Print

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

[NoMoreFun]

If a player plays a Contraband, and is prohibited from buying the top knight (eg he names Sir Michael), and then gains that Knight through other means (Haggler, Horn of Plenty, Black Market), is he then allowed to buy the next Knight in the pile (eg Dame Anna), as it isn't the card named for Contraband?

[SirPeebles]

Of course.  Why wouldn't he be able to?

[SCSN]

Challenge: post a log in which you succesfully deny your opponent a critical Knight by naming one that was not on top.

[florrat]

Challenge: post a log in which you succesfully deny your opponent a critical Knight by naming one that was not on top.

I think the easiest way to do this is when a single Knight is in the Black Market deck...

[sudgy]

Challenge: post a log in which you succesfully deny your opponent a critical Knight by naming one that was not on top.

I think the easiest way to do this is when a single Knight is in the Black Market deck...

Or, there are two knights left and you know the critical knight is at the bottom.

[Donald X.]

If a player plays a Contraband, and is prohibited from buying the top knight (eg he names Sir Michael), and then gains that Knight through other means (Haggler, Horn of Plenty, Black Market), is he then allowed to buy the next Knight in the pile (eg Dame Anna), as it isn't the card named for Contraband?

Black Market isn't an example but yes. Same for Ruins.

[ConMan]

If a player plays a Contraband, and is prohibited from buying the top knight (eg he names Sir Michael), and then gains that Knight through other means (Haggler, Horn of Plenty, Black Market), is he then allowed to buy the next Knight in the pile (eg Dame Anna), as it isn't the card named for Contraband?

Black Market isn't an example but yes. Same for Ruins.

Challenge: post a log in which you succesfully deny your opponent a critical Ruin by naming one that was not on top.

[Awaclus]

If a player plays a Contraband, and is prohibited from buying the top knight (eg he names Sir Michael), and then gains that Knight through other means (Haggler, Horn of Plenty, Black Market), is he then allowed to buy the next Knight in the pile (eg Dame Anna), as it isn't the card named for Contraband?

Black Market isn't an example but yes. Same for Ruins.

Challenge: post a log in which you succesfully deny your opponent a critical Ruin by naming one that was not on top.

At least you can always name Ruined Market because that's the only Ruins that can ever be critical.

[Simon (DK)]

If a player plays a Contraband, and is prohibited from buying the top knight (eg he names Sir Michael), and then gains that Knight through other means (Haggler, Horn of Plenty, Black Market), is he then allowed to buy the next Knight in the pile (eg Dame Anna), as it isn't the card named for Contraband?

Black Market isn't an example but yes. Same for Ruins.

Black Market is an example, but you need more than just Black Market.
You can play Contraband after playing Black Market, and then later in the same turn play an action card, that makes you gain the top Knight.

[NoMoreFun]

If a player plays a Contraband, and is prohibited from buying the top knight (eg he names Sir Michael), and then gains that Knight through other means (Haggler, Horn of Plenty, Black Market), is he then allowed to buy the next Knight in the pile (eg Dame Anna), as it isn't the card named for Contraband?

Black Market isn't an example but yes. Same for Ruins.

I was referring to playing a Contraband during Black Market's "buy", then gaining the Knight with something like Altar or University.

[Asper]

Challenge: post a log in which you succesfully deny your opponent a critical Knight by naming one that was not on top.

I say Horn of Plenty.

[heron]

Challenge: post a log in which you succesfully deny your opponent a critical Knight by naming one that was not on top.

Note that this is only possible if Sir Martin is in the pile above the critical Knight, since otherwise the opponent would always be able to buy the first knight and gain the second just as easily as buying the second and gaining the first.

[Marcory]

Maybe if you returned Sir Martin with Ambassador so that your opponent can't buy Sir Michael?

[eHalcyon]

Challenge: post a log in which you succesfully deny your opponent a critical Knight by naming one that was not on top.

Note that this is only possible if Sir Martin is in the pile above the critical Knight, since otherwise the opponent would always be able to buy the first knight and gain the second just as easily as buying the second and gaining the first.

Not necessarily.  Horn of Plenty forces you to gain first.

[SirPeebles]

Challenge: post a log in which you succesfully deny your opponent a critical Knight by naming one that was not on top.

Note that this is only possible if Sir Martin is in the pile above the critical Knight, since otherwise the opponent would always be able to buy the first knight and gain the second just as easily as buying the second and gaining the first.

You don't need anything of the sort.  My hand is Contraband and 4 Silvers.  I play them all for $11 and +1 buy.  The top card is Knight X, but you name Knight Y anyhow.  I buy Knight X, revealing Knight Y.  But despite having a second buy and at least $6 remaining, I am unable to buy Knight Y.

[GendoIkari]

Challenge: post a log in which you succesfully deny your opponent a critical Knight by naming one that was not on top.

Note that this is only possible if Sir Martin is in the pile above the critical Knight, since otherwise the opponent would always be able to buy the first knight and gain the second just as easily as buying the second and gaining the first.

You don't need anything of the sort.  My hand is Contraband and 4 Silvers.  I play them all for $11 and +1 buy.  The top card is Knight X, but you name Knight Y anyhow.  I buy Knight X, revealing Knight Y.  But despite having a second buy and at least $6 remaining, I am unable to buy Knight Y.

His point was that in that situation, you could have just named Knight X instead, and this would have prevented you from gaining Knight Y as well as preventing you from gaining Knight X.

[Witherweaver]

Challenge: post a log in which you succesfully deny your opponent a critical Knight by naming one that was not on top.

Note that this is only possible if Sir Martin is in the pile above the critical Knight, since otherwise the opponent would always be able to buy the first knight and gain the second just as easily as buying the second and gaining the first.

You don't need anything of the sort.  My hand is Contraband and 4 Silvers.  I play them all for $11 and +1 buy.  The top card is Knight X, but you name Knight Y anyhow.  I buy Knight X, revealing Knight Y.  But despite having a second buy and at least $6 remaining, I am unable to buy Knight Y.

His point was that in that situation, you could have just named Knight X instead, and this would have prevented you from gaining Knight Y as well as preventing you from gaining Knight X.

But you could buy a Border Village, gain Knight X, and then buy Knight Y.

Edit: I think his point was that still doesn't matter.  If Y was disallowed then you can buy X and gain Y through BV/Haggler+Secondary buy.  If X is disallowed you can gain X through BV/Haggler+secondary buy and then buy Y.

However, as someone pointed out, doing the gaining with Horn of Plenty does matter, because you gain with HoP before you buy anything. 

Edit again: Now that I read it more carefully, you were applying what Heron said to SirPeebles specific case.  I had originally thought you were saying that that special case was Heron's point.  Okay move along, nothing to see here..

[SirPeebles]

Challenge: post a log in which you succesfully deny your opponent a critical Knight by naming one that was not on top.

Note that this is only possible if Sir Martin is in the pile above the critical Knight, since otherwise the opponent would always be able to buy the first knight and gain the second just as easily as buying the second and gaining the first.

You don't need anything of the sort.  My hand is Contraband and 4 Silvers.  I play them all for $11 and +1 buy.  The top card is Knight X, but you name Knight Y anyhow.  I buy Knight X, revealing Knight Y.  But despite having a second buy and at least $6 remaining, I am unable to buy Knight Y.

His point was that in that situation, you could have just named Knight X instead, and this would have prevented you from gaining Knight Y as well as preventing you from gaining Knight X.

Ah, that is a good point.  Still, there are times when you might want your opponent to buy the top Knight or two, so long as she doesn't get that critical Knight who you care most about.  Maybe your opponent just played a few Highways or Quarries and has that spare buy from Contraband.  You block Sir Martin since the buys are so valuable on this Highway board -- Contraband being the only other +buy -- and are perfectly happy with her buying the top Knight, thus exposing Sir Martin for you to snatch up next turn.

[soulnet]

Ah, that is a good point.  Still, there are times when you might want your opponent to buy the top Knight or two, so long as she doesn't get that critical Knight who you care most about.  Maybe your opponent just played a few Highways or Quarries and has that spare buy from Contraband.  You block Sir Martin since the buys are so valuable on this Highway board -- Contraband being the only other +buy -- and are perfectly happy with her buying the top Knight, thus exposing Sir Martin for you to snatch up next turn.

In a 2P game and from a game theory point of view (assuming equal skills in deck tracking), it is always better or equal to forbid a strictly larger subset of options to the opponent, so this is not a scenario in which you need to forbid a non-top Knight.

[SirPeebles]

Well, here's another example then.  The critical knight is Dame Josephine, and your opponent has a Haggler in play.  If you block the top Knight, she can gain that knight off of Haggler's bonus gain.  But that bonus gain cannot be used to gain Josephine since she's a Victory card.

edit:  Of course, the big question here is how Josephine would be critical.  Perhaps you are in the endgame and your opponent needs exactly those 2 VP along with the last Province to win (the Duchies are empty).

[eHalcyon]

(already gave a relevant example with HoP above...)

Edit: OK, not so much an example as a straight up answer. But HoP wouldn't allow you to gain the second Knight after buying the top one.

[SirPeebles]

(already gave a relevant example with HoP above...)

Edit: OK, not so much an example as a straight up answer. But HoP wouldn't allow you to gain the second Knight after buying the top one.

I'm aware.  Just minting for more examples.

[eHalcyon]

(already gave a relevant example with HoP above...)

Edit: OK, not so much an example as a straight up answer. But HoP wouldn't allow you to gain the second Knight after buying the top one.

I'm aware.  Just minting for more examples.

Fair enough. But if you mint, you'll just get the same example!

[SirPeebles]

(already gave a relevant example with HoP above...)

Edit: OK, not so much an example as a straight up answer. But HoP wouldn't allow you to gain the second Knight after buying the top one.

I'm aware.  Just minting for more examples.

Fair enough. But if you mint, you'll just get the same example!

Someone has to, or we'd have an abandoned mint.

[DG]

Challenge: post a log in which you successfully deny your opponent a critical Knight by naming one that was not on top.

If an opponent has 10 coins they might be able to buy a 4 cost knight and a border village to claim two knights, but not a 5 cost knight and a border village, so naming the 4 cost knight for the contraband prevents the opponent taking both knights (for a crucial 3 pile finish, obviously). I think I'll start buying lottery tickets if this ever comes up in a real game.