Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All

Author Topic: Reactions are confusing, man  (Read 27685 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1762
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
  • Respect: +2017
    • View Profile
Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« Reply #25 on: November 23, 2011, 05:19:49 pm »
0

I have a feeling that for Watchtower, you should be allowed to reveal it multiple times, according to the rules, for the same reason as the Moat and Secret Chamber. The reveal came from your hand and went back into your hand, so your opponent wouldn't be able to tell if you had another Watchtower to reveal, as opposed to revealing the same one multiple times.

Of course, doing that would be in the "not useful" category, at least right now. But there could easily be a reaction card later that's "when you trash a card, you may reveal this from your hand..." In that case, it would be important to know, could I gain a card, then reveal Watchtower to trash it, reveal the new card to do something upon the trashing, and then reveal Watchtower again to put the card on top of my deck? It seems to me that you should be able to do that.
Donald, can we get a ruling on this? I know that it doesn't actually make a difference currently (other than letting you trash a card, and then quickly change your mind and top-deck it instead... something that would protect against misclicks in ISO, but nothing else), but it would be nice to know for a good understanding of the rules in play. Could I trash a card, and then reveal the same Watchtower again, and top-deck it? What about 2 different Watchtowers?

I'm pretty sure the answer is no because by the time you've finished reacting with one Watchtower it's no longer "when you gain a card" in the same way that it's still "when an attack is played" with Moat/Secret Chamber.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« Reply #26 on: November 23, 2011, 06:54:14 pm »
0

I have a feeling that for Watchtower, you should be allowed to reveal it multiple times, according to the rules, for the same reason as the Moat and Secret Chamber. The reveal came from your hand and went back into your hand, so your opponent wouldn't be able to tell if you had another Watchtower to reveal, as opposed to revealing the same one multiple times.

Of course, doing that would be in the "not useful" category, at least right now. But there could easily be a reaction card later that's "when you trash a card, you may reveal this from your hand..." In that case, it would be important to know, could I gain a card, then reveal Watchtower to trash it, reveal the new card to do something upon the trashing, and then reveal Watchtower again to put the card on top of my deck? It seems to me that you should be able to do that.
Donald, can we get a ruling on this? I know that it doesn't actually make a difference currently (other than letting you trash a card, and then quickly change your mind and top-deck it instead... something that would protect against misclicks in ISO, but nothing else), but it would be nice to know for a good understanding of the rules in play. Could I trash a card, and then reveal the same Watchtower again, and top-deck it? What about 2 different Watchtowers?
Watchtower can't find the card once a Watchtower has trashed/topped it, so no, a 2nd Watchtower can't do anything. The as-yet unpublished "lose track" rule.
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3292
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4434
    • View Profile
Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« Reply #27 on: November 23, 2011, 09:14:23 pm »
+1

I'm pretty sure the answer is no because by the time you've finished reacting with one Watchtower it's no longer "when you gain a card" in the same way that it's still "when an attack is played" with Moat/Secret Chamber.

This doesn't make any sense to me. If revealing a Secret Chamber and doing what it says takes no "time", why should revealing a Watchtower?

...The losing-track principle is what I expected the answer to this one would turn out to be.
Logged

Anon79

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 264
  • Respect: +39
    • View Profile
Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« Reply #28 on: November 23, 2011, 10:04:16 pm »
0

The as-yet unpublished "lose track" rule.
This should be good.
Logged

booksorcerer

  • Pawn
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« Reply #29 on: November 24, 2011, 02:59:54 am »
0

Trader seems to relate to itself.  When you are about to gain a card, you can gain a silver instead as a reaction.  Without errata, what is the proper resolution of the original gained card?  If it is trashed, then the silver itself is trashable, and Trader can cause an infinite loop to burn all the silver cards.  This can be useful to empty a pile or deprive the other players of silver. 

If it isn't trashed, then what is the fate of the card?  In the case of Witch it may be implied that the curse never leaves the supply.  With Ambassador it might also be assumed the card doesn't leave the supply.  However, what happens to a card passed in Masquerade?  Is it considered a gained card that can trigger a Trader event to alter the card to silver?  If so, is the passed card trashed or returned to the supply?

AFAIK one may play Watchtower and Trader to the same event, e.g. when gaining a curse  changing it in silver and then putting it on deck.

Strictly speaking Watchtower and Trader aren't revealed to the same event: Trader is revealed before you gain a card, and Watchtower is revealed after you gain it.
Logged

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1762
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
  • Respect: +2017
    • View Profile
Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« Reply #30 on: November 24, 2011, 03:13:38 am »
+1

Trader seems to relate to itself.  When you are about to gain a card, you can gain a silver instead as a reaction.  Without errata, what is the proper resolution of the original gained card?  If it is trashed, then the silver itself is trashable, and Trader can cause an infinite loop to burn all the silver cards.  This can be useful to empty a pile or deprive the other players of silver. 

If it isn't trashed, then what is the fate of the card?  In the case of Witch it may be implied that the curse never leaves the supply.  With Ambassador it might also be assumed the card doesn't leave the supply.  However, what happens to a card passed in Masquerade?  Is it considered a gained card that can trigger a Trader event to alter the card to silver?  If so, is the passed card trashed or returned to the supply?

AFAIK one may play Watchtower and Trader to the same event, e.g. when gaining a curse  changing it in silver and then putting it on deck.

Strictly speaking Watchtower and Trader aren't revealed to the same event: Trader is revealed before you gain a card, and Watchtower is revealed after you gain it.

A passed card is not a gained card. Neither Trader or Watchtower can react to Masquerade. A gained card always comes from the supply (or the Black Market deck or Prize pile - you know, some sort of unclaimed pile). So with Trader, it simply stays in the pile it was already in.
Logged

Dominionaer

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 178
  • Respect: +66
    • View Profile
Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« Reply #31 on: November 24, 2011, 03:18:43 am »
0

Trader  ... instead ... of the original ...
Allthough english is not my mother language, i thougt, "instead" has a simple meaning / translation. If one (would) need a rulebook for such wording, the game certainly would be broken.
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3292
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4434
    • View Profile
Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« Reply #32 on: November 24, 2011, 09:52:11 am »
0

A gained card always comes from the supply (or the Black Market deck or Prize pile - you know, some sort of unclaimed pile).

(Or the trash, in the case of Thief / Noble Brigand.)
Logged

guided

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 940
  • Respect: +94
    • View Profile
Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« Reply #33 on: November 25, 2011, 03:05:49 am »
+1

Too bad I missed this thread until now because reaction timing is my pedantic forum posting specialty, and all the questions have been answered already ;)

It had never occurred to me to wonder about multi-revealing Watchtower, but yes, if you know about lose-track the answer is pretty clear: You can reveal and trigger Watchtower as many times as you want, but after the first time it won't be able to find the card it's looking for. So yeah, technically it's in the "multiple show but not usefully" category.
Logged

Dominionaer

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 178
  • Respect: +66
    • View Profile
Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« Reply #34 on: November 25, 2011, 08:27:20 am »
0

... multi-revealing Watchtower, but yes, if you know about lose-track ... technically it's in the "multiple show but not usefully" category.

Because of the lose-track i thought of it as single-show : more comparable with Horse Trader than with Trader.

The "not usefully" category was meant for "yes = you can change your intention and redo" or "no = you can, but that does not change anything". OK, that applies also to above definition, but the play situation has already progressed then (card moved, event is past). Opposed to Moat and Trader, which change the outcome, but do not leave the event.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2011, 08:48:45 am by Dominionaer »
Logged

guided

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 940
  • Respect: +94
    • View Profile
Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« Reply #35 on: November 25, 2011, 11:38:28 am »
+1

The event isn't past though. After you finish resolving Watchtower it's still "when you gain a card" - same concept as being able to reveal Secret Chamber again after it's already finished resolving its game effects from the first time you revealed it.

Of course this is certainly not important since it is never useful to reveal it again. Like, I would not suggest isotropic should give you the option to keep revealing Watchtower ;)
Logged

Dominionaer

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 178
  • Respect: +66
    • View Profile
Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« Reply #36 on: November 25, 2011, 12:36:32 pm »
0

The event isn't past though. After you finish resolving Watchtower it's still "when you gain a card" ...

I am not so sure about that anymore: If you use Watchtower first and can not use it again because lose-track, is the gained card then not lose-track for any other "When gain" also ?

Is lose-track a general state?
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3292
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4434
    • View Profile
Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« Reply #37 on: November 25, 2011, 12:53:03 pm »
0

I am not so sure about that anymore: If you use Watchtower first and can not use it again because lose-track, is the gained card then not lose-track for any other "When gain" also ?

Presumably? The only other cards I can think of that that would affect, though, is Nomad Camp, which is the same as the multiple-Watchtower case: if you use Watchtower to trash a Nomad Camp, it doesn't bounce back out of the trash and onto your deck under its own power.
Logged

guided

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 940
  • Respect: +94
    • View Profile
Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« Reply #38 on: November 25, 2011, 04:24:19 pm »
0

I am not so sure about that anymore: If you use Watchtower first and can not use it again because lose-track, is the gained card then not lose-track for any other "When gain" also ?

Is lose-track a general state?
Lose-track isn't a timing issue; it's a location issue. Watchtower's reaction effect expects the gained card to be on the discard pile (where it would normally be immediately after gaining it). If the gained card is actually somewhere else (top of your deck, trash) Watchtower can't find it. Other when-gain movement effects also expect the card to be on the discard pile, so they similarly lose track of the card after Watchtower moves it.

Lose-track is unpublished and AFAIK Donald has never even publicly expressed a precise/final statement of the rule. The gist is that any card-movement effect has a well-defined expectation for where the moved card is coming from, and if it isn't in that place the effect can't find the card to move it. There's also the idea that if you really lose track of a card (because it got shuffled into a draw pile or something like that) then no movement effects can find it either, but I've never seen any rigorous statement of that principle.
Logged

guided

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 940
  • Respect: +94
    • View Profile
Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« Reply #39 on: November 25, 2011, 04:36:33 pm »
0

Another thorny interaction occurs to me, since I enjoy thinking about these bizarre edge cases: Border Village + Watchtower. I gain a BV and put it on my discard pile, I gain another card from BV's when-gain effect and put it on my discard pile, and then I want to reveal my Watchtower to put the 2nd card on top of my deck followed by the BV on top of that. Has Watchtower lost track of BV since it got covered up by the 2nd gained card? I wouldn't feel confident making a ruling on this myself without appealing to Donald, but if I was forced to decide in a FtF game I would probably say Watchtower has indeed lost track of BV and cannot move it. I could have revealed Watchtower to put BV on my deck before gaining the 2nd card, but not after.

Inn + Watchtower is maybe an even weirder case. I gain the Inn and put it on my discard, then dig through and reveal some other action cards to shuffle into the deck but not the gained Inn. Now I want to reveal Watchtower to put the gained Inn on top of my deck after shuffling. Did digging through my discard make Watchtower lose track of the Inn, even though it never moved from the top of the discard pile during that process? I'd be inclined to say Watchtower can find the Inn, but again I'm not confident.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« Reply #40 on: November 25, 2011, 06:15:50 pm »
0

Another thorny interaction occurs to me, since I enjoy thinking about these bizarre edge cases: Border Village + Watchtower. I gain a BV and put it on my discard pile, I gain another card from BV's when-gain effect and put it on my discard pile, and then I want to reveal my Watchtower to put the 2nd card on top of my deck followed by the BV on top of that. Has Watchtower lost track of BV since it got covered up by the 2nd gained card? I wouldn't feel confident making a ruling on this myself without appealing to Donald, but if I was forced to decide in a FtF game I would probably say Watchtower has indeed lost track of BV and cannot move it. I could have revealed Watchtower to put BV on my deck before gaining the 2nd card, but not after.

Inn + Watchtower is maybe an even weirder case. I gain the Inn and put it on my discard, then dig through and reveal some other action cards to shuffle into the deck but not the gained Inn. Now I want to reveal Watchtower to put the gained Inn on top of my deck after shuffling. Did digging through my discard make Watchtower lose track of the Inn, even though it never moved from the top of the discard pile during that process? I'd be inclined to say Watchtower can find the Inn, but again I'm not confident.
Until there's a published rule, let's say that Watchtower works in those two cases, because man everyone is going to think it does. And I think I already ruled somewhere that Watchtower/Border Village worked either way.

The lose-track rule doesn't have a special case for really losing track; that's just something I mention when discussing it. The rule can't be "you don't lose track" because you could really lose track, and Inn at last provides an example.

For the basic Watchtower question people were discussing, the trick is, lose-track only stops you from moving cards that have been lost track of. If you had a card Throw in a Silver, "you may reveal this when you gain a card other than Silver, to also gain a Silver," you could buy Curse, reveal Watchtower to trash it, then reveal Throw in a Silver to also gain a Silver. Throw in a Silver isn't trying to move the Curse, so using Watchtower first doesn't bother it.
Logged

vidicate

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 148
  • Shuffle iT Username: vidicate
  • Something clever goes here
  • Respect: +111
    • View Profile
Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« Reply #41 on: November 25, 2011, 06:27:33 pm »
0

Here's another way to look at it that might put AJD's and others' minds at ease. (Going by guided's wisdom--which I'm inclined to do--this isn't technically correct, but in my opinion equivalent.)

The default rule for a reaction or reaction-like effect is that (1) an event or state triggers it, (2) the reaction is revealed if necessary and resolved, (3) and then the game continues. There's no need to think about "time".

Now there are two (well really one-and-a-half) exceptions thus far, both of them being cards that are revealed from, and remain in, the hand in reaction to an attack. So Secret Chamber and Moat (uselessly, except that it can follow after another reaction to the same event) are actually the exceptions to the rule. (FWIW, Trader is not an exception, and doesn't "freeze time"; it just can continue to react to its own effect each time it resolves, literally as the card text allows, ad nauseum.)

Now this is obviously confusing since those were the first two reactions printed in Dominion. But I just think that when you tell yourself that they are the only exception (so far), then you won't get hung up on the reaction mechanic anymore. I hope that helps even just a couple of people. If not, oh well. ::)
« Last Edit: November 25, 2011, 06:57:57 pm by vidicate »
Logged
WHERE ARE THE TURTLES?!!! …WHERE ARE THEY?!
-----
Felix: Let's see if you guys are as good as they say.
Grif: Prepare to be sorely disappointed.
-----
Who da man? I da man. I always suspected. -Dr. House

guided

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 940
  • Respect: +94
    • View Profile
Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« Reply #42 on: November 25, 2011, 08:44:55 pm »
+1

The default rule for a reaction or reaction-like effect is that (1) an event or state triggers it, (2) the reaction is revealed if necessary and resolved, (3) and then the game continues. There's no need to think about "time".
There's only one rule with no exceptions, really.

(1) A triggering event occurs.
(2) Any and all reactions (and other effects) triggered off the above effect occur in series (with ordering based on published ordering rules).

With respect to reaction cards, one of the rulebooks states that each reaction card is revealed and resolved before the next reaction card is revealed.
Logged

Dominionaer

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 178
  • Respect: +66
    • View Profile
Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« Reply #43 on: November 26, 2011, 02:24:04 am »
0

For the basic Watchtower question people were discussing, the trick is, lose-track only stops you from moving cards that have been lost track of. If you had a card Throw in a Silver, "you may reveal this when you gain a card other than Silver, to also gain a Silver," you could buy Curse, reveal Watchtower to trash it, then reveal Throw in a Silver to also gain a Silver. Throw in a Silver isn't trying to move the Curse, so using Watchtower first doesn't bother it.

Wasn't there a rule for "when gain", one must gain to trigger it? Need to gain Cache for Trader changing Copper - if Trader changed Cache then no Copper? Or is this a multiple event, which resolving order the player decide?

There's only one rule with no exceptions, really.

(1) A triggering event occurs.
(2) Any and all reactions (and other effects) triggered off the above effect occur in series (with ordering based on published ordering rules).

With respect to reaction cards, one of the rulebooks states that each reaction card is revealed and resolved before the next reaction card is revealed.

Does "ordering" mean rules which reactions has to be revealed and resolved before others or they cant use its effects e.g. due to lose-track?

And just from that rule is OP question understandable: Why should one (having changed mind) not be allowed or not be able to reveal Watchtower a second time and redirect from first choosed destination to the other? OK we know it now, the Watchtower lose track of it, but is the losed track a then aquired general state for that card, so any further "when gain" also could not find it? From Donald's last post i assume so! Example: One has to use Trader first on curse and then Watchtower on the Silver. If one use Watchtower first, one can't react with Trader as second reaction and then again Watchtower.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2011, 02:37:55 am by Dominionaer »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« Reply #44 on: November 26, 2011, 05:47:02 am »
0

Wasn't there a rule for "when gain", one must gain to trigger it? Need to gain Cache for Trader changing Copper - if Trader changed Cache then no Copper?
Yes, but Watchtower does not stop you from gaining a card (though Trader does); you gain the card, then do something with it with Watchtower.

OK we know it now, the Watchtower lose track of it, but is the losed track a then aquired general state for that card, so any further "when gain" also could not find it? From Donald's last post i assume so!
I'm not sure I understand your question. The lose-track rule doesn't stop things from happening that don't involve moving cards-lost-track-of. If you buy Cache and use Watchtower to put it on your deck, you still have those two Coppers incoming because that rule doesn't care where Cache is. The only thing you can't do once you've moved Cache is move that Cache again.

Example: One has to use Trader first on curse and then Watchtower on the Silver. If one use Watchtower first, one can't react with Trader as second reaction and then again Watchtower.
Trader and Watchtower trigger at different times - Trader is "when you would gain" and Watchtower is "when you gain." You have to use Trader first because its trigger comes first!
Logged

Dominionaer

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 178
  • Respect: +66
    • View Profile
Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« Reply #45 on: November 26, 2011, 10:58:02 am »
0

Thanks for your reply, Donald! Now most of my uncertainities are gone.

Wasn't there a rule for "when gain", ...
Yes, but Watchtower does not stop you from gaining a card (though Trader does); you gain the card, then do something with it with Watchtower.

Should not have used that example. Wanted to ask about the order in your "Throw in" example:
If you had a card Throw in a Silver, "you may reveal this when you gain a card other than Silver, to also gain a Silver," you could buy Curse, reveal Watchtower to trash it, then reveal Throw in a Silver to also gain a Silver. Throw in a Silver isn't trying to move the Curse, so using Watchtower first doesn't bother it.
I would have assumed, that because the curse is trashed first, no card is gained, so TiaS is not triggered anymore. In reversed order no problem. But of course one has to gain the curse first, before it can be trashed with Watchtower, so we have a "When gaining ..." event, to which one can reveal any proper reaction. Mixed that up with the usual habit in RL-game, to move the Watchtowered card directly from supply to trash.

The lose-track rule doesn't stop things from happening that don't involve moving cards-lost-track-of.
That answered my question. (And i assumed wrong)

Trader and Watchtower trigger at different times - Trader is "when you would gain" and Watchtower is "when you gain."

Argh - forgot my own corrections.

Thanks again.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« Reply #46 on: December 05, 2011, 10:37:24 am »
0

I hope Donald weighs in on this one... you seem to have a really good point, and I'm not quite sure what stops Tunnel from doing that. Actually, can't you say the exact same thing about the "When gain" cards? They aren't listed as reactions, but they do react to being gained. So, when you gain Border Village, what stops you from saying "I react to Border Village being gained by gaining Torturer. Now I react to Border Village being gained by gaining a Torturer again."

The wording seems to be the exact same. "When another player plays an attack card." "When you gain this." Both are things you can do "when something happens." Why can you do one of them only once, but the other multiple times?

It's funny, I was also thinking about this a while ago. If you can reveal a reaction from your hand several times when something happens, why can't you reveal a Tunnel several times when discarding it? Then that question becomes: when a card tells me to gain a card a card when something happens, why can't I do that several times? Which leads to: when Goons tells me to gain a VP when I buy a card, why can't I do that several times (effectively gaining infinite VPs)? Which even ultimately means: why can't I do what a card tells me to do several times (even without TR/KC), since the effect of a card is an event that happens when you play it? :)

I guess the answer was that this only applies to cards you reveal from your hand, as a special rule. Although I was slightly confused as to why Donald didn't give a clear "yes" to AJD's post. Does it only apply to Secret Chamber and Moat? I thought it also applied to Trader and Watchtower? As of now I take it Secret Chamber is the only one where it would have a point. But there could be future cards.

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6121
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« Reply #47 on: December 05, 2011, 10:55:35 am »
0

As a side note, I just started playing Cosmic Encounter last night, and now all of a sudden, all my Dominion timing-related questions seem so quaint ...

(For reference, the unofficial CE FAQ is about 200 pages long.  It's still an awesome game, though.)
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« Reply #48 on: December 05, 2011, 11:22:00 am »
0

I guess the answer was that this only applies to cards you reveal from your hand, as a special rule. Although I was slightly confused as to why Donald didn't give a clear "yes" to AJD's post.
I addressed this already.

Does it only apply to Secret Chamber and Moat? I thought it also applied to Trader and Watchtower? As of now I take it Secret Chamber is the only one where it would have a point. But there could be future cards.
In games, when you have a rule like "when x happens, do y," y only happens once per time that x happens. If y is optional, that doesn't change things.

Dominion has a special case for reactions revealed from your hand, for reasons having to do with how best to handle Secret Chamber. To be precise and clear then these reactions should be phrased differently; they aren't.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Reactions are confusing, man
« Reply #49 on: December 06, 2011, 06:31:00 am »
0

I guess the answer was that this only applies to cards you reveal from your hand, as a special rule. Although I was slightly confused as to why Donald didn't give a clear "yes" to AJD's post.
I addressed this already.
Yes, that reply was what slightly confused me. :)

Dominion has a special case for reactions revealed from your hand, for reasons having to do with how best to handle Secret Chamber. To be precise and clear then these reactions should be phrased differently; they aren't.
AJD said "reactions revealed from your hand" and your more accurate reply stated only Moat and Secret Chamber. But since you're now confirming that it is indeed reactions revealed from your hand, it's all good. Thanks.
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All
 

Page created in 0.226 seconds with 21 queries.