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 - chipperMDW

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15
301
Let's Discuss ... / Re: Let's Discuss Adventures Cards: Relic
« on: March 22, 2016, 11:37:10 am »
I don't think there's any actual inconsistency.  I think there are two events that are being defined differently from one another (and they're allowed to be), but they're unfortunately being expressed using similar-looking phrases that are using the words in subtly different ways, and that's making people feel like the phrases should be exact analogs to one another when they don't need to be.

All that needs to happen for things to be consistent is for the events to be explicitly defined.  I think the current rulings are consistent with these loose descriptions:

"Draw a card" is an event that "would happen" before you determine the card you're going to move (and thus before you might reshuffle).

"Gain" is an event that happens to "a card," and it only "would happen" after that card has been decided upon.


It may be worth noting that MTG has a similar view of "drawing a card" being defined as an event that can occur without there being an actual card to draw:

614.11. Some effects replace card draws. These effects are applied even if no cards could be drawn because there are no cards in the affected player’s library.

But other events in that game are defined so that they require something (e.g. an actual object or a number) to be determined before the event "would" actually occur.  If something's supposed to happen "when a creature would be put into a graveyard," then it doesn't trigger just because something tells you to sacrifice a creature when you have none; it only happens when there's an actual creature about to be moved.

There's no inconsistency in defining different kinds of events differently.  The definitions just need to be made apparent somewhere (via rulings, for example).


I guess I would argue that "draw a card" takes a parameter as well, which happens now to always be the top card of your deck (separately there are instructions saying that anytime you need the top card of your deck, and your deck is empty, then you shuffle your discard). But your way seems valid as well. Here's my code for how draw works:

Code: [Select]
public Card TopCard
{
    get
    {
        if (this.DrawPile.Count = 0)
        {
            this.ShuffleDiscard();
        }
        if (this.DrawPile.Count = 0)
        {
             return null;
        }
        else
        {
            return this.DrawPile[0];
        }
    }
}

public void Draw()
{
    Draw(this.TopCard);
}

public void Draw(Card cardToDraw)
{
    if (cardToDraw == null)
    {
        return;
    }

    bool drawReplaced = Game.CheckWouldDrawTriggers();
    if (!drawReplaced)
    {
        Deck.Remove(cardToDraw);
        Hand.Add(cardToDraw);
    }
}

If I were going to generalize the draw operation, say to support a card that has you draw from the bottom of your deck, I don't think I would call TopCard and pass the result to Draw.  I think I would instead pass the TopCard method itself to Draw (as a callback of some sort) and let Draw call it as appropriate.  Then, when the need arose, I could also pass it BottomCard sometimes.

In other words, I'd parameterize Draw with a behavior for determining a card, not with a pre-determined card. Mostly just because that seems more in line with how I'd expect drawing to work (and how the current rulings suggest it works).

302
Let's Discuss ... / Re: Let's Discuss Adventures Cards: Relic
« on: March 17, 2016, 06:08:22 am »
Basically I'm looking for a consistent definition of "when you would do an action". But here we have it defined as "when you are instructed to do that action" in one place, and "when that action will take place if not for this intervening clause" in another.
You can always instruct someone to draw a card. Drawing a card doesn't take a "parameter." It's just a sequence of instructions you carry out that (often) end up putting a card in your hand.

So instructing someone to draw a card always tries to carry out the draw instructions, triggering the -1 Card Token.

But in order to instruct someone to gain a card (at least as far as what Trader's looking for), you must ultimately tell them a specific card to gain. Gaining a card takes a "parameter." If you can't point someone to a specific card, you can't instruct them to gain it. When Witch tells someone to "gain a Curse," that's not doing the thing Trader is looking for (yet); that's just a shorthand for "if there's a card named Curse visible in the supply, gain that card." If there are no Curses, no actual gain instruction is issued.

So instructing someone to gain a Curse when Curses are empty doesn't trigger Trader because the instructions bail out before a gain is attempted.

Here's some pseudocode that describes how it works in my head:
Code: [Select]
Witch:
for each other player P
P gains a card specified by name "Curse"

Player P gains a card specified by name N:
if there's a card C with name N visible in the supply
(currently, there can be no more than one such card)
player P gains specific card C
else
nothing happens

Player P gains specific card C:
fire a "P would gain C" event
if the event triggered something that vetoed the gain
nothing happens
else
move card C to the discard pile (I know it's not that simple)
fire a "P gains C" event

Trader:
while in P's hand, trigger on a "P would gain C" event:
if P wants to reveal Trader
reveal P's Trader
P gains a card specified by name "Silver"
veto the event
else
nothing happens
don't veto the event

--

Player P draws a card:
fire a "P would draw a card" event
if the event triggered something that vetoed the draw
nothing happens
return success (so Library et. al. will continue drawing)
else
if P's deck empty
reshuffle
if P's deck still empty
nothing happens
return failure (so Library can stop)
else
move top card of P's deck, C, into P's hand
return success (Library keeps going)

-1 Card Token:
while player P has his -1 Card Token, trigger on "P would draw a card" event:
P stops having his -1 Card Token
veto the event

EDIT: Meant to say "not that simple."

303
How do you get -1VP (especially if you have no token yet?).
Gain a Curse.  :P

Yeah, my view is that Dominion understands what negative coin costs are, and if instructions produce one, it knows how to compare it with other costs (and maybe even do arithmetic with it), but it strives to prevent a negative coin cost from ever appearing on an actual card.

304
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion: Empires Announced!
« on: February 04, 2016, 10:37:49 am »
(I hope there's a better, official word for these)
Non-uniform piles? Heterogeneous piles?

EDIT:
Dual piles?

305
This is valid, but it could also be a valid view that what happens with Develop is that you fail you evaluate what "costing 1 less" means when a card costs $0.
That's true. I almost said "or else $1 less than $0 is an undefined cost." (The rulebook uses the negative cost interpretation, for what it's worth.)

306
We assume that Dominion, inherently, does not and will never consider prices below $0.
Negative costs do come up in one situation in actual Dominion: trying (and failing) to gain a card costing -$1 after Developing a card costing $0.

307
Mafia Game Threads / Re: Civility Pledge
« on: January 09, 2016, 12:33:21 am »
/pledge

308
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Scout's best combo?
« on: January 03, 2016, 10:45:03 pm »
But we can all be right jolly about this and sing a song about Scout!
Scout. Scout. Let it all out. These are the things I can do without.

309
Rules Questions / Re: Royal Carriage + Disciple Combo Issue
« on: January 03, 2016, 07:07:21 pm »
I also think it works, but I'd arrange the steps a little differently:

1. Play Disciple
      1.1. Choose Miser(1)
      1.2. Play Miser(1)
      1.3. Play Miser(1)
      1.4. Gain copy of Miser
2. Call Royal Carriage on Disciple
      2.1. Play Disciple
            2.1.1. Choose Miser(2)
            2.1.2. Play Miser(2)
            2.1.3. Play Miser(2)
            2.1.4. Call Royal Carriage on Miser(2)
                  2.1.4.1. Play Miser(2)
            2.1.5 Gain copy of Miser


So when you call Royal Carriage on Miser(2), you're still in the middle of playing Disciple and can't have tried to gain a copy of Miser yet.

You could even call the Royal Carriage after the first play of Miser(2) as step 2.1.3. instead of step 2.1.4.

310
Rules Questions / Re: Band of Misfits & Treasure Map
« on: December 14, 2015, 02:09:39 pm »
The card doesn't check what cards are in the trash, it cares what the cards you trashed were. When you trashed BoM, it was a Treasure Map, so it counts.

Which, you must admit, is pretty weird, because other things in the game that check properties of trashed cards look at cards as they exist at the time the instruction is evaluated (which usually means as they exist in the trash).

E.g. Procession a BoM as a $2 card. Doesn't matter what it cost when you trashed it; you gain a $6 card because it's a $5 BoM in the trash. According to the Dark Ages rulebook.

I think the Treasure Map way (note what the card is at the moment of trashing) makes more sense, but it's not consistent with the way other things work, so it's understandable why there'd be questions.

311
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: December 11, 2015, 09:48:34 am »
Library's secret history says that it and Festival used to be part of a 3-card package back when they were in a different expansion, but the third card didn't make it (into the base set, I guess).  What was that third card like?  Have we ever seen it (or a variant) show up in a later set?

312
Rules Questions / Re: Order of cleanup?
« on: November 09, 2015, 02:45:31 pm »
I know everybody playing with physical cards is just going to toss 'em in whatever manner is convenient. But there must be states between discarding individual cards from play; there have to be for things like Alchemist and Herbalist to work.

Maybe those states needn't actually be visible, though. I guess there's sort of precedent for discarding cards "one by one" but not having the individual cards "visible" on top of the discard pile except for the last one:
I think it's more natural to discard one at a time to Militia, given the phrasing; especially considering it lines up with Library etc. This could give you an infinite loop with "when you discard this, +1 card" and well that card doesn't exist. I'd rather not have a special ruling and with no special ruling and nothing in the rulebooks, "discard down to 3" sounds to me like I keep discarding until I have 3 (or fewer dammit). However you don't need to reveal the cards below the top one because somehow the rulebook says this.

I can't tell whether that ended up being conclusive or not, though (and I'm not sure where the rulebook specifically says this about Militia).

(Plus, I don't know how you'd go about actually hiding the top card of your discard pile while you're messing about with Watchtower or whatever.)

313
Rules Questions / Re: Order of cleanup?
« on: November 09, 2015, 02:01:21 pm »
From http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/9980155#9980155:
Quote from: Donald X.
So: in clean-up, in whatever order you want, discard your cards from play and also your hand. When you discard your hand, discard all of it. That is the most direct/complete interpretation of the rules that I can see.


Strictly speaking, I suppose that would mean that your opponents should always get to see one card from your hand (assuming you had any there at all), since there should be a game state visible between discarding your hand (as a batch with the top card visible) and discarding the next thing.

314
Rules Questions / Re: multiple turns
« on: November 08, 2015, 10:45:36 am »
Which turn happens next is determined in-between turns; thus someone Possessing someone no longer applies then. So "(or whoever controls your turn at that point)" is wrong; no-one else controls your turn then. And I hope I haven't said otherwise somewhere.

Actually, if I'm understanding correctly, I think you have...

From here: http://boardgamegeek.com/article/6917692#6917692
Quote from: Donald X.
So now Y has to take a Possessed turn and an Outpost turn, and which comes first is a decision. Y took the most recent turn, so by my previous ruling we treat the between-turn space as Y's turn. Y was Possessed on that turn, so I am ruling that X makes the decision as to which to do first.

315
Dominion General Discussion / Re: JSH's True Art Rankings
« on: October 13, 2015, 06:37:33 pm »
Take a look at the guy in the foreground for an example of what I meant. I can't put a finger on why it bothers me as much as it does. I guess part of it is that the guy looks so different from the other dude standing in the background that it's almost as if they are two different species.
One of the guys in the foreground is a cat, so maybe that's it.

Or maybe that was the joke and I'm explaining it instead of making it.

316
Rules Questions / Re: Can you choose a non-supply card with Smugglers?
« on: October 13, 2015, 12:09:24 pm »
Smugglers has you pick a card (costing <= $6) your opponent gained last turn. Then you try to gain a copy of it [from the supply]. If you picked a card of which a copy cannot be gained from the supply, then nothing happens.

Smugglers doesn't let you pick an empty pile (it doesn't let you pick a pile at all). The reason Smugglers works differently from Workshop is the way they specify the set from which they ask you to make a selection. Workshop (implicitly) has you select a card from the supply, which you then gain; that means the selection is limited to the cards on top of supply piles. Smugglers has you select a card from a remembered list (which may include cards not/never in the supply), then you try to locate a (the?) copy of that card on top of a supply pile and gain it. If there's not one there, well, you tried.

317
Dominion General Discussion / Re: What cards are still unique?
« on: September 10, 2015, 11:38:20 am »
Develop is the only card that can have you compare to a cost that has a negative coin value.

Stonemason is the only card that can have you compare to a cost that has more than one potion.

318
Dominion General Discussion / Re: What cards are still unique?
« on: September 02, 2015, 06:03:25 pm »
Black Market creates a new Buy phase, so I don't really count it.
Not really, though. If it did, you could use coin tokens at the Black Market and buy price-reduced Peddlers from there. But you can't.

319
Rules Questions / Re: Choosing an effect
« on: June 04, 2015, 02:54:41 am »
I think this is what he's asking:

Say set A is the set containing only the Raze (this), and set B is the set containing all cards in your hand.

Does Raze ask you to select exactly one card from the union of A and B?  Or does it ask you to select one of the sets A or B, then select exactly one card from the set you chose?

In other words, does Raze just have you make a single choice, or does it first have you make a choice between two groups of cards, then potentially have you choose a card from that group?

It would matter, for example, if you played Raze as the last card in your hand.  In the first case, you'd be forced to trash Raze because there would be a card for you to select from the available options for your one choice.  In the second, if you didn't want to trash anything, you'd be able to first select the (empty) set of all cards in your hand and then fail to select exactly one card from it, letting you trash nothing.

You guys are saying it's the second interpretation, but are you sure we know that's how it works?  I don't know of any precedent that suggests it works one way or the other.  Hermit is the only other effect that has you select a card from two distinct groups like that (discard pile or hand), and it's never mattered how exactly that works because it's optional.

320
Dominion General Discussion / Re: The Replayability Factor
« on: June 03, 2015, 06:41:36 pm »
Possible things to consider: Black Market contents (on Goko at least) and order, Knights order, Ruins order
If Ruins order counts, you might also want to consider the contents of the Ruins pile. In which case the number of players would also be something to consider.

321
you've been hit by.
you've been struck by.
A smooth terminal.
Is Dame Anna okay?

322
Rules Questions / Re: A bajillion Possessions
« on: May 21, 2015, 10:22:02 am »
If there are multiple extra turns to be played "after this turn" then you get to choose the order, I believe, unless an Outpost and Possession were played on the same turn, in which case Outpost happens first. I'm pretty sure that's right.

Sure, but this doesn't answer the question asked. The question is...

Turn A: I play Possession-1 and Possession-2.
Extra Turn 1: I make you play Possession-3.

Which happens first, Extra Turn 2 or Extra Turn 3?
I believe:

Turn A: It's your turn.  You play Possession twice.  This sets up two future effects that try to give the other guy an extra (possessed) turn.  At the end of this turn (or between turns), the game decides what the next turn will look like.  There are two future effects trying to give the other guy a turn, so he gets to pick which one happens "first."  It doesn't really matter which he picks because they're both doing the same thing.  (The one that doesn't happen first doesn't get checked again before next turn.)

Extra turn:  It's the other guy's turn, but you're driving.  You make him play Possession.  That sets up a future effect that tries to give you an extra (possessed) turn.  At the end of this turn, the game decides what the next turn will look like.  There are two future effects; one is trying to give the other guy an extra turn, and one is trying to give you an extra turn.  The other guy is the current player, so the turn that happens to him happens "first."  (If there were multiple effects trying to give him an extra turn, you'd be controlling him as "he" made the decision of which one happened first.)

Extra turn:  It's the other guy's turn again, and you're driving again.  You don't make him play any Possessions.  At the end of this turn, the game decides what the next turn will look like.  There's one future effect trying to give you an extra turn.  It happens.

Extra turn:  It's your turn, but the other guy's driving.  He doesn't make you play any more Possessions.  At the end of this turn, the game decides what the next turn will look like.  There are no future effects trying to give people extra turns, so the game does back to alternating between players.  The last regular turn (Turn A) was yours, so the other guy will be taking his regular turn.

Turn B: The other guy finally gets a normal turn.  Luckily, he's drawn three Possessions and two King's Courts.

323
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance / Grand Market and buying Estates
« on: May 15, 2015, 10:36:26 pm »
I'd say "you can't buy this" is its own concept. There are at least two cards and one Event (Grand Market, Contraband, Mission) that make use of it
Yup. The "once per turn" events also make use of that concept.

324
Rules Questions / Re: Inheritance / Grand Market and buying Estates
« on: May 13, 2015, 11:01:46 am »
There's already been a ruling on this: http://boardgamegeek.com/article/18839840#18839840
Quote from: Donald X
Yes it isn't yours until bought, and so you can buy one with Copper in play.

When you're making the choice to buy a card, any Estate in the supply is not "yours" yet, so it's just an Estate and isn't Inheriting Grand Market's restriction.  As soon as you make the choice to buy an Estate, it becomes "yours" immediately (before you even gain it), so there's an Estate in the supply that's yours and has any Inherited when-buy abilities (which then trigger).

True, but when-trash abilities happen directly after you trash the card, by which point it's no longer yours, but they still work for Inherited Estates.
The when-trash abilities are carried out after the card moves, but they're triggered before the card moves, at a time when it would still have such abilities.

325
Rules Questions / Re: +Card token and when-you-play
« on: May 06, 2015, 02:50:16 pm »
I assume you mean a rule saying that a card that plays a Duration more than once stays out.
The "simple" rule I had in mind was something like: If a card directly plays the same duration card more than once, and more than one of those plays results in that duration setting up a future effect, the first card stays out for as long as any of those future effects remain.

I see that that doesn't work for RC, but I figured it'd be simpler to have a separate rule covering cards that do what RC does ("replaying" cards). (I haven't given much thought to what that rule might be, though.)

And I guess you're wanting to express a general rule that covers the behaviors of both TR and RC in one go.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15

Page created in 1.265 seconds with 18 queries.