Print

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

[joel88s]

I assume this card has a quite interesting depth of openings, in that cards that you don't want multiples of become worse. Especially for player one.

I can imagine a game of Chapel Chicken: whoever buys one first opens himself to his opponent(s) sticking him with a second one.

[Donald X.]

Messenger/trader, what happens (i.e. I take a curse and reveal trader to take a silver)? My feeling is no one gains anything ( except I gain the silver ).

I am not at home and so will consider this question some other time, when I have easy access to rulebooks and things.

[Donald X.]

yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.

I don't know what "it" is, but he's got it.

Annette Hanshaw - I've Got It But It Don't Do Me No Good

[Witherweaver]

yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.

I don't know what "it" is, but he's got it.

Annette Hanshaw - I've Got It But It Don't Do Me No Good

Bell Biv DeVoe - Poison

[TheOthin]

Sir Martin's best friend!

[werothegreat]

With Watchtower in hand, this is a cheaper Ill-Gotten Gains.

[joel88s]

Messenger/trader, what happens (i.e. I take a curse and reveal trader to take a silver)? My feeling is no one gains anything ( except I gain the silver ).

Yes, for the same reason Trader-ing an Ironworks gain doesn't give you a bonus.  Ironworks and Messenger both say "gain a card, do something depending on it" not "choose a card, gain it, etc".

EDIT: Ah, but maybe the dispositive point is the 'would gain' clause on Trader: since you never gained the card Messenger tried to gains, there's nothing to dole out. Got it.
EDIT: Ah, but maybe the dispositive point is the 'would gain' clause on Trader: since you never gained the card Messenger tried to gain, there's no card to dole out.
Messenger doesn't actually say "depending on it", just "and". Ironworks has an if/then chart....

Which is shorthand for "if the card you gained with Ironworks is an..."  Which is another way of saying "do something depending on what you gain".

Yes, that's what Ironworks says and means. My point though it that Messenger has no "if". It has an "and".

So if we accept the Clintonian assertion that:

yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.

and "it" means the card that Messenger tried to gain, would not each other player gain a copy of that "it"?

[werothegreat]

Messenger/trader, what happens (i.e. I take a curse and reveal trader to take a silver)? My feeling is no one gains anything ( except I gain the silver ).

Yes, for the same reason Trader-ing an Ironworks gain doesn't give you a bonus.  Ironworks and Messenger both say "gain a card, do something depending on it" not "choose a card, gain it, etc".

EDIT: Ah, but maybe the dispositive point is the 'would gain' clause on Trader: since you never gained the card Messenger tried to gain, there's no card to dole out.
Messenger doesn't actually say "depending on it", just "and". Ironworks has an if/then chart....

Which is shorthand for "if the card you gained with Ironworks is an..."  Which is another way of saying "do something depending on what you gain".

Yes, that's what Ironworks says and means. My point though it that Messenger has no "if". It has an "and".

So if we accept the Clintonian assertion that:

yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.

and "it" means the card that Messenger tried to gain, would not each other player gain a copy of that "it"?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.  You are correct.

To me, that suggests simultaneity.  Which would mean if you chose to gain a Curse, and revealed Trader, you'd get a Silver, and everyone else would get a Curse.

[joel88s]

Messenger/trader, what happens (i.e. I take a curse and reveal trader to take a silver)? My feeling is no one gains anything ( except I gain the silver ).

Yes, for the same reason Trader-ing an Ironworks gain doesn't give you a bonus.  Ironworks and Messenger both say "gain a card, do something depending on it" not "choose a card, gain it, etc".

EDIT: Ah, but maybe the dispositive point is the 'would gain' clause on Trader: since you never gained the card Messenger tried to gain, there's no card to dole out.
Messenger doesn't actually say "depending on it", just "and". Ironworks has an if/then chart....

Which is shorthand for "if the card you gained with Ironworks is an..."  Which is another way of saying "do something depending on what you gain".

Yes, that's what Ironworks says and means. My point though it that Messenger has no "if". It has an "and".

So if we accept the Clintonian assertion that:

yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.

and "it" means the card that Messenger tried to gain, would not each other player gain a copy of that "it"?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.  You are correct.

To me, that suggests simultaneity.  Which would mean if you chose to gain a Curse, and revealed Trader, you'd get a Silver, and everyone else would get a Curse.

Haha, I was just in the process of trying unsuccessfully to edit the previous post to say: Wait, maybe the dispositive point is the 'would gain' clause on Trader. If you Trader the 'would-be-gained' card, Messenger nevers gains it, so there's nothing to dole out! In which case you were right for a different reason.

[Witherweaver]

I'm tempted to think it has the  Ironworks-type ruling.

1) Buy Messenger
2) Attempt to gain Curse
3) Reveal Trader, gaining a Silver
4) Continue with Messenger: "Each other player gains a copy of it".  There is no "it", because Messenger did not gain a card.

I'm like 0 for 100 on these ruling questions, though, so a good rule of thumb would be to assume the official rule is whatever isn't what I'm saying.

[Witherweaver]

In other words, I think "it" is the card that Messenger gained, not tried to gain. 

[joel88s]

Oh no, if we apply the Witherweaver-Is-Always-Wrong axiom, that screws up everything.

[Witherweaver]

Oh no, if we apply the Witherweaver-Is-Always-Wrong axiom, that screws up everything.

Also known as the WAWA.

[eHalcyon]

So I guess Messenger/Gardens will be a thing?

In a Gardens mirror, the on-buy is a wash because everybody gains the thing.  It may be better if the others aren't going for Gardens.  Messenger could help with emptying piles, and it comes with +1 Buy, so there's that too.

With Watchtower in hand, this is a cheaper Ill-Gotten Gains.

Not quite... you end up with one Curse in the trash instead of still in the pile, and Messenger in your deck functions pretty differently from IGG in your deck.

I'm tempted to think it has the  Ironworks-type ruling.

1) Buy Messenger
2) Attempt to gain Curse
3) Reveal Trader, gaining a Silver
4) Continue with Messenger: "Each other player gains a copy of it".  There is no "it", because Messenger did not gain a card.

I'm like 0 for 100 on these ruling questions, though, so a good rule of thumb would be to assume the official rule is whatever isn't what I'm saying.

I agree with this.  Trader makes it so that Messenger failed to gain a card itself, so there is no "it" to copy.  That's how it works with Ironworks as well.  The salient points are the "would gain" on Trader and the "it" on Messenger/Ironworks.  I don't think the "if" on Ironworks factors into it.




Also, this is a really neat card.

[joel88s]

Looks like WAWA may have failed us for once, eHalcyon agrees with us at any rate.

But isn't Watchtower different? It says 'when you gain', not 'would gain'. So you actually do gain the card. So doesn't that mean:
1) Buy Messenger; Gain Curse.
2) Everyone gains a curse.
3) You (and anyone else) can now reveal Watchtower and say "ehhhhh, no thanks."

[joel88s]

Also...

Also, this is a really neat card.

Yeah, that.

[popsofctown]

So I guess Messenger/Gardens will be a thing?

In a Gardens mirror, the on-buy is a wash because everybody gains the thing.  It may be better if the others aren't going for Gardens.  Messenger could help with emptying piles, and it comes with +1 Buy, so there's that too.

With Watchtower in hand, this is a cheaper Ill-Gotten Gains.

Not quite... you end up with one Curse in the trash instead of still in the pile, and Messenger in your deck functions pretty differently from IGG in your deck.

I'm tempted to think it has the  Ironworks-type ruling.

1) Buy Messenger
2) Attempt to gain Curse
3) Reveal Trader, gaining a Silver
4) Continue with Messenger: "Each other player gains a copy of it".  There is no "it", because Messenger did not gain a card.

I'm like 0 for 100 on these ruling questions, though, so a good rule of thumb would be to assume the official rule is whatever isn't what I'm saying.

I agree with this.  Trader makes it so that Messenger failed to gain a card itself, so there is no "it" to copy.  That's how it works with Ironworks as well.  The salient points are the "would gain" on Trader and the "it" on Messenger/Ironworks.  I don't think the "if" on Ironworks factors into it.




Also, this is a really neat card.

Messenger gaining curse after you have control of the Garden split hurts the thin Province strat more than your bloated Gardens deck.

[eHalcyon]

Looks like WAWA may have failed us for once, eHalcyon agrees with us at any rate.

But isn't Watchtower different? It says 'when you gain', not 'would gain'. So you actually do gain the card. So doesn't that mean:
1) Buy Messenger; Gain Curse.
2) Everyone gains a curse.
3) You (and anyone else) can now reveal Watchtower and say "ehhhhh, no thanks."

Yeah, there's no confusion with Watchtower here.  You can go to the Transmogrify thread for that.

[joel88s]

Looks like WAWA may have failed us for once, eHalcyon agrees with us at any rate.

But isn't Watchtower different? It says 'when you gain', not 'would gain'. So you actually do gain the card. So doesn't that mean:
1) Buy Messenger; Gain Curse.
2) Everyone gains a curse.
3) You (and anyone else) can now reveal Watchtower and say "ehhhhh, no thanks."

Yeah, there's no confusion with Watchtower here.  You can go to the Transmogrify thread for that.

Oh, I see, you were just pointing out the subtle difference from IGG of trashing one curse as well as dishing them.

And thanks for the reminder of the Watchtowermogrify discussion. Great times.

[dghunter79]

Messenger is a great card for those of us who are constantly compelled to try "creative" strategies and are tired of competing against more rational players!

[liopoil]

With Watchtower in hand, this is a cheaper Ill-Gotten Gains.

Stop it! Ugh, was looking forward to this one.

[Throwaway_bicycling]

Or maybe you're a jerk holding a Watchtower and you decide to hand out Curses in the most convoluted way possible. Man, what's your problem? Well, go for it, I guess.

Actually, I think the way to hand out Curses in the most convoluted way possible would be to have some cost reducer like Highway in play, buy Messenger, and choose to gain IGG.

Then, if you are playing multiplayer (say in that five-player game you suggest), a total of 20 curses will be gained, and if you reveal Watchtower each time, I'm guessing somebody is going to shoot you...

[Witherweaver]

Or maybe you're a jerk holding a Watchtower and you decide to hand out Curses in the most convoluted way possible. Man, what's your problem? Well, go for it, I guess.

Actually, I think the way to hand out Curses in the most convoluted way possible would be to have some cost reducer like Highway in play, buy Messenger, and choose to gain IGG.

Then, if you are playing multiplayer (say in that five-player game you suggest), a total of 20 curses will be gained, and if you reveal Watchtower each time, I'm guessing somebody is going to shoot you...

I think the most convoluted way to hand out a Curse would be to buy Messenger from the Black Market deck, gain a Copper, causing your opponent to gain a Copper, and then continually Spy/Scrying Pool until that Copper (hey, he could have trashed all his starters away) is back on the top of his deck, and then Swindler the Copper into a Curse.

(Or something similar with Jester.)

[GendoIkari]

yes, both messenger and ironworks hinge on what the meaning of "it" is. For ironworks, the ruling was that the "it" is the card ironworks tried to gain; since it wasn't gained, ironworks fizzles. Seems clear that "it" should mean the same thing on both cards.

The ruling was that "it" is the card ironworks DID gain, not the one it tried to gain. If it were the one it tried to gain, then you would still get the ironworks bonus with trader.

[GendoIkari]

In other words, I think "it" is the card that Messenger gained, not tried to gain.

Exactly. Otherwise the ironworks trader interaction would be ruled differently.