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 - AJD

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 120
51
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Actually Passable Card Ideas
« on: January 31, 2021, 03:34:25 am »
Way Of The Beaver
+$2
+1 Buy

Appearing alongside Monkey or Sheep is the only real problem with it.

That's not really a problem, as it's not recommended to have several Ways in one game. ;)

However, Beaver's effect is identical to playing Woodcutter, which while weak for a $3 card is rather too strong for a Way. Most of the Ways which have an effect that's independent of the card on which they are used would be too weak as a $2 kingdom card. (Mouse and Worm are the only real exceptions to this rule IMO.)
And I think that's a sensible design decision, so that you don't buy a random $2 kingdom card solely to use it as the Way.

I think Way of the Horse is an obvious exception here—the existence of Ride suggests Horse is not too weak for a $2 kingdom card. (And I've definitely bought Poor Houses just so I could use them according to the Way of the Horse.)

And Worm is definitely too weak for a $2 kingdom card. Way of the Worm is to Monument roughly as Ruined Market is to Woodcutter.

52
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Boon Power Level Comparison
« on: January 31, 2021, 03:27:36 am »
none of the Boon-givers are cantrips, what's up with that?
hmmm...

Pixie is a cantrip though????

I mean I realize this isn't a counterexample to the argument against cantrips as Boon-givers, since you have to trash the Pixie to get the Boons, but it's just not factually  true that none of the Boon-givers are cantrips.

53
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Boon Power Level Comparison
« on: January 31, 2021, 03:24:06 am »
none of the Boon-givers are cantrips, what's up with that?
hmmm...

Pixie is a cantrip though????

54
The other day I won a game on a 3-pile with Dame Josephine as my only VP.

55
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Inventor wording
« on: December 05, 2020, 05:51:13 pm »
I would say that cards only have "a pile" if there's some way to gain them during the game, whether it's by buying them (as Supply piles) or gaining them via some other card (as non-Supply piles).  Since it's impossible ever to gain a Shelter or Heirloom (excepting things like using Treasurer to gain Haunted Mirror from the trash), there's no pile for those.  But as far as I know, there's no such explicitly defined rule

It's never possible to gain a Bat, but they have a pile nonetheless!

56
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Inventor wording
« on: December 04, 2020, 08:18:31 pm »
Way of the Butterfly says "its pile", not "the supply", so you can butterfly cards that don't come from the supply. (But not cards from the Black Market deck?)

I do know that you cannot butterfly the necropolis.
Right, there is never a Necropolis pile.

Do the written rules ever lay out a clear and precise way to know if something has a pile or not? I know that individual things, like Shelters, mention that they don't have a pile. But I think it's a legitimate thing to wonder why unused Necropolises don't form a pile, while Spoils do form a pile (but also, when do Spoils form a pile? Is there a Spoils pile in every game of Dominion always; or only if there is a card in the game that mentions "Spoils"?)

Used to be you knew Spoils had a pile because of the instruction "gain a Spoils from the Spoils pile", but I guess that doesn't work anymore.

I'm totally down with the interpretation that the Spoils pile is technically present in any game of Dominion; you just never interact with it in most games.

57
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Inventor wording
« on: December 04, 2020, 12:12:48 pm »
Way of the Butterfly says "its pile", not "the supply", so you can butterfly cards that don't come from the supply. (But not cards from the Black Market deck?)

58
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Semi-Interesting Dominion Moments Thread
« on: December 02, 2020, 08:45:26 pm »
Isn't the rating system such that the difference between a win and a draw is always identical to that between a draw and a loss?

Beats me, but then we can just add in "How much do you care about the rating system?" to the set of relevant questions.

I don't care about the rating system, and I respect the fact that according to the Dominion rule book a tie is equivalent to a win; so my judgment about whether to go for the risky win over the certain tie in that scenario might be different than someone who assigns different values to those factors.

59
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Semi-Interesting Dominion Moments Thread
« on: November 30, 2020, 08:14:13 am »
Depends. How much better is winning than tying, and how much better is tying than losing? A guaranteed tie might well be a better bet than x% chance of a win, y% of a tie, and z% of a loss, depending on the values of x, y, and z.

60
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Minor note about new printings
« on: October 26, 2020, 12:48:15 pm »
- Noble Brigand has been rephrased so that it has a dividing line before the when-buy ability. To get the text to fit on the card, it says "do its attack"; this means, do the above-the-line part except for the +$1.

Noble Brigand: Action - Attack, $4
+$1
Each other player reveals the top 2 cards of their deck, trashes a revealed Silver or Gold you choose, discards the rest, and gains a Copper if they didn't reveal a Treasure. You gain the trashed cards.
----------
When you buy this, do its attack.
Why??

I like the other tweaks, but I don't see the point of this.

It makes perfect sense. Like other on-gain/on-buy effects it is separated by a dividing line. Even more important, in our playing groups it happened more than once that we forgot this ability because it was hidden in a wall of text.

It's definitely going to cause more confusion about whether you can react with Moat etc. to buying Noble Brigand.

61
Caravan Guard as Way of the Mouse as Lighthouse.

Hmm... but the Lighthouse is never in play, so this combo doesn't do anything different from Caravan Guard as Way of the Chameleon, does it?

62
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Is Library a sifter?
« on: October 01, 2020, 10:28:58 am »
Even if you're building a bad deck, Library still doesn't skip Victory cards and Curses. Trying to build a draw-to-x-engine on the basis of Library sounds like a big mistake.

It's not a mistake, it works fine. You just don't ever use the skipping ability in a draw-to-x-engine.

You certainly do. In the extreme, if you have a deck of only action cards, Library gives the the ability to choose precisely the cards you want from your entire deck.

You're also drawing your entire deck so it almost certainly doesn't matter.

You're not drawing your entire deck at once.

63
Rules Questions / Re: Simple Rules Questions
« on: September 30, 2020, 01:34:32 pm »
What's the Oracle issue?

64
Variants and Fan Cards / Re: Set Expansion Contest
« on: September 29, 2020, 06:03:42 pm »
Quote
Lumbermonger • $5 • Action - Treasure
If it's your Buy phase, +$2.

Otherwise, you may gain a card costing up to $4.

I don't want to be a spoilsport, but I am afraid this is not a good choice for a typical Intrigue card. While an Action-Treasure card is certainly exciting, and Lumbermonger fulfills the criterion "different choices", it would be way ahead of its time. The first  official cards that allowed to be played in different phases were in quite late expansions (as far as I am aware of), e.g. Crown.

ok. judge it on those merits then. This is the color split missing in intrigue and i entered it on those grounds while fulfilling the rest of the criteria (choices, simplicity, etc). I'm very happy with it as my entry and think it fits the goals of the intrigue expansion while giving a small taste of what's to come in future expansions. Consider it a sui generis case like how Nomad Camp used to be the only thing that messed with the opening, or how masquerade is the only card that uses the pass mechanic.
You could easily convert it to an Action card with "Choose one: +1 Action, +$2; or gain a card costing up to $4."
Either way, I think it should cost $4.

I think this is too strong for $4 but too weak for $5... the $5 version of this card already exists, and it's Charm. Charm isn't strictly better than this by any means, but it does the same type of thing in an overall more versatile and powerful way.

65
Dominion Articles / Re: Occasionally Relevent Rule Edge-Cases
« on: September 12, 2020, 02:28:25 am »
Well, there's Reap.

66
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Easy Puzzles
« on: August 04, 2020, 12:45:18 am »
These Wayfarer solutions are very cute, but my original intended solution is much simpler:

Your solution might be much simpler, but scolapasta's solution is way fairer.

I don't understand what you mean.

67
Rules Questions / Re: Develop + Wayfarer
« on: July 29, 2020, 03:41:57 pm »
Just repeating yourself doesn't actually clarify your reasoning. How does model (ii) fail to be enabled by the rules?

Quote
Since "gain a card" involves an implicit choice (whenever that choice is not explicity stated), how can it be otherwise?

Let's ignore Wayfarer for the time being for the sake of simplicity; let's say I trashed a $4 card. So here are the possible interpretation of what Develop tells me to do.

(ii) Gain a card costing either $3 or $5. Then gain a card costing $5 or $3, whichever I didn't do the first time.
(iii) Choose one: gain a card costing $3, and then gain a card costing $5; or gain a card costing $5, and then gain a card costing $3.

Obviously in the absence of Wayfarer these two have the same results.

Model (ii) treats each gain as a separate effect. Model (ii) looks only at the current properties of each card at any given time. So I don't see how the reasoning you state leads to the conclusion that (ii) is wrong.

It was not a complete repetition; I was trying to improve it by putting it in a more logical order. You asked how "choose and gain for each gaining effect" follows from "gaining is always each card as a separate effect". That's what I was trying to clarify. Perhaps what was missing was the rule that "gain a card" involves an implicit choice.

I see what you mean now. I think this would be a question that only applies to Develop. There are no other cards that let you gain several cards based on different prices and in the order you choose.

But I think (ii) is not possible, since "gain a card costing either $3 or $5" mixes up the two gaining effects. Develop tells you to do two separate things, in either order. If it had said "gain a Curse, and return a Curse from your hand to the Supply, in either order", and the Curse pile was empty, there is no reason to conclude that you had to return the Curse from your hand first just because that's the only effect that wouldn't fail. The effects are separate; you choose the order.

I see what you mean; in that case, Dominion.games gets it wrong. Dominion.games handles Develop according to pattern (ii), and in the case I asked about in the original post in this thread, it forces you to gain a $5 and a $6; I just checked.

68
Rules Questions / Re: Durable Mouse
« on: July 29, 2020, 03:39:23 am »
What we're saying, Jeebus, is the following:

When you play an Action card according to a Way, the Action card carries out the instructions printed on the Way rather than its own instructions.

Yes, this is different from what happens when you reveal a Trader in response to Ironworks (in which case it is the Trader, not the Ironworks, gaining the Silver), and it is different from effects triggered by playing a card (Kiln is what gains a copy of whatever is played after it). No, we don't care that Donald compared Ways to Trader at some point. We believe this is how Ways work because it appears to be what the rule book says, is consistent with the way Ways are worded, and yields the correct results without the need for positing extra, unstated rules.

69
Rules Questions / Re: Durable Mouse
« on: July 28, 2020, 08:23:33 pm »
It was not a question about what happens, since I already know:

Play a Wharf using Way of the Chameleon: The Wharf stays in play.
(Or play a Throne Room using Way of the Chameleon and play a Wharf: The TR stays.)

You're Enchanted. Play a Chapel using Way of the Chameleon: You can't choose to get +$1 and +1 Action.
(Or play a Chapel using both Otter and Chameleon: You can't choose to get +$2.)

That what just me trying to figure out how both of those things can be consistent. In the first case, the effects are still done by the Wharf. But in the second case, the effects are not done by the Chapel. The only way I could make it make sense, is with a special rule about Ways and Durations.
Way of the Chameleon causes you to "follow this card's instructions." That never includes a Way or Enchantress's effect; those things don't modify a card's instructions.

Right, we're following the Way's instructions, not the card's instructions. So then it's not the card's instructions that set up a "next turn" effect, it's the Way's instructions. So how can this cause the card to stay in play?

We're following the Way's instructions and the card's instructions, because the Way's instructions tell you to "follow this card's instructions".

70
Rules Questions / Re: Durable Mouse
« on: July 28, 2020, 08:20:02 pm »
I see that your definition of "the card's effects" is lacking. You have merely said that it's "what happens when you use a card". Use? I assume you mean play.

Well, I didn't mean play, because I wasn't restricting my definition of "effects" to only on-play effects. Gaining a Madman is an effect of Hermit, but not what happens when you play Hermit. But I'm happy to restrict discussion only to on-play effects.

Quote
But many things happen when we play a card (Reactions/Kiln, Royal Carriage). Which effects are you talking about? The effects from the card's PA? That's what I would say, but you seem to not limit it to those. You need to provide a specific definition here.

Hmm, that's a good point. Kiln's effects are definitely not effects of the card that is played to trigger Kiln's gaining. I'll have to think more about this.

Quote
The instructions that we follow from the card's ability are effects. The instructions that we follow from the Way's ability are effects. We agree on this?

The instructions that we follow from the card's ability are the card's effects. So... the instructions that we follow from the Way's ability are the Way's effects.

They're definitely the Way's effects, but they're also the card's effects when played according to that Way.

Quote
I fail to see how you can make the leap that the instructions that we follow from the Way's ability are the card's effects. Again, what is the definition of "a card's effects" so that it encompasses both instructions from the card and instructions from the Way?

That's the inference from the way the durable mouse works.

The known rule is: "Some cards can play a card that isn't put into play. When you play one of these cards, leave it in play as long as you would have left the card it plays in play." This rule is already known to exist because of Misfits and the like. Way of the Mouse follows this rule: if Chapel is played according to the Way of the Mouse, playing a Fishing Village, Chapel stays in play for as long as Fishing Village would stay in play. I say: this is how we know that Chapel is playing the Fishing Village, and acting according to already-known rules. You say: it can't possibly be the case that Chapel is playing the Fishing Village, and therefore there must be some unknown rule to explain this.

Gendo's interpretation is correct. When you play an Action card, what happens is that you choose between following the Action card's own instructions, and following the instructions of a Way. If you play Chapel normally, Chapel trashes your cards. If you play Chapel according to the Way of the Otter, Chapel draws you two cards. If you play Chapel according to the Way of the Mouse, Chapel plays the set-aside Action card. Unlike Kiln and so on, it is the played Action card itself performing the instructions on the Way. This interpretation is at least consistent with the printed game rules ("you can play the Action... to do what the Way says to do"), and does not require positing any additional unknown rules.

Quote
The problem is that your interpretation is adding elements to Dominion that have not been shown to exist before and that (so far) don't seem to make sense. I go by what we already know and try to see of there is a way that it can work with the intended behavior of Ways and Durations. Adding the rule I wrote does it.

Adding the rule you wrote is literally "adding elements to Dominion that have not been shown to exist before": namely, the rule that you're adding.

Quote
And Donald has specifically cited Ironworks/Trader when explaining how Ways work (I linked to this the last time I wrote it). We can also see that they both say "do x instead y", and they are both about following instructions from another ability instead of the instructions on the card currently being resolved. Since you're admitting that your explanation is inconsistent with Ironworks/Trader, this should be enough to see that it can't be correct.

I can see how this might be the case about Enchantress, but it does not seem to apply to Ways based on the printed rules.

71
Rules Questions / Re: Develop + Wayfarer
« on: July 28, 2020, 05:52:00 pm »
Gaining in Dominion is always each card as a separate effect. This means you choose and gain for each gaining effect.  (The exception is cards like Pilgrimage that specifically tell you to choose several cards before gaining them.)

Effects that look at a card's proporties always look at the current proporties (with some exceptions like Ritual that uses past tense).

For Develop this means: Gain a card costing $1 more than the trashed card's current cost. Gain a card costing $1 less than the trashed card's current cost. (or the opposite order)

I don't think it's clear that the conclusion ("this means") follows from the premises; why is model (ii) excluded by those premises?

(Model (ii) is "Gain a card costing either $1 more or $1 less, and then gain a card costing the other amount.")

Gaining in Dominion is always each card as a separate effect.
Effects that look at a card's proporties always look at the current proporties (with some exceptions like Ritual that uses past tense).

For Develop this means: Gain a card costing $1 more than the trashed card's current cost. Gain a card costing $1 less than the trashed card's current cost. (or the opposite order)

Just repeating yourself doesn't actually clarify your reasoning. How does model (ii) fail to be enabled by the rules?

Quote
Since "gain a card" involves an implicit choice (whenever that choice is not explicity stated), how can it be otherwise?

Let's ignore Wayfarer for the time being for the sake of simplicity; let's say I trashed a $4 card. So here are the possible interpretation of what Develop tells me to do.

(ii) Gain a card costing either $3 or $5. Then gain a card costing $5 or $3, whichever I didn't do the first time.
(iii) Choose one: gain a card costing $3, and then gain a card costing $5; or gain a card costing $5, and then gain a card costing $3.

Obviously in the absence of Wayfarer these two have the same results.

Model (ii) treats each gain as a separate effect. Model (ii) looks only at the current properties of each card at any given time. So I don't see how the reasoning you state leads to the conclusion that (ii) is wrong.

72
Rules Questions / Re: Develop + Wayfarer
« on: July 28, 2020, 02:22:52 pm »
Gaining in Dominion is always each card as a separate effect. This means you choose and gain for each gaining effect.  (The exception is cards like Pilgrimage that specifically tell you to choose several cards before gaining them.)

Effects that look at a card's proporties always look at the current proporties (with some exceptions like Ritual that uses past tense).

For Develop this means: Gain a card costing $1 more than the trashed card's current cost. Gain a card costing $1 less than the trashed card's current cost. (or the opposite order)

I don't think it's clear that the conclusion ("this means") follows from the premises; why is model (ii) excluded by those premises?

(Model (ii) is "Gain a card costing either $1 more or $1 less, and then gain a card costing the other amount.")

73
Rules Questions / Re: Develop + Wayfarer
« on: July 28, 2020, 02:46:32 am »
Okay so it's the start of your turn, Wayfarer costs $6. There are no $7 cards on the board.

Play Develop, trash Wayfarer. I'm supposed to gain two cards "in either order". So it seems like I have two choices:

1. First, gain a card costing $1 less than Wayfarer—i.e., $5. (Wayfarer now costs $5 as well.) Next, gain a card costing one more than Wayfarer—i.e., $6.
OR
2. First, (try to) gain a card costing $1 more than Wayfarer—i.e., $7. No such card exists; the gain fails. (Wayfarer still costs $6). Now gain a card costing one less than Wayfarer—i.e., $5.

In other words, it seems like I can choose between gaining a $5 and a $6 or just gaining a $5.

Is this correct—do I actually have a choice? Or is one of these two scenarios actually mandatory?

Develop explicitly states "in either order", so yes, you do have a choice here.  Nothing in this situation would override that clause on Develop

Well so here's the reason I asked: There are a few possible interpretations of what the instructions on Develop can mean. It could be:

i. Choose a card costing $1 more and a card costing $1 less, and then gain the chosen cards in either order.
ii. Gain a card costing either $1 more or $1 less, and then gain a card costing the other amount.
iii. Choose either $1 more or $1 less, and gain a card costing that amount, and then gain a card costing the other amount.

We're both assuming (i) isn't the intended interpretation. The way Develop is implemented on Dominion.games seems to be (ii): it gives you a selection of cards to choose from, and then narrows that selection to the other value for the second choice. Interpretation (ii) seems to suggest you must gain a $5 and a $6 in the scenario in question. Interpretation (iii) seems more complicated, but it leads to the result you proposed (i.e., you can choose whether or not to gain a $6), which does seem like the more intuitively appealing result.

Does this change your answer?

The FAQ for Develop says "The gained cards come from the Supply; gain them in either order, resolving any abilities due to gaining them also in that order", which in my mind supports your third interpretation.  Anything caused by gaining the first card is resolved before gaining the second card.  Normally this would just be "when you gain this" abilities, but it seems to me that Wayfarer's changing cost would fall under that category as well.

I don't see how that FAQ text discriminates between the three interpretations at all. If interpretation (i) were correct (though we both agree it's not), you'd choose a $5 and a $7, and gain them in either order, and as you did so the cost of Wayfarer would change to $5 and to $7, but it wouldn't matter because you chose which cards to gain already, back when Wayfarer's cost was $6.

Quote
There was a similar discussion about Wayfarer and Stonemason's overpay - if you overpay by, say, $3 and gain a Silver, then Wayfarer's value is reset at $3, and the second card you gain can be Wayfarer.  This would be the same thing, wouldn't it?  That is, Wayfarer's cost changing in the middle of resolving a card

Sure, because interpretation (i) is wrong. But Stonemason's overpay doesn't have an interpretation (iii) at all, since there aren't two different costs involved.

74
Rules Questions / Re: Durable Mouse
« on: July 28, 2020, 02:37:10 am »
Since one of the issues here is the interpretation of Way of the Chameleon, we can't proceed without having a clear understanding of the term "instructions", which is used on Way of the Chameleon. I couldn't understand your long post at all, in part because you're trying to interpret Chameleon without making it clear what you believe the term "instructions" refers to.

I don't want to use "instruction" and "effect" interchangeably. They don't mean the same thing.

So here is how we should use the terms, based on the meanings of the English words. This is, I think, a different way of breaking down these terms than your taxonomy.

A card(-shaped thing)'s instructions are the text printed on the card(-shaped thing). Now that there's no more Band-of-Misfits–style shapeshifting, a card's instructions never change. For example, the instructions of Altar are "Trash a card from your hand." and "Gain a card costing up to $5."

A card's abilities are what the card's instructions tell you to do. For instance, the abilities of Altar are trashing a card from your hand, and gaining a card costing up to $5. I'm not sure if the difference between "instructions" and "abilities" matters.

A card's effects are what happens when you use a card. Ordinarily these are the same as the card's abilities. For instance, under ordinary circumstances the effects of Altar are that you trash a card from your hand, and gain a card costing up to $5. However, if you have no cards in your hand, the only effect of Altar is that you gain a card costing up to $5.
Enchantress and Ways can also cause a card to have different effects than usual. When you play Altar according to the Way of the Otter, its effect is that you draw two cards. This is not an ability of Altar; it's an ability of the Way of the Otter. But it's still the effect of Altar (on this particular occasion).

As I said before, I don't want to argue about the terms. You chose not to define any then, so I have been using the ones I have settled on as most useful. I explained my reasons for using mine; you didn't really, but fine. I was calling all the instructions "effects" whether we do them or not. But it's okay to differentiate like you do. I'm calling a set of instructions (that happens at a certain time) an "ability". This is crucial in order to apply rules like lose-track. I also found it helpful in this discussion to have a word for the whole set, and also to be consistent. You don't have any term for that consept.


I guess I don't see the need to have a separate word for the whole set? Trashing a card is an ability of Altar; gaining a card is an ability of Altar; together those are Altar's abilities.

Quote
Like you, I fail to see the difference between your "instruction" and your "ability". I therefore suggest that we go back to terms like "(on-)play ability", "next-turn ability", etc, meaning the set, as I think these are pretty well established.

My whole point here is that we need to use the term "instruction", or at least have a shared understanding of "instruction", because (unlike "ability") the term "instruction" is actually used on cards. So we can determine that "follow instructions" in the text of Enchantress and Chameleon means the same thing as "execute abilities" (or whatever), or we can determine that it means something different, but whichever way we have to have an understanding of what "follow instructions" means to understand exactly how these cards work.

Quote
"Instructions of the card" is ambiguous, since that could be a "when this is in play" ability or a Reaction ability, etc. This is why I'm calling these instructions the card's play ability (PA). So PA = the instructions that apply when we play that card.

Sure, it's certainly necessary to distinguish between instructions that are followed / abilities that are executed on play rather than at other times. And I guesssss we do need to assume that "follow this card's instructions" on Way of the Chameleon refers only to the on-play instructions. (Unless Procession—Cultist—Chameleon produces +$3 when Cultist is trashed rather than +3 cards?) But for the purpose of talking about Ways and Enchantress, I think on-play instructions are the only ones we need to worry about.

Quote
But then you're saying that another ability (like a Way) can cause a card to have an effect.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

Quote
Your definition of "effect" is simply "instruction if a card's PA that we end up resolving".


It is not. Under ordinary circumstances that's a card's effect, but Enchantress and Ways cause a card's effect to be something other than the card's abilities.

Quote
Enchantress/Way instructions can't be a card's effects unless they are inserted as instructions into the card's PA. Again, this is shape-shifting.


No. This, specifically, is where I disagree with you. The card's instructions do not change. The card's abilities do not change. The card's effect is something else, instead of the card's abilities.

Quote
Also, we know that the Enchantress/Way instructions are not the card's instructions. This means that they also can't be the card's effects.

Again, this is exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. What Ways and Enchantress do is cause a card to have effects that are different than its own abilities.

Quote
Trader(1E)'s instruction is "gain a Silver instead of gaining the card".
The Way's instruction is "do these instructions instead of doing the card's instructions".

Trader's "substitute" is not Ironworks's effect. Why do you think the Way's "substitute" is the card's effect?

Well, one reason is because, under my interpretation, the known behavior of the cards falls out automatically; whereas applying your interpretation has led you to endless perplexity and positing of unwritten rules.

(Another reason is because that's a natural interpretation of the rules text: "you can play the Action for what it normally does, or play it to do what the Way says to do." So "what it normally does" and "what the Way says to do" are both parallel things that Action cards can do.)

75
Rules Questions / Re: Develop + Wayfarer
« on: July 28, 2020, 12:04:07 am »
Okay so it's the start of your turn, Wayfarer costs $6. There are no $7 cards on the board.

Play Develop, trash Wayfarer. I'm supposed to gain two cards "in either order". So it seems like I have two choices:

1. First, gain a card costing $1 less than Wayfarer—i.e., $5. (Wayfarer now costs $5 as well.) Next, gain a card costing one more than Wayfarer—i.e., $6.
OR
2. First, (try to) gain a card costing $1 more than Wayfarer—i.e., $7. No such card exists; the gain fails. (Wayfarer still costs $6). Now gain a card costing one less than Wayfarer—i.e., $5.

In other words, it seems like I can choose between gaining a $5 and a $6 or just gaining a $5.

Is this correct—do I actually have a choice? Or is one of these two scenarios actually mandatory?

Develop explicitly states "in either order", so yes, you do have a choice here.  Nothing in this situation would override that clause on Develop

Well so here's the reason I asked: There are a few possible interpretations of what the instructions on Develop can mean. It could be:

i. Choose a card costing $1 more and a card costing $1 less, and then gain the chosen cards in either order.
ii. Gain a card costing either $1 more or $1 less, and then gain a card costing the other amount.
iii. Choose either $1 more or $1 less, and gain a card costing that amount, and then gain a card costing the other amount.

We're both assuming (i) isn't the intended interpretation. The way Develop is implemented on Dominion.games seems to be (ii): it gives you a selection of cards to choose from, and then narrows that selection to the other value for the second choice. Interpretation (ii) seems to suggest you must gain a $5 and a $6 in the scenario in question. Interpretation (iii) seems more complicated, but it leads to the result you proposed (i.e., you can choose whether or not to gain a $6), which does seem like the more intuitively appealing result.

Does this change your answer?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 120

Page created in 0.131 seconds with 18 queries.