Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

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.

1

Rules Questions / Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck

« on: April 08, 2024, 06:53:50 am »

OK, so you and I seem to agree that the natural interpretation of Giant is to curse when there is no card.  That's good, given that it coincides with Donald X's intepretation.  The same is true for Barbarian.  That leaves Bounty Hunter, Sorcerer and Sorceress.

No, I think Giant and Barbarian should do nothing. (I agree with the ruling on the other three.) I don't really have time to engange in this thread now, but I explained it earlier in the thread.

2

Rules Questions / Can Rewards be returned to their pile?

« on: April 07, 2024, 02:48:32 pm »

The rules don't talk about a Reward pile. (They did talk about a Prize pile.)
What happens if you play a Reward using Way of the Horse?

3

Rules Questions / Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck

« on: April 07, 2024, 05:48:57 am »

But the point is that for humans reading cards, these two things mean the same:
"if it costs from $3 to $6, trash it; otherwise gain a Curse"
"if it doesn't cost from $3 to $6, gain a Curse; otherwise trash it"

My thought process when dealing with the first instance in the absence of a card is something like "There wasn't a card, so it isn't true that it costs from $3 to $6, so a Curse has to be gained."

My thought process when dealing with the second instance in the absence of a card is something like "There wasn't a card so it didn't cost from $3 to $6, so a Curse has to be gained."

For both phrasings my thought process in the absence of a card results in a Curse being gained.  Isn't your argument based on the premise that they should give different results?

I'm saying that they should give the same result; but based on the argument that the others were making in this thread - that "it costs from $3 to $6" and "it doesn't cost from $3 to $6" are both false - they give different results, because in both cases the "otherwise" clause would be the result.

4

Rules Questions / Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck

« on: April 05, 2024, 05:03:44 am »

I don't think they are equivalent, and I gathered some data by polling people on the Bayesian Conspiracy discord (over there because it's normal to poll people about random questions there). Almost half of the respondents agreed with your position that "The king is bald." -- "Not true." is not a normal usage of human language if you believe there is no king, but a slim majority agreed with me that it is normal. There was unanimous agreement that "The king is bald." -- "The king is not bald." is not a normal usage of human language if you believe there is no king though, so the average person seems to think there is a difference. Finally, with the exception of one person who disagreed that the thought experiment made sense, there was unanimous agreement that in a made up board game context, they would expect the rules to work equivalently to Barbarian handing out a curse and Sorcerer not handing it out.

You're saying that the average person thinks there's a difference between "It's not true that the king is bald" and "the king is not bald," but I don't think that's what your second poll shows. It shows that the half (9 out of 16) who think "not true" is a normal response, mostly (the second poll only got 13 responses) think there's a difference. But the other half doesn't. This is to be expected; the second poll didn't really show us anything that the first didn't.

This is a small sample size, and not composed of average people.

This is probably related to something I've observed many times (and I've done myself). People start analyzing some normal expression or construction in the language and come to the conclusion that it must be wrong based on etymology or logic (for example the notorious "irregardless", or "shameful" vs. "shameless"). When the question is posed like in this poll, people will start analyzing whether it's logically correct to say that the claim is not true, and just like in this thread, some will conclude that it should be, and therefore they respond "yes". Also! You're using a well-known example, so people who have read the Russell argument will bring that in.

But I admit that many players would probably intuitively think that Giant and Barbarian do curse. My point was that those cards should be logically consistent with the others, and "otherwise" should mean "if it doesn't have that cost". I do think that if you asked people to spell out what "otherwise" means (without mentioning an empty deck) that's what almost everybody would say. That's what the natural interpretation is in normal language. But when there's no card, some disconnect occurs where people make an assumption that "otherwise" probably also encompasses that situation. It's not that they think that "the card costs $x" is false (even in your poll half don't think that) - they just think "otherwise" covers all situations where they can't say yes. I would also assume that pretty much all the same people, at least if they didn't know the rules of Dominion, would think that Barbarian would curse a player who trashed an Estate. "Otherwise" just intuitively covers every "other" case.

In that sense I guess this ruling is as good as any.

5

Rules Questions / Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck

« on: April 04, 2024, 05:00:54 am »

You're failing to consider that we're talking about human language. In English, if someone claims "You are short", the answers "Not true" and "I'm not" are equivalent. Meaning that "It's not true that I'm short" and "I'm not short" are equivalent.

That's because you actually exist. "I'm either average or tall" would also be equivalent with both of those. If someone claims "God plays dice with the universe", the answers "Not true" and "God does not do that" are not equivalent, because the latter statement agrees that there is a God (at least in a metaphorical sense) and only disagrees about said God's modus operandi, while the former is what you would say if you don't agree there is a God at all.

I'm saying that "not true" and "God doesn't do that" are equivalent in normal language. The proper answer if you don't agree there's a God is rejecting the premise of the claim: "There is no God" or "I don't believe in God".
"The king is bald." -- "Not true." -- means you disagree that the king is bald.
"The king is bald." -- "There is no king." -- means you disagree with the premise.

6

Rules Questions / Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck

« on: April 04, 2024, 03:37:40 am »

"It's not true that the king of France is bald" does not mean the same as "the king of France is not bald".

Uhm... That's a very strange claim. So "it's false that the king of France is bald" does not mean "the king of France is not bald"? Or are "false" and "not true" different? What about "untrue"?

"The king of France is bald" and "the king of France is not bald" are both false because France is a republic.

You're failing to consider that we're talking about human language. In English, if someone claims "You are short", the answers "Not true" and "I'm not" are equivalent. Meaning that "It's not true that I'm short" and "I'm not short" are equivalent.

7

Rules Questions / Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck

« on: April 04, 2024, 03:30:37 am »

That is all clear, and it's what I have been talking about from the OP in this thread.

And in the scenario where the presupposition is false, the truth value of the sentence bearing the presupposition becomes harder to evaluate. If the Mona Lisa was not actually stolen, then The Mona Lisa was stolen by Carmen Sandiego is simply a false sentence. But if the Mona Lisa was not stolen, then The one who stole the Mona Lisa was Carmen Sandiego is certainly not true, but it's hard to say that it's false, either—it's hard to evaluate.

Exactly. And I would say that it's not only hard but impossible to evaluate. This goes against what the people who oddly liked your post have been saying. They're saying that, if the Mona Lisa was not stolen, "The one who stole the Mona Lisa was Carmen Sandiego" is false.
And now I see that you agreed with Jack Rudd's post, which means you're contradicting your own post...?

I read about Russell's analysis of the King of France statement. It's just one theory, and one I don't agree with - especially in normal language.
Exactly as AJD illustrated:
"The king of France is bald."
"What? I don't think there's a king of France?"

It seems that Russell makes a weak argument, based on the WP article, since he analyzes the statement "the present King of France is bald" by making three statements, the first of which says that there is a King of France, and then concludes that the original statement must be false because there is no King of France. Essentially he's simply stating that the statement must be false because it has a false supposition.

EDIT: Yes, Russell is asserting that the statement "the present King of France is bald" contains an unspoken, hidden statement "there is presently a King of France".

EDIT2: And indeed, the theory of presuppositions is by Frege and is in opposition to Russell's theory. According to Frege, statements with false presuppositions fail to have a truth value. They're neither true nor false.

8

Rules Questions / Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck

« on: April 03, 2024, 04:56:18 pm »

"It's not true that the king of France is bald" does not mean the same as "the king of France is not bald".

Uhm... That's a very strange claim. So "it's false that the king of France is bald" does not mean "the king of France is not bald"? Or are "false" and "not true" different? What about "untrue"?

9

Rules Questions / Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck

« on: April 03, 2024, 03:16:33 pm »

Well, there are two different potential translations there: "if its cost is not $x", and "if it's not true that its cost is $x" which mean the same thing whenever the item's cost is well-defined, but which evaluate differently if it isn't.

That's exactly what I was referring to. When this argument was made earlier in this thread, the phrasing "if not its cost is $x" was used. You're using "if it's not true that its cost is $x", but it's the same argument. In human language, it still means the same as "if its cost is not $x".

I can demonstrate it like this: If we can't know if "its cost is not $x," then we can't know if "its cost is $x," and we can't know if "it's not true that its cost is $x."

10

Rules Questions / Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck

« on: April 03, 2024, 02:37:13 pm »

I don't know what that is.

But the point is that for humans reading cards, these two things mean the same:
"if it costs from $3 to $6, trash it; otherwise gain a Curse"
"if it doesn't cost from $3 to $6, gain a Curse; otherwise trash it"

Or to put it another way, "if not its cost is $x" means "if its cost is not $x" in human language. (We've been through all this.)

11

Rules Questions / Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck

« on: April 03, 2024, 05:08:36 am »

Thanks.

So it sounds like you're going with "the card is undefined so nothing happens". (Otherwise Bounty Hunter and Sorcerer would do something.)

But to me, that should actually make Giant and Barbarian do nothing too, as you were reasoning in a previous post in this thread. That's because for human players (as opposed to computers), "otherwise" means "if it doesn't cost $x". Which is like Bounty Hunter.

12

Rules Questions / Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck

« on: April 01, 2024, 02:19:19 pm »

I see that the Temple Gates client has implemented these cards as follows:

Giant: if there's no card, you don't gain a curse.
Barbarian: if there's no card, you don't gain a curse.
Sorcerer: if there's no card, you don't gain a curse.
Sorceress: if there's no card, the other players don't gain a curse.
Bounty Hunter: if there's no card, you don't get +$3.

They all follow what I thought made the most sense in this thread.

But, the first three (Giant, Barbarian, Sorcerer) don't follow the last rulings that I'm aware of. Are they wrong in the client, or have you made new rulings, Donald X.?

13

Rules Questions / Re: Complete Dominion rules document

« on: April 01, 2024, 09:12:53 am »

Version 10.1 is now up, which is updated for Cornucopia & Guilds Second Edition, the promo Marchland, and the 2023 errata of the 6 "extra turn" cards:

Complete Rules for Dominion and All Its Expansions

14

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.

« on: February 20, 2024, 06:16:52 am »

Actually, having the option to pick up 3 copper from Thief is a huge pitfall for new players).

Not more than picking up Coppers with an extra +buy (which the rulebook actually offers as a possibility).
(I'm not disagreeing with anything else you said.)

15

Rules Questions / Re: 3 turns in a row with Possession

« on: February 09, 2024, 08:32:32 am »

Yes, Alice wouldn't even choose to have Bob play Outpost normally. I was just wondering if it was possible.

16

Rules Questions / 3 turns in a row with Possession

« on: February 09, 2024, 07:42:15 am »

It seems that even with the errata to Possession and Outpost, etc., it's possible to get 3 turns in a row like this:

* Alice regular turn, Alice plays Possession.
* Bob Possession turn, Bob plays Outpost.
(Outpost checks that it would be Bob's 2nd turn in a row, so the extra turn is given.)
* Bob Outpost turn (2nd turn in a row)
* Bob regular turn (3rd turn in a row)

Does this check out?

17

Rules Questions / Re: Playing Treasures in Buy Phase

« on: December 13, 2023, 04:03:14 am »

Also in Prosperity, the first expansion where it mattered:

"During the Buy phase, playing Treasures comes strictly before buying cards; once a card is bought, no further Treasures can be played. This can be important, for example with Grand Market or Mint."

18

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Halloween Kingdom

« on: November 19, 2023, 09:55:17 am »

Nowhere does it say that a card can't have several names (just as it can have several types), and Night of the Wookie doesn't say "Chewbacca instead of their normal name", so I would assume all cards keep their name and gain the name Chewbacca in addition.

19

Rules Questions / Re: Simple Rules Questions

« on: November 19, 2023, 09:07:21 am »

Shaman for Way of the Mouse is "using this"?

Yes, Way of the Mouse means that the card is being used in the game. Same with Duchess, and cards with setup instructions like Black Market.

20

Rules Questions / Re: Voyage + Pirate

« on: October 12, 2023, 12:24:15 pm »

You would need a special rule for that, as an exception. Otherwise it contradicts the rule I quoted, I would say. It says that you can play no more than 3 cards from your hand. It says that cards "played by" a card are included. I don't see how it could be plainer. You can no more exceed the limit with a card "played by" a card than you can with a card you play from your hand normally, since they are both counted as cards played from your hand for Voyage.

21

Rules Questions / Re: Voyage + Pirate

« on: October 12, 2023, 02:32:21 am »

I don't think this quite answers it, if I'm following correctly. It's not a question of if playing a card as as a result of being instructed to play a card counts towards your number of card plays, which is what the quoted rule explains. The question was if you are allowed an extra card play on top of the Voyage limit.

I don't see the difference between those two questions. Clearly, if you play Village, Smithy and Throne Room, you are not allowed an "extra" card play from Throne Room, since the card Throne Room lets you play counts towards the limit. (So you don't get to play any card from Throne Room.)

Or are you saying there is some difference between Throne Room's "you may play a card from your hand" and Pirate's "you may play this from your hand"?

22

Rules Questions / Re: Voyage + Pirate

« on: October 11, 2023, 01:23:02 pm »

The rulebook says: "On a Voyage turn, if you Throne Room a card, both Throne Room and that card count as plays from your hand, but Throne Room replaying the card does not."
So the answer is no.

23

Rules Questions / Re: Errata to extra turns

« on: October 11, 2023, 11:06:40 am »

It makes sense this way. But this whole time I was thinking that extra turns were a thing that were created ahead of time and sitting there waiting to either happen or be canceled by Lich. Now it seems like there isn't actually such a thing as an extra turn that's waiting to happen. Only an instruction to take an extra turn that's waiting to happen, and you always start that extra turn the moment you're told to "take an extra turn".

Note that other set-up effects work the same way. For instance, "+1 card at the beginning of next turn" is not a card-draw waiting to happen, but an instruction. You could end up not drawing the card because an opponent played Bridge Troll or because you already drew your deck.

24

Rules Questions / Re: Errata to extra turns

« on: October 11, 2023, 04:21:22 am »

As noted this means that a superfluous Outpost gets discarded during another player's Clean-up. It doesn't know that the extra turn won't happen until we're right there failing to do it, which is after Clean-up.

And this would be the case even if Outpost had nothing to do with giving extra turns, right? The fact that it also changes the draw part of cleanup means that it still has stuff to do after the discard part of cleanup.

That used to be the case (but in practice it never mattered for Outpost). But as far as I know, the latest ruling is that Durations only stay in play if they have something left to do after this turn.
This matters for Cargo Ship with no cards, Garrison with no tokens, Duration + Way of the Seal, and Duration + Way of the Squirrel.

25

Rules Questions / Re: Errata to extra turns

« on: October 11, 2023, 04:02:07 am »

Yeah I was imprecise with "triggers" vs "resolves". I had been thinking that 2 Outposts both resolved at the same time; setting up 2 extra turns before either one happened.

Perhaps the question would be clearer with current Voyage, which lets you play multiple to take multiple extra turns after this... you play 2 Voyages on your turn. In between turns, what exactly happens? Do you resolve both Voyages to set up your next 2 extra turns? Or do you only resolve 1, taking that turn right away, then resolve the other, taking that turn?

It must be the latter.

I'm pretty sure the original scenario is simply:

1) After this turn, these two trigger:
* Outpost #1: "Take an extra turn if you haven't had more than one turn in a row"
* Outpost #2: "Take an extra turn if you haven't had more than one turn in a row"

2) You resolve the first Outpost: "Take an extra turn if you haven't had more than one turn in a row". So you get an extra turn.

3) When you would resolve that extra turn, Lich cancels it.

4) You resolve the second Outpost: "Take an extra turn if you haven't had more than one turn in a row". So you get an extra turn.