They have only seen this for Dominion 2E.
A player's turn starts whenever the previous player's turn ends (assuming the game hasn't ended at that point).
-1 Coin? Yes, there's a token, and debt, but no action card.Poor House.
I liked Haddock's wording for it. It's both precise and concise:Note that this does not make Stash function like it used to (letting you see the cards not being shuffled), or make it cease to matter if your draw-4 was 2+2 or what.When you shuffle this, put this anywhere among the shuffled cards.
While this is in your discard pile, if you would draw, reveal, or look at a number of cards from some location in your deck greater than 1 and greater than the number of cards in your deck, instead do the following that many times: perform that operation on one card from that location in your deck, then look at the top card of the trash (so they're really separate operations).
In games using this, if you would shuffle this, instead use the 1st edition shuffle rules.
Incidentally the -1 Card token stuff isn't relevant to this; you can already ask those questions with no Stash and the old rule (no cards left in deck, -1 Card token, told to draw a card, do you shuffle).
If it's sufficiently important to people we can not reprint Stash.
)When you shuffle this, put this anywhere among the shuffled cards.
On everything else, doesn't "it" refer to what "it" is at the moment that instruction is resolved?
Sorry; I guess I'm being slow, but I can't tell for sure from your response: does that mean Ritual should be interpreted as checking the cost of the card in the past (i.e. at the time of trashing)?Since it says "cost" instead of "costs," it goes by what the card cost then, not what it costs now. If this causes a problem I will switch it but having not given it any thought yet, that's how it works.
Treasure Map should say "did" to be clearer that it wants to look at the past.
The cost at the time of the other player's gain does not matter, just as the Seaside rulebook says. The cost at the time of your gain is what matters.Ok, good, everything makes sense again. But I guess I'm not seeing where you're saying it actually says this in the Seaside rulebook. All I see is the bit that was confusing people in that second BGG thread I linked where you called it "regrettable." Is the version on RGG's website the most up-to-date one, or is there a further clarification in a later version?
Smugglers limits what you gain and does not remember what the card the other player gained cost, just what its name was. We don't look at the physical card the other player gained, now, to see its cost; we also don't look at the physical card the other player gained, now, to see its current name.I think I worked out what you meant by "matching." Suffice it to say that I thought you were talking about matching different things than you were.
Cards do not get special phrasings to try to arrange for the best possible results when a card turns out to have transformed into another card. It's an exotic situation and as always the game needs to have friendly wordings.So in theory, Smugglers should also refer to whatever the card is now. However, what it is now is impossible to know. So I guess it means that Smugglers refers to what the card was when it was gained.Smugglers refers to the card that was gained; it doesn't care at all about what that card is now. It doesn't care what the specific physical card costs now either (if an effect changed the cost of some copies of a card but not others).
Is there a wording difference reason that Disciple doesn't work the same way in regards to gaining the card that was played?
Smugglers has this very basic question of cost. I buy Province with two Bridges out, does the other player get to Smuggle it, or do they need their own Bridges or what. It's so blatant of a question that the Seaside rulebook answers it. So, aside from any wording issues, I have a ruling there that I would really like to stick to. Smugglers as interpreted looks at what happened on a previous turn; pick a card they gained, gain a copy of it, btw it has to cost $6 or less. That's the intention; thus the ruling on cost in the Seaside rulebook. Thus me matching that for non-cost things like "what card is it now."
By default cards referring to "it" where "it" is some card just mentioned, refer to the card as it is now, if the card somehow changes right then, which is not normal but can happen. So Disciple looks at the current card.
But if you want to Stonemason some Rocks (hey, that's thematic) instead of Peddler with your Villa
Sadly, Stonemason's on-buy only gains Actions.
13. Hang on now I have a serious question. If I overpay by Stonemason to get Villa, Villa says, when I gain it, I return to my action phase. But I still haven't gained the Stonemason yet from having bought it. Do I still get the Stonemason, even though it's now my action phase? Do I just finish resolving everything I had to do because of things that happened in my buy phase, and then after all of that's done, I go on playing actions? (Edit: same question goes for gaining stuff from buys with Haggler in play, though I would assume this will be consistent with the Stonemason situation.)
Yes, you still resolve everything.
I think the question is why some abilities (Lighthouse, Goons, Talisman, etc.) operate in a context where "you" means a specific player, while other abilities (Border Village, Farmland, Duchess, etc.) operate in a context where "you" is shorthand for "any player." And where they get that context from.The answer of course is just that I am trying to give cards good wordings, that make it clear what they do and how they interact with other cards. They can't be maximally friendly because interactions wouldn't be clear, but they can't be computer programs because many people would pass on playing that game. No-one has ever asked before "wait who is this you person below the line on these cards." So I think those wordings did the trick and avoided confusing people, hooray.
Are they forcing her to salt the earth because she didn't pay her taxes? I don't really know if that would make any sense.
When I was reviewing the cards for my first impressions, I noticed that the two events looked like they featured the same woman, perhaps in the same town/city. Indeed, the art for both these events was made by the same artist. Even the guards look the same. It stood out to me because I was reviewing the events in alphabetical order and Tax immediately followed Salt the Earth in that alphabetical sort.
On the blurry scans, I couldn't be sure that the woman was the one salting the earth. I thought maybe she was watching the earth get salted and being a bit depressed about it.
I don't think it's the same woman. She's dressed differently in each picture. So are the guards.
I have chosen to go with the literal interpretation.Grand Castle just mentions Victory cards "in play", not that *you* have in play. Does that mean that if my Platinum is Swindled into a Grand Castle on my opponent's turn, and he has a Great Hall in play, I should get +1Yes.from his Great Hall, in addition to the
So if I have my Estate token on a Fishing Village (or other Duration), and you buy Grand Castle, you get +1 VP for every Estate I have in play? I would have thought "in your hand and/or in play" was short for "that you have in your hand and/or have in play". That's just the common sense interpretation (according to my sense of English), but I guess you're going for the literal parsing here.
I see. That made me wonder about "in play" though.
If "in play" considers all play areas (rather than just the player who is addressed by the ability), what makes Lighthouse just work for the player who has it in play, rather than all the players? I mean, a card with "when you buy/gain this" works for any player. Why doesn't "when another player plays an Attack card" work for any player in the same way (as long as Lighthouse is "in play")?
Cause it explicitly says: 'doesn't affect you'?
This sounds right. "Another player" is defined as "a player other than the player who played this card." And "you" is defined as "the player who played this card." So Lighthouse reads as:
"While this is in play, when a player other than the player who played this card plays an Attack card, it doesn't affect the player who played this card."
Archive: 3/10. The main problem is that you get to play it only every third turn. And those cards you're setting aside, they are gone for a while too. Also, at $5, it seems fairly weak. Gear does that effect better and cheaper.
Forum - One of the more vanilla cards. a 1-card improvement on Warehouse, letting you sift and cycle without reducing handsize. The on-buy doesn't seem so significant, but it makes its cost a little lower.I've been thinking of Forum as basically Fugitive's big brother
Advance - Suddenly Ruins are valuable?? This really shakes up the game, potentially making expensive key cards a lot easier to pick up.It also likes Necropolis. Could we manage a 6/5 opening before? And that's before you even consider stuff like Baker.
You're correct. Never mind, then!You beat me to it! But you would also have to have Inherited Crown to make it into both a treasure and a victory card before the Aqueduct clarification comes into play.Haven't read any other threads about the new reveals and I'm still compiling one big post of first impressions. Just wanted to put this out first on its own, since it includes a question.
Aqueduct - The clarification is confusing to me... Doesn't the Treasure part only apply to Silver and Gold? So buying Humble Castle or Harem should only let you take VP, not move any VP to Aqueduct? I'm guessing that an earlier version of Aqueduct put tokens on every Treasure pile, like Defiled Shrine puts tokens on most Action piles. Or am I misreading something?
Hmm.. Well I think the the move a token rule would also apply to any Treasure that gets VP tokens on it, such as gatherers. But I didn't check to see if there are any treasure-gathering.
Ah ha... If you have both Crown and Defiled Shrine in the game, then you'll have another treasure pile with vp tokens on it. So Aqueduct should steal tokens from that to I would think.
That doesn't work does it? The Estates pile can't have VP tokens on it, so the clarification still can't matter.
You beat me to it! But you would also have to have Inherited Crown to make it into both a treasure and a victory card before the Aqueduct clarification comes into play.Haven't read any other threads about the new reveals and I'm still compiling one big post of first impressions. Just wanted to put this out first on its own, since it includes a question.
Aqueduct - The clarification is confusing to me... Doesn't the Treasure part only apply to Silver and Gold? So buying Humble Castle or Harem should only let you take VP, not move any VP to Aqueduct? I'm guessing that an earlier version of Aqueduct put tokens on every Treasure pile, like Defiled Shrine puts tokens on most Action piles. Or am I misreading something?
Hmm.. Well I think the the move a token rule would also apply to any Treasure that gets VP tokens on it, such as gatherers. But I didn't check to see if there are any treasure-gathering.
Ah ha... If you have both Crown and Defiled Shrine in the game, then you'll have another treasure pile with vp tokens on it. So Aqueduct should steal tokens from that to I would think.
Sorry; I guess I'm being slow, but I can't tell for sure from your response: does that mean Ritual should be interpreted as checking the cost of the card in the past (i.e. at the time of trashing)?Is it significant that Ritual uses past tense ("+1VP per $1 it cost") compared to, say, Apprentice, which uses present tense ("+1 Card per $ is costs")? I would assume that Ritual is intended to work the same as most other things, which look at the properties of a card after it's trashed. But the use of past tense might suggest it looks at the properties of the card at the time of trashing.The cards have to be interpreted according to the wordings they actually have, but it wasn't "supposed to matter," it just happens to say what it does.
