Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Clarification of Beggar reaction  (Read 2854 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

majiponi

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 823
  • Respect: +734
    • View Profile
Clarification of Beggar reaction
« on: August 27, 2015, 07:52:54 pm »
+4

Beggar reaction text:
When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this. If you do, gain two Silvers, putting one on top of your deck.

I'd like to avoid putting on my deck, because the attack is Sir Martin and I know the both top two are Estates. And I have a Trader in my hand. But I wonder how many times I should reveal.

A. "get 1, get 1(put top)" -> I should reveal once.
B. "get 1(put top), get 1" -> I should reveal once.
C. "get 1(put top), get 1(put top if the first gaining was canceled)" -> I should reveal twice.
D. "get 1, get 1, put one from discard" -> I should reveal once (the latter) because the first one has lost track.

Which understanding is correct?
Logged

ConMan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1400
  • Respect: +1705
    • View Profile
Re: Clarification of Beggar reaction
« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2015, 08:28:18 pm »
+4

Based on the wording, and the "no visiting" rule, I'd say that using Beggar's reaction triggers two events - one being "Gain a Silver" and the other being "Gain a Silver, putting it on top of your deck". But since those events trigger simultaneously, you get to choose the order in which they happen, and as each one resolves you can react to it. So you can either choose to resolve the normal gain, then resolve the on-deck gain and as it happens react to that with Trader - or you can choose to resolve the on-deck gain first, react to it with Trader, then go back and resolve the normal gain.

It would be similar to Stonemason, which specifically rules that the gains happen one at a time in an order of your choosing, which you could use to do something like Stonemason on a $5, gaining Rats and another $4, choose to gain the non-Rats card first, use Watchtower to top-deck it, then gain the Rats and use Watchtower to trash it, drawing the card you just top-decked.
Logged

DG

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4074
  • Respect: +2624
    • View Profile
Re: Clarification of Beggar reaction
« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2015, 10:03:19 pm »
0

My interpretation would be that you have to reveal twice. You have to follow the beggar's instructions as much as you can. You start by gaining two silvers, if you can, and then put one of them on top of your deck, if you can.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Clarification of Beggar reaction
« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2015, 12:23:08 am »
0

I don't know the official ruling, but I'm guessing ConMan has it right.
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: Clarification of Beggar reaction
« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2015, 12:26:14 am »
+1

I agree with ConMan's interpretation, but under any interpretation, revealing twice will take care of the problem.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

ConMan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1400
  • Respect: +1705
    • View Profile
Re: Clarification of Beggar reaction
« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2015, 12:46:37 am »
+1

My interpretation would be that you have to reveal twice. You have to follow the beggar's instructions as much as you can. You start by gaining two silvers, if you can, and then put one of them on top of your deck, if you can.
So you're saying the two gains happen first, then the "put one of the gained Silvers into your hand" effect triggers (assuming that you managed to gain at least one Silver)? It's probably the second most likely interpretation I would take, but I lean towards my interpretation mainly from the "no visiting" rule that says that gained cards that aren't going to your discard pile never touch it - so your interpretation would require that you resolve both "gain a Silver" effects, but neither of them reaches the discard pile until after you resolve the "putting one into your hand" effect, meaning that between those points there's a period where you've gained both Silvers, but neither of them is actually in your deck, discard, etc., which feels more unnatural to me than the other way.
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3292
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4434
    • View Profile
Re: Clarification of Beggar reaction
« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2015, 12:58:06 am »
+2

ConMan, I don't think DG's reading violates the No-Visiting rule or requires cards to float in a while-being-gained pseudospace. It's justified by the following FAQ ruling: "If there is only one Silver left, put it on your deck."

The reason for the FAQ ruling is that you're explicitly instructed to put one of the Silvers gained by Beggar on top of your deck. If there's only one Silver in the supply, you only gain one Silver from Beggar, but you still have to put one Silver on top of your deck.

If you reveal a Trader to the first gain, then—at that moment—you're on track to gain only one Silver from Beggar (and one from Trader). If you're on track to gain only one Silver from Beggar, that Silver is headed to your deck, and you have to reveal Trader again to stop it.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25671
    • View Profile
Re: Clarification of Beggar reaction
« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2015, 04:42:42 am »
+12

ConMan, I don't think DG's reading violates the No-Visiting rule or requires cards to float in a while-being-gained pseudospace. It's justified by the following FAQ ruling: "If there is only one Silver left, put it on your deck."

The reason for the FAQ ruling is that you're explicitly instructed to put one of the Silvers gained by Beggar on top of your deck. If there's only one Silver in the supply, you only gain one Silver from Beggar, but you still have to put one Silver on top of your deck.

If you reveal a Trader to the first gain, then—at that moment—you're on track to gain only one Silver from Beggar (and one from Trader). If you're on track to gain only one Silver from Beggar, that Silver is headed to your deck, and you have to reveal Trader again to stop it.
You have pointed out something relevant, but I don't agree with your conclusion.

The problem here is the intersection of three things:
- Beggar has simple, friendly text, rather than baffling pseudo-code.
- Trader's reaction exists, what's up with that.
- It's human nature to ask questions even when the answer doesn't possibly matter.

Beggar says to gain two Silvers, putting one on your deck. It's phrased just like the no-visiting rule doesn't exist. But the no-visiting rule exists and in fact is in that rulebook. Beggar is phrased like you gain two Silvers simultaneously, when that's not possible.

The Beggar FAQ says that if there's just one Silver it goes on your deck. So it must be that you gain the deck-top-destined Silver first. It can't be that Beggar looks at what's actually happened so far; that's just insane. If there were no no-visiting rule then you would gain two Silvers and then move one and this functionality would match the card text better and you would have to Trader twice. But there is a no-visiting rule, I've seen it.

So you gain a Silver to deck top, then gain a Silver to discard. You can Trader both of them a million times to not have one on top; or if you want, just the first one once, that also works.
Logged

SCSN

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2227
  • Respect: +7140
    • View Profile
Re: Clarification of Beggar reaction
« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2015, 05:16:53 am »
0

The problem here is the intersection of three things:
- Beggar has simple, friendly text, rather than baffling pseudo-code.
- Trader's reaction exists, what's up with that.
- It's human nature to ask questions even when the answer doesn't possibly matter.

This made me laugh so hard :D
Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 20 queries.