Print

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

[eHalcyon]

If you have two "on would-gain, ___ instead" effects, does the first one you choose to resolve prevent the other one from resolving? Possession reacts to would-gain, so can the possessed player reveal a Trader to get a Silver (which the possessing player gains isntead)?

Possessed player buys a card.  Let's say it's a Curse.
Possessed player would gain Curse.  Now there are two scenarios:

A) Possessed player reveals Trader.
Possessed player would gain Silver instead of Curse.
Possessing player gains Silver instead.

B) Possessed player does NOT reveal Trader.
Possessing player gains Curse instead.
Possessing player Would gain Curse, and can now reveal Trader himself to gain Silver instead.

Both are valid.

[AJD]

If you have two "on would-gain, ___ instead" effects, does the first one you choose to resolve prevent the other one from resolving? Possession reacts to would-gain, so can the possessed player reveal a Trader to get a Silver (which the possessing player gains isntead)?

Possessed player buys a card.  Let's say it's a Curse.
Possessed player would gain Curse.  Now there are two scenarios:

A) Possessed player reveals Trader.
Possessed player would gain Silver instead of Curse.
Possessing player gains Silver instead.

B) Possessed player does NOT reveal Trader.
Possessing player gains Curse instead.
Possessing player Would gain Curse, and can now reveal Trader himself to gain Silver instead.

Both are valid.

Right. But you can't do the following:

Possessed player buys a Curse.
Possessed player would gain Curse.
Now you say: Two things happen at the same time! Possession redirects the Curse to possessing player, and possessed player may reveal Trader. Choose an order to resolve them!
Resolve Possession first: possessing player gains Curse.
Resolve Trader next: possessed player reveals Trader and would gain a Silver (which is redirected to possessing player).

The first would-gain effect resolved does indeed prevent the other from resolving: you choose whether to resolve Possession or Trader first, but once you've done that the other one is no longer resolved at all.

[Awaclus]

I don't quite understand your objection here. Ordinarily the rule of the game is "when you buy a card, you gain it". What this card does is replace that rule while it's in play.

(Also, a clearer way to write your revision would be "when you would gain a Curse due to buying it...".)

"When you buy a card, you first buy it, then gain it" is the rule according to the Hinterlands rulebook. It doesn't replace the rule, it just replaces the gain. It would have to say "when you buy a curse, instead of following the rule 'when you buy a card, you first buy it, then gain it', each other player gains a curse" in order to replace the rule. And there is no gain being going on at the time you buy a card, so there is nothing to replace, and that means nothing happens. Your wording for my revision is admittedly better than mine.

If you have two "on would-gain, ___ instead" effects, does the first one you choose to resolve prevent the other one from resolving? Possession reacts to would-gain, so can the possessed player reveal a Trader to get a Silver (which the possessing player gains instead)?

Obviously yes, because you have an unlimited number of those effects whenever you would gain a card and have a Trader in hand, because nothing prevents you from revealing that same Trader 9001 times as a reaction to the same would-gain. With Possession, if you buy a Curse and reveal a Trader, you can choose the order and if you choose to apply Trader's replacement effect first, Possession's replacement effect fizzles because that would-gain no longer exists, but then Trader's ability makes the possessed player would-gain a silver, which makes both Trader and Possession go off again, and since there is no point in replacing that silver with a silver, the possessed player probably doesn't reveal the Trader this time, so there is only Possession's replacement effect left, and that makes the possessing player gain that silver instead of the possessed player. But if you choose to apply Possession's replacement effect first, Trader's replacement effect fizzles because that would-gain no longer exists.

[GendoIkari]

What happens if I reveal a Trader - can I first get a Silver instead of the Curse that I "would gain", and then proceed to not gain the Curse for the other reason?

I don't think you "would gain" the Curse in that situation, because Sea Haggler's ability is already taking place and it's already replacing the gain with something else.

I disagree... when you buy a Curse, 2 different things both reaction to "would gain" a curse, and you choose the order in which to resolve them. No matter which order you choose, you both gain a silver and each other player gains a curse. I think.

I agree with Awaclus. Sea Haggler triggers on buy, not on would-gain. On-buy is before would-gain, so would-gain never happens and your Trader is never activated.

Meanwhile, I claim that if Sea Haggler is an Attack, Moat protects you from it but Lighthouse doesn't. This might be a good reason for it not to be an Attack.

I was thinking that it was a when would gain, not when buy, oops.

Why Would Moat and Lighthouse be different? They both react exactly to "when another player plays an attack card."

[AJD]

Meanwhile, I claim that if Sea Haggler is an Attack, Moat protects you from it but Lighthouse doesn't. This might be a good reason for it not to be an Attack.

I was thinking that it was a when would gain, not when buy, oops.

Why Would Moat and Lighthouse be different? They both react exactly to "when another player plays an attack card."

Because different things happen "when another player plays an Attack card"!

With Moat, when you play Sea Haggler, I reveal Moat. If I do so, I am unaffected by that Sea Haggler. Good deal! Nothing that Sea Haggler does will affect me, including dishing out Curses.

Lighthouse says "when another player plays an Attack card, it doesn't affect you." It doesn't say the Attack card doesn't affect me at other times—it only protects me from Attack cards' on-play effects, not their while-in-play effects that happen later.

...At least, that's how it seems to me. I'm trying to come up with a bizarre edge-case counterexample...

[AJD]

...At least, that's how it seems to me. I'm trying to come up with a bizarre edge-case counterexample...

Got one! If, through some unholy combination of Procession, Graverobber, and Ambassador, someone plays and then buys the same copy of Noble Brigand on the same turn, it's clear that revealing Moat when Noble Brigand is played shouldn't protect you against the on-buy effects of the same Noble Brigand later on.

So there's a few possible resolutions here.

• One, Moat only protects you against Attacks' on-play effects, and therefore doesn't protect you against Sea Haggler.
• Two, Moat and Lighthouse protect you against Attacks' while-in-play effects as well, even though Lighthouse doesn't seem to say so.
• Three, Moat protects you against a single execution of card text, top to bottom, which includes on-play and while-in-play effects but not on-buy effects that might be triggered later.
• Four, Sea Haggler, like Masquerade, shouldn't be an Attack because its interaction with Moat and Lighthouse is too confusing.

[GendoIkari]

...At least, that's how it seems to me. I'm trying to come up with a bizarre edge-case counterexample...

Got one! If, through some unholy combination of Procession, Graverobber, and Ambassador, someone plays and then buys the same copy of Noble Brigand on the same turn, it's clear that revealing Moat when Noble Brigand is played shouldn't protect you against the on-buy effects of the same Noble Brigand later on.

So there's a few possible resolutions here.

• One, Moat only protects you against Attacks' on-play effects, and therefore doesn't protect you against Sea Haggler.
• Two, Moat and Lighthouse protect you against Attack's while-in-play effects as well, even though Lighthouse doesn't seem to say so.
• Three, Moat protects you against a single execution of card text, top to bottom, which includes on-play and while-in-play effects but not on-buy effects that might be triggered later.
• Four, Sea Haggler, like Masquerade, shouldn't be an Attack because its interaction with Moat and Lighthouse is too confusing.

I'm pretty sure it's #4 (though #2 would be correct rules IMO). Despite the slight difference in wording that you pointed out, I'm almost sure that the intent of Lighthouse is to protect you from attacks that are played, exactly as Moat is. If Sea Haggler is an attack that gets played, then a person with a revealed Moat or Lighthouse cannot be affected by that card.

But while-in-play effects are certainly not well-defined for attacks, and most likely Donald avoided the question by never having an attack card that affects other players "while-in-play." Imagine if Goons' discard down to 3 happened at the same time you gained the 1VP for buying cards. It would indeed be hard to deal with either with Moat or Lighthouse. First off, there would be arguments about whether or not you are protected, because you weren't being affected "when the card was played." Second, it's tracking issues.... during your buy phase, it has to be remembered if I revealed a Moat to your modified Goons (or Sea Haggler) earlier in the turn. If you played 2, maybe I Moated 1 but not the other. We now have to remember how many of which cards I Moated.

[AJD]

But while-in-play effects are certainly not well-defined for attacks, and most likely Donald avoided the question by never having an attack card that affects other players "while-in-play." Imagine if Goons' discard down to 3 happened at the same time you gained the 1VP for buying cards. It would indeed be hard to deal with either with Moat or Lighthouse. First off, there would be arguments about whether or not you are protected, because you weren't being affected "when the card was played." Second, it's tracking issues.... during your buy phase, it has to be remembered if I revealed a Moat to your modified Goons (or Sea Haggler) earlier in the turn. If you played 2, maybe I Moated 1 but not the other. We now have to remember how many of which cards I Moated.

This is presumably the same reason there are no Duration Attacks.

[Kirian]

The last fifteen or so posts are a reminder that this is a bad cards thread.

[Qvist]

"Wishing, ... well?" - $3 - Action

+1 Card
+1 Action
Name a card and a number greater than 0. Count the number of copies of the named cards you have in your discard pile.
If it's equal to the named number, reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal the named card. Put the named card in your hand and discard the rest.

Might be reasonable, but probably annoying IRL (although not more annoying than PhilStone)

[sudgy]

"Wishing, ... well?" - $3 - Action

+1 Card
+1 Action
Name a card and a number greater than 0. Count the number of copies of the named cards you have in your discard pile.
If it's equal to the named number, reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal the named card. Put the named card in your hand and discard the rest.

Might be reasonable, but probably annoying IRL (although not more annoying than PhilStone)

People really good at deck tracking would know exactly how many they have in their discard, and it would be favored towards them.  And, for those people, this would be like +1 card, +1 action, draw a card of your choice.

[Qvist]

"Wishing, ... well?" - $3 - Action

+1 Card
+1 Action
Name a card and a number greater than 0. Count the number of copies of the named cards you have in your discard pile.
If it's equal to the named number, reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal the named card. Put the named card in your hand and discard the rest.

Might be reasonable, but probably annoying IRL (although not more annoying than PhilStone)

People really good at deck tracking would know exactly how many they have in their discard, and it would be favored towards them.  And, for those people, this would be like +1 card, +1 action, draw a card of your choice.

Yeah, that's why I posted in bad cards although I like the card idea itself.

[eHalcyon]

Lake of Dreams
$5 - Action
Name a card.  Reveal the top card of your deck.  If it is not the named card, discard all revealed cards.  Otherwise, you may either repeat this or put all revealed cards into your hand.
+1 Card
+1 Action

The vanilla bonuses are put at the bottom so that I can say "repeat this" with less ambiguity.

Finally, something that actually combos well with Scout!

[Axxle]

Gamble
$3
+1 Action
Name a card. Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal the named card. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest. Discard a card from your hand at random.

[Warfreak2]

Gambler's Fallacy
$3
+1 Action
Name a card. Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal the named card. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest. Reveal your hand; the player to your left chooses one card for you to discard.

[Titandrake]

Hey Let's Steal Magic Cards
Action - $2
+1 Action
If you have no cards in hand, name a card. Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal the named card. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest. Otherwise, reveal your hand, then reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a card with the same name as a card in your hand. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest.

[WanderingWinder]

Hey Let's Steal Magic Cards
Action - $2
+1 Action
If you have no cards in hand, name a card. Reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal the named card. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest. Otherwise, reveal your hand, then reveal cards from the top of your deck until you reveal a card with the same name as a card in your hand. Put that card into your hand and discard the rest.

Well, I imagine this plays a lot differently here than it does in Magic, but the first thought that jumps to my mind is a handful of these and a bunch of tunnels lets you empty the gold pile from full in a single turn...

[Powerman]

Poor Man's Peddler
Action 0*
+1 Card
+1 Action
+$1
During your Buy phase, this costs $2 more per Action card you have in play.

[dominator 123]

Wizard $6
Action-Attack

+2 cards
Each other player gains a Scout

[Warfreak2]

Terminal Curse, Action/Curse, $0
When you play this, -1VP

[brokoli]

Doctoracle
Action - $3*
+2 cards
--
When you buy this, you may overpay for it. For each $1 overpaid, each player (including you) reveals the top 2 cards of his deck, and you choose one : either he discards them, or he puts them back on top in an order you choose.

[sudgy]

Action - $5
+Infinity Cards
+Infinity Actions
+Infinity Buys
+$Infinity

While this is in play, when you gain a card, return it to its pile.

[eHalcyon]

Action - $5
+Infinity Cards
+Infinity Actions
+Infinity Buys
+$Infinity

While this is in play, when you gain a card, return it to its pile.

Goons mega turn yeahhhhhhhh

[Kirian]

Action - $5
+Infinity Cards
+Infinity Actions
+Infinity Buys
+$Infinity

While this is in play, when you gain a card, return it to its pile.

Goons mega turn yeahhhhhhhh

Of course, if both players play this and Goons, instant stalemate.

Which infinity though?  Aleph-null?  Aleph-one?

[Drab Emordnilap]

Action - $5
+Infinity Cards
+Infinity Actions
+Infinity Buys
+$Infinity

While this is in play, when you gain a card, return it to its pile.

Procession yeahhhhhhhh