcable (and got carried away a bit...)
The Haggler is on the table, everybody sees it, everybody knows that you have to gain a card, so if you all forget, it's maybe not enforced, but it's nevertheless enforceable.
Throne Room is not enforcable, Moneylender is not, but Haggler is.
If you take such an absolute stand on the rules as in the previous post, I would find it more reasonable to just take care instead of saying "There may be no rules where I may forget parts of it, because I absolutely want to stick to the rules."
-
I just don't see how it's not enforcable (and got carried away a bit...)
Ah, that's fair. Let me rephrase. In my view, a player who intentionally allows a rules violation has violated the rules himself. Allowing somebody to not take a required benefit is cheating, just as if I sneak an extra card in my draw phase and don't tell anybody. In both cases, 1 person has violated the rules, 1 person is aware of it, and 1 person does not report it. They don't have to be the same person for it to be cheating.
I want to disincentivize rules violations. With triggered effects, making them optional is how you'd do that. I have no incentive to enforce that my opponent takes a triggered benefit; in this scenario, my cheating would be undetectable. That's what I really mean by unenforceable. Poor phrasing on my part, sorry.
That said, I've said several times in this thread that I wouldn't make all triggered effects say "may". I'm actually fine with where Haggler is as a card, but it's a good example of the issues created by required triggered effects. This comes back to my main point that I would start with cards saying "may" and remove it iff the gameplay benefit is great enough. In the spectrum of approaches to "may", this on the other end from Donald's.
If you take such an absolute stand on the rules as in the previous post, I would find it more reasonable to just take care instead of saying "There may be no rules where I may forget parts of it, because I absolutely want to stick to the rules."
That quote is more extreme than my position (again, you go to the extreme). There are several different things that, in conjunction, make me think "you may" should be the default. They're kind of distributed throughout the many posts of this thread, though. If you're really interested, I can consolidate them into a single long post. Just having this discussion has helped me solidify my view on this so that I think I can write a well-reasoned essay on it. Not that I think it would necessarily convince everybody; Donald also has a well-reasoned position that simply optimizes for different things than I would optimize for.
-
I want to disincentivize rules violations.
I see what you're saying, but it makes more sense not to play with people who would be tempted. I mean, that would be better anyway, but with your Haggler example the card would be quite different and less interesting if it wouldn't make you pick up an unwanted Copper or terminal $2 now sometimes. Inn has less at stake, I grant you, but I'll take greater strategic interest over cheaterproofness any day.
-
I want to disincentivize rules violations.
I see what you're saying, but it makes more sense not to play with people who would be tempted. I mean, that would be better anyway, but with your Haggler example the card would be quite different and less interesting if it wouldn't make you pick up an unwanted Copper or terminal $2 now sometimes. Inn has less at stake, I grant you, but I'll take greater strategic interest over cheaterproofness any day.
A few things, rinkworks:
1) I'm not sure you read my posts because, for I think the fourth time, I agree that Haggler is fine as-is. It creates more interesting decisions without the "may". But honestly, I doubt it would be particularly overpowered without it, either.
2) I find the "don't play with cheaters" response lacking. The effort should be to minimize cheating opportunities, but I get that it's not realistic to expect to eliminate them entirely. A default of "you may" tends towards minimizing those opportunities (and has a string of other impacts that I see as benefits, which you can read about in my other posts). But if the card is significantly more interesting without the may, by all means, take it out.
-
Hi Gigaknight, I didn't reply in the first place because I didn't understand your post. Dstu's replies helped me on that.
So basically you have this virtue that "you don't want to create an incentive for players to violate the rules."
Ok, so for a single player this doesn't matter, as the incentive must exist otherwise the game will be boring. The only thing can be done is to make the violation checkable for all other players.
Now the same thing applies to a part of the players as well. Well, not exactly, the incentive is not as necessary to exist, but nevertheless as long as it is detectable for other players not in that part it is fine.
Now here's the case you are talking about: an incentive to violate the rule for all players. (This is what you mean by creating a undetectable situation.) One conceptual problem is that in a game there is hardly anything which is beneficial to all players since if win matters any game is a zero-sum game. So basically there shouldn't be a situation when all players collude to violate the rules.
So the situation is (finally!) narrowed down to the case that some players are violating the rules at their own cost. Others may allow that. Frankly speaking I don't see where the problem is. You know, if it is allowed by the rules it's called a bad play. So do you think one should remind others when they commit a bad play? IMHO yes. So I don't see the need to make the rule violation as a bad play since I would tell them anyway. Or on the contrary, if I am playing money or in some fierce competition, then ok, I may decide to keep silent and rip the benefit. Why does it bother you when someone violates the rules at their own cost? I mean, rule-allowed bad plays can be much worse than that. And dominion is not bible. I don't see anything wrong when players mutually agreed to play some variant.
-
Gigaknight's example with cheating around Haggler is pretty subtle, and I'm not sure that we're all on the same page about it. Here's my understanding:
Player A plays Haggler, and forgets to use the triggered ability. This is a real, honest-to-god mistake. More importantly, this rules violation is clearly verifiable: there is a Haggler, there is no card gain. Everyone observing can call out Player A, or find out by reading the logs.
Player B observes player A's mistake. Player B now has an opportunity to call out Player A on his mistake. By not doing so, he is cheating (according to Gigaknight's idea of cheating). Furthermore, this cheating is not falsifiable. Unlike Player A's play mistake, there is no way for anyone other than Player B to know whether Player B is making an honest mistake or intentionally withholding information. Gigaknight's point is that it's bad game design to place a player in a position where they can break the rules for their benefit, and guaranteed get away with it.
Changing the subject: I don't sympathize with the argument "don't play with cheaters," because that's not an option for competitive play.
-
Gigaknight's example with cheating around Haggler is pretty subtle, and I'm not sure that we're all on the same page about it. Here's my understanding:
Player A plays Haggler, and forgets to use the triggered ability. This is a real, honest-to-god mistake. More importantly, this rules violation is clearly verifiable: there is a Haggler, there is no card gain. Everyone observing can call out Player A, or find out by reading the logs.
Player B observes player A's mistake. Player B now has an opportunity to call out Player A on his mistake. By not doing so, he is cheating (according to Gigaknight's idea of cheating). Furthermore, this cheating is not falsifiable. Unlike Player A's play mistake, there is no way for anyone other than Player B to know whether Player B is making an honest mistake or intentionally withholding information. Gigaknight's point is that it's bad game design to place a player in a position where they can break the rules for their benefit, and guaranteed get away with it.
Changing the subject: I don't sympathize with the argument "don't play with cheaters," because that's not an option for competitive play.
Bingo! Thanks for stating that so clearly.
EDIT: I should also state that I do recognize the subtlety and rarity of this situation. I believe these situations should be avoided, but not at all costs. That's why I keep saying I'm OK with Haggler as-is; required gain there creates an interesting trade-off that I think overrides the small chance of abuse. But, all other things being equal, I'd rather put "you may" on a card to avoid things like this. And, to repeat myself again, I think there are other positive impacts of making triggered effects optional. It doesn't all hinge on the potential for abuse, IMO.
-
GigaKnight, what are your thoughts on Soul's Attendant (http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=193499) vs Soul Warden (http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/details.aspx?name=soul%20warden)? This seems like such a perfect example.
I think the problem you describe is much more prevalent in Magic than in Dominion, simply because in Magic you have a lot more cards out on the field usually, and a lot more triggered effects that could happen. Just this week, someone in my playgroup had a Soul's Attendant out, and didn't gain life when an opponent played a creature (5-player game). By the time it was realized, it was too late, and he couldn't get the life. Had it been a Soul Warden instead, he would have.
Although, this issue arises because of the casual and fast nature of the way people play. The fact is, his Soul's Attendant DID trigger, and it's ability DID go on the stack. That still happens ever though it's "may." Once the ability resolves, at that point he can choose to do it or not. But because we were playing fast and loose, no one ever stopped to say "ok, a creature was just played, now what does the stack look like?" In the same way, in a casual setting, players may play a card or ability, and then another card or ability, without stopping and "passing priority" to the other players.
I guess what I'm saying is in that example, I feel like in a way the group made an illegal play just like we would have if it had been a Soul Warden instead. Because we never actually put the triggered ability on the stack. The guy didn't wait until it resolved and then chose not to gain life. Rather, it never went on the stack, and never resolved, because he forgot to put it on the stack.
-
Player B observes player A's mistake. Player B now has an opportunity to call out Player A on his mistake. By not doing so, he is cheating (according to Gigaknight's idea of cheating).
This is certainly unethical, but I don't think the communities for most board/card games would label it outright cheating. Just speculating, though. I imagine that in some games, it's hard to draw a line with that kind of ethical obligation, anyway (between reminding a player of their legal options, and actually giving them strategic advice).
-
Player B observes player A's mistake. Player B now has an opportunity to call out Player A on his mistake. By not doing so, he is cheating (according to Gigaknight's idea of cheating).
This is certainly unethical, but I don't think the communities for most board/card games would label it outright cheating. Just speculating, though. I imagine that in some games, it's hard to draw a line with that kind of ethical obligation, anyway (between reminding a player of their legal options, and actually giving them strategic advice).
There's an interesting discussion on something similar to this over at bgg: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/15032/quotforgettingquot-the-colonist-ship (http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/15032/quotforgettingquot-the-colonist-ship).
-
GigaKnight, what are your thoughts on Soul's Attendant (http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=193499) vs Soul Warden (http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/details.aspx?name=soul%20warden)? This seems like such a perfect example.
I think the problem you describe is much more prevalent in Magic than in Dominion, simply because in Magic you have a lot more cards out on the field usually, and a lot more triggered effects that could happen. Just this week, someone in my playgroup had a Soul's Attendant out, and didn't gain life when an opponent played a creature (5-player game). By the time it was realized, it was too late, and he couldn't get the life. Had it been a Soul Warden instead, he would have.
Although, this issue arises because of the casual and fast nature of the way people play. The fact is, his Soul's Attendant DID trigger, and it's ability DID go on the stack. That still happens ever though it's "may." Once the ability resolves, at that point he can choose to do it or not. But because we were playing fast and loose, no one ever stopped to say "ok, a creature was just played, now what does the stack look like?" In the same way, in a casual setting, players may play a card or ability, and then another card or ability, without stopping and "passing priority" to the other players.
I guess what I'm saying is in that example, I feel like in a way the group made an illegal play just like we would have if it had been a Soul Warden instead. Because we never actually put the triggered ability on the stack. The guy didn't wait until it resolved and then chose not to gain life. Rather, it never went on the stack, and never resolved, because he forgot to put it on the stack.
Yeah, those cards are a good example; I would go with may.
You raise a very interesting point about the stack in Magic, though. So you're saying you think you'd be required to put the decision itself on the stack with Soul's Attendant? I'm very curious to know what a rules judge would say here. I've never heard of a decision going on the stack, but I haven't played since well before they removed "damage on the stack".
But the fact that they removed "damage on the stack" makes it clear to me that not everything goes on the stack. Is there a clear ruling about what does / doesn't go on the stack? As I think about this more, I'd be surprised if decisions go on the stack. It seems like the stack is place for game events, not meta-events like decisions. So this is what I'd expect: the creature coming into play goes on the stack. When it resolves, if the player opts to gain a life, the life gain goes on the stack. But I could be wrong.
I don't think the issue would really apply to Dominion since it doesn't have an explicit stack. I think of "you may" as "when X happens, you are allowed to do Y". Just as, when I stand up right now, I'm allowed to walk to the bathroom. I'm also allowed to walk outside. If I don't even think about any of these things, I just don't do them.
Player B observes player A's mistake. Player B now has an opportunity to call out Player A on his mistake. By not doing so, he is cheating (according to Gigaknight's idea of cheating).
This is certainly unethical, but I don't think the communities for most board/card games would label it outright cheating. Just speculating, though. I imagine that in some games, it's hard to draw a line with that kind of ethical obligation, anyway (between reminding a player of their legal options, and actually giving them strategic advice).
There's an interesting discussion on something similar to this over at bgg: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/15032/quotforgettingquot-the-colonist-ship (http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/15032/quotforgettingquot-the-colonist-ship).
The BGG thread mentions that Puerto Rico has an explicit rule about what happens when a specific required step is forgotten. That's a very interesting idea to me. Donald could also add a ruling about that to Dominion, I suppose. My guess is that it would be functionally equivalent to "you may" in most cases; the thing just doesn't happen. That would make intentionally "forgetting" a legal loophole instead of rules violation: ethically dubious but not forbidden. I'm not sure if I like that or not.
Actually, Donald, if you're still reading this, can you make a ruling about that? E.g. what if somebody plays a Haggler, buys a card, and forgets to gain another one? What if the mistake is caught early enough to reset game state? What if it's caught too late for that?
And would that ruling apply to all triggered abilities?
EDIT: Clarifications
-
Donald could also add a ruling about that to Dominion, I suppose. My guess is that it would be functionally equivalent to "you may" in most cases; the thing just doesn't happen. That would make intentionally "forgetting" a legal loophole instead of rules violation: ethically dubious but not forbidden. I'm not sure if I like that or not.
Actually, Donald, if you're still reading this, can you make a ruling about that? E.g. what if somebody plays a Haggler, buys a card, and forgets to gain another one?
Personally, I'm against having a game designer make a ruling on this sort of thing at all. My position is: it is not part of the purpose of the rules of a game to (a) tell you how to follow the rules of the game; or (b) tell you what happens if someone fails to follow the rules of the game (whether or not deliberately, and whether or not intent can be demonstrated). That's on a meta-level, and it's why tournaments for games have their own rulebooks that go beyond the rules of the game itself. The overwhelming majority of players don't need it because they aren't competitive enough to (a) consider trying to exploit a loophole like that; (b) care about the results of doing so.
-
Donald could also add a ruling about that to Dominion, I suppose. My guess is that it would be functionally equivalent to "you may" in most cases; the thing just doesn't happen. That would make intentionally "forgetting" a legal loophole instead of rules violation: ethically dubious but not forbidden. I'm not sure if I like that or not.
Actually, Donald, if you're still reading this, can you make a ruling about that? E.g. what if somebody plays a Haggler, buys a card, and forgets to gain another one?
Personally, I'm against having a game designer make a ruling on this sort of thing at all. My position is: it is not part of the purpose of the rules of a game to (a) tell you how to follow the rules of the game; or (b) tell you what happens if someone fails to follow the rules of the game (whether or not deliberately, and whether or not intent can be demonstrated). That's on a meta-level, and it's why tournaments for games have their own rulebooks that go beyond the rules of the game itself. The overwhelming majority of players don't need it because they aren't competitive enough to (a) consider trying to exploit a loophole like that; (b) care about the results of doing so.
Ok, but what about the players who do care? The players who don't care can ignore the ruling; the players who do can follow it. And tournaments frequently alter rules according to what works for them. A ruling from the creator of the game is just an informed opinion and, again, tournaments that care can follow it and tournaments that don't can ignore it.
Example: In another thread, after trying to say that writing down points is just a variant, Donald eventually got frustrated and said that writing down point totals is cheating. I'm not sure if he really meant that, but many people (and the current ongoing tournament) play with a point counter anyway. And I'm sure he's fine with that, just as he's fine with just about any variant people want to put together. I'd like to know his opinion in this issue, if he cares to give it.
-
Actually, Donald, if you're still reading this, can you make a ruling about that? E.g. what if somebody plays a Haggler, buys a card, and forgets to gain another one? What if the mistake is caught early enough to reset game state? What if it's caught too late for that?
What happens then is, there's an awful thread in which someone gives me bad advice.
When the players all agree to a variant, that's a variant, it's not cheating.
-
Actually, Donald, if you're still reading this, can you make a ruling about that? E.g. what if somebody plays a Haggler, buys a card, and forgets to gain another one? What if the mistake is caught early enough to reset game state? What if it's caught too late for that?
What happens then is, there's an awful thread in which someone gives me bad advice.
When the players all agree to a variant, that's a variant, it's not cheating.
Dude, ignore my advice. You don't care about who I am or what I think, right? So there's no need to get wrapped up in it, especially if you're going to be mean about it.
I wasn't asking about variants. I was asking what happens when a rule is violated. If your response is just "figure it out", that's fine. Unsatisfying, but fine.
-
Dude, ignore my advice. You don't care about who I am or what I think, right? So there's no need to get wrapped up in it, especially if you're going to be mean about it.
I wasn't asking about variants. I was asking what happens when a rule is violated. If your response is just "figure it out", that's fine. Unsatisfying, but fine.
I don't know what you mean by "wrapped up in it" here, I am not "wrapped up in" anything, as I know those words. In general it would be great if you stopped attributing things to me.
You called for me personally to give you an answer. I do not see why you specifically need me here, and while I am slow to learn these things, it does not seem likely that my answer would do anything for you.
-
Dude, ignore my advice. You don't care about who I am or what I think, right? So there's no need to get wrapped up in it, especially if you're going to be mean about it.
I wasn't asking about variants. I was asking what happens when a rule is violated. If your response is just "figure it out", that's fine. Unsatisfying, but fine.
I don't know what you mean by "wrapped up in it" here, I am not "wrapped up in" anything, as I know those words. In general it would be great if you stopped attributing things to me.
You called for me personally to give you an answer. I do not see why you specifically need me here, and while I am slow to learn these things, it does not seem likely that my answer would do anything for you.
By "wrapped up", I mean "invested to the point of exasperation". I *believe* you're clearly exasperated with me. Apparently I attributed something to you that you didn't say/do. The writing down points is cheating remark? Here's where I got that:
Also, while we're here, in Dominion, you may not take notes. I am making this clear for anyone who somehow does not get it. You can't. You didn't know before, so that wasn't cheating, but if you do now, it's cheating. I would get into the idea of variants but let's keep this simple.
Your last point is unfair, IMO. Just because I disagree on a topic doesn't mean I don't respect your opinion; that's why I asked for it. I appreciate that you're willing to respond in person and I'm genuinely sorry that I've tested your patience. I keep responding in this thread in particular because new people keep joining in. I don't want to argue with you about "may" anymore; it's clearly not productive.
-
By "wrapped up", I mean "invested to the point of exasperation". I *believe* you're clearly exasperated with me. Apparently I attributed something to you that you didn't say/do.
You said, "You don't care about who I am or what I think, right? So there's no need to get wrapped up in it, especially if you're going to be mean about it." That is attributing things to me. Paraphrasing me in a misleading way - saying that I called note-taking cheating as if it were not then permissible as a variant - is also a bummer.
When all players agree to a variant - such as taking notes - that's not cheating, it's a variant. I have said this many times, and reference it in the bit you quoted. Taking notes is cheating though if any player has not agreed to it. Hope this is clear!
-
GigaKnight, what are your thoughts on Soul's Attendant (http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=193499) vs Soul Warden (http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/details.aspx?name=soul%20warden)? This seems like such a perfect example.
I think the problem you describe is much more prevalent in Magic than in Dominion, simply because in Magic you have a lot more cards out on the field usually, and a lot more triggered effects that could happen. Just this week, someone in my playgroup had a Soul's Attendant out, and didn't gain life when an opponent played a creature (5-player game). By the time it was realized, it was too late, and he couldn't get the life. Had it been a Soul Warden instead, he would have.
Although, this issue arises because of the casual and fast nature of the way people play. The fact is, his Soul's Attendant DID trigger, and it's ability DID go on the stack. That still happens ever though it's "may." Once the ability resolves, at that point he can choose to do it or not. But because we were playing fast and loose, no one ever stopped to say "ok, a creature was just played, now what does the stack look like?" In the same way, in a casual setting, players may play a card or ability, and then another card or ability, without stopping and "passing priority" to the other players.
I guess what I'm saying is in that example, I feel like in a way the group made an illegal play just like we would have if it had been a Soul Warden instead. Because we never actually put the triggered ability on the stack. The guy didn't wait until it resolved and then chose not to gain life. Rather, it never went on the stack, and never resolved, because he forgot to put it on the stack.
Yeah, those cards are a good example; I would go with may.
You raise a very interesting point about the stack in Magic, though. So you're saying you think you'd be required to put the decision itself on the stack with Soul's Attendant? I'm very curious to know what a rules judge would say here. I've never heard of a decision going on the stack, but I haven't played since well before they removed "damage on the stack".
But the fact that they removed "damage on the stack" makes it clear to me that not everything goes on the stack. Is there a clear ruling about what does / doesn't go on the stack? As I think about this more, I'd be surprised if decisions go on the stack. It seems like the stack is place for game events, not meta-events like decisions. So this is what I'd expect: the creature coming into play goes on the stack. When it resolves, if the player opts to gain a life, the life gain goes on the stack. But I could be wrong
I'm pretty sure about this... It's not the decision itself that goes on the stack, but the triggered event does. First a player casts a creature, that goes on the stack. When it resolves, that creature enters the battlefield. At that time, any enter the battlefield triggered events trigger, and go on the stack. This includes ALL things that say "whenever a creature enters the battlefield....". The "may" part of it doesn't come into play yet. At this time in the game, it doesn't event need to be known if the ability says may or not, because the ability hasn't resolved yet. When that ability resolves, you the do what it says, which in this case is "you may gain a life."
As for what goes on the stack, the rules do list for each type of event if it uses the stack or not. Im sure this isn't 100% comprehensive, but I believe spells, triggered abilities, and activated abilities are the only things that use the stack Things that definitely don't use the stack are:
Playing a land
Making a decision (like who to attack with, or whether or not to gain life from Soul's Attendant, after it's triggered ability has resolved)
Paying costs (both paying mana and other costs like tapping a creature or land)
Mana abilities... These are any abilities that do not have a target, and can add 1 or more mana to your mana pool.. I.E. a Forrest's activated ability of adding a green mana to your mana pool.
Dealing damage
Any state-based effects (like losing the game for having 0 or less life)
-
By "wrapped up", I mean "invested to the point of exasperation". I *believe* you're clearly exasperated with me. Apparently I attributed something to you that you didn't say/do.
You said, "You don't care about who I am or what I think, right? So there's no need to get wrapped up in it, especially if you're going to be mean about it." That is attributing things to me. Paraphrasing me in a misleading way - saying that I called note-taking cheating as if it were not then permissible as a variant - is also a bummer.
Ok, I see your point. I'm sorry. I generally try to use subjective statements for things like that, but I typed it out kind of fast. I see that I claimed you don't care about what I think; I'm sorry if that's not true. And I'm kind of surprised if it is. As "just some guy on the internet", I wouldn't expect you to be invested in what I think. That was certainly presumptuous of me, regardless of its truth.
Is there anything else that you see as unfair attribution? The "especially if you're going to be mean about it"? Again, I'm sorry if you don't think this was fair. I asked a question about Haggler and I read your response as "I'm sick of this thread and your posts". I felt that was mean; it didn't answer my question and I felt belittled. I could just be misinterpreting everything and I apologize for the confusion if I am.
When all players agree to a variant - such as taking notes - that's not cheating, it's a variant. I have said this many times, and reference it in the bit you quoted. Taking notes is cheating though if any player has not agreed to it. Hope this is clear!
Yes, that's totally clear! And it's actually been clear to me the whole. I didn't mean to imply that it would be cheating if all players agreed to the variant. I just meant it was cheating in "Dominion" the "purest" (non-variant) form.
-
GigaKnight, what are your thoughts on Soul's Attendant (http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=193499) vs Soul Warden (http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/details.aspx?name=soul%20warden)? This seems like such a perfect example.
I think the problem you describe is much more prevalent in Magic than in Dominion, simply because in Magic you have a lot more cards out on the field usually, and a lot more triggered effects that could happen. Just this week, someone in my playgroup had a Soul's Attendant out, and didn't gain life when an opponent played a creature (5-player game). By the time it was realized, it was too late, and he couldn't get the life. Had it been a Soul Warden instead, he would have.
Although, this issue arises because of the casual and fast nature of the way people play. The fact is, his Soul's Attendant DID trigger, and it's ability DID go on the stack. That still happens ever though it's "may." Once the ability resolves, at that point he can choose to do it or not. But because we were playing fast and loose, no one ever stopped to say "ok, a creature was just played, now what does the stack look like?" In the same way, in a casual setting, players may play a card or ability, and then another card or ability, without stopping and "passing priority" to the other players.
I guess what I'm saying is in that example, I feel like in a way the group made an illegal play just like we would have if it had been a Soul Warden instead. Because we never actually put the triggered ability on the stack. The guy didn't wait until it resolved and then chose not to gain life. Rather, it never went on the stack, and never resolved, because he forgot to put it on the stack.
Yeah, those cards are a good example; I would go with may.
You raise a very interesting point about the stack in Magic, though. So you're saying you think you'd be required to put the decision itself on the stack with Soul's Attendant? I'm very curious to know what a rules judge would say here. I've never heard of a decision going on the stack, but I haven't played since well before they removed "damage on the stack".
But the fact that they removed "damage on the stack" makes it clear to me that not everything goes on the stack. Is there a clear ruling about what does / doesn't go on the stack? As I think about this more, I'd be surprised if decisions go on the stack. It seems like the stack is place for game events, not meta-events like decisions. So this is what I'd expect: the creature coming into play goes on the stack. When it resolves, if the player opts to gain a life, the life gain goes on the stack. But I could be wrong
I'm pretty sure about this... It's not the decision itself that goes on the stack, but the triggered event does. First a player casts a creature, that goes on the stack. When it resolves, that creature enters the battlefield. At that time, any enter the battlefield triggered events trigger, and go on the stack. This includes ALL things that say "whenever a creature enters the battlefield....". The "may" part of it doesn't come into play yet. At this time in the game, it doesn't event need to be known if the ability says may or not, because the ability hasn't resolved yet. When that ability resolves, you the do what it says, which in this case is "you may gain a life."
As for what goes on the stack, the rules do list for each type of event if it uses the stack or not. Im sure this isn't 100% comprehensive, but I believe spells, triggered abilities, and activated abilities are the only things that use the stack Things that definitely don't use the stack are:
Playing a land
Making a decision (like who to attack with, or whether or not to gain life from Soul's Attendant, after it's triggered ability has resolved)
Paying costs (both paying mana and other costs like tapping a creature or land)
Mana abilities... These are any abilities that do not have a target, and can add 1 or more mana to your mana pool.. I.E. a Forrest's activated ability of adding a green mana to your mana pool.
Dealing damage
Any state-based effects (like losing the game for having 0 or less life)
Ah, I see. That's interesting and it makes sense. Boy, that's subtle, though. If you have to remember to put things on the stack either way, it shifts the pendulum back towards requiring the life gain, for sure.
-
Ah, I see. That's interesting and it makes sense. Boy, that's subtle, though. If you have to remember to put things on the stack either way, it shifts the pendulum back towards requiring the life gain, for sure.
Yeah, I guess the trick is that, at least in casual play, players only think about the stack when someone has an instant or ability and wants to respond to a player doing something. So in the case of our game, what it looked and felt like to all of us was this: the creature entered the battlefield, nothing else happened (because that one player forgot). But what actually happened, according to all the rules of the game, was this: the creature entered the battlefield, the Soul's Attendant triggered and its ability went on the stack, then no one chose to respond to that ability, the ability resolved, then the player chose to not use the "may gain life" ability (the choice was made for him by him forgetting that it was an option). That's what technically happened, if you look at the rules very carefully.
-
I asked a question about Haggler and I read your response as "I'm sick of this thread and your posts".
Well that's fair, I'll cop to that.
There are a few games that say "here's how to deal with a misdeal" and so forth, but in general that kind of thing is not something that a rulebook needs to address, and rulebooks do not address it. When it's actually covered it's usually only in tournament rules, which are up to the people running the tournaments anyway. So I am not answering such questions. I am already answering plenty of questions.
There was just a thread on BGG where someone said how something worked, correctly, and someone else said, oh really, I don't believe you, I need a post from the game designer to prove this. Man! Someone else quoted the rulebook at him so it all worked out without me pissing people off, but really. When people are arguing about Star Wars, they don't get to have George Lucas step in and explain things every time they want.
So yes, when you say, "oh Donald X., plz answer this question that almost no rulebook every addresses," I think, man, really?
-
I asked a question about Haggler and I read your response as "I'm sick of this thread and your posts".
Well that's fair, I'll cop to that.
There are a few games that say "here's how to deal with a misdeal" and so forth, but in general that kind of thing is not something that a rulebook needs to address, and rulebooks do not address it. When it's actually covered it's usually only in tournament rules, which are up to the people running the tournaments anyway. So I am not answering such questions. I am already answering plenty of questions.
There was just a thread on BGG where someone said how something worked, correctly, and someone else said, oh really, I don't believe you, I need a post from the game designer to prove this. Man! Someone else quoted the rulebook at him so it all worked out without me pissing people off, but really. When people are arguing about Star Wars, they don't get to have George Lucas step in and explain things every time they want.
So yes, when you say, "oh Donald X., plz answer this question that almost no rulebook every addresses," I think, man, really?
Well, after the rulebook, you're the closest thing to an authority and you do seem to make yourself available. I didn't intend an appeal to you as anything other than "well, he's kind of the authority and he answers questions, so let's see what he says." With the Haggler issue, it's not that I'm incapable of figuring that out (I've done it before in games with friends); it's just more that I'm curious what the game creator would prefer in that situation.
But, yeah that's fair. It's totally reasonable that there are certain discussions that you just don't want to waste your time in. I'm sorry to have created a couple of them in this thread. :) But again, thanks for responding.
-
The rule for competitive chess, incidentally, is that if an illegal move is discovered before the game is finished, you have to roll the game state back to the move the illegal move was played, and then carry on from there.
-
The rule for competitive chess, incidentally, is that if an illegal move is discovered before the game is finished, you have to roll the game state back to the move the illegal move was played, and then carry on from there.
Which is only possible because chess games are notated as they are played. If Dominion games were similarly notated, this may be possible, but I doubt it.
As a side note, I had a friends that played a whole USCF rated game that started with his bishops and knights swapped. No one noticed (including his opponent) until after the game, so the tournament director counted it as an official game.
-
As a side note, I had a friends that played a whole USCF rated game that started with his bishops and knights swapped. No one noticed (including his opponent) until after the game, so the tournament director counted it as an official game.
Man, I have only played Chess a little, but how can anyone not notice this the first time they try to move a knight (which is usually pretty early)?
-
As a side note, I had a friends that played a whole USCF rated game that started with his bishops and knights swapped. No one noticed (including his opponent) until after the game, so the tournament director counted it as an official game.
Man, I have only played Chess a little, but how can anyone not notice this the first time they try to move a knight (which is usually pretty early)?
I believe his first (or maybe second) move was Kd3. It was a huge innovation in opening theory, but has rarely been played since.
-
As a side note, I had a friends that played a whole USCF rated game that started with his bishops and knights swapped. No one noticed (including his opponent) until after the game, so the tournament director counted it as an official game.
Man, I have only played Chess a little, but how can anyone not notice this the first time they try to move a knight (which is usually pretty early)?
I believe his first (or maybe second) move was Kd3. It was a huge innovation in opening theory, but has rarely been played since.
You mean Nd3, yes? Also, wasn't somebody notating or otherwise presiding over the game?
-
Chess Lists by Andy Soltis has a great section entitled "Nineteen Master Games with Illegal Moves", if you're into that thing.
-
This bit me in a game today, with develop. I had a hand like gold, develop, some crap, and I thought: "oh great, develop my gold into an inn and an expand, guaranteed province next turn!
-
As a side note, I had a friends that played a whole USCF rated game that started with his bishops and knights swapped. No one noticed (including his opponent) until after the game, so the tournament director counted it as an official game.
Man, I have only played Chess a little, but how can anyone not notice this the first time they try to move a knight (which is usually pretty early)?
I believe his first (or maybe second) move was Kd3. It was a huge innovation in opening theory, but has rarely been played since.
You mean Nd3, yes? Also, wasn't somebody notating or otherwise presiding over the game?
Oops, yes. Both players took notation (as is standard in tournament games) but neither noticed. The whole thing went unnoticed until going over the game after that round.
-
I call shenanigans. As soon as you Nf3 or Nc6 or even Bg7 someone should have noticed the error.
-
I call shenanigans. As soon as you Nf3 or Nc6 or even Bg7 someone should have noticed the error.
I see what you did there.
-
Of general interest on the topic of "you may," see below a list of all the cards using the phrase from the respective sets (taken from dominionstrategy.com). Interesting to note where strategic options are added when you look at the list as a whole. Also, Hinterlands take the cake for using it the most--sensibly I suppose, if it is seen as the "complex" set.
Base (4/25):
Moat (...you may reveal this from your hand...)
Chancellor (...you may immediately put your deck...)
Thief (...you may gain any or all of these trashed...)
Library (...you may set aside...)
Intrigue (5/25):
Secret Chamber (...you may reveal this...)
Masquerade (...you may trash a card...)
Baron (...you may discard an Estate...)
Mining Village (...you may trash this card immediately...)
Saboteur (...He trashes that card and may gain...)
Seaside (4/26):
Native Village (...you may look at the cards on your mat...)
Pearl Diver (...you may put it on top...)
Explorer (...you may reveal a Province...)
Treasury (...you may put this on top...)
Alchemy (3/12):
Herbalist: (...you may put one of your Treasures...)
University: (...you may gain an Action card...)
Alchemist: (...you may put this on top...)
Prosperity (5/25):
Watchtower: (...you may reveal this...)
Mint: (...you may reveal...)
Mountebank: (...each other player may discard a curse...)
Royal Seal: (...you may put that card on top...)
King's Court: (...you may choose an Action card...)
Cornucopia: (4/13)
Hamlet: (...you may discard...)
Horse Traders: (...you may set this aside...)
Tournament: (...each player may reveal...)
Young Witch: (...each other play may reveal...)
Hinterlands: (8/26)
Fool's Gold: (...you may trash this from your hand...)
Scheme: (...you may choose an Action card...)
Tunnel: (...you may reveal it...)
Jack of All Trades: (...you may trash a card...)
Spice Merchant: (...you may trash a Treasure...)
Trader: (...you may reveal this...)
Ill-Gotten Gains: (...you may gain a Copper...)
Stables: (...you may discard a Treasure...)
Promo (4/5):
Black Market: (...you may buy one of them...)
Walled Village: (...you may put this on top...)
Governor: (...each player may trash a card...)
Stash: (...you may put this anywhere...)
-
I didn't want to read through four pages of comments, so I'm not sure if this has been discussed yet, but what happens when you have a Watchtower in hand when you gain Inn? Do you get to put Inn on top of the deck without shuffling? Do you shuffle and lose Watchtower's ability?
-
You stil carry out Inn's effect, but instead of shuffling Inn into your deck, you put it on top.
-
On isotropic, you choose which order. It's not clear to me that this is actually how it should be. In fact I really am stumped on this one.
Here's two scenarios:
Scenario A) First, reveal watchtower, put inn on deck. Then put actions in your deck and shuffle. Now inn is anywhere.
Scenario B) First, put actions including possibly inn into your deck and shuffle. Then reveal watchtower and put inn on your deck.
The interesting part about scenario B is you can't carry out the second part. (Iso just doesn't give you the reveal watchtower option). But this "can't" feels very much outside of the game.
-
On isotropic, you choose which order. It's not clear to me that this is actually how it should be.
The regular Dominion rule is, if you have to do two things at the same time, you choose what order to do them in.
In fact I really am stumped on this one.
Here's two scenarios:
Scenario A) First, reveal watchtower, put inn on deck. Then put actions in your deck and shuffle. Now inn is anywhere.
Scenario B) First, put actions including possibly inn into your deck and shuffle. Then reveal watchtower and put inn on your deck.
The interesting part about scenario B is you can't carry out the second part. (Iso just doesn't give you the reveal watchtower option). But this "can't" feels very much outside of the game.
This is what the often-summarized "losing track" rule is for: roughly, if Card A moves Card B away from where Card C expects it to be, Card C can't track it down and move it somewhere else. (In this case, A and B are both Inn and C is Watchtower.)
And of course if you don't shuffle Inn into your deck with Inn's own power, you can still reveal Watchtower to top-deck Inn after you've shuffled, and Isotropic correctly allows this.
-
This makes sense thanks.
-
And of course if you don't shuffle Inn into your deck with Inn's own power, you can still reveal Watchtower to top-deck Inn after you've shuffled, and Isotropic correctly allows this.
Now this I didn't realize! So you can in fact use Watchtower to end up with an Inn on top of your deck? I always assumed that it was impossible; Inn would either be shuffled into your draw deck or left in your discard. I guess it makes sense, that "lose-track" doesn't actually happen here; but I always thought it would. You gain Inn; then choose Inn's reaction first. This allows you to look through your discard pile and pull actions out of it. Even though Inn doesn't actually move to another place because of this, your discard pile is being manipulated; to the point that I thought Watchtower would lose track of Inn.
-
And of course if you don't shuffle Inn into your deck with Inn's own power, you can still reveal Watchtower to top-deck Inn after you've shuffled, and Isotropic correctly allows this.
Now this I didn't realize! So you can in fact use Watchtower to end up with an Inn on top of your deck? I always assumed that it was impossible; Inn would either be shuffled into your draw deck or left in your discard. I guess it makes sense, that "lose-track" doesn't actually happen here; but I always thought it would. You gain Inn; then choose Inn's reaction first. This allows you to look through your discard pile and pull actions out of it. Even though Inn doesn't actually move to another place because of this, your discard pile is being manipulated; to the point that I thought Watchtower would lose track of Inn.
The difference, I think, is that the discard pile is face-up (and also is known to contain the Inn). You can't shuffle your deck and then top-deck something that you shuffled in, because you don't know where it is, because the deck is face-down (and you're not allowed to look, hence Stash requiring a different back).
-
The more complex case is if you gain an Inn to your deck instead of your discard pile, and have a Watchtower. The only way that can happen is probably if you Develop something into an Inn. This has been brought up on BGG. In this case the Watchtower loses track of the Inn no matter what.
Also see this and every other rules question you may have addressed in the Complete and All-Encompassing Dominion FAQ: http://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Complete_and_All-Encompassing_Dominion_FAQ (http://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Complete_and_All-Encompassing_Dominion_FAQ) :)