Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Wuscheli

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1]
1
Quote
The Lose Track rule is intentionally broad in this way, as to not have to add specifics to handle different situations. It says Lose Track happens if a card is moved (or covered up).
Quote
Exactly. If at any point a card is not where an ability expects it to be, the ability loses track of it.

Thanks, understood. It's very important that abilities track/lose track, not individual effects. (The lose-track rule (link to wiki.ds) is not clearly worded that the ability tracks: Sometimes the rule talks about effects tracking, sometimes it talks about cards tracking.)

I like the term ability for a maximal block of instructions that run at some given time.

Quote
on-play abilities (which have an implicit "when you play this").

Yes, with the exception that this's own "when you play this"-ability must be chosen last when we get to order Teacher tokens, reaction-to-attack, ..., that also happen when we play this. :-)

2
If there was a card Junk Room, "Play an Action card from your hand, trash it, then play it again", it would put the card into play the second time as long as it was able to trash it. (If the card trashed itself, Junk Room would lose track of it before it could trash it.) This is the reason Vassal and Golem put cards into play.

If Junk Room plays Mining Village, then MV trashes itself, then JR's trashing of MV fails.

But can JR then fish MV from the trash for the second play? After all, MV is in the trash, exactly where JR expects it. By the exact wording of lose track item 1, each effect individually checks where stuff is: In rare circumstances an effect may try to move a card that is not where that effect expects the card to be. In those cases the card does not move - the effect has "lost track" of the card.

3
Band of Misfits "play this as if" instructions expects the Band of Misfits to be in play, because that is the normal place that a card is when you are following its on-play instructions. Band of Misfits is not in play, therefore the "play this as if" instruction can't find it to move it.

Quote
Quote
BoM expects itself in play when it copies something, so it does not attempt to move itself.
Why does BOM's effect "play this as if..." expect BOM in play?

I found this ruling by Donald from 2015 that BOM expects itself in play, and thus does not attempt move itself into play. This is already according to the rules where TR-BOM-(trash itself) may choose a new card to copy for the second play of BOM.

Apparently each card (and thus its effects until an effect explicitly moves the card from play) assume the card itself in play.

4
BoM expects itself in play when it copies something, so it does not attempt to move itself.

This is the best attack so far, but it's not satisfying still.

The lose-track rule explicitly says that effects track cards. Cards never track cards, only the effects track cards. Usually there is no ambiguity if we say "card X lost track of card Y" instead of "effect E from card X lost track of card Y", but here, we must be careful.

Now we look at this argument: BOM's effect "Play this BOM as if it were..." loses track of BOM.

Why does BOM's effect "play this as if..." expect BOM in play? Sure, usually BOM is in play by the time we're executing BOM's instructions, but it's certainly possible to execute instructions on cards in the trash or anywhere else. Also, there is no earlier instruction on BOM's text that endows "play this as if..." with the assumption that BOM is in play.

5
shouldn't it be able to move itself into play
it fits with how Necromancer works

But that comes from a different effect: Necromancer explicitly says: Play a face up, non-Duration Action card from the trash, leaving it there and turning it face down for the turn.

No other card (among TR/BOM/Embargo) tells me to leave something in the trash explicitly.

It boils down to what "playing a card" is. My interpretation of "playing a card" is:
1. If it's in my hand, I put it in play. (If it's not in my hand, nothing happens.)
2. I execute the card's instructions.


If this is the definition of "playing a card", then BOM stays in the trash in OP's scenario. TR instructs me to play BOM a second time, BOM in the trash, thus BOM is not in my hand, thus I do not move BOM into play before executing BOM's instructions.

Edit: This can't be the interpretation of "playing a card" because, as majiponi says, Herald and Vassal tell me to play cards from the discard or from revealed-card-land, and the so-played cards move into play, contradicting my (1.). I now assume that majiponi's interpretation is correct.

Interesting though that Necromancer explicitly tells me to leave the played card in the trash. So I'm not sure if my interpretation of "playing a card" is the definition of "playing a card". Would Necromancer move cards into play if we cut his "leaving it there"?

6
Rules Questions / Re: Sequence point of Knights
« on: October 06, 2018, 01:49:08 am »
Quote
When two things happen to different players at the same time, go in turn order starting with the player whose turn it is. For example, when a player plays Witch, the other players gain Curses in turn order, which may matter if the Curses run out.
I think it's pretty clear that this should always be applied as broadly as it can be, so unless a card is worded as "Each player does X. Then, each player does Y." each player in turn does X, then Y, then the next player does X, then Y, and so on.

This interpretation is straightforward and it seems consistent with all cards. Thanks :-)

7
Rules Questions / Re: Sequence point of Knights
« on: October 04, 2018, 08:19:04 pm »
Yes, your ruling was correct. Each player must fully resolve how the Knight attack affects them before the next player begins

Thanks :-)

Quote
I'm not completely sure what you mean by sequence points, or if this answers that part of your question.
Quote
But the notion of sequence points isn't really relevant to Dominion.

The question is: What is an instruction?

Or: Without looking in the FAQ, how can I deduce from the wording of Knight that its attack is not (Each opponent, in player order, reveals two cards. Each opponent, in player order, chooses one of their revealed cards $3-$6 and trashes it.)?

Is it because the card only says "Each other player" once, not twice? Probably cards that affect opponents would produce only one round of affection ever, and each opponent must always fully resolve all of their affection.

For example Oracle: "Each player (including you) reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, and discards them or puts them back, your choice. They choose the order to return them." Here, the extra sentence "They choose the order" is a clarification, not a separate instruction. Player B must choose the return order before player C reveals 2 cards.

8
Rules Questions / Sequence point of Knights
« on: October 03, 2018, 01:16:12 am »
Three players.
Player A plays a knight.
Player B reveals a knight and a Rats.
Player B asks if he may see what 2 cards player C reveals before he decides what to trash.
We ruled that player B must trash before player C reveals 2 cards. Was that right?

The FAQ says: "The ability they have in common is, each other player reveals the top two cards of their deck, trashes one of them that they choose that costs from $3 to $6, and discards the rest; then, if a Knight was trashed, you trash the Knight you played that caused this trashing. Resolve this ability in turn order, starting with the player to your left."

The wording "the ability" suggests that revealing and trashing is an uninterruptible unit and that there is no sequence point after the revealing.

But if player B chooses to trash the Rats, the +1 card should still happen before player B's knight is discarded. So there is some finer grained structure of sequence points that on-trash can latch on, but per-player cannot.

In general, how can I know where the sequence points of a card are? Is only each full-stop or semicolon a sequence point? And which sequence points are for on-something interrupt effects and which sequence points are for per-player?

9
Rules Questions / Re: Band of Misfits, no cheaper cards in supply
« on: October 18, 2013, 03:01:39 am »
The wording "Choose an action costing less, this becomes that, etc., until, etc." is perfectly consistent with remaining the same card for TR/KC. After the TR is finished with the 1st playthrough, it plays the card again, but it is still the chosen card, because the "until" has not been satisfied. There is no "choose an action costing less" encountered on the 2nd playthrough, because it's not a BoM.

It becomes a problem with Throning BoM as Feast or Mining Village though because if you trash it it does revert to being itself, but you aren't allowed to choose a new card for the second play.

I assume this has been debated several times before. I will simply take for granted that the current wording gets different rulings than my suggested would. But this isn't what interests me most right now.

The question hasn't been addressed so far: The BoM text states how to play a card, not what happens after it's played. (That the infamous TR/KC argument even exists is evicende that something happens at a different time.) This is different from any other action card. Others get played, then do something, BoM does something during getting played and also prevents you from playing it normally. If the "does something during getting played" fails, why can you still play it normally, even though it wasn't allowed before? Merely the rules allowing to play actions taking precedence over action cards' effects overrulings against their own play?

So it'd count as a BoM for Horn of Plenty for these purposes, right?

Yep, that has been confirmed. It'll be named BoM in play and performs like an empty action card.

10
Rules Questions / Re: Band of Misfits, no cheaper cards in supply
« on: October 17, 2013, 05:59:01 pm »
The wording "Choose an action costing less, this becomes that, etc., until, etc." is perfectly consistent with remaining the same card for TR/KC. After the TR is finished with the 1st playthrough, it plays the card again, but it is still the chosen card, because the "until" has not been satisfied. There is no "choose an action costing less" encountered on the 2nd playthrough, because it's not a BoM.

I'm still intrigued that if you cannot "play this as if it were", then you can still "play this" :-) But apparently only "as if it were" fails, not "play this". The severe problem here is: If "gain a card costing 4 or less" fails, do I then "gain a card"? I surely hope I don't...

11
Rules Questions / Re: Band of Misfits, no cheaper cards in supply
« on: October 17, 2013, 05:34:39 pm »
Alright, thanks!

So "play this as if it were" does not alter anything before/during the choice attempt to play this, even though the unusual wording implies that. It could be reworded as "Choose an action costing less, this becomes that, etc., until, etc."

12
Rules Questions / Band of Misfits, no cheaper cards in supply
« on: October 17, 2013, 05:11:36 pm »
Hi,

can a player play Band of Misfits when there are no cheaper action cards to impersonate in the supply?

If yes, what happens?

If no, how are forcings handled, e.g. Golem reveals BoM, Throne Room (whose pile is exhausted) played with only BoM in hand, ...?

I've houseruled that BoM is a blank action card. It counts normally as an action card played and as in play. Reasoning: "Play this as I it were a cheaper card..." is to be executed, cannot do this, so everything on the card fails.

I'm aware that the card text on BoM is not usual instructions. Usual instructions could be prepended with "when you play this", while keeping the effect the same. "When you play this" happens after playing the card, but "play this as if it were a ..." happens at the same time. When the "if" fails, will "play this as if..." be replaced with "play this card normally, but watch everything fail", or with "when you would play this, you can't play this"?

13
Haha, yeah, I don't want to pursue this. :) I just want to avoid house rulings for anything that has an official rule.

14
Alright, pretty exhaustive answers so far, thanks!

It sounds like there are fixed rules especially for decks, discards, and supply, which are the most important cases.

I much agree on the ruling with the countable BM deck. A little problem could merely arise from the logic "it's open information at the start, and everything that goes in/out is also open information". Strictly from this idea, all deck and discard piles should be countable at any time.

15
Rules Questions / Public information? Number of cards in discard/deck/...
« on: November 20, 2012, 02:49:02 am »
Hey.

We had these questions coming up last night, and didn't find satisfying information in the rule books yet:
  • Can you count the number of cards in your draw deck? In other people's decks?
  • Can you count the number of cards in your discard pile? In other people's discards? (The friends agreed that only the top card of the pile may be examined, but couldn't agree whether the number of hidden cards was.)
  • Can you count the number of cards in any player's hand? (Probably only useful if the aforementioned piles may be counted.)
  • Can you count the number of cards in the trash? Can you examine every trashed card at any time? (We figured it's the latter.)
  • Can you count the number of cards in each supply pile? Can you examine all the cards in each supply pile? (I think you may count, but not examine knights/ruins.)
  • Can you count the number of cards in the black market deck?
MtG explicitly states "A player may count the number of cards in any player's library/hand/pile at any time.", while not allowing examination. How about here?

These things came up in a Gardens game, but one guy is seriously pondering about running a small reallife tournament, where things like these must be agreed upon beforehand. We also don't want to houserule this.

16
Rules Questions / Re: Count: trash hand containing Rats (+1 card on trash)
« on: September 06, 2012, 08:05:45 pm »
Thanks for quick answer!

17
Rules Questions / Count: trash hand containing Rats (+1 card on trash)
« on: September 06, 2012, 07:58:42 pm »
Hi,

When I trash the hand with Count, how does it resolve in detail? Do all the cards in hand get trashed simultaenously or can I choose order? Are the cards in hand just marked as to-be-trashed, or will extra cards entering the hand during "trash your hand" trashed as well?

Case study: I have a hand with a Count and a Rats. I play the Count, trashing all the cards in the hand. When trashing the Rats, I get +1 card. Does this drawn card get trashed? (I don't have the rulebook with me, don't know whether that's ansewerd in the FAQ.)

Pages: [1]

Page created in 0.121 seconds with 19 queries.