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 - Jeebus

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 45
1
Rules Questions / Re: Duplicate + spirits
« on: July 10, 2018, 06:56:43 pm »
This is somewhat related to this thread: http://forum.shuffleit.nl/index.php?topic=2936.0

2
Well, I just played this kingdom: Duke, Junk Dealer, Margrave, Vampire, Bank, Engineer, Farming Village, Miser, Rats, Wandering Minstrel. Both went for trashing via Rats and Junk Dealer, and village + Margrave. I also got a Vampire, but only attacked with it a few times. Nobody got Miser, I think it's too slow because you want to start attacking and trashing. So we had Vampire as a gainer and Miser as +coin, but still the main way of gaining cards was through treasure, and we each had to buy several silvers/golds. Would this be better as BM + Margrave? I don't think so. Would it be better with treasureless decks? I really don't think so.

3
Rules Questions / Re: summon + death cart vs. summon + nomad camp
« on: June 30, 2018, 11:14:58 am »
World A:
4: I first do the Border Village effect. I gain a new card which covers up the Border Village in my discard, and since I only know the top card of my discard, I cannot top-deck Border Village with Watchtower. I can still reveal Watchtower to top-deck or trash the newly gained card, revealing the Border Village below it, but I don't know if this was the same Border Village as before. Furthermore, since I resolved the Border Village `gain' first, revealing the Watchtower can only refer to the most recent gain, and not one before it.

Everything you wrote is correct except this. The conclusion is correct, but there's a mistake in the reasoning. You can still reveal Watchtower for the BV gain, since that window is still open - you're still doing when-gain stuff for the BV gain. You can choose to move the BV, but it will fail. The only reason Watchtower can't move the BV, is that it lost track of it since it was covered up.

This distinction actually matters when you gain Rocks and have a Watchtower.

4
Rules Questions / Re: summon + death cart vs. summon + nomad camp
« on: June 30, 2018, 11:05:46 am »
If your game is simple enough, or has a small enough set of cards that you're careful with, it doesn't need such a rule (for example Temporum doesn't have it); past a certain point you need it. You might actually lose track of a card; what then?

That was my "third type", where I could only think of a card actually being shuffled in, which you could have a specific rule for. But I guess you're implying that there are other cases, which doesn't seem unlikely.

These days I think I would go the other way on Throne / Feast; if you can't put a card into play and it isn't there, you don't follow the instructions. That seems like it would work, and well, to follow the instructions we have to know what they are, and this means they're always there when you have to follow them. So it just seems better.

Right, that's a much better general rule than changing the text on Throne Rooms like I suggested, and it would have the same effect.

Note again that Thrones look special but are just the easiest way to get the problems they create. Playing a card a single time can also generate problems.

Yes, that was my "fourth type", a big category. My idea was to allow "losing track" then, assuming that the players know where the card is. Actually, the Princed Hound example was wrong (it doesn't happen), but a Princed Alchemist would be put on your deck and also played by Prince next turn (normally from your hand); and this is actually not so great because the Alchemist could be put on your deck or discarded in the meantime. At the very least the tracking would be horrible. Clearly my rules are not enough.

But I'm still not sure that I agree with you that simply having a card covered up means you should lose track. Given that the current lose-track is in place for all physical movement of cards, I don't see the problem (at least right now). And it would make some counter-intuitive interactions more intuitive and simpler. You could Summon Death Cart, or Watchtower-trash/topdeck whichever card you wanted with Cache, Border Village, etc.

5
Rules Questions / Re: summon + death cart vs. summon + nomad camp
« on: June 29, 2018, 01:13:51 pm »
A separate, more doable, idea is scrapping covered-card-is-lost-track-of (the first type in my previous post). That would solve a lot of problems and make the game more intuitive. Unfortunately it's stated in the Dark Ages rulebook.

EDIT: It seems that lose-track is not even mentioned in any other rulebook. So unless you have Dark Ages, you only know about it through the examples given for certain card interactions. But the Hinterlands rulebook, for instance, doesn't mention anything about lose-track weirdness with Border Village. I don't think any rulebook has any examples of a card being lost track of because it's covered.

6
Rules Questions / Re: summon + death cart vs. summon + nomad camp
« on: June 29, 2018, 01:10:54 pm »
I wonder if lose-track could never have existed in the first place.

First of all, you have the cases where a card is covered. The problem is that you have stuff like Warrior finding a Tunnel and not being able to trash it because it gets covered by a Gold. I'm pretty sure almost 100% of people who play IRL plays that wrong, because nobody thinks about that rule applying then. Arguably that also goes for all cases with triggered gains on when-gain (or triggered gains on when-trash resulting from when-gain). Almost everybody not intimately familiar with lose-track (or having played a lot online very observantly), wouldn't think that you can't move the card.

Secondly, lose-track is the reason cards played from trash don't jump out*, which was relevant from day 1. But in most cases people don't need to know the rule, because that's the way they play it intuitively - the opposite of Warrior/Tunnel. Of course you need a rule, but it could just be that cards played from trash stay there.

The third type is when the card is actually lost track of for the players. I can think of Inn shuffling in a card. In this case it's obvious that it's lost track of; you hardly need a rule, but it could be a rule about shuffling a card.

The fourth type is cases where a card moved. For instance, abilities moving a card twice: Counterfeit and Procession don't trash a card that moved in the meantime; Vassal doesn't put a Faithful Hound in play after it was set aside; Summon or Replace don't move a gained card that was moved by Watchtower/Royal Seal/Tracker/Travelleing Fair. Or multiple abilities triggered by a card moving: Alchemist, Scheme, Hermit, Prince and Faithful Hound all trigger on discard, so then just one of them can move the card; and we also have Fortress + Possession.

My question is whether lose-track is needed to regulate this type of interaction. Why not just allow that everything happens? All abilities move the card. Well, one weirdness with Watchtower is that it would let you move a card from trash without even gaining it. We could revise the rule about playing from trash to cover both cases: "A card can't move from trash unless an ability lets you can gain it from there." Another weirdness would be that Hound would be put in your hand at end of turn but still be played by Prince the next turn, but I guess that would be okay. (It would be an optional and dumb move.) (Edit: Not a real case, since a Princed Hound can't use its ability.) I can't think of other problems right now.

The fifth type is cards specifically designed to exploit lose-track, like Madman, Prince, Wish. These can't be successfully Throned because of lose-track. A rule about moving cards from trash doesn't help, because these cards move from somewhere else. This type might be a bigger problem. The problem is purely with TR variants. A fix could be to make all TR variants like Royal Carriage: "You may play a card from your hand, then if it's still in play, replay it". (It would mean that Madman and Wish doesn't even give +Actions on second play, but that doesn't really matter.**)

Conclusion: Lose-track is complicated, so I probably haven't covered all cases, but if I designed Dominion from scratch, I might try to do it this way:

Rule 1: A card can't move from trash unless an ability lets you can gain it from there.
Rule 2: A card that is shuffled in a face-down deck can't be moved.
Change Throne Room variants to: "You may play a card from your hand, then if it's still in play, replay it".

The point of these two rules is that they are intuitive. Someone might wonder about moving cards from trash, but most people wouldn't assume that you can without checking the rules at least.

*except when an ability tells you to play a card from the trash: only Necromancer, which specifically prohibits the card from moving.
**Late edit: It would of course, as Donald has pointed out, also mean that things like TR+Feast doesn't work.



7
Rules Questions / Re: summon + death cart vs. summon + nomad camp
« on: June 28, 2018, 05:42:59 pm »
But this makes me wonder how Faithful Hound doesn't break lose-track? Since you're allowed to order the cards when you discard several, you could always put the Hound on top, and then no problem. But if you discard several Hounds, I don't see how you can set aside more than one. Donald?
A card can make itself an exception of course, though that's a bad rule to do that with.

I'm going to again go with, it's "as you discard this." Technically this means you could briefly see an extra top-of-discard card with Cellars.

Then it has another timing than Tunnel, since Tunnel can't be "as you discard this", unless you change the ruling that you can't Watchtower a Tunnel-gained Gold when you discard your whole hand.

Not sure why that follows. Even if Tunnel were" as you discard this", you wouldn't be into that timing until all cards, including Watchtower, are being discarded.

Hmm, maybe you're right. In this old thread Donald is saying that it doesn't work to reveal Tunnel before you finish discarding, based on the Watchtower case. That was after I mentioned it. But maybe I only thought about revealing Tunnel either in your hand before discarding, or after putting it in your discard pile before discarding the other cards. I didn't think about revealing it when it's in being-discarded limbo. I guess if you reveal it in limbo, when all your being-discarded cards are in limbo, there is no Watchtower problem.*

I see that Donald has replied while I was writing this. It sounds like being-discarded limbo is when you reveal Tunnels and Hounds, then when all the cards are in the discard pile, you gain Golds. But I guess the Hounds are not set aside then, because then you have the situation of having to fish out Hounds, which also breaks lose-track. So the Hounds get set aside when you reveal them in limbo, I guess.

* Is there a lose-track problem? What is a bunch of cards in limbo anyway? It's not unordered, because the rules say you can order them before discarding. If you order them in your hand and then discard them all, then only one card is on top and the others are covered even in limbo, so it seems lose-track applies. Or maybe it's a fanned out set of cards where no card is on top even if it's ordered. That makes sense. So you separate all to-be-discarded cards from your hand, reveal whichever you want, then put them in discard. You have to reveal all cards at once though, otherwise we get the old "is it the same card?" problem.

8
Rules Questions / Re: summon + death cart vs. summon + nomad camp
« on: June 28, 2018, 04:37:34 pm »
But this makes me wonder how Faithful Hound doesn't break lose-track? Since you're allowed to order the cards when you discard several, you could always put the Hound on top, and then no problem. But if you discard several Hounds, I don't see how you can set aside more than one. Donald?
A card can make itself an exception of course, though that's a bad rule to do that with.

I'm going to again go with, it's "as you discard this." Technically this means you could briefly see an extra top-of-discard card with Cellars.

Then it has another timing than Tunnel, since Tunnel can't be "as you discard this", unless you change the ruling that you can't Watchtower a Tunnel-gained Gold when you discard your whole hand.

9
Rules Questions / Re: Infinite Tunnel reveals on a Possession turn
« on: June 28, 2018, 12:37:54 pm »
All this has been covered several times. "Revealing a card several cards from your hand" goes back to this thread: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/755134/tunnel-card

Everything else about the weirdness of Tunnel was brought up here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7860.0
But also goes back to, and is dealt with in even more detail, here: https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/854026/playing-multiple-reaction-cards

10
Rules Questions / Re: summon + death cart vs. summon + nomad camp
« on: June 28, 2018, 11:13:03 am »
I suppose you just have to keep track of which cards/events have lost-track of which other cards...

I'm pretty sure all abilities lose track of a card when it moves except the ability that actually moved it. When a card is covered, all abilities lose track of it. (You can say that the second rule follows from the first because the card moved when it was covered, in the sense that it no longer has the position it had on the top of the pile. No ability moved it though, so that's why no ability still has track of it.)

Welllll, if you discard a Faithful Hound and four Coppers, technically you then have to search through your discard pile to retrieve the Hound and set it aside. So it's not like there's nothing in the game that implicitly makes you do that anyway.

Yeah, Tunnel and Faithful Hound are messed up. I think it was said back in Tunnel discussions that “when you discard this” really ends up needing to be played as “as you are discarding this.”

The reason Tunnel works, is that you're not moving the Tunnels, you're revealing them. So in this case you're allowed to fish them out of your discard pile, which is what you're technically doing if you discarded several cards and then revealing one or several Tunnels (even though IRL you're revealing them as you're discarding).

Of course this means that the rules about fishing out cards from the discard pile are confusing. You're allowed to do it when you're revealing Tunnels, but not when Summoning a Death Cart. It also tells us that the basis for this rule is not the fact that you can't look through your discard pile, as people have suggested. If you know where a card is and an ability allows you to look at or reveal it, you're allowed to do so, even in your discard pile.

People are talking about how it would be if we didn't have that part of the lose-track rule. But note that it doesn't just apply to your discard pile, it also applies to your deck. You can Develop two cards to the top of your deck, and the lower one would be lost track of.

But this makes me wonder how Faithful Hound doesn't break lose-track? Since you're allowed to order the cards when you discard several, you could always put the Hound on top, and then no problem. But if you discard several Hounds, I don't see how you can set aside more than one. Donald?

11
Does an attack not could as a "payload", or does "payload" only mean $$s?

(i.e., could Hag or Familiar be a "payload" that you want to make sure you play a lot with an engine - but need gold for $$s?)

That's certainly how I interpret payload. Attacking, trashing, gaining, buying.

12
But since this is so difficult, let's make it real.
Let's say you have Seahag, Junk Dealer, Margrave, Village and nothing else of great consequence. There is no way to gain cards here except buying them with Silver and Gold. You're not going to be buying much purely from Junk Dealer coins! I say, build the engine. As far as I can interpret Faust, he says don't build it. I'm even more sure if you add something more worthwile, like Wild Hunt, Tournament, Bridge Troll, Highway, Groundskeeper, Enchantress, Distant Lands, Orchard, Triumphal Arch...
I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that it is very uncommon to have a board where 6 cards are of no consequence.

And additionally then, you're saying that those 6 cards almost always provide the coins and/or gains you need so that getting treasures isn't needed.

And I'm saying that it seems to me that it's actually pretty common that the coins/gains you get from action cards is not enough to build an engine but usually you still want the engine. In your original reply to Crj, you didn't even mention this category of kingdom, and when I brought it up, you thought it was part of one of your categories, and then later you say that you virtually never play such kingdoms. It's so strange, because I feel like I play them quite often.

13
Is one of you talking about an engine with Gold/Silver in it and one about an engine with Gold/Silver gainers in it?

I don't think so. I'm simply talking about engines worth building where you need treasure to buy your cards. Naturally, my premise was boards where you can't easily gain cards through through action-based coins or gaining. Of course this kind of engine is helped by silver/gold gainers, but I wasn't saying that that's the only viable way of building it.

(As an additional example of where treasure could be worth it as payload in an engine, I mentioned silver/gold gainers. With this I mean that even if you have action-based coins or gaining, sometimes silver/gold gainers could be worth it to get more buying/gaining power quicker.)

But since this is so difficult, let's make it real.
Let's say you have Seahag, Junk Dealer, Margrave, Village and nothing else of great consequence. There is no way to gain cards here except buying them with Silver and Gold. You're not going to be buying much purely from Junk Dealer coins! I say, build the engine. As far as I can interpret Faust, he says don't build it. I'm even more sure if you add something more worthwile, like Wild Hunt, Tournament, Bridge Troll, Highway, Groundskeeper, Enchantress, Distant Lands, Orchard, Triumphal Arch...

14
I'm not entirely sure what you mean with your new case, but I guess you mean it's not worth building an engine because you can't consistently play enough payload cards.

But my point is that there are also cases where you want to and can play payload cards as often as possible, but the only or main way of getting cards is buying them with coins from Silver and Gold. So you want the engine. I don't think that's so uncommon. Or even cases where there are Action-based coins and/or gainers, but also Silver/Gold gainers that you use in addition, to get more buying/gaining power quicker.
My point is that if you want Gold/Silver in your deck, then the engine you can build isn't usually very good. So often you might be able to build an engine, but some form of BM is better.

I don't think I ever* build engines where I want Gold/Silver gainers if there is no TfB. That's just asking for your engine to stall.

*slightly exaggerated

Ok, then that just seems pretty wrong to me. If there is trashing and attacks (and actions and draw), then I usually want an engine even if the only way to gain cards is through buying them with silver and gold. Lack of +buy might make me want to reconsider, but not always.

15
There is a (large) middle ground between a big money strategy and a no-Treasures strategy.
Not that large, actually. You have the case where there's no better payload for the engine. But having that and still an engine that's better than BM is kind of rare. The second case is where you use money for TfB, in which case the only important thing about the Treasures is their price point and the fact that some cards gain them easily. Then there is Platinum, which is enough cash in a single card to usually work in an engine.

Wait. Even when there are "better payload" for the engine than treasures, you might need treasures as payload too. If there is no Action-based coin and no (or not enough) straight gaining, you need treasures to get cards. But you usually want the engine anyway, to attack, to trash, to get VP tokens, etc. In those cases you need treasure as payload (in addition to the other payload cards). Or what am I missing?
Yeah well, I would include the case where you get 1-2 Silvers that you then trash in the framework of "no treasure strategy". I just took that to mean "a strategy where you want Silver/Gold(/Copper) in your final deck composition".

Of course you often get 1-2 Silvers even when you want a (virtually) treasure-less deck. But you weren't talking about that and neither was I. As I said, I'm talking about the cases when you need Treasure to buy cards throughout the game. I won't specify further, because you can just re-read my post.
Ah well. But then aren't you just referring to my first case - no better payload? I thought that to include cases where there are cards that are better payload, but not enough of them (or not enough terminal space etc.), so some of your payload has to be Treasures.

You said that the "middle ground" between no-Treasure and BM is small, because it includes (1) cases where there's no better payload than Treasure, (2) TfB with treasure gainers and (3) Platinum - to which I guess we can also add other special Treasures like Plunder etc.

Regarding (1), if there's no better payload than Treasure, then I agree that the engine is not worth it, I guess ever.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean with your new case, but I guess you mean it's not worth building an engine because you can't consistently play enough payload cards.

But my point is that there are also cases where you want to and can play payload cards as often as possible, but the only or main way of getting cards is buying them with coins from Silver and Gold. So you want the engine. I don't think that's so uncommon. Or even cases where there are Action-based coins and/or gainers, but also Silver/Gold gainers that you use in addition, to get more buying/gaining power quicker.

16
There is a (large) middle ground between a big money strategy and a no-Treasures strategy.
Not that large, actually. You have the case where there's no better payload for the engine. But having that and still an engine that's better than BM is kind of rare. The second case is where you use money for TfB, in which case the only important thing about the Treasures is their price point and the fact that some cards gain them easily. Then there is Platinum, which is enough cash in a single card to usually work in an engine.

Wait. Even when there are "better payload" for the engine than treasures, you might need treasures as payload too. If there is no Action-based coin and no (or not enough) straight gaining, you need treasures to get cards. But you usually want the engine anyway, to attack, to trash, to get VP tokens, etc. In those cases you need treasure as payload (in addition to the other payload cards). Or what am I missing?
Yeah well, I would include the case where you get 1-2 Silvers that you then trash in the framework of "no treasure strategy". I just took that to mean "a strategy where you want Silver/Gold(/Copper) in your final deck composition".

Of course you often get 1-2 Silvers even when you want a (virtually) treasure-less deck. But you weren't talking about that and neither was I. As I said, I'm talking about the cases when you need Treasure to buy cards throughout the game. I won't specify further, because you can just re-read my post.

17
There is a (large) middle ground between a big money strategy and a no-Treasures strategy.
Not that large, actually. You have the case where there's no better payload for the engine. But having that and still an engine that's better than BM is kind of rare. The second case is where you use money for TfB, in which case the only important thing about the Treasures is their price point and the fact that some cards gain them easily. Then there is Platinum, which is enough cash in a single card to usually work in an engine.

Wait. Even when there are "better payload" for the engine than treasures, you might need treasures as payload too. If there is no Action-based coin and no (or not enough) straight gaining, you need treasures to get cards. But you usually want the engine anyway, to attack, to trash, to get VP tokens, etc. In those cases you need treasure as payload (in addition to the other payload cards). Or what am I missing?

18
Rules Questions / Re: Sacrifice and Inheritance
« on: June 19, 2018, 01:59:52 pm »
Sacrifice checks the card after it is trashed. After you trash an Estate-Fortress, it is still yours, unlike anything else you might trash.

Right. That's correct. I see now that it's what this thread has mainly been about. It was mentioned in the fourth post, and it's what I was confirming in my last post too.

19
Rules Questions / Re: Sacrifice and Inheritance
« on: June 19, 2018, 12:00:42 pm »
From this wording, you should draw cards and get Actions if you Sacrifice an Inherited Fortress.

What wording are you referring to? Sacrifice doesn't have a "when-trash" wording.

EDIT: I didn't re-read the posts carefully enough. Of course Fortress has the "when-trash" wording.

20
tracer: One of the big risers in the 6+ cost list this year, Pathfinding, like King’s Court, can create engines on boards where there otherwise would be none, though perhaps the more common use is adding consistency and terminal space in an otherwise functioning engine.

How does Pathfinding add terminal space? I thought "terminal space" meant space for more terminals, in which case it's Lost Arts that adds terminal space.

21
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: May 18, 2018, 02:21:18 pm »
Smugglers may be worth mentioning here.

Your right hand opponent gains a BoM, then plays it BoM as Caravan; he gains nothing else on his turn. On your turn you play Smugglers. Do you gain BoM because that's what it was when your opponent gained it? Or do you track the specific BoM and gain a copy of what it is at the moment (Caravan)?

I ask because, in this thread, I asserted that you'd gain a BoM in that situation. I note that this wasn't actually confirmed, so, considering what's been said here, maybe I was wrong about that.

If I was wrong (i.e. you gain a Caravan), then Smugglers also needs to track all gained cards and know what they currently look like. That's useful as an example of something needing to know about a "lost" card for reasons other than playing it.

If I was correct (i.e. you gain a BoM), then Dominion is already using something like last-known information.

Hmm, interesting. I'm re-reading that thread. Assuming you were correct (you gain a BoM), isn't it the case that if we go by the interpretation that I wrote (and you agreed on), then it's not using last-known information?

Namely this: Gain a copy of [a card that the player to your right gained on their last turn] costing up to $6.

So the only past information is the names of the cards that your opponent gained (i.e. the names when s/he gained them). That's not something to track, because it's not information connected to a card. It's just something that is taken from the past game state. It's like you said, Treasure Map and Ritual do the same. They don't look at specific cards, but just information from the past game state.

22
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: May 17, 2018, 02:17:47 pm »
What about (as someone suggested earlier) keeping it as the actual card for as long as possible, and only reverting to the originally-played card when it's impossible to track it?  This keeps all current interactions as-is, and the only time that this would pop up is when people try to engineer it.

I didn't catch that suggestion. ChipperMDW's idea was that you use the original card whenever the game loses track of it. But I guess you mean whenever the players can't actually know what the card's instructions are, which is different. Yes, I think that would solve this and keep everything else the same. Of course, as with the other solutions (2 and 3 above), it introduces a completely new and obscure rule, and Donald said that he would rather change Inheritance, BoM and Overlord.

I suspect that the right call is to change nothing. I appreciate Crj's point from an engineering perspective, and the programmer in me wants this to be fixed cleanly too, but it doesn't seem worth it. Online it works, and if it ever came up IRL, any decision would probably work. The players can assume that it was that card, or not. A judge in a tournament would just... explode, I guess. Hopefully and probably, Dominion won't introduce more cards in the future that make these scenarios more likely.

23
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance interaction
« on: May 17, 2018, 01:10:33 pm »
I just want to clarify that there are actually 8 TR variants: Throne Room, King’s Court, Counterfeit, Procession, Disciple, Royal Carriage, Crown and Ghost. (Counterfeit can be played by Storyteller and play Crown, so is relevant.)

Of course Donald made the point that the TR variants are not really the problem.

Trivialknot actually deserves a lot of credit for this post, where he identified that the problem is with any card being moved after having been played. And this is also the first scenario presented which is impossible to resolve IRL, because the player him/herself can't know the answer to what the card actually is. (In the other examples it was possible to keep track of the Estates in your hand.)

It seems like the only workable changes would be:

1) Actually change the three offending cards (Inheritance, BoM, Overlord).

2) Always use last-known-info as suggested by ChipperMDW. (Although I don't like the idea of reverting BoM to choose-before-play, because that created a lot problems compared to how cleanly it works now.) The problem is that it changes the Procession+BoM-as-Fortress explanation in the original Dark Ages rulebook, and probably other "known" interactions, which could be unexpected for many players online whenever it would change there.

3) Introducing a rule like I think Majiponi suggested, that whenever there is doubt about which copy of a card you're playing, you get to choose which. But what if you only have one copy among your cards, so that from a computer perspective there is no choice, but from the players' perspective how many copies you have is not open information (and a player might or might not have kept track)? Maybe that's why Donald said it wouldn't work.

24
Rules Questions / Re: Resolve and Discard Hex
« on: May 07, 2018, 07:15:11 pm »
I agree that the rulebook isn't completely clear. "Received Boons normally go to the Boons
discard pile". The fact that "received" is past tense makes me think you're right; they go to the discard pile after you receive them.

On the other hand, playing this way requires a new place for hexes to be, other than the hex pile and the hex discard pile. There has to be some sort of "resolving / set-aside" area. For other cards, when they are revealed, they are not considered to be moved (which is why Wishing Well doesn't need to provide instructions for when your guess is wrong). If you consider the resolving hex to be simply revealed, and not moved, then you could argue that if you receive another hex before you are done; you would receive that same hex again because it is still on top of the hex deck. I'm quite sure this is not correct, which means that there must be a place for hexes to move to.

It's in the rules that Boons are taken, not just revealed. So technically you keep it in front of you, like you would a State. After you receive it, you discard it. Some Boons are kept longer, for instance the ones who tell you to keep them until your discard phase, or the ones you get via Blessed Village. So it makes sense that Hexes work the same way (except that sometimes you discard it when everybody else has received it).

25
Rules Questions / Re: Sacrifice and Inheritance
« on: May 07, 2018, 07:08:41 pm »

Note that this also means that if you Inherit Fortress and Sacrifice an Estate, you do get both bonuses.

Wait, if I Inherit Fortress, once I trash an Estate it is no longer mine and no longer a Fortress, right? Wouldn't this prevent the Estate from returning to my hand, hence preventing me from getting both bonuses by using Sacrifice?

I believe Donald ruled back when Inheritance first came out that trashing an Estate-as-Fortress meant that you did in fact trash a card that says "when you trash this.." so it still happens. Even if it only makes sense intuitively, rather than programatically.

The rule goes back to BoM/Fortress. You trash BoM-as-Fortress (with Procession for example) and so trigger the when-trash ability. Even though Fortress reverts back to BoM when it's in the trash, the when-trash ability was triggered so it resolves and the BoM goes back to your hand. This applies to all when-trash and when-discard abilities. So a BoM-as-Herbalist will still work even though it's not a Herbalist anymore when it resolves. And Overlord-as-Treasury.

As you note, this also applied to trashing Inherited Estates with a when-trash ability.

Many more Inheritance and BoM interactions in the document in my sig. :)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 45

Page created in 0.157 seconds with 18 queries.