Print

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

[werothegreat]

It's good to know that Scout can at least get some love in hypothetical discussions.

Hey, if Scout is the only Action under $5, I might pick one up with Seaway.

I'm sure Scout can be part of some weird concocted Distand Lands megaturn, where you gain them all to end the game of piles, then have to KC them all the same turn, but need Scouts to draw them.

You trash your deck down to KC/University/Scout (there was a Raze in there somewhere).  Gain 3 Distant Lands, draw them with Scout, play them.  Empty piles.

[swedenman]

It's good to know that Scout can at least get some love in hypothetical discussions.

Hey, if Scout is the only Action under $5, I might pick one up with Seaway.

I'm sure Scout can be part of some weird concocted Distand Lands megaturn, where you gain them all to end the game of piles, then have to KC them all the same turn, but need Scouts to draw them.

You trash your deck down to KC/University/Scout (there was a Raze in there somewhere).  Gain 3 Distant Lands, draw them with Scout, play them.  Empty piles.

Finally, Scout has its day in the sun! It's a good thing there are no other $4 cards that can draw 3 cards or else we would have yet another situation in which Scout is outclassed.

[Witherweaver]

It's good to know that Scout can at least get some love in hypothetical discussions.

Hey, if Scout is the only Action under $5, I might pick one up with Seaway.

I'm sure Scout can be part of some weird concocted Distand Lands megaturn, where you gain them all to end the game of piles, then have to KC them all the same turn, but need Scouts to draw them.

You trash your deck down to KC/University/Scout (there was a Raze in there somewhere).  Gain 3 Distant Lands, draw them with Scout, play them.  Empty piles.

Finally, Scout has its day in the sun! It's a good thing there are no other $4 cards that can draw 3 cards or else we would have yet another situation in which Scout is outclassed.

You trash your deck down to KC/KC/University/University/Scout.  Gain 4 Distant Lands, draw them with Scout, play them.  Empty piles.

[swedenman]

It's good to know that Scout can at least get some love in hypothetical discussions.

Hey, if Scout is the only Action under $5, I might pick one up with Seaway.

I'm sure Scout can be part of some weird concocted Distand Lands megaturn, where you gain them all to end the game of piles, then have to KC them all the same turn, but need Scouts to draw them.

You trash your deck down to KC/University/Scout (there was a Raze in there somewhere).  Gain 3 Distant Lands, draw them with Scout, play them.  Empty piles.

Finally, Scout has its day in the sun! It's a good thing there are no other $4 cards that can draw 3 cards or else we would have yet another situation in which Scout is outclassed.

You trash your deck down to KC/KC/University/University/Scout.  Gain 4 Distant Lands, draw them with Scout, play them.  Empty piles.

  So do you want to write the combo article or shall I?

[Witherweaver]

I'll let Robz do the honor.  I couldn't bear the thought of taking this joy away from him.

[enfynet]

So, have we come up with a concrete way that TR-BoM(as Feast) handles Tokens?

TR: Choose BoM
1. BoM(+A): Choose Feast(+B)
2. BoM(+A): Choose Feast(+B)

or

TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose Feast
1. Feast(+B)
2. Feast(+B)

I'm not sure if this has been specifically resolved. Or whether the primary instruction on BoM is "Play this as..." or "This is..." in a situation involving Tokens.

[werothegreat]

So, have we come up with a concrete way that TR-BoM(as Feast) handles Tokens?

TR: Choose BoM
1. BoM(+A): Choose Feast(+B)
2. BoM(+A): Choose Feast(+B)

or

TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose Feast
1. Feast(+B)
2. Feast(+B)

I'm not sure if this has been specifically resolved. Or whether the primary instruction on BoM is "Play this as..." or "This is..." in a situation involving Tokens.

The former.  But you don't have to choose Feast the second time.

[enfynet]

So, have we come up with a concrete way that TR-BoM(as Feast) handles Tokens?

TR: Choose BoM
1. BoM(+A): Choose Feast(+B)
2. BoM(+A): Choose Feast(+B)

or

TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose Feast
1. Feast(+B)
2. Feast(+B)

I'm not sure if this has been specifically resolved. Or whether the primary instruction on BoM is "Play this as..." or "This is..." in a situation involving Tokens.

The former.  But you don't have to choose Feast the second time.

And therefore the interaction between TR-BoM and generic CardX should be the same, but without making the choice the second time?

TR: Choose BoM
1. BoM(+A): Choose CardX(+B)
2. BoM(+A): Must Choose CardX(+B)

or

TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose CardX
1. CardX(+B)
2. CardX(+B)

This would imply that BoM is played both times, but the choice cannot be changed as CardX is still in play.

So TR-BoM w/ Conspirator should read:

Throne(1): Choose BoM
1. BoM(2): Choose Conspirator(3)
2. BoM(4): Must Choose Conspirator(5)

or

Throne(1): Choose BoM(2): Choose Conspirator
1. Conspirator (3)
2. Conspirator (4)

----

Am I making sense?

(Edit for clarity)

[Jeebus]

** If Band of Misfits is multiplied when tokens are on its pile, the token effect on Band of Misfits happens only once, since Band of Misfits is only being played once; once it is in play, it is a different card.  However, tokens on a card Band of Misfits is emulating do have their effects multiplied.  For example, if the +1 Card token is on Band of Misfits and the +$1 token is on Chapel, and you Throne Room a Band of Misfits, emulating Chapel, you would first get +1 Card, then +$2.

It must be "you would first get +1 Card and +$1, then +$1", right? It could matter in certain circumstances.

[werothegreat]

** If Band of Misfits is multiplied when tokens are on its pile, the token effect on Band of Misfits happens only once, since Band of Misfits is only being played once; once it is in play, it is a different card.  However, tokens on a card Band of Misfits is emulating do have their effects multiplied.  For example, if the +1 Card token is on Band of Misfits and the +$1 token is on Chapel, and you Throne Room a Band of Misfits, emulating Chapel, you would first get +1 Card, then +$2.

It must be "you would first get +1 Card and +$1, then +$1", right? It could matter in certain circumstances.

Yes, yes, but this way is shorter and I think people will understand the implication.

[swedenman]

So, have we come up with a concrete way that TR-BoM(as Feast) handles Tokens?

TR: Choose BoM
1. BoM(+A): Choose Feast(+B)
2. BoM(+A): Choose Feast(+B)

or

TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose Feast
1. Feast(+B)
2. Feast(+B)

I'm not sure if this has been specifically resolved. Or whether the primary instruction on BoM is "Play this as..." or "This is..." in a situation involving Tokens.

The former.  But you don't have to choose Feast the second time.

And therefore the interaction between TR-BoM and generic CardX should be the same, but without making the choice the second time?

TR: Choose BoM
1. BoM(+A): Choose CardX(+B)
2. BoM(+A): Must Choose CardX(+B)

or

TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose CardX
1. CardX(+B)
2. CardX(+B)

This would imply that BoM is played both times, but the choice cannot be changed as CardX is still in play.

The second one is correct. BoM is not played the second time. It is only played a second time with Feast because it becomes BoM again when it goes to the trash. It's weird but is at least consistent.

[Simon (DK)]

So, have we come up with a concrete way that TR-BoM(as Feast) handles Tokens?

TR: Choose BoM
1. BoM(+A): Choose Feast(+B)
2. BoM(+A): Choose Feast(+B)

or

TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose Feast
1. Feast(+B)
2. Feast(+B)

I'm not sure if this has been specifically resolved. Or whether the primary instruction on BoM is "Play this as..." or "This is..." in a situation involving Tokens.

The former.  But you don't have to choose Feast the second time.

And therefore the interaction between TR-BoM and generic CardX should be the same, but without making the choice the second time?

TR: Choose BoM
1. BoM(+A): Choose CardX(+B)
2. BoM(+A): Must Choose CardX(+B)

or

TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose CardX
1. CardX(+B)
2. CardX(+B)

This would imply that BoM is played both times, but the choice cannot be changed as CardX is still in play.

The second one is correct. BoM is not played the second time. It is only played a second time with Feast because it becomes BoM again when it goes to the trash. It's weird but is at least consistent.

A little further explanation:
BoM says that it is the card you chose untill it leaves play.
If you play it as a card that doesn't trash itself, then it keeps being that card. When TR plays it the 2nd time, it is still the chosen card, and therefore the chosen card is played again.
If you play BoM as a card that trashes itself, then after the trashing it goes back to being itself. When TR plays it the 2nd time, it's a BoM and therefore you can choose a card again and you get the bonuses on BoM again.

[enfynet]

So, have we come up with a concrete way that TR-BoM(as Feast) handles Tokens?

TR: Choose BoM
1. BoM(+A): Choose Feast(+B)
2. BoM(+A): Choose Feast(+B)

or

TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose Feast
1. Feast(+B)
2. Feast(+B)

I'm not sure if this has been specifically resolved. Or whether the primary instruction on BoM is "Play this as..." or "This is..." in a situation involving Tokens.

The former.  But you don't have to choose Feast the second time.

And therefore the interaction between TR-BoM and generic CardX should be the same, but without making the choice the second time?

TR: Choose BoM
1. BoM(+A): Choose CardX(+B)
2. BoM(+A): Must Choose CardX(+B)

or

TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose CardX
1. CardX(+B)
2. CardX(+B)

This would imply that BoM is played both times, but the choice cannot be changed as CardX is still in play.

The second one is correct. BoM is not played the second time. It is only played a second time with Feast because it becomes BoM again when it goes to the trash. It's weird but is at least consistent.

A little further explanation:
BoM says that it is the card you chose untill it leaves play.
If you play it as a card that doesn't trash itself, then it keeps being that card. When TR plays it the 2nd time, it is still the chosen card, and therefore the chosen card is played again.
If you play BoM as a card that trashes itself, then after the trashing it goes back to being itself. When TR plays it the 2nd time, it's a BoM and therefore you can choose a card again and you get the bonuses on BoM again.

But the original argument about Feast being "locked" was because the BoM cannot be "in play" while in the trash, and therefore cannot be any card.

[GendoIkari]

It's good to know that Scout can at least get some love in hypothetical discussions.

Hey, if Scout is the only Action under $5, I might pick one up with Seaway.

AND if there's no other +buy available.

[Donald X.]

I think this is obvious from the new rulings, but it hasn't been said yet:
If you play TR-BoM as Feast, then you get the token bonuses on BoM twice. Because 2nd time you did play a BoM again.

Right?

yes of course

[Donald X.]

It's worth pointing out that there are other instances of rules that don't say what they really mean, so putting too much emphasis on making any rulings consistent with the above statement in the rulebook might not necessarily be the best approach, especially if it starts to produce results that are counterintuitive.

The card itself says "Play this as..." So you are playing it.

I suppose I'd better give an example of a rulebook 'error'.  The original Dominion rules say "To play an Action, the player takes an Action card from his hand and lays it face-up in his play area."  Notice the 'from his hand' in that sentence.  If that rule were treated as absolutely correct, it would mean that Golem and Herald couldn't play the Action cards they find, but of course we all know that the original Dominion rulebook misspoke the rule.

The rulebooks would have zero hope of teaching anyone the game if every instruction had to be followed by pages of exceptions.

Here's another example, again from the original Dominion rules: "Throne Room - You pick another Action card in your hand, play it, and play it again.  The second use of the Action card doesn't use up any extra Actions you have."  In fact neither use of the Action card uses up any extra Actions you have: the only Action used up is by the Throne Room.

Not seeing a problem here.

So in the general case what I'm saying is that if there is any evidence that the rulebooks were in error and have thereby produced anomalies, Donald shouldn't get too hung up on making his rulings consistent with the rulebooks.  In the specific case I'm saying that "When you play this" in the BoM rulebook description should perhaps not be interpreted as meaning that a BoM is indeed played, especially as the card itself says "Play this as if it were", thereby suggesting that it's the something else that is played.

I am exactly the right amount of hung up on being consistent with rulebooks.

[enfynet]

It's worth pointing out that there are other instances of rules that don't say what they really mean, so putting too much emphasis on making any rulings consistent with the above statement in the rulebook might not necessarily be the best approach, especially if it starts to produce results that are counterintuitive.

The card itself says "Play this as..." So you are playing it.

So... It only says "Play this as..." on the first play?

TR: Choose BoM
1. BoM(+A): Choose CardX(+B)
2. BoM(+A): Must Choose CardX(+B)

Vs. "This is..." on the second play...

TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose CardX
1. CardX(+B)
2. CardX(+B)

[Simon (DK)]

It's worth pointing out that there are other instances of rules that don't say what they really mean, so putting too much emphasis on making any rulings consistent with the above statement in the rulebook might not necessarily be the best approach, especially if it starts to produce results that are counterintuitive.

The card itself says "Play this as..." So you are playing it.

So... It only says "Play this as..." on the first play?

If it hasn't left play, then yes it only says it on the first play. After that the card text has been replaced with the text of the card you chose.

[markusin]

It's worth pointing out that there are other instances of rules that don't say what they really mean, so putting too much emphasis on making any rulings consistent with the above statement in the rulebook might not necessarily be the best approach, especially if it starts to produce results that are counterintuitive.

The card itself says "Play this as..." So you are playing it.

So... It only says "Play this as..." on the first play?

TR: Choose BoM
1. BoM(+A): Choose CardX(+B)
2. BoM(+A): Must Choose CardX(+B)

Vs. "This is..." on the second play...

TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose CardX
1. CardX(+B)
2. CardX(+B)

Yeah it's either:

TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose CardX
1. CardX(+B)
2. CardX(+B)

Or:

TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose CardX
1. CardX(+B), trashes self
2.1. BoM(+A): Choose CardY
2.2. CardY(+C)

[dane-m]

It's worth pointing out that there are other instances of rules that don't say what they really mean, so putting too much emphasis on making any rulings consistent with the above statement in the rulebook might not necessarily be the best approach, especially if it starts to produce results that are counterintuitive.

The card itself says "Play this as..." So you are playing it.

So... It only says "Play this as..." on the first play?

TR: Choose BoM
1. BoM(+A): Choose CardX(+B)
2. BoM(+A): Must Choose CardX(+B)

Vs. "This is..." on the second play...

TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose CardX
1. CardX(+B)
2. CardX(+B)

Yeah it's either:

TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose CardX
1. CardX(+B)
2. CardX(+B)

Or:

TR: Choose BoM(+A): Choose CardX
1. CardX(+B), trashes self
2.1. BoM(+A): Choose CardY
2.2. CardY(+C)

I have to confess that I had been having real trouble reconciling the way the rulings on this subject had gone with my mental picture of the way playing a card worked.  In particular I was having trouble with the idea that playing a Band of Misfits amounted to playing two Actions.  The problem was that I was thinking that the player made the choice of what card BoM was to be before actually playing BoM.  Overnight I've realised why that was wrong: one follows the instructions on a card as part of playing it.  Therefore the instruction "Play this as if it were an Action card in the Supply costing less than it that you choose" can only take effect as part of playing BoM, so there are indeed two Actions played, namely BoM and then the transformed card.

Having now corrected my mental image of playing BoM, I've been able to answer a hypothetical question I'd been pondering ever since this discussion started, namely "If there were a card, Band of Confusion say, that said '+1 Action. Now play this as if it were an Action card in the Supply costing less than it that you choose.  This is that card until it leaves play', how would it work?"  Exactly as BoM with the +1 Action token on its pile.

So, I'm now happy with the way the rulings have gone, something of absolutely no consequence to anyone else in the world but of great importance to me as it means I can once again understand BoM by applying logical rules.

[dane-m]

Here's another example, again from the original Dominion rules: "Throne Room - You pick another Action card in your hand, play it, and play it again.  The second use of the Action card doesn't use up any extra Actions you have."  In fact neither use of the Action card uses up any extra Actions you have: the only Action used up is by the Throne Room.

Not seeing a problem here.

It surprises me greatly that you don't see the problem - when I read the above sentence out to another Dominion player, he immediately replied "But neither does the first use of the Action card" so he could certainly see the problem - but the thread I started specifically on this subject on BoardGameGeek this morning (before reading your reply here) would be the more sensible place to discuss it further.

[Donald X.]

Here's another example, again from the original Dominion rules: "Throne Room - You pick another Action card in your hand, play it, and play it again.  The second use of the Action card doesn't use up any extra Actions you have."  In fact neither use of the Action card uses up any extra Actions you have: the only Action used up is by the Throne Room.

Not seeing a problem here.

It surprises me greatly that you don't see the problem - when I read the above sentence out to another Dominion player, he immediately replied "But neither does the first use of the Action card" so he could certainly see the problem - but the thread I started specifically on this subject on BoardGameGeek this morning (before reading your reply here) would be the more sensible place to discuss it further.

There is way more Dominion discussion here than at BGG these days. I mean you're welcome to post at both places, and also at r/dominion and the German forums, and if you find a 5th place I am interested in hearing about it. They talk about Dominion some at SomethingAwful but mostly I can't see that.

I see what you're saying, it doesn't say everything it could have. But it says something technically correct and it is not a source of great confusion so I am not feeling too bad about it.

[swedenman]

Yeah, I've definitely never experienced anyone being confused by Throne Room. Then again all of my friends and I play a lot of deck-builders so we didn't even read the card FAQs unless we had a specific question. Then again I don't really see how the Throne Room FAQ could be misinterpreted. It doesn't say literally everything it can, but I don't really see how anyone could read it and think Throne Room works in a way it doesn't actually.

[Erick648]

* If you use Throne Room on Band of Misfits, choosing to play Band of Misfits as a self-trashing card (for example, Feast), the Band of Misfits will be in the trash after the first play as Feast, meaning it has left play.  Throne Room then plays Band of Misfits again, allowing you to make a new choice as to what Band of Misfits should emulate.  However, since Band of Misfits is in the trash, you will only get the on-play effects of the emulated card.  Similar logic applies to one-shots that do not trash themselves, but still leave play, such as Island.

I'm guessing this applies to Reserve cards as well, since they remove themselves from play, correct?  I'm also guessing that if you Throne BoM, playing it first as a Feast and then as a Reserve card, it moves from the trash to your Tavern mat, but this doesn't count as "gaining," correct (even though it's yours again for purposes of Gardens/Vineyards)? 

For that matter, if you King's Court BoM, playing it as Mining Village, Guide, and Mining Village (choosing to trash Mining Village each time), do you get $4 (I'm guessing the second trashing counts because it's on your Tavern mat rather than in the trash, in contrast to Throning Mining Village where it's already in the trash on the second play)?

[eHalcyon]

* If you use Throne Room on Band of Misfits, choosing to play Band of Misfits as a self-trashing card (for example, Feast), the Band of Misfits will be in the trash after the first play as Feast, meaning it has left play.  Throne Room then plays Band of Misfits again, allowing you to make a new choice as to what Band of Misfits should emulate.  However, since Band of Misfits is in the trash, you will only get the on-play effects of the emulated card.  Similar logic applies to one-shots that do not trash themselves, but still leave play, such as Island.

I'm guessing this applies to Reserve cards as well, since they remove themselves from play, correct?  I'm also guessing that if you Throne BoM, playing it first as a Feast and then as a Reserve card, it moves from the trash to your Tavern mat, but this doesn't count as "gaining," correct (even though it's yours again for purposes of Gardens/Vineyards)? 

For that matter, if you King's Court BoM, playing it as Mining Village, Guide, and Mining Village (choosing to trash Mining Village each time), do you get $4 (I'm guessing the second trashing counts because it's on your Tavern mat rather than in the trash, in contrast to Throning Mining Village where it's already in the trash on the second play)?

I don't think there's an official ruling on this case, but I think that BoM will have lost track of itself, so playing it as a Reserve would fail to move it from the trash onto your Reserve mat.  This is so weird though.