Print

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

[Hydrad]

So I know with throne room and cards like king court if you have a goons or highway you don't get the in play bonus many times since only one is in play.

My question is does royal carriage work like that also? I feel like It should as other wise it makes some games super broken. (Example I just had a goons game where I bought one goons and just waited to draw it then used all my carriages on it for like a easy 60+ point hand)

So obviously I think it shouldn't do that but since it say replay the card I'm wondering if the Royal carriage kinda becomes the card like band of misfits. Of if the goons just gets played twice like other doublers.

[drsteelhammer]

Goons stays "in play" once, so Royal Carriage works the same the rest of the throne room family.

[LastFootnote]

It's the same as with Throne Room and King's Court; Royal Carriage doesn't count as a copy of the card. You only get the while-in-play effects once.

[GendoIkari]

It's the same.... just read the cards completely literally... "while this is in play". "This" can only ever be "in play" once at the same time. It's impossible physically for the same card to be "in play" twice.

[Erick648]

Throne Room plays a card twice.  Royal Carriage takes a card you've already played and played it again.  Both wind up with only one copy of the target card in play.

It can be easy to think of Royal Carriage as a "mimic" card, like Band of Misfits, but it isn't (at least, no more than Throne Room).  It doesn't mimic a card you have in play (though in practice it can feel like that); it simply replays the card you already played.  The difference is the difference between "this is that card" (Band of Misfits), which creates a new (temporary) copy of the target card, and "play that card multiple times" (Throne variants) which gets additional uses out of the existing copy of the target card.

Incidentally, the broken Goons strategy you mentioned does work with Bridge (although the number of Royal Carriages required keeps it from being broken, IMO).

[scott_pilgrim]

Everyone has stated the correct conclusion, but I think the reasoning is wrong for all of their explanations.

The "while in play" wording has nothing to do with why the effect does or doesn't get "doubled".  Whether the effect gets doubled is determined by whether the effect is below a line.  You can see this by comparing Scheme and Goons.  Scheme lets you put back two cards when throned (or royal carriaged, etc.), because its "At the start of clean-up..." part is not below a line; therefore, it is something that happens when the card is played (when played, it sets up an event which becomes relevant at clean-up).  Goons, on the other hand, has its +VP effect below a line; therefore, it is just a general rule of Dominion that you are being reminded of by the card.  When you throne a Goons, all of the stuff above the line is stuff that happens when you play the card; since you're playing Goons twice, all of that stuff happens twice.  All of the stuff below the line is stuff that always happens no matter what.  While Goons is in play, you get +1 VP per card you buy.  Throning it doesn't make that rule any more or less true.  Playing Royal Carriage on it provides no extra benefit; there's still only one copy of Goons in play.

Now if there were a card called Super Goons, which is identical to Goons, but without the horizontal line on it, then calling Royal Carriage on it, or throning it, would get you the extra VP.  When you play Super Goons, it sets up the event "while this is in play, +1 VP when you buy a card", so when you play it again, it sets up that event again.  When you buy a card, you check to see if Super Goons is in play, and (assuming it is) you resolve the event "while this is in play, +1 VP when you buy a card" twice, since you set it up twice.

If you're ever confused about how to treat Royal Carriage replaying a card, it should always come out the same as if you had throned it*; both Royal Carriage and Throne Room just play the card an extra time, while leaving only one copy of it in play.

*And now by stating this, I have inadvertently created an edge case puzzle.

[AJD]

If you're ever confused about how to treat Royal Carriage replaying a card, it should always come out the same as if you had throned it*

*And now by stating this, I have inadvertently created an edge case puzzle.

Throne Room–Conspirator at the beginning of a turn ends up nonterminal; Conspirator–Royal Carriage doesn't.

[markusin]

@scott-pilgrim I think it's the opposite. The horizontal line is purely convention and has nothing to do with the literal interpretation of the card. You've mixed correlation with causation. I don't think the rules ever state something like "effects below the line do not occur on play". " While in play" means while the card is in play. Why would a horizontal line change the meaning of it?

It's true that effects below the line are never on play effects, but the wording of all those effects make it possible to know that even if the line wasn't there. Both the wording of below-line effects like "While in play" and the horizontal line itself suggest the effect cannot be throned and to date they've never defied that rule. There are no grounds to say the wording or the horizontal line is more important to the card's behaviour than the other. The wording happens to give a reason for why the effect cannot be throned that can be understood. The horizontal line is just a hard-and-fast rule that might confuse you if you don't understand it and when when it applies. Throne room variants don't have a special tag or anything after all.

[Awaclus]

@scott-pilgrim I think it's the opposite. The horizontal line is purely convention and has nothing to do with the literal interpretation of the card. You've mixed correlation with causation. I don't think the rules ever state something like "effects below the line do not occur on play". " While in play" means while the card is in play. Why would a horizontal line change the meaning of it?

It's true that effects below the line are never on play effects, but the wording of all those effects make it possible to know that even if the line wasn't there. Both the wording of below-line effects like "While in play" and the horizontal line itself suggest the effect cannot be throned and to date they've never defied that rule. There are no grounds to say the wording or the horizontal line is more important to the card's behaviour than the other. The wording happens to give a reason for why the effect cannot be throned that can be understood. The horizontal line is just a hard-and-fast rule that might confuse you if you don't understand it and when when it applies. Throne room variants don't have a special tag or anything after all.

No, I'm pretty sure he's right. "While in play" does mean while the card is in play, but everything in the absence of a horizontal line or above it has an implied "when you play this", so if Highway didn't have the horizontal line, it would essentially be this:

"When you play this, +1 card, +1 action and while this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0."

And if you Throned it, you would get the following effects:

+1 card
+1 action
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0.
+1 card
+1 action
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0.

Since the cost reduction effect is below a horizontal line, it is not a part of the card's on-play effect, which is why you won't get it twice. Actually, if it didn't have the horizontal line, every time you played that Highway, you would get a permanent "while this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0" effect in addition to the ones that you already had from playing the same Highway before, which would be ridiculously powerful and impossible to track.

[markusin]

@scott-pilgrim I think it's the opposite. The horizontal line is purely convention and has nothing to do with the literal interpretation of the card. You've mixed correlation with causation. I don't think the rules ever state something like "effects below the line do not occur on play". " While in play" means while the card is in play. Why would a horizontal line change the meaning of it?

It's true that effects below the line are never on play effects, but the wording of all those effects make it possible to know that even if the line wasn't there. Both the wording of below-line effects like "While in play" and the horizontal line itself suggest the effect cannot be throned and to date they've never defied that rule. There are no grounds to say the wording or the horizontal line is more important to the card's behaviour than the other. The wording happens to give a reason for why the effect cannot be throned that can be understood. The horizontal line is just a hard-and-fast rule that might confuse you if you don't understand it and when when it applies. Throne room variants don't have a special tag or anything after all.

No, I'm pretty sure he's right. "While in play" does mean while the card is in play, but everything in the absence of a horizontal line or above it has an implied "when you play this", so if Highway didn't have the horizontal line, it would essentially be this:

"When you play this, +1 card, +1 action and while this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0."

And if you Throned it, you would get the following effects:

+1 card
+1 action
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0.
+1 card
+1 action
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0.

Since the cost reduction effect is below a horizontal line, it is not a part of the card's on-play effect, which is why you won't get it twice. Actually, if it didn't have the horizontal line, every time you played that Highway, you would get a permanent "while this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0" effect in addition to the ones that you already had from playing the same Highway before, which would be ridiculously powerful and impossible to track.

"If" conditionals like in Outpost are also above the line. Without the horizontal line, "While in play" could be shorthand for "if you play this when it wasn't already in play".

[Awaclus]

"If" conditionals like in Outpost are also above the line. Without the horizontal line, "While in play" could be shorthand for "if you play this when it wasn't already in play".

I'm not sure what you mean. There is no "If" conditional in Outpost; all Outpost does is setting up a couple of things that happen later as a part of its on-play effect.

"While in play" is not shorthand for "if you play this when it wasn't already in play", it just means that the continuous effect described on that card after the "while in play" is effective whenever and only as long as the card is in play.

[markusin]

"If" conditionals like in Outpost are also above the line. Without the horizontal line, "While in play" could be shorthand for "if you play this when it wasn't already in play".

I'm not sure what you mean. There is no "If" conditional in Outpost; all Outpost does is setting up a couple of things that happen later as a part of its on-play effect.

"While in play" is not shorthand for "if you play this when it wasn't already in play", it just means that the continuous effect described on that card after the "while in play" is effective whenever and only as long as the card is in play.

I must have mixed Outpost with another card with "if", but it has the no-consecutive-turns conditional that prevents you from getting 2 extra turns if played twice.

I'm saying a game designer could have designed while-in-play to have the meaning of only working once per physical card even if it wasn't separated by a line.

Okay, so it's true that all affects that are not below the horizontal line do not get considered again if the card is played again with a Throne room variant, though I don't know if this is explicitly mentioned anywhere in the rules/FAQ. That does not mean all effects above the line give the bonus again when Throned. You don't get +6 Actions when playing Crossroads with Throne Room. It all depends on how the words themselves are interpreted. I'm saying that While-in-play effects, even if above the line, may not be Throned able depending on the rules put forth by the game designers.

[markusin]

Okay you know what I'm just confusing myself here and everyone else. Basically, I think that the only thing keeping a "When you play this" effect from being found below the horizontal line is convention or an unspoken rule. I don't believe that effects below the horizontal line should be ignored for Throne Room variants just because they are below the line. That said, every currently published card with horizontal lines has effects below the line that are not affected by Throne Room.

[Awaclus]

Okay, so it's true that all affects that are not below the horizontal line do not get considered again if the card is played again with a Throne room variant, though I don't know if this is explicitly mentioned anywhere in the rules/FAQ. That does not mean all effects above the line give the bonus again when Throned. You don't get +6 Actions when playing Crossroads with Throne Room. It all depends on how the words themselves are interpreted. I'm saying that While-in-play effects, even if above the line, may not be Throned able depending on the rules put forth by the game designers.

But all effects above the line do give the bonus again when Throned. You do get "+3 actions if this is the first time you played a Crossroads this turn" twice. The second time you get that effect, you don't get the actions though because it's no longer the first time you're playing it.

[markusin]

Okay, so it's true that all affects that are not below the horizontal line do not get considered again if the card is played again with a Throne room variant, though I don't know if this is explicitly mentioned anywhere in the rules/FAQ. That does not mean all effects above the line give the bonus again when Throned. You don't get +6 Actions when playing Crossroads with Throne Room. It all depends on how the words themselves are interpreted. I'm saying that While-in-play effects, even if above the line, may not be Throned able depending on the rules put forth by the game designers.

But all effects above the line do give the bonus again when Throned. You do get "+3 actions if this is the first time you played a Crossroads this turn" twice. The second time you get that effect, you don't get the actions though because it's no longer the first time you're playing it.

You follow the instructions twice, but you don't necessarily get the same benefits the second time that you did the first time, in this case +3 Actions.

[Awaclus]

You follow the instructions twice, but you don't necessarily get the same benefits the second time that you did the first time, in this case +3 Actions.

Yeah, because the instructions give you different benefits depending on the situation, and the situation has changed after you played the card for the first time. That's what the Highway without the horizontal line would do, too; the first time you get the "While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0", it does exactly that and then Poor House costs $0 and Silver costs $2, and the second time you get the "While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0", it does exactly that again and then Silver costs $1 but Poor House's cost is unaffected this time.

That's also what happens when you Throne a Smithy with 3 cards left in your deck — the first time you play the Smithy, it gives you +3 cards, and the second time you play the Smithy, you still get the "+3 cards" effect but it just doesn't do anything now.

[markusin]

You follow the instructions twice, but you don't necessarily get the same benefits the second time that you did the first time, in this case +3 Actions.

Yeah, because the instructions give you different benefits depending on the situation, and the situation has changed after you played the card for the first time. That's what the Highway without the horizontal line would do, too; the first time you get the "While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0", it does exactly that and then Poor House costs $0 and Silver costs $2, and the second time you get the "While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0", it does exactly that again and then Silver costs $1 but Poor House's cost is unaffected this time.

That's also what happens when you Throne a Smithy with 3 cards left in your deck — the first time you play the Smithy, it gives you +3 cards, and the second time you play the Smithy, you still get the "+3 cards" effect but it just doesn't do anything now.

But that's where I'd think that no, the benefit of the while-in-play effect is not received even though it was set up twice, especially since it's different wording from other existing cards with the same effect such as Bridge. I'd intetpret that as performing the check twice, but you can't get the benefit more than once per physical card.

For me, while-in-play means the same thing whether or not it is below a horizontal line, considering the context of Dominion as we know it.

[GendoIkari]

The thing is, Dominion is not Magic. Card wordings are more focused on readability/ease of understanding than they are on the intricacy of all the rules. Cards are never errata'd if a better wording is found. You need to read each card literally as a human should read it; not overthinking the possible logical implications.

For example, the instruction at the bottom of Embargo. Everyone understood just fine that it was defining what an Embargo token does; people don't think that the fact that the instruction is written on 10 different card means that the instruction triggers 10 times. Same with Duchess. Then you have cards like Envoy which say "draw", even though the cards aren't actually being "drawn" (the -1 card token doesn't affect it). Then you have Pirate Ship, which says "take a coin token"; and even though that has actually caused confusion among some people, it's just how it is.

For Highway, yes, if you removed the line then you could make the technical argument that suddenly you have the effect "while this is in play...."; and that there's no reason that effect should ever go away. But nobody would actually think that if they picked up the game and saw Highway without a line. There's no cards in Dominion that set up a permanent effect for the rest of the game (there's things like Prince, which set up "at the start of each of your turns"; but that's something that specifically triggers repeatedly; not an ongoing effect).

Point being, even if Awaclus is technically correct; the game would still function just fine if Highway didn't have that line. The line is intended to add clarity, it's not absolutely required to make the game work.

[Awaclus]

But that's where I'd think that no, the benefit of the while-in-play effect is not received even though it was set up twice, especially since it's different wording from other existing cards with the same effect such as Bridge. I'd intetpret that as performing the check twice, but you can't get the benefit more than once per physical card.

For me, while-in-play means the same thing whether or not it is below a horizontal line, considering the context of Dominion as we know it.

Why is while-in-play special? Everything else means different things depending on whether or not it is below a horizontal line, so it would make a lot of sense for while-in-play to follow the same logic as well.

The wording is different from other existing cards such as Bridge because "When you play this, while this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0" is very much different from "When you play this, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0 this turn". The former results in games like

T1: buy Highway Without Horizontal Line.
T2: buy nothing.
T3: play Highway Without Horizontal Line, cards cost $1 less while it's in play, but not less than $0 now, buy a Silver.
T4: buy a Silver.
T5: play the same Highway Without Horizontal Line, now there are two "while this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0" effects, and since it happens to be in play now, all cards cost $2 less. Buy another Highway Without Horizontal Line.
T6: Your opponents play a bunch of Governors and Council Rooms until you reshuffle and draw one Highway Without Horizontal Line. Then you play it. Now you have to know if it's the one you bought on turn 1 or the one you bought on turn 5, because if it's the one you bought on turn 1, cards cost $3 less now, but if it's the new one, they just cost $1 less.

because "While this is in play" effects are continuous, so you get another one of those continuous effects every time you play it because that's its on-play effect, and then they build up. The latter doesn't, because even though "this turn" effects are continuous as well, they end after "this turn" is done, and there will never be another this turn ever again.


It's not that a check is being performed twice with Throned Highway Without Horizontal Lines, it's that a check is being performed continuously, for two different instances of the effect. The card is in play, so the check returns true for both instances.


The context of Dominion as we know it already has Scheme and Herbalist having the same wording without a horizontal line and below a horizontal line, respectively, doing different things because of that. I don't see a reason to believe that while-in-play is somehow special.

[scott_pilgrim]

For Highway, yes, if you removed the line then you could make the technical argument that suddenly you have the effect "while this is in play...."; and that there's no reason that effect should ever go away. But nobody would actually think that if they picked up the game and saw Highway without a line. There's no cards in Dominion that set up a permanent effect for the rest of the game (there's things like Prince, which set up "at the start of each of your turns"; but that's something that specifically triggers repeatedly; not an ongoing effect).

The problem is that, without the ruling on the meaning of a horizontal line, it actually is confusing.  Why is Scheme different from Highway when throned?  If there were no line on Highway, I'm sure we could all agree it's silly that it would set up a permanent effect for the rest of the game (though following the literal wording and rules, that is what would happen).  But we would still get confused about what happens when it is throned.  Scheme only works when throned because there is no line on it; if there were not lines on cards, we would have to assume that Scheme and Highway behave the same way when throned.  There's nothing special about the fact that it's phrased as "At the start of your clean-up" rather than "While this is in play"; what is special is that one is an event that is set up when played, while the other is a rule that is true no matter what.  Of course there are other notations that could have been used instead of a line, or there could be nothing helpful on the card at all and it could just have been clarified in the rulebook.  But you want the game to be as complete and clear as possible, and you want to be able to figure out how cards interact without looking it up in the rulebook every time.  By having a standard notation to distinguish "on-play, set up an event" from "this is always true" effects, people ideally won't need to depend on a rulebook or FAQ as much.

It's true that effects below the line are never on play effects, but the wording of all those effects make it possible to know that even if the line wasn't there. Both the wording of below-line effects like "While in play" and the horizontal line itself suggest the effect cannot be throned and to date they've never defied that rule.

Then I can just as easily argue that Scheme's "At the start of clean-up" wording suggests that it cannot be throned.  While a Goons is in play, I get +VP when I buy something.  When I discard Scheme from play, I put something on top of my deck.  Why is the second one thronable while the first is not?  The only difference is the horizontal line.

The horizontal line is just a hard-and-fast rule that might confuse you if you don't understand it and when when it applies. Throne room variants don't have a special tag or anything after all.

I'm not sure what you're saying...there's nothing special about throne room variants.  They have an effect that plays a card an extra time.  Because of that, the difference between a card being played and it being in play (or being  is relevant, and that's why we need to have this discussion.

[AJD]

There's no cards in Dominion that set up a permanent effect for the rest of the game

Champion.

[AJD]

The context of Dominion as we know it already has Scheme and Herbalist having the same wording without a horizontal line and below a horizontal line, respectively, doing different things because of that.

Scheme and Herbalist don't have the same wording.

[LastFootnote]

The context of Dominion as we know it already has Scheme and Herbalist having the same wording without a horizontal line and below a horizontal line, respectively, doing different things because of that.

Scheme and Herbalist don't have the same wording.

Exactly. Scheme is "At the start of Clean-up this turn" and Herbalist is "When you discard this from play". Herbalist's effect would still happen even if you somehow got it into play without playing it. Scheme's effect happens once per time you played it that turn.

[markusin]

The context of Dominion as we know it already has Scheme and Herbalist having the same wording without a horizontal line and below a horizontal line, respectively, doing different things because of that.

Scheme and Herbalist don't have the same wording.

Exactly. Scheme is "At the start of Clean-up this turn" and Herbalist is "When you discard this from play". Herbalist's effect would still happen even if you somehow got it into play without playing it. Scheme's effect happens once per time you played it that turn.

Below the line effects never reference a particular turn like Scheme does because they are ongoing effects tied to the card's existence. If an exception was made to that and Scheme's effect was below the line, who's to say you can't Throne that effect other than the rulebook. Herbalist is on discard, and you can't discard it from play twice so it would function the same way if that effect was above the line.

The horizontal line separates on play effects from ongoing effects, but the wording of the effects themselves also distinguish themselves as on-play and ongoing.

[scott_pilgrim]

What is going on right now?  Awaclus is the one making sense, and everyone else is chiming in with unhelpful, irrelevant comments.

No, Scheme and Herbalist do not have identical wordings.  Obviously they do different things.  But if we ignore lines on cards, we would expect them to behave the same way when throned.  Either we could say:

1. Scheme works when throned, because it sets up an event to happen at the start of clean-up phase.  Therefore, Herbalist should work when throned, because it sets up an event to happen when discarded from play.

OR

2. Herbalist doesn't work when throned, because it just does something when discarded from play.  Therefore, Scheme shouldn't work when throned because it just does something at the start of clean-up.

#2 doesn't make sense to me, I assume you would have to argue for #1.  But the only way we can explain that Scheme works when throned and Herbalist doesn't is by acknowledging that the line is meaningful.

It's not helpful for you guys to keep saying "the wording makes it obvious".  No, it doesn't.  These cards are all doing the same thing.  Obviously not exactly the same, we have to keep cards interesting.  But they all do things that become relevant later in the turn.  One of them says it starts at clean-up and another says when it's discarded from play, and another says while it's in play, how does that make a difference?  You guys keep saying it's obvious, but it all looks like the same thing to me.

[Awaclus]

Exactly. Scheme is "At the start of Clean-up this turn" and Herbalist is "When you discard this from play". Herbalist's effect would still happen even if you somehow got it into play without playing it. Scheme's effect happens once per time you played it that turn.

Yeah, and the reason why that happens is that Herbalist has a dividing line.

The thing is, Dominion is not Magic. Card wordings are more focused on readability/ease of understanding than they are on the intricacy of all the rules. Cards are never errata'd if a better wording is found. You need to read each card literally as a human should read it; not overthinking the possible logical implications.

For example, the instruction at the bottom of Embargo. Everyone understood just fine that it was defining what an Embargo token does; people don't think that the fact that the instruction is written on 10 different card means that the instruction triggers 10 times. Same with Duchess. Then you have cards like Envoy which say "draw", even though the cards aren't actually being "drawn" (the -1 card token doesn't affect it). Then you have Pirate Ship, which says "take a coin token"; and even though that has actually caused confusion among some people, it's just how it is.

For Highway, yes, if you removed the line then you could make the technical argument that suddenly you have the effect "while this is in play...."; and that there's no reason that effect should ever go away. But nobody would actually think that if they picked up the game and saw Highway without a line. There's no cards in Dominion that set up a permanent effect for the rest of the game (there's things like Prince, which set up "at the start of each of your turns"; but that's something that specifically triggers repeatedly; not an ongoing effect).

Point being, even if Awaclus is technically correct; the game would still function just fine if Highway didn't have that line. The line is intended to add clarity, it's not absolutely required to make the game work.

There is some truth to this, but it's also not the entire truth. It's true that readability and ease of understanding are crucial factors, and it's also true that cards generally do what they're intended to do even though you could argue that it does something else based on the wording. However, the wordings and the rulings do always follow the same logic every time (with possibly the exception of Pirate Ship/coin tokens, but that's definitely a flaw).

[GendoIkari]

There's no cards in Dominion that set up a permanent effect for the rest of the game

Champion.

Huh, I thought Champion was a "while this is in play", but I'm wrong. So I guess if you throne a champion, then every action gives you +2 actions? And attacks don't affect you twice?

[GendoIkari]

For Highway, yes, if you removed the line then you could make the technical argument that suddenly you have the effect "while this is in play...."; and that there's no reason that effect should ever go away. But nobody would actually think that if they picked up the game and saw Highway without a line. There's no cards in Dominion that set up a permanent effect for the rest of the game (there's things like Prince, which set up "at the start of each of your turns"; but that's something that specifically triggers repeatedly; not an ongoing effect).

The problem is that, without the ruling on the meaning of a horizontal line, it actually is confusing.  Why is Scheme different from Highway when throned?  If there were no line on Highway, I'm sure we could all agree it's silly that it would set up a permanent effect for the rest of the game (though following the literal wording and rules, that is what would happen).  But we would still get confused about what happens when it is throned.  Scheme only works when throned because there is no line on it; if there were not lines on cards, we would have to assume that Scheme and Highway behave the same way when throned. 

I disagree, I think "while this is in play" is clear enough. The card can only be in play once.

[Chris is me]

I have no idea where this notion came from that a horizontal line has any meaning whatsoever in Dominion. Can someone cite a rule or ruling? I quite frankly think you're making this "horizontal line standard" up.

"While this is in play" is unambiguous - is this physical card in play? If so, do the thing. It doesn't matter how many times the card was played. This is corroborated by the official rules which refer to the wording "while this is in play" - not the horizontal line.

If for some reason there was no horizontal line, "while this is in play" would not change meaning. The line is an aesthetic choice to more easily distinguish between on play effects and other card effects or rules.

[Awaclus]

I disagree, I think "while this is in play" is clear enough. The card can only be in play once.

It can also be "at the start of clean-up this turn" once. It doesn't prevent multiple things happening as a result of that one thing happening once.

"While this is in play" is unambiguous - is this physical card in play? If so, do the thing. It doesn't matter how many times the card was played.

Indeed. And if there are multiple "While this is in play" effects, you do all of them if the physical card is in play. And there are multiple "While this is in play" effects when you Throne a card whose on-play effect sets up a "While this is in play" effect.

[scott_pilgrim]

I don't see how you could think I'm making it up, because it's clear based on the current rulings that it makes a difference.  But here is Donald X. on the topic: http://boardgamegeek.com/article/8150227#8150227

By default, text on cards happens when you play them. It's true that there's a difference between "right now, set something up to happen later" and "at a certain time which from your perspective when you first see this will be in the future, do something." The dividing line lets you know that some stuff doesn't happen when you play the card (except it's missing on Harem, and the German version of Seaside puts it on duration cards even though they are the former case). Scheme does something when you play it, where that thing is to set up something to happen later. Similarly Bridge does something when you play it, but Highway does something while it's in play.

You couldn't just add a line to Scheme. Then the bottom half would have nothing specifying its scope - it could apply from the start of the game, with no Schemes ever bought or played. It would have to be like, "At the start of Clean-up, if this is in play, ..." Herbalist limits its scope by requiring itself to be discarded.

I don't think the dividing line is in the rules anywhere, but I think the FAQs are clear for all of the cards with them. The dividing line should be in the rules; I don't deny it.

[Donald X.]

I have no idea where this notion came from that a horizontal line has any meaning whatsoever in Dominion. Can someone cite a rule or ruling? I quite frankly think you're making this "horizontal line standard" up.

The Adventures rulebook has it:

Some cards have a dividing line on them. This separates things that happen at different times. When a card is played, it only does the effects listed above the line; text below the line happens at another time, indicated on each such card.

Someday I will rewrite the main rulebook and it will include that.

[singletee]

Indeed. And if there are multiple "While this is in play" effects, you do all of them if the physical card is in play. And there are multiple "While this is in play" effects when you Throne a card whose on-play effect sets up a "While this is in play" effect.

Yes. Imagine the following card:

Turnpike
Action - $5

+1 Card
+1 Action
____________

While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0.
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0.

If one of these is played (and stays in play), how much does it reduce costs? By $2, because there are 2 instances of the descriptive statement.

Also, why would anyone interpret "while this is in play" to mean "for the rest of the game, at any time that this is in play" instead of the more sensible and trackable "until this leaves play"?

[Chris is me]

I have no idea where this notion came from that a horizontal line has any meaning whatsoever in Dominion. Can someone cite a rule or ruling? I quite frankly think you're making this "horizontal line standard" up.

The Adventures rulebook has it:

Some cards have a dividing line on them. This separates things that happen at different times. When a card is played, it only does the effects listed above the line; text below the line happens at another time, indicated on each such card.

Someday I will rewrite the main rulebook and it will include that.

Thanks, hadn't read that before! And when the rulebook came out early I swore I read every word 

Indeed. And if there are multiple "While this is in play" effects, you do all of them if the physical card is in play. And there are multiple "While this is in play" effects when you Throne a card whose on-play effect sets up a "While this is in play" effect.

"While this is in play" effects aren't set up on play, though. They occur passively. If it was an effect set up on-play conditional on the card being in play, the effect would read "if this is in play", not "while this is in play".

It can also be "at the start of clean-up this turn" once. It doesn't prevent multiple things happening as a result of that one thing happening once.

That's totally different. At the start of clean up, the effect happens. Mulitple effects can happen at once. While this is in play is a state that is true while the card is in play. There is no second card. Where does the second instance of the effect come from?

[Awaclus]

Also, why would anyone interpret "while this is in play" to mean "for the rest of the game, at any time that this is in play" instead of the more sensible and trackable "until this leaves play"?

Because that's what it means. A normal Highway does make cards cost $1 less for the rest of the game, at any time it is in play. It does not stop reducing costs after the first time it has left play. If you want to have your effect last until a card leaves play, then you should probably put "until this leaves play" on the card instead of "while this is in play".

"While this is in play" effects aren't set up on play, though. They occur passively. If it was an effect set up on-play conditional on the card being in play, the effect would read "if this is in play", not "while this is in play".

Effects that are a part of the card's on-play effect (i.e. above the dividing line, or everything if it doesn't have a dividing line) are set up on play. Effects that are below the dividing line occur passively. "If this is in play" and "While this is in play" are exactly the same thing.

It can also be "at the start of clean-up this turn" once. It doesn't prevent multiple things happening as a result of that one thing happening once.
That's totally different. At the start of clean up, the effect happens. Mulitple effects can happen at once. While this is in play is a state that is true while the card is in play. There is no second card. Where does the second instance of the effect come from?

The second instance of the effect comes from the second time the card's on-play effect sets it up when you play it twice.

[markusin]

I have no idea where this notion came from that a horizontal line has any meaning whatsoever in Dominion. Can someone cite a rule or ruling? I quite frankly think you're making this "horizontal line standard" up.

The Adventures rulebook has it:

Some cards have a dividing line on them. This separates things that happen at different times. When a card is played, it only does the effects listed above the line; text below the line happens at another time, indicated on each such card.

Someday I will rewrite the main rulebook and it will include that.

Thanks, hadn't read that before! And when the rulebook came out early I swore I read every word 

Indeed. And if there are multiple "While this is in play" effects, you do all of them if the physical card is in play. And there are multiple "While this is in play" effects when you Throne a card whose on-play effect sets up a "While this is in play" effect.

"While this is in play" effects aren't set up on play, though. They occur passively. If it was an effect set up on-play conditional on the card being in play, the effect would read "if this is in play", not "while this is in play".

It can also be "at the start of clean-up this turn" once. It doesn't prevent multiple things happening as a result of that one thing happening once.

That's totally different. At the start of clean up, the effect happens. Mulitple effects can happen at once. While this is in play is a state that is true while the card is in play. There is no second card. Where does the second instance of the effect come from?

Huh, can't really argue with that. I really didn't think there was an official ruling on that because all the below-the-line effects are worded like passive effects, whereas things above the line are worded as a step-by-step instruction set.

[werothegreat]

So.... should I make a wiki page about dividing lines?

[pacovf]

There's no cards in Dominion that set up a permanent effect for the rest of the game

Champion.

Huh, I thought Champion was a "while this is in play", but I'm wrong. So I guess if you throne a champion, then every action gives you +2 actions? And attacks don't affect you twice?

Damn, there goes my Strongman Militia.

[skip wooznum]

There's no cards in Dominion that set up a permanent effect for the rest of the game

Champion.

Huh, I thought Champion was a "while this is in play", but I'm wrong. So I guess if you throne a champion, then every action gives you +2 actions? And attacks don't affect you twice?

Damn, there goes my Strongman Militia.

depends on how you define strongman though. Uos would disagree.

[Haddock]

I can see both arguments here, and while I don't want to continue it after DXV has made it fairly final, I still think the while in play argument is interesting.

Fundamentally the question is "what would happen if Highway (say) had its while in play effect above the line?"

I would argue that by Throning it, this happens.
1) I play Throne Room
2) I choose to play Highway twice.  It enters play.
3) I get +1 Card +1 Action, and Highway is in play, so all cards decrease in cost by 1.
4) Throne Room continues, I must play Highway again.
5) I pick up Highway (OK noone ever actually does this, but it's how I've always imagined Throne Room is kinda meant to work - it's how Androminion does it for instance), in order to play it again.
5a) Highway has left play; all cards increase in cost by 1.
6) I play Highway again.  It reenters play. 
7) +1 Card +1 Action, Highway is in play, all cards decrease in cost by 1.

Overall effect: +2 Cards +2 Actions, all cards decreased in cost by 1.

I guess the argument is whether step 5 happens.  If the Highway never leaves play in between playings of it, then the first effect never gets cancelled out, so the effects would stack without a dividing line. 
I'm sure someone will tell me whether I'm right to think that cards leave play for an instant in between each playing by Throne Room and variants.

[faust]

5) I pick up Highway (OK noone ever actually does this, but it's how I've always imagined Throne Room is kinda meant to work - it's how Androminion does it for instance), in order to play it again.
5a) Highway has left play; all cards increase in cost by 1.

I don't think this can work; if it would work like that, if I throne a Feast, I would not be able to "pick it up" after the first play and therefore could not play it again.

[skip wooznum]

When you throne a card, I'm pretty sure it never leaves play. If it did leave play, then when you throne a BoM, you should be able to choose a different card for BoM to copy the second time you play it, because it left play and is now in play again.

[Awaclus]

I would argue that by Throning it, this happens.
1) I play Throne Room
2) I choose to play Highway twice.  It enters play.
3) I get +1 Card +1 Action, and Highway is in play, so all cards decrease in cost by 1.
4) Throne Room continues, I must play Highway again.
5) I pick up Highway (OK noone ever actually does this, but it's how I've always imagined Throne Room is kinda meant to work - it's how Androminion does it for instance), in order to play it again.
5a) Highway has left play; all cards increase in cost by 1.
6) I play Highway again.  It reenters play. 
7) +1 Card +1 Action, Highway is in play, all cards decrease in cost by 1.

Even if step 5 worked like that (it doesn't), at step 7, all cards would decrease in cost by 2 (assuming you haven't played that particular Highway earlier during the game).

[Haddock]

When you throne a card, I'm pretty sure it never leaves play. If it did leave play, then when you throne a BoM, you should be able to choose a different card for BoM to copy the second time you play it, because it left play and is now in play again.

Have I been misunderstanding how throne-bom works this whole time? Think ive never actually done it, but I always thought you could change between the two.

Even if step 5 worked like that (it doesn't), at step 7, all cards would decrease in cost by 2 (assuming you haven't played that particular Highway earlier during the game).

I concede that I may well be misunderstanding step 5. But you'll need to explain to me your reasoning about step 7.

I don't think this can work; if it would work like that, if I throne a Feast, I would not be able to "pick it up" after the first play and therefore could not play it again.

I find that fairly convincing, thankyou.

[Awaclus]

When you throne a card, I'm pretty sure it never leaves play. If it did leave play, then when you throne a BoM, you should be able to choose a different card for BoM to copy the second time you play it, because it left play and is now in play again.

Have I been misunderstanding how throne-bom works this whole time? Think ive never actually done it, but I always thought you could change between the two.

You can't.

Even if step 5 worked like that (it doesn't), at step 7, all cards would decrease in cost by 2 (assuming you haven't played that particular Highway earlier during the game).

I concede that I may well be misunderstanding step 5. But you'll need to explain to me your reasoning about step 7.

I already have:

Indeed. And if there are multiple "While this is in play" effects, you do all of them if the physical card is in play. And there are multiple "While this is in play" effects when you Throne a card whose on-play effect sets up a "While this is in play" effect.

because "While this is in play" effects are continuous, so you get another one of those continuous effects every time you play it because that's its on-play effect, and then they build up.--


It's not that a check is being performed twice with Throned Highway Without Horizontal Lines, it's that a check is being performed continuously, for two different instances of the effect. The card is in play, so the check returns true for both instances.

Also, why would anyone interpret "while this is in play" to mean "for the rest of the game, at any time that this is in play" instead of the more sensible and trackable "until this leaves play"?

Because that's what it means. A normal Highway does make cards cost $1 less for the rest of the game, at any time it is in play. It does not stop reducing costs after the first time it has left play. If you want to have your effect last until a card leaves play, then you should probably put "until this leaves play" on the card instead of "while this is in play".

"While this is in play" effects aren't set up on play, though. They occur passively. If it was an effect set up on-play conditional on the card being in play, the effect would read "if this is in play", not "while this is in play".

Effects that are a part of the card's on-play effect (i.e. above the dividing line, or everything if it doesn't have a dividing line) are set up on play. Effects that are below the dividing line occur passively. "If this is in play" and "While this is in play" are exactly the same thing.

It can also be "at the start of clean-up this turn" once. It doesn't prevent multiple things happening as a result of that one thing happening once.
That's totally different. At the start of clean up, the effect happens. Mulitple effects can happen at once. While this is in play is a state that is true while the card is in play. There is no second card. Where does the second instance of the effect come from?

The second instance of the effect comes from the second time the card's on-play effect sets it up when you play it twice.

[Haddock]

Those arguments all imply that you think the effect is permanent, regardless of whether the card has left play at any point.

I can only conclude that, without the line, you would conclude that the effect carries over across multiple turns. (whenever you play a particular highway, it counts all previous instances of its effect). Is that what you would conclude? Interesting. You may well be right, I just find it unintuitive. To me, the effect disappears when the card leaves play.

[Awaclus]

Those arguments all imply that you think the effect is permanent, regardless of whether the card has left play at any point.

I can only conclude that, without the line, you would conclude that the effect carries over across multiple turns. (whenever you play a particular highway, it counts all previous instances of its effect). Is that what you would conclude? Interesting. You may well be right, I just find it unintuitive. To me, the effect disappears when the card leaves play.

Yes, the effect carries over across the rest of the game since it doesn't specify when it ends. Why would the effect disappear when the card leaves play? It's not like Bridge's effect disappears when it leaves play (if it leaves play before the turn is over due to Procession, that is) either.

[Haddock]

That is precisely the issue of contention I guess.

I would argue that the "while in play" is itself a declaration that the effect ends when the card leaves play.

[Awaclus]

That is precisely the issue of contention I guess.

I would argue that the "while in play" is itself a declaration that the effect ends when the card leaves play.

Then why does a Highway still reduce costs when you've played it once, it has left play once, and then you play it again?

[Donald X.]

That is precisely the issue of contention I guess.

I would argue that the "while in play" is itself a declaration that the effect ends when the card leaves play.

Then why does a Highway still reduce costs when you've played it once, it has left play once, and then you play it again?

Highway, the actual card, has a rule that applies while it's in play. I hope that's clear.

Hypothetical Messed Up Highway For Having Bad Rules Conversations About How Confusing Phrasings That Would Never Exist Should Be Interpreted, with no dividing line, has an implicit "when you play this" on its abilities, like all Action cards have above the line that's there or isn't. "When you play this, while this is in play, cards cost $1 less etc." looks to me like it stops functioning when the card leaves play.

[skip wooznum]

That is precisely the issue of contention I guess.

I would argue that the "while in play" is itself a declaration that the effect ends when the card leaves play.

Then why does a Highway still reduce costs when you've played it once, it has left play once, and then you play it again?

Highway, the actual card, has a rule that applies while it's in play. I hope that's clear.

Hypothetical Messed Up Highway For Having Bad Rules Conversations About How Confusing Phrasings That Would Never Exist Should Be Interpreted, with no dividing line, has an implicit "when you play this" on its abilities, like all Action cards have above the line that's there or isn't. "When you play this, while this is in play, cards cost $1 less etc." looks to me like it stops functioning when the card leaves play.

would it function twice if throned and still in play?

[LastFootnote]

would it function twice if throned and still in play?

Yes, it would. The cost reduction happens on-play and ends when the card leaves play. If you Throne it, costs get reduced by $2, and then costs go back to normal when it leaves play.

[Awaclus]

That is precisely the issue of contention I guess.

I would argue that the "while in play" is itself a declaration that the effect ends when the card leaves play.

Then why does a Highway still reduce costs when you've played it once, it has left play once, and then you play it again?

Highway, the actual card, has a rule that applies while it's in play. I hope that's clear.

Hypothetical Messed Up Highway For Having Bad Rules Conversations About How Confusing Phrasings That Would Never Exist Should Be Interpreted, with no dividing line, has an implicit "when you play this" on its abilities, like all Action cards have above the line that's there or isn't. "When you play this, while this is in play, cards cost $1 less etc." looks to me like it stops functioning when the card leaves play.

I'm not particularly expecting you to answer this, but why wouldn't it start functioning again when it enters play again, though?

[SCSN]

That is precisely the issue of contention I guess.

I would argue that the "while in play" is itself a declaration that the effect ends when the card leaves play.

Then why does a Highway still reduce costs when you've played it once, it has left play once, and then you play it again?

Highway, the actual card, has a rule that applies while it's in play. I hope that's clear.

Hypothetical Messed Up Highway For Having Bad Rules Conversations About How Confusing Phrasings That Would Never Exist Should Be Interpreted, with no dividing line, has an implicit "when you play this" on its abilities, like all Action cards have above the line that's there or isn't. "When you play this, while this is in play, cards cost $1 less etc." looks to me like it stops functioning when the card leaves play.

I'm not particularly expecting you to answer this, but why wouldn't it start functioning again when it enters play again, though?

I think you're confusing "while" and "whenever".

"While you're on vacation, I'll pay you $50/day" covers your current/upcoming vacation, and stops once you're back. If you go on vacation again you're on your own unless I make you a new promise.

"Whenever you're on vacation, I'll pay you $50/day" covers all future vacations.

So "while this is in play" is shorthand for "from the next time this enters play, until it leaves it". "Whenever this is in play" would mean "during all future periods where this is in play".

[Awaclus]

I think you're confusing "while" and "whenever".

"While you're on vacation, I'll pay you $50/day" covers your current/upcoming vacation, and stops once you're back. If you go on vacation again you're on your own unless I make you a new promise.

"Whenever you're on vacation, I'll pay you $50/day" covers all future vacations.

So "while this is in play" is shorthand for "from the next time this enters play, until it leaves it". "Whenever this is in play" would mean "during all future periods where this is in play".

Then why does a Highway still reduce costs when you've played it once, it has left play once, and then you play it again?

Also, that's not how it works in Magic and Hearthstone. I know this isn't Magic or Hearthstone, so I wouldn't insist on my conclusion being right based on just that, but normally I would expect words to mean the same thing across different games and I don't see a particular reason to believe that it isn't the case here, other than Donald saying that it isn't (which is a good enough reason, but I just don't get why he's saying that).

[SCSN]

Then why does a Highway still reduce costs when you've played it once, it has left play once, and then you play it again?

It doesn't still reduce costs, it reduces costs again, because you play it again. So in the vacation analogy a new promise is made to you; it isn't that the old promise still holds for your new vacation.

In the Highway case, the new promise is again this:

So "while this is in play" is shorthand for "from the next time this enters play, until it leaves it".

And ends when it leaves play.

Also, that's not how it works in Magic and Hearthstone. I know this isn't Magic or Hearthstone, so I wouldn't insist on my conclusion being right based on just that, but normally I would expect words to mean the same thing across different games

I don't know much about those games, but I do know English quite well, and this is how "while" is commonly used (that is, with an implicit endpoint, unlike "whenever").

[Awaclus]

Then why does a Highway still reduce costs when you've played it once, it has left play once, and then you play it again?

It doesn't still reduce costs, it reduces costs again, because you play it again. So in the vacation analogy a new promise is made to you; it isn't that the old promise still holds for your new vacation.

In the Highway case, the new promise is again this:

So "while this is in play" is shorthand for "from the next time this enters play, until it leaves it".

And ends when it leaves play.

But it's not made when you play it since it's below the horizontal line.

I don't know much about those games, but I do know English quite well, and this is how "while" is commonly used (that is, with an implicit endpoint, unlike "whenever").

In Hearthstone and Magic, "whenever" is used for one-shot effects that trigger when a one-shot requirement is met, and "while" is used for continuous effects that become active when a continuous requirement is met, inactive when it's not, and active when it's met again. "Until" is used for continuous effects that end when the end condition is met and also for one-shot effects that are performed over and over again until the end condition is met. This is also how it would seem to work in Dominion based on the cards that exist and how they actually work.

[Haddock]

I can't offhand think of any hearthstone cards that use the keyword while for stackable effects, only the charge while you have a weapon guy.
But most cards with text have an implicit "while this minion lives", so OK.  The best analogy for this situation is that I play a stormwind champion, which you Recycle.  When I draw the Stormwind the second time and play him, he doesnt give +2/+2...

Similarly for a hypothetical hs minion that said "while you have a weapon equipped, give it +1 attack".  If you recycled it, playing it again wouldnt give me +2 attack.

If the recycle example isnt adequate, resurrect has the same feel. They are the only cards I can think of that essentially let you play a removed minion again.

[Awaclus]

I can't offhand think of any hearthstone cards that use the keyword while for stackable effects, only the charge while you have a weapon guy.
But most cards with text have an implicit "while this minion lives", so OK.  The best analogy for this situation is that I play a stormwind champion, which you Recycle.  When I draw the Stormwind the second time and play him, he doesnt give +2/+2...

Similarly for a hypothetical hs minion that said "while you have a weapon equipped, give it +1 attack".  If you recycled it, playing it again wouldnt give me +2 attack.

If the recycle example isnt adequate, resurrect has the same feel. They are the only cards I can think of that essentially let you play a removed minion again.

What they don't have is the implicit "when you play this"; minions with Battlecry have it explicitly. When a Battlecry minion is Recycled and played again, you do get its Battlecry effect again, and if the Battlecry effect sets up a continuous effect like Abusive Sergeant does, you can have two of them active at the same time (that can't happen with Recycle though because you can't play it on your own minion, but it works with the pandas, for instance).

The charge while you have a weapon guy does gain the charge again if your weapon gets destroyed and then you get a new weapon. Goblin Sapper gets the +4 Attack again if your opponent draws up to 6 or more cards after he has had less than 6 cards after he has had 6 or more cards. Gladiator's Longbow makes your hero Immune every time you attack, not just the first time. Cogmaster and Cogmaster's Wrench have +2 Attack if you get another Mech in play after your last Mech died. Enrage minions get their Enrage benefits if they are healed to full health and then damaged again.

A card with "while you have a weapon equipped, give it +1 attack" would give the weapon infinitely much attack, since "give it +1 attack" is a one-shot effect setting up a permanent effect, and no matter how many times you gave the weapon +1 attack, you would still have the weapon equipped so you would do it again. This is why Spiteful Smith says "it has +2 attack" and works the way it does.

Obviously there is no card in Hearthstone which sets up a while-X effect. There is no such card in Magic either. This is not a coincidence — the very reason why this is the case is that it would work like I described, and that would be all kinds of awful.

[Donald X.]

I'm not particularly expecting you to answer this, but why wouldn't it start functioning again when it enters play again, though?

It's not looking so great to argue this out, and hey SCSN has stepped up there, hooray.

Again you are asking about a wording a card would never have. What would happen? I would give it a better wording, that's what would happen.

[Donald X.]

But it's not made when you play it since it's below the horizontal line.

srsly dude, be clear about when you're talking about Highway and when you're talking about Hypothetical Messed Up Highway For Having Bad Rules Conversations About How Confusing Phrasings That Would Never Exist Should Be Interpreted.

The text below the line on Highway does not happen when you play it. It's like a rule on a Magic permanent, which has an implicit "while this is in play." For example:



If I play Pearl Medallion, and it gets Disenchanted, and I Regrowth it and play it again, my white spells do not cost 2 less.

Also, that's not how it works in Magic and Hearthstone. I know this isn't Magic or Hearthstone, so I wouldn't insist on my conclusion being right based on just that, but normally I would expect words to mean the same thing across different games and I don't see a particular reason to believe that it isn't the case here, other than Donald saying that it isn't (which is a good enough reason, but I just don't get why he's saying that).

You are talking all sorts of nonsense.

[Haddock]

I really feel like this has gone on for too long now, and we've turned an intellectual exercise into something silly.

Thanks for stepping in Donald, more than once too! 

Apologies all.

[Awaclus]

The text below the line on Highway does not happen when you play it. It's like a rule on a Magic permanent, which has an implicit "while this is in play." For example:

[img]

If I play Pearl Medallion, and it gets Disenchanted, and I Regrowth it and play it again, my white spells do not cost 2 less.

That much is clear. What's not clear is how can "while this is in play" above a dividing line mean "when this enters play, until it leaves play", while "while this is in play" below a dividing line evidently means "at any time this is in play".

[Donald X.]

That much is clear. What's not clear is how can "while this is in play" above a dividing line mean "when this enters play, until it leaves play", while "while this is in play" below a dividing line evidently means "at any time this is in play".

There's an implicit "when you play this" above the line but not below it.

[Donald X.]

I really feel like this has gone on for too long now, and we've turned an intellectual exercise into something silly.

Thanks for stepping in Donald, more than once too! 

Apologies all.

Welcome to the internet!

If only it were that easy to end pointless arguments.

[Awaclus]

That much is clear. What's not clear is how can "while this is in play" above a dividing line mean "when this enters play, until it leaves play", while "while this is in play" below a dividing line evidently means "at any time this is in play".

There's an implicit "when you play this" above the line but not below it.

Is there also an implicit "until it leaves play" above the line?

[Donald X.]

That much is clear. What's not clear is how can "while this is in play" above a dividing line mean "when this enters play, until it leaves play", while "while this is in play" below a dividing line evidently means "at any time this is in play".

There's an implicit "when you play this" above the line but not below it.

Is there also an implicit "until it leaves play" above the line?

Hypothetical Messed Up Highway For Having Bad Rules Conversations About How Confusing Phrasings That Would Never Exist Should Be Interpreted, with no dividing line, has an implicit "when you play this" on its abilities, like all Action cards have above the line that's there or isn't. "When you play this, while this is in play, cards cost $1 less etc." looks to me like it stops functioning when the card leaves play.

[Awaclus]

That much is clear. What's not clear is how can "while this is in play" above a dividing line mean "when this enters play, until it leaves play", while "while this is in play" below a dividing line evidently means "at any time this is in play".

There's an implicit "when you play this" above the line but not below it.

Is there also an implicit "until it leaves play" above the line?

Hypothetical Messed Up Highway For Having Bad Rules Conversations About How Confusing Phrasings That Would Never Exist Should Be Interpreted, with no dividing line, has an implicit "when you play this" on its abilities, like all Action cards have above the line that's there or isn't. "When you play this, while this is in play, cards cost $1 less etc." looks to me like it stops functioning when the card leaves play.

So it's the "when you play this" that has an implicit "until it leaves play"? That doesn't seem very consistent with how a bunch of cards work with Procession.

[Donald X.]

So it's the "when you play this" that has an implicit "until it leaves play"? That doesn't seem very consistent with how a bunch of cards work with Procession.

Again you are asking about a wording a card would never have. What would happen? I would give it a better wording, that's what would happen.

You are talking all sorts of nonsense.

[Awaclus]

So it's the "when you play this" that has an implicit "until it leaves play"? That doesn't seem very consistent with how a bunch of cards work with Procession.

Again you are asking about a wording a card would never have. What would happen? I would give it a better wording, that's what would happen.

You are talking all sorts of nonsense.

I also understand why you don't necessarily want to participate in the argument. I don't understand why you would want to take a half-assed stance before refusing to explain it while insisting that it's true.

[Donald X.]

I also understand why you don't necessarily want to participate in the argument. I don't understand why you would want to take a half-assed stance before refusing to explain it while insisting that it's true.

I have not taken a half-assed stance. You will simply keep attributing false things to me as long as I keep discussing it with you. I knew better, I tried to answer your questions anyway, it's not worth more time.

I have also not refused to explain things. Things have been explained to you. There's a thread here; maybe you could re-read it, dwell on it, see if there is a moment of clarity for you.

[Awaclus]

I have not taken a half-assed stance.

You did:

"When you play this, while this is in play, cards cost $1 less etc." looks to me like it stops functioning when the card leaves play.

I have also not refused to explain things.

You did:

Again you are asking about a wording a card would never have. What would happen? I would give it a better wording, that's what would happen.

You are talking all sorts of nonsense.

Things have been explained to you. There's a thread here; maybe you could re-read it, dwell on it, see if there is a moment of clarity for you.

Nobody has explained where the implicit "stops functioning when the card leaves play" kicks in. Clearly that's something that only applies to stuff above the dividing line, because the real Highway's below-the-line ability doesn't stop functioning the first time the Highway leaves play. Because you still get the cost reduction from a Processioned Bridge, it doesn't seem to apply to all of the stuff above the dividing line either, or all of the stuff that sets up continuous effects, or even all of the cost-reduction effects, so I don't really see anything in common with how the actual game works. Of course it's possible for you to add a special rule that "when you play this, while this is in play" really means "when you play this, while this is in play, stops functioning when the card leaves play", but that's a pretty weird thing to do, since not only does it make no sense, it also makes no difference.

[Donald X.]

Nobody has explained where the implicit "stops functioning when the card leaves play" kicks in. Clearly that's something that only applies to stuff above the dividing line, because the real Highway's below-the-line ability doesn't stop functioning the first time the Highway leaves play. Because you still get the cost reduction from a Processioned Bridge, it doesn't seem to apply to all of the stuff above the dividing line either, or all of the stuff that sets up continuous effects, or even all of the cost-reduction effects, so I don't really see anything in common with how the actual game works. Of course it's possible for you to add a special rule that "when you play this, while this is in play" really means "when you play this, while this is in play, stops functioning when the card leaves play", but that's a pretty weird thing to do, since not only does it make no sense, it also makes no difference.

I don't have a new way to explain stuff you didn't understand the first time.

There will be no special rule for this phrasing a card will never have.

[Awaclus]

I don't have a new way to explain stuff I never explained in the first place.

There will be no special rule for this phrasing a card will never have.

I don't think there can be a way to explain it other than a special rule, since it contradicts the existing rules.

[GendoIkari]

because the real Highway's below-the-line ability doesn't stop functioning the first time the Highway leaves play

Why do you say this? When highway leaves play, cards stop being reduced from that highway. What's the meaning behind saying that it still "functions"? It's not doing anything, how is that functioning? The part that has an implicit "until this leaves play" is the "while this is in play". "While this is in play" is synonymous with "from the time this enters play until the time it leaves play".

[SCSN]

Code: [Select]

//Highway
OnEnteringPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(1)
OnLeavingPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(-1)

//Altered Highway
OnPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(1)
    this.CostReduction += 1
OnLeavingPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(-this.CostReduction)
    this.CostReduction = 0
   
//Bridge
OnPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(1)
    this.CostReduction += 1
OnCleanup:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(-this.CostReduction)
    this.CostReduction = 0
As far as I can tell this is all consistent with the general rules of Dominion, the cards' intended behavior (including TR, Procession, etc.) and the common interpretation of English. There is no weirdness, ambiguity or need for additional rulings.

[Awaclus]

What's the meaning behind saying that it still "functions"? It's not doing anything, how is that functioning? The part that has an implicit "until this leaves play" is the "while this is in play". "While this is in play" is synonymous with "from the time this enters play until the time it leaves play".

That it still does the same thing the next time I play it. If it followed the logic that SCSN and Donald X. are suggesting the modified Highway does, it would reduce costs the first time I play it, but after it has left play once, it would be just a vanilla cantrip for the rest of the game because apparently the ability no longer functions.

Code: [Select]

//Highway
OnEnteringPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(1)
OnLeavingPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(-1)

//Altered Highway
OnPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(1)
    this.CostReduction += 1
OnLeavingPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(-this.CostReduction)
    this.CostReduction = 0
   
//Bridge
OnPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(1)
    this.CostReduction += 1
OnCleanup:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(-this.CostReduction)
    this.CostReduction = 0
As far as I can tell this is all consistent with the general rules of Dominion, the cards' intended behavior (including TR, Procession, etc.) and the common interpretation of English. There is no weirdness, ambiguity or need for additional rulings.

Except that

Code: [Select]

OnPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(1)
    this.CostReduction += 1
OnLeavingPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(-this.CostReduction)
    this.CostReduction = 0
is not consistent with the other two. Bridge's continuous effect that it sets up does not stop functioning when it leaves play after the effect has been set up, and Highway's continuous effect that it actually has does not stop functioning when it leaves play for the first time during the game. This would be consistent:

Code: [Select]

OnPlay:
    newAbility = New(abilities)
OnEnteringPlay:
    For Each ability In abilities
        gameState.ReduceCosts(1)
OnLeavingPlay:
    For Each ability In abilities
        gameState.ReduceCosts(-1)

[SCSN]

If it followed the logic that SCSN and Donald X. are suggesting the modified Highway does, it would reduce costs the first time I play it, but after it has left play once, it would be just a vanilla cantrip for the rest of the game because apparently the ability no longer functions.

I have no idea why you think there's a difference between the first and the nth play. See my code, that's exactly how it would behave and it would display non of the behavior you describe.

Except that

Code: [Select]

OnPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(1)
    this.CostReduction += 1
OnLeavingPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(-this.CostReduction)
    this.CostReduction = 0
is not consistent with the other two.

I'm not sure what sort of consistency you're looking for here. All these implementations are consistent with the rules of Dominion in the sense that they don't violate them and reflect the intended behavior of the cards. Of course they are not the same as each other: we're talking about different cards with different effects and different scopes, which naturally leads to differences in implementation.

Bridge's continuous effect that it sets up does not stop functioning when it leaves play after the effect has been set up

Correct, see the code.

Highway's continuous effect that it actually has does not stop functioning when it leaves play for the first time during the game.

That's just not true (and the code reflects that), as has been confirmed by Donald, so I'm not sure why we're still arguing that. Ok, because I'm still responding. Touché.

[Awaclus]

I'm not sure what sort of consistency you're looking for here. All these implementations are consistent with the rules of Dominion in the sense that they don't violate them and reflect the intended behavior of the cards. Of course they are not the same as each other: we're talking about different cards with different effects and different scopes, which naturally leads to differences in implementation.

The kind of consistency that "while this is in play" should always mean the same thing. It shouldn't mean "for the rest of the game, while this is in play" for one card and "the first time you play this after setting up this effect, while this is in play" for another, it should mean "for the rest of the game, while this is in play" for both.

That's just not true (and the code reflects that), as has been confirmed by Donald, so I'm not sure why we're still arguing that. Ok, because I'm still responding. Touché.

It just is true, and the code reflects that. It's ridiculous to suggest that Highways become vanilla cantrips for the rest of the game when they leave play for the first time.

[Haddock]

It's ridiculous to suggest that Highways become vanilla cantrips for the rest of the game when they leave play for the first time.

Noone is suggesting this.  None of us have ever come close to suggesting this.  Which part of the code is making you think that that's what SCSN means?

The claim that me, SCSN and DXV (!) are making is that "While this is in play" is synonymous with "When this enters play, until it leaves play".  The code reflects that interpretation.  You play Highway, it is in play, it reduces costs by 1.  When it leaves play, costs go back to normal.  If it enters play again it reduces costs by 1.  In particular, if you play it again, it reduces costs by 1, just like it always did.

[Awaclus]

In particular, if you play it again, it reduces costs by 1, just like it always did.

In other words, the ability does not stop functioning.

[Haddock]

In other words, the ability does not stop functioning.

SCSN has been over this.  The ability does stop functioning in between plays.  While the card is not in play, the ability is not functioning.

When you play the card again, the ability starts functioning again.  Like SCSN's vacation pay example.  Every time you play the card, it renews its promise to reduce costs by 1 until it leaves play.

[SCSN]

In particular, if you play it again, it reduces costs by 1, just like it always did.

In other words, the ability does not stop functioning.

If you would also say that all the abilities of all the Dominion cards currently stored in my cupboard are still functioning, then I think we've reached an agreement.

[Awaclus]

In other words, the ability does not stop functioning.

SCSN has been over this.  The ability does stop functioning in between plays.  While the card is not in play, the ability is not functioning.

When you play the card again, the ability starts functioning again.  Like SCSN's vacation pay example.  Every time you play the card, it renews its promise to reduce costs by 1 until it leaves play.

Well, if you want to think of it that way, it's fine too. Then why don't all of the "while in play" abilities set up by previous plays of Altered Highway also start functioning again when the card enters play again?

[Haddock]

Altered Highway would never exist, as Donald has said, so it's probably no longer fruitful to talk about that.

[Awaclus]

Altered Highway would never exist, as Donald has said, so it's probably no longer fruitful to talk about that.

So it was fruitful to talk about it until you ran out of arguments?

[Haddock]

Altered Highway would never exist, as Donald has said, so it's probably no longer fruitful to talk about that.

So it was fruitful to talk about it until you ran out of arguments?

If it is important to your self-esteem to believe that, then I will happily concede it.  God forbid I cause you immeasurable psychological harm by making you lose an argument.

[Awaclus]

If it is important to your self-esteem to believe that, then I will happily concede it.  God forbid I cause you immeasurable psychological harm by making you lose an argument.

I'm not particularly trying to win an argument here, I'm trying to reach a conclusion. Besides, how exactly do you think you're making me lose an argument by refusing to answer my question?

[Haddock]

Besides, how exactly do you think you're making me lose an argument by refusing to answer my question?

I'm not.  I'm just leaving the discussion; I'm tired of it.  I'm saying that if you wish to interpret that as you having won the argument, then feel free to do so.

[GendoIkari]

In other words, the ability does not stop functioning.

SCSN has been over this.  The ability does stop functioning in between plays.  While the card is not in play, the ability is not functioning.

When you play the card again, the ability starts functioning again.  Like SCSN's vacation pay example.  Every time you play the card, it renews its promise to reduce costs by 1 until it leaves play.

Well, if you want to think of it that way, it's fine too. Then why don't all of the "while in play" abilities set up by previous plays of Altered Highway also start functioning again when the card enters play again?

Once Highway leaves play, whether it's Altered Highway or Regular Highway, the ability is gone. That same instance of that ability will never be back. When you play Highway again, a new ability is created that's just like that first one. Just like a continuous effect in MTG. SCSN's code seemed like a perfect explanation to me. What part of his code do you disagree with?

[ehunt]

Suppose that a card was of the form:

Squeegee - Action - 7
While any Gold is in play, costs are reduced by 1 (but not less than zero).

If you Procession a Squeegee (b/c you want to get a Prince, obvi), then play a gold in your buy phase, are costs reduced, or not?

[Haddock]

Yes.  Costs would be reduced by two, since there's no "while this is in play" restriction on Squeegee, it only cares whether Gold is in play.  Squeegee is basically a conditional Bridge.

In fact Squeegee would need a "This turn, While any Gold...", otherwise its effect lasts forever.

[LastFootnote]

I think I understand what Awaclus is saying. Messed Up Highway introduces an effect on-play, and the effect is only active while the card is in play. But it doesn't state when the effect ends, so that effect should come back the next time you play that copy of Messed Up Highway (along with a new cost reduction for a total of a $2 reduction). I think that's a perfectly valid (perhaps even the best) interpretation of the text.

However, it has obvious tracking issues. There's no good way to track how many times you've played a Messed Up Highway, nor is there a good way to track which copy is which. And cards that have severe tracking issues as part of their everyday functionality don't get published.

To fix the issues, you would of course specify when the effect ends. "Until this leaves play, cards cost $1 less." And then make sure it's a non-Duration card so that it gets discarded during Clean-up. Of course the friendlier, nearly-identical phrasing is, "This turn, cards cost $1 less," and that's what Bridge has.

[Awaclus]

Once Highway leaves play, whether it's Altered Highway or Regular Highway, the ability is gone. That same instance of that ability will never be back. When you play Highway again, a new ability is created that's just like that first one. Just like a continuous effect in MTG. SCSN's code seemed like a perfect explanation to me. What part of his code do you disagree with?

Well, that's an incredibly convoluted way to put it, but if that's how you want to interpret Regular Highway, then Altered Highway will also create new abilities for each "while this is in play" effect that it has previously set up every time it enters play. There should be essentially no difference between "When you play this, while this is in play, cards cost $1 less" and "When you play this, this card gains 'while this is in play, cards cost $1 less' below a dividing line".

[ehunt]

Yes.  Costs would be reduced by two, since there's no "while this is in play" restriction on Squeegee, it only cares whether Gold is in play.  Squeegee is basically a conditional Bridge.

In fact Squeegee would need a "This turn, While any Gold...", otherwise its effect lasts forever.

Then you should agree with Awaclus about what messed-up highway does. If you procession messed-up highway, but manage to get it back into play (ignoring tracking issues which are why this should never be a card), what happens? Three "while this is in play" effects have been created, and "this" is indeed in play.

[Haddock]

Then you should agree with Awaclus about what messed-up highway does. If you procession messed-up highway, but manage to get it back into play (ignoring tracking issues which are why this should never be a card), what happens? Three "while this is in play" effects have been created, and "this" is indeed in play.

No.  Your example is completely unrelated, since Squeegee does not have a "while this is in play" clause.  It has a "while there is Gold in play" clause.  Two completely different issues.  One card is self-referencing, the other is not.

[SCSN]

To fix the issues, you would of course specify when the effect ends. "Until this leaves play, cards cost $1 less." And then make sure it's a non-Duration card so that it gets discarded during Clean-up. Of course the friendlier, nearly-identical phrasing is "This turn, cards cost $1 less," and that's what Bridge has.

"While this is in play" and "Until this leaves play" are functionally equivalent, just like these promises are:

1. While you're in the hospital, I'll take care of your job.
2. Until you leave the hospital, I'll take care of your job.

Even if you might want to argue that "while" could be slightly ambiguous in a technical sense, there's just no way that in practice you'd expect someone who made you the first promise once to take care of your job during all your future hospitalizations. And because the default interpretation of language is ultimately determined by its common use, I really don't see any reasonable room for other interpretations of "while this in play" than the one advanced by me and quite a few others, including Donald:

Hypothetical Messed Up Highway For Having Bad Rules Conversations About How Confusing Phrasings That Would Never Exist Should Be Interpreted, with no dividing line, has an implicit "when you play this" on its abilities, like all Action cards have above the line that's there or isn't. "When you play this, while this is in play, cards cost $1 less etc." looks to me like it stops functioning when the card leaves play.

[Awaclus]

To fix the issues, you would of course specify when the effect ends. "Until this leaves play, cards cost $1 less." And then make sure it's a non-Duration card so that it gets discarded during Clean-up. Of course the friendlier, nearly-identical phrasing is "This turn, cards cost $1 less," and that's what Bridge has.

"While this is in play" and "Until this leaves play" are functionally equivalent, just like these promises are:

1. While you're in the hospital, I'll take care of your job.
2. Until you leave the hospital, I'll take care of your job.

Even if you might want to argue that "while" could be slightly ambiguous in a technical sense, there's just no way that in practice you'd expect someone who made you the first promise once to take care of your job during all your future hospitalizations. And because the default interpretation of language is ultimately determined by its common use, I really don't see any reasonable room for other interpretations of "while this in play" than the one advanced by me and quite a few others.

Then why isn't the Regular Highway like this?

Code: [Select]

AtTheStartOfTheGame:
    this.CostReduction = 1
OnEnteringPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(this.CostReduction)
OnLeavingPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(-this.CostReduction)
    this.CostReduction = 0

[markusin]

To fix the issues, you would of course specify when the effect ends. "Until this leaves play, cards cost $1 less." And then make sure it's a non-Duration card so that it gets discarded during Clean-up. Of course the friendlier, nearly-identical phrasing is "This turn, cards cost $1 less," and that's what Bridge has.

"While this is in play" and "Until this leaves play" are functionally equivalent, just like these promises are:

1. While you're in the hospital, I'll take care of your job.
2. Until you leave the hospital, I'll take care of your job.

Even if you might want to argue that "while" could be slightly ambiguous in a technical sense, there's just no way that in practice you'd expect someone who made you the first promise once to take care of your job during all your future hospitalizations. And because the default interpretation of language is ultimately determined by its common use, I really don't see any reasonable room for other interpretations of "while this in play" than the one advanced by me and quite a few others.

The issue is that in Dominion, on-play effects have never hinged on the card remaining in play for you to get the benefit. If I play Peddler with Procession, I don't lose the +2 coins after Peddler is removed from play. I don't lose the +2 cards from Caravan next turn after it's trashed by Procession. The wording of each card has never had an implicit "while this remains in play until it leaves play" on any on-play effects. Bridge has "this turn" on it.

In regular English speech, you would not interpret "while on vacation, X" to mean every time you go on vacation X will be true. However in Dominion no on-play effects remain tied to the card being in play to remain in effect. You can't return a Madman to the Supply a second time when it's played with Throne Room, but the attempt to do so still occurs.

Donald has said that he would never make a card with the while-in-play kind of wording above the line, perhaps because these inconsistencies and misinterpretations are possible. In English the meaning might be obvious, but in a Dominion context there is room for debate.

I'm content leaving things as "this wording should never exist in the first place". If it did, the interpretation of the effect by Awaclus is valid.

[markusin]

I think while-in-play effects could be put above the line with the parenthetical clarification "While in play effects produced by the same card do not stack".

[SCSN]

Then why isn't the Regular Highway like this?

Code: [Select]

AtTheStartOfTheGame:
    this.CostReduction = 1
OnEnteringPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(this.CostReduction)
OnLeavingPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(-this.CostReduction)
    this.CostReduction = 0

Why would it be? Each time Highway enters play a new promise is made, and each time it leaves play that promise is done and dusted, see my code above for the implementation.

[Awaclus]

Then why isn't the Regular Highway like this?

Code: [Select]

AtTheStartOfTheGame:
    this.CostReduction = 1
OnEnteringPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(this.CostReduction)
OnLeavingPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(-this.CostReduction)
    this.CostReduction = 0

Why would it be? Each time Highway enters play a new promise is made, and each time it leaves play that promise is done and dusted, see my code above for the implementation.

Well, that's an incredibly convoluted way to put it, but if that's how you want to interpret Regular Highway, then Altered Highway will also create new abilities promises for each "while this is in play" effect that it has previously set up every time it enters play. There should be essentially no difference between "When you play this, while this is in play, cards cost $1 less" and "When you play this, this card gains 'while this is in play, cards cost $1 less' below a dividing line".

[GendoIkari]

If I understand you right, you keep asking for an ending time for the ability to expire, as in an "until" clause. We're saying that 'while this is in play" has an implied "until this leaves play" built in.

[Awaclus]

If I understand you right, you keep asking for an ending time for the ability to expire, as in an "until" clause. We're saying that 'while this is in play" has an implied "until this leaves play" built in.

No, that's not what you're saying. You're saying that it has it built in when it's above a dividing line, but not when it's below one.

[ehunt]

Then you should agree with Awaclus about what messed-up highway does. If you procession messed-up highway, but manage to get it back into play (ignoring tracking issues which are why this should never be a card), what happens? Three "while this is in play" effects have been created, and "this" is indeed in play.

No.  Your example is completely unrelated, since Squeegee does not have a "while this is in play" clause.  It has a "while there is Gold in play" clause.  Two completely different issues.  One card is self-referencing, the other is not.

It is true that one card is self-referencing and the other is not, but this is a distinction without a difference.  Which of the following steps do you disagree with (I think you disagree with 2, but your disagreement with 2 is inconsistent with your interpretation of Squeegee).

1. When messed-up highway is played, an effect is created. That effect says, "While this is in play, cards cost one less, but not less than 0."
2. When messed-highway leaves play, the effect still exists, but it doesn't do anything. (there's some effect out there saying "if this highway is in play, cards cost one less", but the antecedent of that effect, "this highway is in play", is not satisfied). [I think your interpretation is, once the messed-up highway leaves play, there's literally nothing else it's doing, there's no effect out there. But this is inconsistent with your treatment of squeegee.]
3. If messed-up highway re-enters play, then, because the effect still exists, and because the second play of messed-up highway creates a new effect, costs go down by 2.

For the record, I really do think all of this is an argument about made-up cards, because existent cards have lines on them and the line rule takes care of this problem. It's just frustrating that so many people are acting like Awaclus is totally insane when in fact his argument makes perfect sense.

[GendoIkari]

If I understand you right, you keep asking for an ending time for the ability to expire, as in an "until" clause. We're saying that 'while this is in play" has an implied "until this leaves play" built in.

No, that's not what you're saying. You're saying that it has it built in when it's above a dividing line, but not when it's below one.

Then let me be clear... I'm saying that it's built in in both cases.

[SCSN]

Then why isn't the Regular Highway like this?

[...]

Why would it be? Each time Highway enters play a new promise is made, and each time it leaves play that promise is done and dusted, see my code above for the implementation.

Well, that's an incredibly convoluted way to put it, but if that's how you want to interpret Regular Highway, then Altered Highway will also create new abilities promises for each "while this is in play" effect that it has previously set up every time it enters play. There should be essentially no difference between "When you play this, while this is in play, cards cost $1 less" and "When you play this, this card gains 'while this is in play, cards cost $1 less' below a dividing line".

You have to be clearer because I don't understand a word of that post.

Both cards create new promises (H when it enters play, AH when it's played—the difference between these points of creation is due to AH having an implicit "when you play this" clause) but none of those stack between turns because all promises end and die forever when the cards leave play, so each turn is started with a perfectly clean sheet for both cards, as if the game had just started.

[GendoIkari]

Then you should agree with Awaclus about what messed-up highway does. If you procession messed-up highway, but manage to get it back into play (ignoring tracking issues which are why this should never be a card), what happens? Three "while this is in play" effects have been created, and "this" is indeed in play.

No.  Your example is completely unrelated, since Squeegee does not have a "while this is in play" clause.  It has a "while there is Gold in play" clause.  Two completely different issues.  One card is self-referencing, the other is not.

It is true that one card is self-referencing and the other is not, but this is a distinction without a difference.  Which of the following steps do you disagree with (I think you disagree with 2, but your disagreement with 2 is inconsistent with your interpretation of Squeegee).

1. When messed-up highway is played, an effect is created. That effect says, "While this is in play, cards cost one less, but not less than 0."
2. When messed-highway leaves play, the effect still exists, but it doesn't do anything. (there's some effect out there saying "if this highway is in play, cards cost one less", but the antecedent of that effect, "this highway is in play", is not satisfied). [I think your interpretation is, once the messed-up highway leaves play, there's literally nothing else it's doing, there's no effect out there. But this is inconsistent with your treatment of squeegee.]
3. If messed-up highway re-enters play, then, because the effect still exists, and because the second play of messed-up highway creates a new effect, costs go down by 2.

For the record, I really do think all of this is an argument about made-up cards, because existent cards have lines on them and the line rule takes care of this problem. It's just frustrating that so many people are acting like Awaclus is totally insane when in fact his argument makes perfect sense.

I disagree with step 2, and I do think it's different than Squeegee because "while this is in play" is a wording that implies "until this leaves play".

[Awaclus]

Then let me be clear... I'm saying that it's built in in both cases.

If "while this is in play" has the same amount of implicit stuff built in regardless of if it's below a horizontal line or above one, then it needs to work the exact same way in both cases. Either it works like this in both cases:

Code: [Select]

OnEnteringPlay:
    For Each ability In abilities
        gameState.ReduceCosts(1)
OnLeavingPlay:
    For Each ability In abilities
        gameState.ReduceCosts(-1)
Or it works like this in both cases:

Code: [Select]

OnEnteringPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(this.CostReduction)
OnLeavingPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(-this.CostReduction)
    this.CostReduction = 0
You can't say that one of these is used for the "while in play" part of "when you play this, while in play, x" and the other is used for the "while in play" part of "while in play, x" while also claiming that the "while in play" in both "when you play this, while in play, x" and "while in play, x" means the same thing.

[Awaclus]

because all promises end and die forever when the cards leave play

This is not true. Bridge's promise doesn't end and die forever when the card leaves play.

[ehunt]

I disagree with step 2, and I do think it's different than Squeegee because "while this is in play" is a wording that implies "until this leaves play".

I agree that "while this is in play" implies "until this leaves play."

You agree that playing cards can create conditions: While x, do z until end of turn. (for instance, squeegee).

You agree that "conditions" are created until some unspecified end-time, and that, even if a Squeegee is Processioned, one is still allowed to check "does x hold" after the Squeegee leaves play.

You agree that the antecedent x can be "this" is in play.

Where you disagree is that you then assert that if a card conditions itself on being in play, then the existence of the condition itself disappears when the card leaves play, rather than simply the antecedent of the condition ("this" is in play) becoming false. I disagree that this follows from the meaning of the English word "while" or the ordinary rules of Dominion; I claim this needs the "line" rule to be justified.

My argument can be summarized as follows: playing the card causes an x--->y conditional to happen. Removing the card from play does not change the fact that the conditional x--->y is out there; it only changes the truth value of x, and these two things are different, absent a specific rule that removes the conditional. If x somehow becomes true again, the conditional is still "out there" looking for it, and so y happens.

[GendoIkari]

because all promises end and die forever when the cards leave play

This is not true. Bridge's promise doesn't end and die forever when the card leaves play.

Because Bridge doesn't specify "while this is in play". Pretty sure when he says "the cards" he means "the cards that say 'while this is in play'".

OnEnteringPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(1)
OnLeavingPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(-1)

I think this is how I'm saying messed-up-highway works. Regular highway would be the same, except it has an implicit "when you play this"; but the "when you play this" has no effect on how you would interpret the card.

[SCSN]

because all promises end and die forever when the cards leave play

This is not true. Bridge's promise doesn't end and die forever when the card leaves play.

...

Don't be a dick.

I was obviously refering to all promises made by the two cards we were discussing and you know this full well. Bridge doesn't have a "while this is in play" thing going on so it leaving play has no effect whatsoever.

[Awaclus]

Because Bridge doesn't specify "while this is in play". Pretty sure when he says "the cards" he means "the cards that say 'while this is in play'".

The relevant part of Altered Highway is not "while this is in play", it's "when you play this". "When you play this" effects aren't undone when the card leaves play, therefore, there will continue to be a "while this is in play, cards cost $1 less" for all eternity.

[GendoIkari]

Because Bridge doesn't specify "while this is in play". Pretty sure when he says "the cards" he means "the cards that say 'while this is in play'".

The relevant part of Altered Highway is not "while this is in play", it's "when you play this". "When you play this" effects aren't undone when the card leaves play, therefore, there will continue to be a "while this is in play, cards cost $1 less" for all eternity.

And I'm saying that although normal "when you play this" effects aren't undone when the card leaves play, they ARE in the case when the effect in question includes "while this is in play". In other words, I'm interpreting "while this is in play" as "until this leaves play" which is the same wording as "until the end of turn". Bridge ends at the end of turn, so messed-up-highway would end when it leaves play.

[Awaclus]

And I'm saying that although normal "when you play this" effects aren't undone when the card leaves play, they ARE in the case when the effect in question includes "while this is in play". In other words, I'm interpreting "while this is in play" as "until this leaves play" which is the same wording as "until the end of turn". Bridge ends at the end of turn, so messed-up-highway would end when it leaves play.

Ah, so you are saying that the difference is that "while this is in play" above the dividing line also has an implicit "undo the continuous effects of this card when it leaves play", and that the "while this is in play" below the dividing line doesn't.

That's completely arbitrary.

[GendoIkari]

And I'm saying that although normal "when you play this" effects aren't undone when the card leaves play, they ARE in the case when the effect in question includes "while this is in play". In other words, I'm interpreting "while this is in play" as "until this leaves play" which is the same wording as "until the end of turn". Bridge ends at the end of turn, so messed-up-highway would end when it leaves play.

Ah, so you are saying that the difference is that "while this is in play" above the dividing line also has an implicit "undo the continuous effects of this card when it leaves play", and that the "while this is in play" below the dividing line doesn't.

That's completely arbitrary.

No... I'm saying both cards would play out the exact same way. In both cases, it provides a time at which the ability stops.

[Awaclus]

No... I'm saying both cards would play out the exact same way. In both cases, it provides a time at which the ability stops.

Yeah, in both cases, it provides a time at which the cost reduction stops happening. It does not provide a time at which the ability stops existing. If you want to argue that Regular Highway's ability stops existing while it's not in play, then fine, all of Altered Highway's while-in-play abilities that have accumulated over time also stop existing while it's not in play, but just like Regular Highway's ability starts existing again when it enters play again, so will all of Altered Highway's abilities. The part that disappears while the card is not in play is just the part which follows "while this is in play", not the "while this is in play" itself.

[Haddock]

It is true that one card is self-referencing and the other is not, but this is a distinction without a difference.  Which of the following steps do you disagree with (I think you disagree with 2, but your disagreement with 2 is inconsistent with your interpretation of Squeegee).

1. When messed-up highway is played, an effect is created. That effect says, "While this is in play, cards cost one less, but not less than 0."
2. When messed-highway leaves play, the effect still exists, but it doesn't do anything. (there's some effect out there saying "if this highway is in play, cards cost one less", but the antecedent of that effect, "this highway is in play", is not satisfied). [I think your interpretation is, once the messed-up highway leaves play, there's literally nothing else it's doing, there's no effect out there. But this is inconsistent with your treatment of squeegee.]
3. If messed-up highway re-enters play, then, because the effect still exists, and because the second play of messed-up highway creates a new effect, costs go down by 2.

For the record, I really do think all of this is an argument about made-up cards, because existent cards have lines on them and the line rule takes care of this problem. It's just frustrating that so many people are acting like Awaclus is totally insane when in fact his argument makes perfect sense.

You're right.  I disagree with 2.  When the Messed-Highway leaves play, its effect is dead, busted, gone away.  When it reenters play it creates a new effect.
This is not inconsistent with Squeegee.  Your Squeegee does not say "While this is in play...", so when it leaves play its effect is not deleted.
If Squeegee read "While this is in play, while there is Gold in play..." then I would be interpreting it like Messed-Highway.  It doesn't say that.

We're not acting like Awaclus is totally insane.  This argument has just gone on for too long and both sides are getting frustrated, as tends to happen in internet arguments.

We are also flouting the unwritten law: "What DXV says, goes."  I think the nervous tension of doing so is getting everyone's backs up.

[Awaclus]

You're right.  I disagree with 2.  When the Messed-Highway leaves play, its effect is dead, busted, gone away.  When it reenters play it creates a new effect.
This is not inconsistent with Squeegee.  Your Squeegee does not say "While this is in play...", so when it leaves play its effect is not deleted.
If Squeegee read "While this is in play, while there is Gold in play..." then I would be interpreting it like Messed-Highway.  It doesn't say that.

"While" also needs to mean the same thing across all the cards it appears in — "while X" should mean the same thing no matter what X is. If "when you play this, while this is in play" disappears when the while condition is no longer met, "when you play this, while a Gold is in play" should also disappear when the while condition is no longer met. Except that they shouldn't, because regular "while X" effects don't disappear either (just their effects do).

[GendoIkari]

No... I'm saying both cards would play out the exact same way. In both cases, it provides a time at which the ability stops.

Yeah, in both cases, it provides a time at which the cost reduction stops happening. It does not provide a time at which the ability stops existing. If you want to argue that Regular Highway's ability stops existing while it's not in play, then fine, all of Altered Highway's while-in-play abilities that have accumulated over time also stop existing while it's not in play, but just like Regular Highway's ability starts existing again when it enters play again, so will all of Altered Highway's abilities. The part that disappears while the card is not in play is just the part which follows "while this is in play", not the "while this is in play" itself.

This is very hard to follow for me. The only ability I'm talking about is the cost reduction. The "while this is in play" is a restriction on when the ability applies.

[Haddock]

"While" also needs to mean the same thing across all the cards it appears in — "while X" should mean the same thing no matter what X is. If "when you play this, while this is in play" disappears when the while condition is no longer met, "when you play this, while a Gold is in play" should also disappear when the while condition is no longer met. Except that they shouldn't, because regular "while X" effects don't disappear either (just their effects do).

Huh? 
But the condition IS met, when the Gold enters play.  Then would disappear if the Gold left play.  Do you seriously not see that the Squeegee example and the Messed Up Highway example are utterly different?  (Unless it's the GOLD entering and leaving play, which wasn't the example being given)

[Awaclus]

No... I'm saying both cards would play out the exact same way. In both cases, it provides a time at which the ability stops.

Yeah, in both cases, it provides a time at which the cost reduction stops happening. It does not provide a time at which the ability stops existing. If you want to argue that Regular Highway's ability stops existing while it's not in play, then fine, all of Altered Highway's while-in-play abilities that have accumulated over time also stop existing while it's not in play, but just like Regular Highway's ability starts existing again when it enters play again, so will all of Altered Highway's abilities. The part that disappears while the card is not in play is just the part which follows "while this is in play", not the "while this is in play" itself.

This is very hard to follow for me. The only ability I'm talking about is the cost reduction. The "while this is in play" is a restriction on when the ability applies.

I'll try to explain it as clearly as I possibly can then.

A card with "while this is in play, X" does X continuously whenever it is in play. When it's not in play, it does not do X, but when it enters play again after leaving play, it does X again.

A card with "when you play this, Y" does Y whenever you play it. It does not undo Y when it leaves play. Whenever you play it, you get Y again in addition to the Ys that you've gotten previously from playing the card earlier. It does not matter what Y is, "when you play this, Y" always does the same thing for all different values of Y.

Smithy, for example, has a "when you play this, Y" ability where Y is +3 cards. You get +3 cards whenever you play it, it does not undo the +3 cards when it leaves play, and whenever you play it, you get +3 cards in addition to the +3 cards that you've gotten from it in the past.

In the case of Altered Highway, Y is "while this is in play, reduce costs". It does "while this is in play, reduce costs" whenever you play it. It does not undo "while this is in play, reduce costs" when it leaves play. Whenever you play it, you get "while this is in play, reduce costs" again in addition to the "while this is in play, reduce costs"s that you've gotten previously from playing the card earlier.

That Y is a "while this is in play, X" where X is "reduce costs". Therefore, whenever you play Altered Highway, you get a new "reduces costs continuously whenever it is in play. When it's not in play, it does not reduce costs, but when it enters play again after leaving play, it reduces costs again" in addition to those that you had from before, and if there are multiple, then costs will be reduced multiple times.

[Haddock]

This really isn't getting us anywhere.

I completely understand Awaclus's point of view.  I am more than happy to concede that it is a valid interpretation of English.

I find mine and SCSN's interpretation more natural, but realistically it's a completely subjective thing.  I hope Awa understands where SCSN and I are coming from.  We also understand his interpretation, I think, and they're both valid.  They also can both me made internally consistent and consistent with the rules of Dominion.

Assuming Awa is willing to concede that ours is also a valid interpretation, this is all completely intellectual.

[LastFootnote]

I'll try to explain it as clearly as I possibly can then.

A card with "while this is in play, X" does X continuously whenever it is in play. When it's not in play, it does not do X, but when it enters play again after leaving play, it does X again.

A card with "when you play this, Y" does Y whenever you play it. It does not undo Y when it leaves play. Whenever you play it, you get Y again in addition to the Ys that you've gotten previously from playing the card earlier. It does not matter what Y is, "when you play this, Y" always does the same thing for all different values of Y.

Smithy, for example, has a "when you play this, Y" ability where Y is +3 cards. You get +3 cards whenever you play it, it does not undo the +3 cards when it leaves play, and whenever you play it, you get +3 cards in addition to the +3 cards that you've gotten from it in the past.

In the case of Altered Highway, Y is "while this is in play, reduce costs". It does "while this is in play, reduce costs" whenever you play it. It does not undo "while this is in play, reduce costs" when it leaves play. Whenever you play it, you get "while this is in play, reduce costs" again in addition to the "while this is in play, reduce costs"s that you've gotten previously from playing the card earlier.

That Y is a "while this is in play, X" where X is "reduce costs". Therefore, whenever you play Altered Highway, you get a new "reduces costs continuously whenever it is in play. When it's not in play, it does not reduce costs, but when it enters play again after leaving play, it reduces costs again" in addition to those that you had from before, and if there are multiple, then costs will be reduced multiple times.

But again, as an addendum to this, it's nigh impossible to track each individual copy of a card in Dominion. So a "When you play this, while this is in play" effect like the one described here is impractical.

[Awaclus]

This really isn't getting us anywhere.

I completely understand Awaclus's point of view.  I am more than happy to concede that it is a valid interpretation of English.

I find mine and SCSN's interpretation more natural, but realistically it's a completely subjective thing.  I hope Awa understands where SCSN and I are coming from.  We also understand his interpretation, I think, and they're both valid.  They also can both me made internally consistent and consistent with the rules of Dominion.

Assuming Awa is willing to concede that ours is also a valid interpretation, this is all completely intellectual.

I'm willing to concede that it would be a valid interpretation of the language in a vacuum, but I don't think it can be consistent with the rules of Dominion.

[scott_pilgrim]

Here's something to consider: If you play Squeegee, then Counterfeit a Gold, then play a Gold regularly, do you get the "while Gold is in play" effect?  Haddock and SCSN would say no.  I think most people, without having put any thought into it, would say yes.

Squeegee also has an issue of, it starts happening when Gold is not in play, which is weird.  As far as I'm understanding Haddock's interpretation of Squeegee, the effect waits until Gold is in play and then triggers, then ends when Gold leaves play.  So what happens if I don't play Gold this turn?  Will it trigger next turn when I play Gold?  Or if my opponent puts Gold in play before I do, it triggers on his turn?  None of these is more intuitive to me than saying that the "while" effect lasts for the duration of the game.

Think of it this way.  Suppose I say "While I'm in the hospital, take care of my (blue) dog," but then it turns out I don't need to go to the hospital after all.  Years later, I do end up going to the hospital.  In either interpretation, you must now take care of my dog; the effect begins the next time I go to the hospital, which happened to be much later than expected.  So that's not an advantage of the Haddock interpretation over the Awaclus interpretation.  Given that it works that way, I would think it's more intuitive to say that the effect is permanent (by saying "while", I imply that it is true for every time I'm in the hospital for the rest of my life), than it is to say that it only applies the next time it happens (regardless of whether it happens when expected).

[Haddock]

So it continues.

I think it is consistent with the rules of Dominion.

No cards have "While this is in play" except below the line.  In those cases the effect always goes away entirely whenever the card leaves play, since there is no way to get that card back into play again anyway. (Except on subsequent turns, and we are agreed that the effect CANNOT carry over between turns)

Which is consistent with my interpretation.

In the imagined case of it being above the line, there is no reason the behaviour shouldn't be the same; it's an entirely new scenario, we can choose our interpretation independently of anything else.  There cannot possibly be any conflicts.

PPE:
Huh?  No.  When another Gold enters play, there's a new instance of the effect initiated, reducing costs by one. (EDIT: if your scenario is ALSO throning the Squeegee then it's by 2).

The termination problem with Squeegee is something I've already mentioned:

Yes.  Costs would be reduced by two, since there's no "while this is in play" restriction on Squeegee, it only cares whether Gold is in play.  Squeegee is basically a conditional Bridge.

In fact Squeegee would need a "This turn, While any Gold...", otherwise its effect lasts forever.

It definitely needs an "Until end of turn", because it is EXACTLY LIKE BRIDGE, and ENTIRELY UNLIKE HIGHWAY. 

[Awaclus]

In the imagined case of it being above the line, there is no reason the behaviour shouldn't be the same; it's an entirely new scenario, we can choose our interpretation independently of anything else.  There cannot possibly be any conflicts.

It's not an entirely new scenario. There are cards that set up continuous effects on-play. There are cards that have while-in-play effects. The behavior should be consistent with both existing types of cards.

[Haddock]

It's not an entirely new scenario. There are cards that set up continuous effects on-play. There are cards that have while-in-play effects. The behavior should be consistent with both existing types of cards.

There are no cards that say "While X is in play" above the line.
Are there?

[Awaclus]

It's not an entirely new scenario. There are cards that set up continuous effects on-play. There are cards that have while-in-play effects. The behavior should be consistent with both existing types of cards.

There are no cards that say "While X is in play" above the line.
Are there?

No, but there are cards that set up other continuous effects on-play. Cards that set up while-in-play effects on-play should work the same way (i.e. the continuous effect should not stop when the card leaves play).

[scott_pilgrim]

PPE:
Huh?  No.  When another Gold enters play, there's a new instance of the effect initiated, reducing costs by one. (EDIT: if your scenario is ALSO throning the Squeegee then it's by 2).

The termination problem with Squeegee is something I've already mentioned:

Yes.  Costs would be reduced by two, since there's no "while this is in play" restriction on Squeegee, it only cares whether Gold is in play.  Squeegee is basically a conditional Bridge.

In fact Squeegee would need a "This turn, While any Gold...", otherwise its effect lasts forever.

It definitely needs an "Until end of turn", because it is EXACTLY LIKE BRIDGE, and ENTIRELY UNLIKE HIGHWAY.

Right, I think we're in agreement on this.  What I'm saying is, given that it works like that, it's more intuitive to say that it should happen every future time a Gold comes into play, rather than just the first time.  This is what I was trying to illustrate with the "While I'm in the hospital" example.  If we know that it has to happen the next time I'm in the hospital, even if it's unexpectedly decades later, you would think it would happen every time I'm in the hospital, and not just that first time.  Of course you can agree with this intuition and I can't say anything about how you interpret it intuitively, but to me this feels much better than what you're saying.

I'm not sure why you keep saying there's a problem with the lack of scope on Squeegee.  Highway doesn't limit itself either, and this whole discussion is about what happens when the scope is not restricted.  Let's try adding "this turn" to Squeegee 2:

Squeegee 2
Action -
While Gold is in play, cards cost less this turn (but not less than ).

If I play Squeegee 2, then Counterfeit a Gold, then play a Gold, do I get the cost reduction?  I would say it is intuitively obvious that yes, you get the cost reduction in this situation.  But you would say you don't, right?

[Haddock]

If I play Squeegee 2, then Counterfeit a Gold, then play a Gold, do I get the cost reduction?  I would say it is intuitively obvious that yes, you get the cost reduction in this situation.  But you would say you don't, right?

Yes you do.  Of course you do.  Because there is Gold in play.  As soon as Gold enters play there is a new instance of the effect.  If you then played another one (2 in play), there is still Gold in play, that hasn't changed, costs don't go down any further.  It's a binary thing (there is either any amount of Gold in play or not).

No, but there are cards that set up other continuous effects on-play. Cards that set up while-in-play effects on-play should work the same way (i.e. the continuous effect should not stop when the card leaves play).

Why should they?  New keywords introduce new mechanics; that's how card games work.  "While X in play" is a new keyphrase, introducing a new mechanic.

[GendoIkari]

This really isn't getting us anywhere.

I completely understand Awaclus's point of view.  I am more than happy to concede that it is a valid interpretation of English.

I find mine and SCSN's interpretation more natural, but realistically it's a completely subjective thing.  I hope Awa understands where SCSN and I are coming from.  We also understand his interpretation, I think, and they're both valid.  They also can both me made internally consistent and consistent with the rules of Dominion.

Assuming Awa is willing to concede that ours is also a valid interpretation, this is all completely intellectual.

I'm willing to concede that it would be a valid interpretation of the language in a vacuum, but I don't think it can be consistent with the rules of Dominion.

I agree with Haddock, and I think it not being consistent with the rules of Dominion goes back to my very first post on this subject... Dominion rules and card wordings are more about readability than technicality. Also as a reply to your last reply to my last post; I get what you're saying now. And what I was saying is that in the case of a "while this is in play" that's not below a line, the implicit "when you play this" would be ignored for the purposes of the card making sense. Note that Band of Misfits (used to) be the exact same way, until a newer ruling changed it recently. You ignored the "when you play this" part of Band of Misfits, because it didn't work with the way that card was meant to work. In the same way "when you buy this" on Nomad Camp, while not ignored, is interpreted differently than other "when you buy" cards.

[Awaclus]

Why should they?  New keywords introduce new mechanics; that's how card games work.  "While X in play" is a new keyphrase, introducing a new mechanic.

"While" is not a new keyword and doesn't introduce a new mechanic.

[Awaclus]

Note that Band of Misfits (used to) be the exact same way, until a newer ruling changed it recently. You ignored the "when you play this" part of Band of Misfits, because it didn't work with the way that card was meant to work.

Indeed, Band of Misfits used to work in a pretty crappy way. Now it works the way it always should have.

[GendoIkari]

Note that Band of Misfits (used to) be the exact same way, until a newer ruling changed it recently. You ignored the "when you play this" part of Band of Misfits, because it didn't work with the way that card was meant to work.

Indeed, Band of Misfits used to work in a pretty crappy way. Now it works the way it always should have.

But people accepted it and played it that way. More importantly, it was the exact same 99% of the time it was played. It was only different when you Throne-roomed a BoM and chose a one-shot. Now it's also different when you have bonus tokens on BoM.

If Highway had been printed without a separation line in the first place, and no cards in Dominion had a separation line, you might have complained that it's not very elegant because of the stuff you just said about how "when you play this" is implicit on most actions, but doesn't work right on Highway. But the vast majority of people playing the game wouldn't worry about it; they might question whether or not you get 2 reductions with a Throne (which they still did with the line anyway). But once they were told "no", they would understand why, and not make a big deal out of how it's technically different than the other cards.

My point being, you may be right that it's not consistent with other Dominion cards; but that's ok; people would still understand it and play it correctly.

[Haddock]

Why should they?  New keywords introduce new mechanics; that's how card games work.  "While X in play" is a new keyphrase, introducing a new mechanic.

"While" is not a new keyword and doesn't introduce a new mechanic.

False.  I have just trawled the entire cards list on the wiki.  None of them have the word "while" above the line. 

Our interpretation is consistent with while below the line, and entirely new, therefore consistent, with while above the line.

My point being, you may be right that it's not consistent with other Dominion cards; but that's ok; people would still understand it and play it correctly.

No, stick to your guns!  There's nothing for it to be inconsistent with.

[scott_pilgrim]

If I play Squeegee 2, then Counterfeit a Gold, then play a Gold, do I get the cost reduction?  I would say it is intuitively obvious that yes, you get the cost reduction in this situation.  But you would say you don't, right?

Yes you do.  Of course you do.  Because there is Gold in play.  As soon as Gold enters play there is a new instance of the effect.  If you then played another one (2 in play), there is still Gold in play, that hasn't changed, costs don't go down any further.  It's a binary thing (there is either any amount of Gold in play or not).

So what's the difference between this and Messed Up Highway?  I'm sorry if this comes off as annoying or obnoxious, I'm legitimately trying to understand your interpretation, because I thought I understood it and just disagreed with it intuitively, but now it looks like I never understood it to begin with.  Please don't just say "Highway refers to itself" or something like that, I get that.  But why do self-referential effects stop when leaving play, while effects that reference other things don't?

If I Procession Squeegee, do I still get its effect?  If I Procession Squeegee, Counterfeit Gold, then play another Gold, do I get its effect?  What combination of Squeegee/Gold have to leave play for the effect to stop working?

[Donald X.]

I'll try to explain it as clearly as I possibly can then.

A card with "while this is in play, X" does X continuously whenever it is in play. When it's not in play, it does not do X, but when it enters play again after leaving play, it does X again.

A card with "when you play this, Y" does Y whenever you play it. It does not undo Y when it leaves play. Whenever you play it, you get Y again in addition to the Ys that you've gotten previously from playing the card earlier. It does not matter what Y is, "when you play this, Y" always does the same thing for all different values of Y.

Nevertheless, when you combine them, "when you play this, while this is in play" does not look like it sets up a rule that will re-occur later. It looks like "while this is in play" involves the "when you play this." We cannot just consider them in isolation for the case where they are not isolated.

I'm willing to concede that it would be a valid interpretation of the language in a vacuum, but I don't think it can be consistent with the rules of Dominion.

You are complaining that my interpretation of a wording a Dominion card would never have is not consistent with Dominion.

Consider a card that says "Frob the snatz." There are no rulebook rules for Dominion that say what to do if given an instruction that makes so little sense. We can't just say "you fail to do it;" the things in Dominion that you fail to do are comprehensible. Any explanation I give for what happens is doomed to be not consistent with the rules of Dominion. I can't stop people from asking that question though, from discussing it endlessly, from being dissatisfied with whatever I say about it.

[Haddock]

So what's the difference between this and Messed Up Highway?  I'm sorry if this comes off as annoying or obnoxious, I'm legitimately trying to understand your interpretation, because I thought I understood it and just disagreed with it intuitively, but now it looks like I never understood it to begin with.  Please don't just say "Highway refers to itself" or something like that, I get that.  But why do self-referential effects stop when leaving play, while effects that reference other things don't?

If I Procession Squeegee, do I still get its effect?  If I Procession Squeegee, Counterfeit Gold, then play another Gold, do I get its effect?  What combination of Squeegee/Gold have to leave play for the effect to stop working?

"While X in play" effects stop when X leaves play and start again when X reenters play (EDIT:  To clarify, this is my entire hypothesis, even though it makes no real difference to any existing Dominion cards).  Right, so if "X" is "this", then the effect stops when "this" (the card being discussed) leaves play.  If "X" is Gold, then the card in question no longer cares whether or not itself is in play, as for Bridge.  It only cares about the Gold.

Your example:
Procession Squeegee, it disappears, but its effect doesn't care whether Squeegee is in play so two copies of the effect are still floating around (like Bridge).  At first there is no cost reduction because no Gold.
Then you Counterfeit a Gold.  You put it in play, costs are reduced by 2 thanks to the 2 Squeegee effects.  Then Gold leaves play, costs go back to normal.  Then you play a Gold, which enters play and once again triggers the two floating Squeegee effects.
Overall costs decreased by two, as if you had simply processioned a bridge.

[Donald X.]

So. Games with rules on cards. They're pretty cool.

One day some people made games with rules on cards that had so many cards that vague hand-waving card texts didn't do the trick. You get card interactions you can't explain. And those games, in particular Wiz-War and Cosmic Encounter, settled for endless lists of rulings for interactions that had come up.

Magic: The Gathering is the game where people really tried to solve the problem. That problem is: you need friendly phrasings so that people can understand them, and you need precise phrasings so that you can tell how interactions work. But the friendliest phrasing isn't the most precise, and the most precise phrasing isn't the friendliest. The most precise phrasings are little computer programs and your game has no audience. The friendliest phrasings are great for games with just 10 cards; you address any interactions in the rulebook. You can't do that with Magic's endless stream of cards. But you want players.

So some people - including me - have labored over card templates. How best to phrase things, so that interactions are clear, but people don't have trouble understanding the cards. That work is not complete; it's ongoing. Magic still has poor phrasings in some cases, let me tell you. And they continue to improve their templates.

This thread is about how to interpret a poor phrasing - how do we resolve the little computer program. You can't ignore the goal of having players, of having a wording that someone could possibly parse correctly. As it happens the unfriendly phrasing in question is not sufficiently a computer program either. I can't just plug in the numbers and say "well there you go, that would suck so I would never do it but there you go." You have to guess whether the things that look related are. People always think they are so that's the way to go.

Hope this helps! If people are not having fun, let me know and I will close the thread.

[Donald X.]

Think of it this way.  Suppose I say "While I'm in the hospital, take care of my (blue) dog," but then it turns out I don't need to go to the hospital after all.  Years later, I do end up going to the hospital.  In either interpretation, you must now take care of my dog; the effect begins the next time I go to the hospital, which happened to be much later than expected.  So that's not an advantage of the Haddock interpretation over the Awaclus interpretation.  Given that it works that way, I would think it's more intuitive to say that the effect is permanent (by saying "while", I imply that it is true for every time I'm in the hospital for the rest of my life), than it is to say that it only applies the next time it happens (regardless of whether it happens when expected).

Ah, blue dogs. Here's something I know about.

Obv. any real English-speaking person who agreed to your "while I'm in the hospital, take care of my blue dog" would no longer feel any future obligation once you weren't going to the hospital after all. It's clear that you are referring only to this one expected hospital visit. There is in implicit "I'm going to the hospital now" that was clearly tied to "while I'm in the hospital."

If instead you wanted a future repeating deal, you would say "any time I'm in the hospital" or some such.

[Awaclus]

Our interpretation is consistent with while below the line, and entirely new, therefore consistent, with while above the line.

It is not consistent with both Highway and Bridge. It can be consistent with one of them, but not both.

[SCSN]

If people are not having fun, let me know and I will close the thread.

Instead of closing the thread I suggest you rename it to "Frob the snatz!" That phrase really cracked me up, and 'understanding' the thread title would be a fitting reward for those brave souls who make it all the way through.

[Haddock]

It is not consistent with both Highway and Bridge. It can be consistent with one of them, but not both.

It is consistent with Highway (note that I am not saying that it always does the same thing as Highway, just that our interpretation of the keyphrase "while" is consistent with Highway).

It is also consistent with Bridge, because it has different wording so there should be no expectation that the two behave in the same way.

[markusin]

Why should they?  New keywords introduce new mechanics; that's how card games work.  "While X in play" is a new keyphrase, introducing a new mechanic.

"While" is not a new keyword and doesn't introduce a new mechanic.

False.  I have just trawled the entire cards list on the wiki.  None of them have the word "while" above the line. 

Our interpretation is consistent with while below the line, and entirely new, therefore consistent, with while above the line.

My point being, you may be right that it's not consistent with other Dominion cards; but that's ok; people would still understand it and play it correctly.

No, stick to your guns!  There's nothing for it to be inconsistent with.

I figured the whole purpose of the dividing line is to make it clear which effects have an implicit "when you play this" and which cards don't. From the wording that currently exists, I figured it could always be inferred which effects had an implicit "when you play this" and which cards don't. I didn't originally believe that the dividing line functionally made it explicit which effects occur on play and which are continuous. 

If a while-in-play effect like that of Highway were above the line, there cannot be an implicit "when you play this" in order for it to function like the Highway we have now. The player would not necessarily be able to infer this on their own. A rules clarification would be needed to explain how "while in play" effects are removed when the card leaves play and that they cannot stack with Throne Room. In Dominion as we know it, the horizontal line provides this clarification. As I understand it, the "while in play" effect above the line which works as we know it know is inconsistent with Dominion which is why Donald says it is a hypothetical card with wording that would never exist.

In theory a fan card can be created that works like Awaclus interprets a Highway with "while in play" above the line. Hey, maybe I want to create a Super-Mega-Highway that keeps increasing the amount of cost reduction it provides every time it is played. If I wanted to create such a card, putting "while this is in play, reduce cards by $1" above the line should do the trick and be consistent with Dominion rules as we know them.

[LastFootnote]

If people are not having fun, let me know and I will close the thread.

Instead of closing the thread I suggest you rename it to "Frob the snatz!" That phrase really cracked me up, and 'understanding' the thread title would be a fitting reward for those brave souls who make it all the way through.

Somebody help me. I can't stop!

[Haddock]

I figured the whole purpose of the dividing line is to make it clear which effects have an implicit "when you play this" and which cards don't. From the wording that currently exists, I figured it could always be inferred which effects had an implicit "when you play this" and which cards don't. I didn't originally believe that the dividing line functionally made it explicit which effects occur on play and which are continuous. 

If a while-in-play effect like that of Highway were above the line, there cannot be an implicit "when you play this" in order for it to function like the Highway we have now. The player would not necessarily be able to infer this on their own. A rules clarification would be needed to explain how "while in play" effects are removed when the card leaves play and that they cannot stack with Throne Room. In Dominion as we know it, the horizontal line provides this clarification. As I understand it, the "while in play" effect above the line which works as we know it know is inconsistent with Dominion which is why Donald says it is a hypothetical card with wording that would never exist.

I would say that things have an implicit "when you play this" unless they have another timing condition on them like "while".  I agree this is ambiguous (hence why MessedUpHighway would be bad), but I don't agree that it is inconsistent with anything.  It would need clarification (to avoid this entire thread), but it wouldn't be inconsistent.  There are two possible interpretations, that's all.

In theory a fan card can be created that works like Awaclus interprets a Highway with "while in play" above the line. Hey, maybe I want to create a Super-Mega-Highway that keeps increasing the amount of cost reduction it provides every time it is played. If I wanted to create such a card, putting "while this is in play, reduce cards by $1" above the line should do the trick and be consistent with Dominion rules as we know them.

Awa's version is indeed consistent with Dominion.

I'm saying that our version is consistent as well.

This is the source of the ambiguity.  If there are two possible interpretations, both of which are consistent with other rules, then there is ambiguity.  So we would avoid the Messed Up Highway wording for that reason.

[Awaclus]

I would say that things have an implicit "when you play this" unless they have another timing condition on them like "while".

No, cards that have another timing condition on them set up an effect with that timing condition when they are played because of the implicit "when you play this". When you Throne a Bridge, costs are reduced by $2, because two "this turn" effects are set up when you play it. If it didn't have an implicit "when you play this", Throne Room would not affect it at all, but instead, cards would just cost $1 less all the time because it's always "this turn".

[ehunt]

i mean frob the snatz is clearly $snatz \mapsto snatz^q$

[Haddock]

I would say that things have an implicit "when you play this" unless they have another timing condition on them like "while".

No, cards that have another timing condition on them set up an effect with that timing condition when they are played because of the implicit "when you play this". When you Throne a Bridge, costs are reduced by $2, because two "this turn" effects are set up when you play it. If it didn't have an implicit "when you play this", Throne Room would not affect it at all, but instead, cards would just cost $1 less all the time because it's always "this turn".

Bridge does not have a timing condition that would override the implicit "When you play this". Im saying that I think "while in play" would override "When you play this" because you cant have the two together and still make grammatical sense.

Edit: wait I have a better reason than just grammatical sense.  effects have a start and end time. "while" dictates both start and end. Its start time therefore conflicts with the implicit "when you play this" start time and overrides it by virtue of explicitness. Bridge does not have a start time condition, so sticks with "when you play this". Its end time condition is there on the card, fine.

[Awaclus]

Bridge does not have a timing condition that would override the implicit "When you play this". Im saying that I think "while in play" would override "When you play this" because you cant have the two together and still make grammatical sense.

It doesn't override anything. They just set up a "this turn" effect and "while in play" effect when they are played, respectively.

[GendoIkari]

I would say that things have an implicit "when you play this" unless they have another timing condition on them like "while".

No, cards that have another timing condition on them set up an effect with that timing condition when they are played because of the implicit "when you play this". When you Throne a Bridge, costs are reduced by $2, because two "this turn" effects are set up when you play it. If it didn't have an implicit "when you play this", Throne Room would not affect it at all, but instead, cards would just cost $1 less all the time because it's always "this turn".

This is redundant, but our point is that when the other timing is "while this is in play", it makes "when you play this" no longer work the same, because English. "When you play this, stuff is different until the end of turn" is a pretty clear English phrase. "When you play this, while this is in play, stuff is different" is not. It sounds weird and people wouldn't say it. So instead, they wouldn't read the implied "when you play this", and would just play it as if it weren't there.

[Awaclus]

This is redundant, but our point is that when the other timing is "while this is in play", it makes "when you play this" no longer work the same, because English. "When you play this, stuff is different until the end of turn" is a pretty clear English phrase. "When you play this, while this is in play, stuff is different" is not. It sounds weird and people wouldn't say it. So instead, they wouldn't read the implied "when you play this", and would just play it as if it weren't there.

But it's not supposed to work that way considering how other Dominion cards already work.

[Haddock]

But it's not supposed to work that way considering how other Dominion cards already work.

It's a brand new keyphrase therefore we can decide for it to override any implicit wording already in existence.

There was an implicit rule saying "Card costs always remain the same" until Bridge came along.  Noone thought that was inconsistent.
There was an implicit rule saying "Treasure may only be played in the Buy phase" until Black Market and Storyteller came along.  Noone thought that was inconsistent.
There was an implicit rule saying "All Action cards are discarded at the start of Clean-Up" until Duration cards came along.  Noone thought that was inconsistent.

[Awaclus]

It's a brand new keyphrase therefore we can decide for it to override any implicit wording already in existence.

There was an implicit rule saying "Card costs always remain the same" until Bridge came along.  Noone thought that was inconsistent.
There was an implicit rule saying "Treasure may only be played in the Buy phase" until Black Market and Storyteller came along.  Noone thought that was inconsistent.
There was an implicit rule saying "All Action cards are discarded at the start of Clean-Up" until Duration cards came along.  Noone thought that was inconsistent.

It is not a "brand new keyphrase". It does a combination of things that are already being done by other cards, so it needs to work like a combination of those things. By that logic, you could say that "When you would gain a Smithy" is also a new keyphrase and you can decide for it to mean "when you draw an Estate, make a Black Market deck out of the Knights pile and win the game", but that's not how it works in actuality since it needs to be consistent with what Trader does with Silvers.

It's consistent with the rules of Dominion that rules on cards override the rules in the rulebook. Wordings and their interpretations across cards are uniform unless there's a special rule in place for that particular card (which is essentially the case for Pirate Ship and Nomad Camp, and used to be the case for Band of Misfits), and the inconsistency comes from the fact that your interpretation requires that special rule.

[Haddock]

It is not a "brand new keyphrase".

We've been over this.  The word "while" is never used above the line on any existing cards.
Therefore we can decide what it should do as long as it is consistent with the usage of the word "while" below the line.  Which our interpretation is.

[Awaclus]

We've been over this.  The word "while" is never used above the line on any existing cards.
Therefore we can decide what it should do as long as it is consistent with the usage of the word "while" below the line.  Which our interpretation is.

It also needs to be consistent with the usage of other effects that set up continuous effects on-play.

[Haddock]

It also needs to be consistent with the usage of other effects that set up continuous effects on-play.

Why?  You agree it's a new keyword (you have to, it's objectively true), so why shouldn't it introduce a new rule? 
The only debate is what that rule should be.  Your rule or our rule.  They're both equally valid.
We're going round in circles here.

[Awaclus]

It also needs to be consistent with the usage of other effects that set up continuous effects on-play.

Why?  You agree it's a new keyword (you have to, it's objectively true), so why shouldn't it introduce a new rule? 
The only debate is what that rule should be.  Your rule or our rule.  They're both equally valid.
We're going round in circles here.

It's objectively not a new keyword. "When you play this" is not a new keyword. "While this is in play" is not a new keyword. A card with "When you play this, while this is in play" needs to work like the existing cards with "when you play this" and "while this is in play". It absolutely should not introduce a new rule.

[GendoIkari]

This is redundant, but our point is that when the other timing is "while this is in play", it makes "when you play this" no longer work the same, because English. "When you play this, stuff is different until the end of turn" is a pretty clear English phrase. "When you play this, while this is in play, stuff is different" is not. It sounds weird and people wouldn't say it. So instead, they wouldn't read the implied "when you play this", and would just play it as if it weren't there.

But it's not supposed to work that way considering how other Dominion cards already work.

I don't disagree. My only point is that readability and ease of making sense of the wordings and the rules would take precedence over technicalities.

[Awaclus]

I don't disagree. My only point is that readability and ease of making sense of the wordings and the rules would take precedence over technicalities.

Which is why the wording isn't used on any Dominion card.

[faust]

This thread should be in Variants and Fan Cards.

[Haddock]

It's objectively not a new keyword. "When you play this" is not a new keyword. "While this is in play" is not a new keyword.

You're not listening. 

My interpretation of what "While this is in play" would mean if used ABOVE the line IS consistent with the current usage of "While this is in play" BELOW the line. 

So I use that interpretation above the line, and since no other card uses "While this is in play" above the line, I can choose freely what it should mean (including overwriting any so-called "implicit text"), as long as I remain consistent with the cards that use it BELOW the line.


I claim that the keyword "While this is in play" overrides the implicit "When you play this" used above the line.  That is a consistent viewpoint, since currently no existing cards demonstrate an instance where "While this is in play" meets an implicit "When you play this". 

[GendoIkari]

This thread should be in Variants and Fan Cards.

And once it's there it can be further dumped into really bad card ideas

At the rate it's going, it could end up in RSP.

[Awaclus]

So I use that interpretation above the line, and since no other card uses "While this is in play" above the line, I can choose freely what it should mean (including overwriting any so-called "implicit text"), as long as I remain consistent with the cards that use it BELOW the line.

No, you can't. You also need to remain consistent with all of the other cards that have "when you play this".

I claim that the keyword "While this is in play" overrides the implicit "When you play this" used above the line.  That is a consistent viewpoint, since currently no existing cards demonstrate an instance where "While this is in play" meets an implicit "When you play this".

It is not a consistent viewpoint, since there are existing cards with "when you play this" and nothing overrides them.

[Haddock]

So I use that interpretation above the line, and since no other card uses "While this is in play" above the line, I can choose freely what it should mean (including overwriting any so-called "implicit text"), as long as I remain consistent with the cards that use it BELOW the line.

No, you can't. You also need to remain consistent with all of the other cards that have "when you play this".

....
I am remaining consistent with those cards.  It only occurs below the line in existing cards and my interpretation is consistent with usage below the line.

I claim that the keyword "While this is in play" overrides the implicit "When you play this" used above the line.  That is a consistent viewpoint, since currently no existing cards demonstrate an instance where "While this is in play" meets an implicit "When you play this".

It is not a consistent viewpoint, since there are existing cards with "when you play this" and nothing overrides them.

There are no existing cards where "when you play this" and "while this is in play" both apply to one effect.  I am simply making the ruling that when those two wordings meet, the explicit wording wins out and destroys the implicit "when you play this".  That is NOT inconsistent, it's simply a ruling to apply to that hypothetical new situation. 

You are choosing to make the other possible ruling, namely that the implicit wording gets prefixed onto the explicit "While this is in play".  That's also a perfectly consistent viewpoint, and I agree that I have no reason to choose my interpretation over yours, they're both equally valid.

[Awaclus]

I am remaining consistent with those cards.  It only occurs below the line in existing cards and my interpretation is consistent with usage below the line.

No, "when you play this" occurs above the line in every existing card. Your interpretation is not consistent with them.

There are no existing cards where "when you play this" and "while this is in play" both apply to one effect.

Altered Highway is not a card where "when you play this" and "while this is in play" both apply to one effect. It's a card where "when you play this" applies to "while this is in play, reduce costs" and "while this is in play" applies to "reduce costs".

I am simply making the ruling that when those two wordings meet, the explicit wording wins out and destroys the implicit "when you play this".  That is NOT inconsistent, it's simply a ruling to apply to that hypothetical new situation.

It is inconsistent, because it does not apply to situations that already exist, such as "when you play this" meeting "this turn".

You are choosing to make the other possible ruling, namely that the implicit wording gets prefixed onto the explicit "While this is in play".  That's also a perfectly consistent viewpoint, and I agree that I have no reason to choose my interpretation over yours, they're both equally valid.

I am not making a ruling, I'm going with the existing rulings.

[Haddock]

Altered Highway is not a card where "when you play this" and "while this is in play" both apply to one effect. It's a card where "when you play this" applies to "while this is in play, reduce costs" and "while this is in play" applies to "reduce costs".

I understand that that is your interpretation, and agree that it is a valid one.  I don't agree that it is the only possible one.

It is inconsistent, because it does not apply to situations that already exist, such as "when you play this" meeting "this turn".

"When you play this" is not in conflict with "this turn".  "When you play this" dictates when the effect starts, "This turn" dictates when it ends.  "While this is in play" dictates both the start and the end, so conflicts with "When you play this".

I am not making a ruling, I'm going with the existing rulings.

There are no existing rulings, since "When you play this" and "While this is in play" have never met on a card. 

[Awaclus]

Altered Highway is not a card where "when you play this" and "while this is in play" both apply to one effect. It's a card where "when you play this" applies to "while this is in play, reduce costs" and "while this is in play" applies to "reduce costs".

I understand that that is your interpretation, and agree that it is a valid one.  I don't agree that it is the only possible one.

It is the only possible one.

It is inconsistent, because it does not apply to situations that already exist, such as "when you play this" meeting "this turn".

"When you play this" is not in conflict with "this turn".  "When you play this" dictates when the effect starts, "This turn" dictates when it ends.  "While this is in play" dictates both the start and the end, so conflicts with "When you play this".

"This turn" also dictates both the start and the end. It starts at the start of the turn, and ends at the start of the next turn.

I am not making a ruling, I'm going with the existing rulings.

There are no existing rulings, since "When you play this" and "While this is in play" have never met on a card.

It doesn't matter that they have never met. They don't care about each other. "When you play this" just cares when you play it, and gives you the effect it gives you when you play it. "While this is in play" just cares when it's in play, and gives you the effect it gives when it's in play. They don't care what the effect is, and the effect doesn't care how it got there.

[Haddock]

"This turn" also dictates both the start and the end. It starts at the start of the turn, and ends at the start of the next turn.

No.  It starts when you play the card................

It doesn't matter that they have never met. They don't care about each other. "When you play this" just cares when you play it, and gives you the effect it gives you when you play it. "While this is in play" just cares when it's in play, and gives you the effect it gives when it's in play. They don't care what the effect is, and the effect doesn't care how it got there.

This is our primary point of disagreement.  I see "While this is in play" as being in direct conflict with "When you play this", so you need a ruling to decide how that brand new construction should play.  It's a new situation and therefore can be ruled one way or the other (Again, not that it matters, THIS WOULD NEVER HAPPEN.).
You clearly do not see the two as being in conflict with each other.  And that's fine.  But seriously, it's like you're trolling, can you not see where I'm coming from here?  I'd just love for you to say you get where I'm coming from, even if you think it's a stupid place to be coming from.  Then I could finally stop.

[GendoIkari]

There is trivially and objectively more than one possible interpretation, as this entire debate is about which interpretation is correct.

[Awaclus]

"This turn" also dictates both the start and the end. It starts at the start of the turn, and ends at the start of the next turn.

No.  It starts when you play the card................

By what logic "this turn" starts when you play the card? Obviously it had been "this turn" before you played the card, you can't play cards when it's not your turn and playing a card doesn't change whose turn it is.

This is our primary point of disagreement.  I see "While this is in play" as being in direct conflict with "When you play this", so you need a ruling to decide how that brand new construction should play.  It's a new situation and therefore can be ruled one way or the other (Again, not that it matters, THIS WOULD NEVER HAPPEN.).
You clearly do not see the two as being in conflict with each other.  And that's fine.  But seriously, it's like you're trolling, can you not see where I'm coming from here?  I'd just love for you to say you get where I'm coming from, even if you think it's a stupid place to be coming from.  Then I could finally stop.

No, I don't see how your conclusion could be drawn from the premises that we have.

EDIT: I do see where Gendo is coming from, though. I agree that it would probably apply if Altered Highway was somehow a real card, but I disagree that it also applies to the theoretical Altered Highway which will never be a real card.

[GendoIkari]

"This turn" is shorthand for "from now until the end of turn". "Now" being when you played the card. Otherwise playing bridge would retroactively reduce card costs for the whole turn.

[Haddock]

There is trivially and objectively more than one possible interpretation, as this entire debate is about which interpretation is correct.

I agree.

Awaclus, however, insists that his interpretation is the only one which is consistent with the existing rules and the way that existing cards play.

Obviously I disagree with Awaclus, I'm fairly certain that my interpretation is also consistent.

By what logic "this turn" starts when you play the card? Obviously it had been "this turn" before you played the card, you can't play cards when it's not your turn and playing a card doesn't change whose turn it is.

The effect begins when you play the card - this is your foundational assumption about how Dominion cards work, is it not?  The start time for the effect is "When you play this".  Thus "this turn" written on a card is only used to dictate when the effect will end, because we know when it starts.

No, I don't see how your conclusion could be drawn from the premises that we have.

I think I've explained my viewpoint every way I know how.  I'm still certain that it's valid.
I'm grateful to you Awaclus for making me question myself, I really think I've thought this through much more than I ever would have otherwise, and I've come to an understanding that I'm going to stick to. 

Shall we just finally agree to disagree here?

[GendoIkari]

Can we all at least agree that this ranks high in the list of the most ridiculous debates to ever have spent time on?

[Haddock]

Awa I just read your edit about Gendo.  Now I'm hyper confused cos I really thought that Gendo and I agreed here.

Though I guess Gendo has been saying that it's semantically fine (which I agree with), whereas I'm going further and saying that it's also technically consistent.  Fair enough.

Can we all at least agree that this ranks high in the list of the most ridiculous debates to ever have spent time on?

YES.  Please YES.

But it spawned "Frob the Snatz", so I don't regret it. 

[Awaclus]

"This turn" is shorthand for "from now until the end of turn". "Now" being when you played the card. Otherwise playing bridge would retroactively reduce card costs for the whole turn.

No, the reason why Bridge doesn't retroactively reduce costs is that the "this turn" effect doesn't exist before you play the card since it's set up when you play the card. "This turn" does mean the entire turn, otherwise there would be no way to ever play an activated Conspirator.

By what logic "this turn" starts when you play the card? Obviously it had been "this turn" before you played the card, you can't play cards when it's not your turn and playing a card doesn't change whose turn it is.

The effect begins when you play the card - this is your foundational assumption about how Dominion cards work, is it not?  The start time for the effect is "When you play this".  Thus "this turn" written on a card is only used to dictate when the effect will end, because we know when it starts.

The effect begins at the start of your turn, it just didn't exist at the start of your turn so it didn't do anything.

I think I've explained my viewpoint every way I know how.  I'm still certain that it's valid.
I'm grateful to you Awaclus for making me question myself, I really think I've thought this through much more than I ever would have otherwise, and I've come to an understanding that I'm going to stick to. 

Shall we just finally agree to disagree here?

I think there's more stuff that you would have to consider before sticking to your understanding, but it's not like I can force you to continue the argument further.

Awa I just read your edit about Gendo.  Now I'm hyper confused cos I really thought that Gendo and I agreed here.

Though I guess Gendo has been saying that it's semantically fine (which I agree with), whereas I'm going further and saying that it's also technically consistent.  Fair enough.

The part of Gendo's viewpoint that I understand is that the game needs to work how it's intended to work, regardless of how it should technically work, and that there's no way a card could ever be intended to work the way I'm arguing Altered Highway works. The thing is, a card that is never going to be a real Dominion card does not need to work how it's "intended" to work.

[markusin]

Awa I just read your edit about Gendo.  Now I'm hyper confused cos I really thought that Gendo and I agreed here.

Though I guess Gendo has been saying that it's semantically fine (which I agree with), whereas I'm going further and saying that it's also technically consistent.  Fair enough.

Can we all at least agree that this ranks high in the list of the most ridiculous debates to ever have spent time on?

YES.  Please YES.

But it spawned "Frob the Snatz", so I don't regret it. 

Know that I have been following this entire discussion.

[markusin]

Awa I just read your edit about Gendo.  Now I'm hyper confused cos I really thought that Gendo and I agreed here.

Though I guess Gendo has been saying that it's semantically fine (which I agree with), whereas I'm going further and saying that it's also technically consistent.  Fair enough.

The part of Gendo's viewpoint that I understand is that the game needs to work how it's intended to work, regardless of how it should technically work, and that there's no way a card could ever be intended to work the way I'm arguing Altered Highway works. The thing is, a card that is never going to be a real Dominion card does not need to work how it's "intended" to work.

Mystic Highway - $5 - Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
While this is in play, cards cost $1 less.

-------
If this card physically exists, this card's cost reduction effect does not stack from multiple plays of it. Otherwise, it does.


Deep stuff man.

[Donald X.]

Can we all at least agree that this ranks high in the list of the most ridiculous debates to ever have spent time on?

I have personally participated in a 100+ page thread about whether or not point nine repeating decimal equals one.

The guy who wouldn't believe it? We never convinced him.

[GendoIkari]

Can we all at least agree that this ranks high in the list of the most ridiculous debates to ever have spent time on?

I have personally participated in a 100+ page thread about whether or not point nine repeating decimal equals one.

The guy who wouldn't believe it? We never convinced him.

Oh gosh... I've had this one as well; though not for that many pages.

[SCSN]

Highroad

While this is in play, you may leave the discussion, agreeing to disagree.

[eHalcyon]

Highroad

While this is in play, you may leave the discussion, agreeing to disagree.

Low Road

While this is in play, when you play another card, treat all of its text as if it were under a line.

[ConMan]

Can we all at least agree that this ranks high in the list of the most ridiculous debates to ever have spent time on?

I have personally participated in a 100+ page thread about whether or not point nine repeating decimal equals one.

The guy who wouldn't believe it? We never convinced him.

Oh, that's a fun one. I remember getting in that discussion with someone who used "phd" as an insult.

[Jeebus]

I read this whole thread now, and I agreed with Awaclus from the start. Altered Highway would in practice be confusing, but there's only one interpretation consistent with other cards and rules, barring a special rule. There are other cards that are confusing but that have no special rule and just need an explanation, like Tournament. Tournament is consistent with other cards and rules, but for many (most?) people just using their intuitive understanding of English, is too confusing to just get without reading the explanation.

The clearest demonstration for me was Squeegee.

Squeegee: While any Gold is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0.

Altered Highway: While this is in play, cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0.

Both cards activate this ability on-play. Neither card has a scope for that ability, so it's unlimited. Squeegee doesn't cause a cost reduction just by being played, and neither does Altered Highway. Theoretically Altered Highway could be played from the trash for instance, like a Throned Feast is. Both just activate the ability that when a card ("this" or "any Gold") is in play, there's a cost reduction. And both cards have "while x is in play" above the line, so I don't get Haddock's argument about this being a new keyword, since he agreed with how Squeegee would work. Yes, Altered Highway refers to itself, which makes it more confusing, but that in itself doesn't mean any other interpretation is consistent. These two example cards should and must be consistent with each other, or we're making up special rules.

More about the unlimited scope: As Awaclus has said Real Highway's below-line ability doesn't have a scope either, it functions right from the beginning of the game. Altered Highway's ability doesn't. If it was just put into play by some effect (without being played before), it wouldn't do anything. This shows you that Real Highway has unlimited scope, in fact all 10 of them do, from the start. After an Altered Highway is played, it does the exact same thing as a Real Highway. And why the hell wouldn't it, it has the exact same wording. And just like a Real Highway, it has unlimited scope. From now on, every time that Altered Highway is in play, it causes a cost reduction. (Because of tracking this is unplayable in practice, but that's what it says.)

[pacovf]

Hydrad... what have you done?

[eHalcyon]

Both cards activate this ability on-play. Neither card has a scope for that ability, so it's unlimited.

I think this is the source of the disagreement.  You just assume that there is no scope, but that's all it is, an assumption.  It is equally valid to say that "while this is in play" has a scope that applies while that card is in play.  It is consistent with official cards because there aren't any official cards with "while this is in play" above the line to contradict it.  It's also a valid interpretation of how "while this is in play" works when it is below the line.

Even for regular effects, it's valid to say that the scope of all cards ends at the end of the turn the card is played unless otherwise specified.  Bridge is explicit about it, but it doesn't need to be.

Most importantly, this is the natural interpretation that would be assumed by your average player, and that's a major core of the design philosophy for Dominion.  Your regular player is not going to assume that a "while this is in play" effect exists forever and stacks as that card gets played again and again.  Because that would be silly.

So you have two possible interpretations of the hypothetical, obviously terrible text that are both valid (and arguing that either interpretation is invalid probably means that you haven't recognized your assumptions as merely assumptions).  One interpretation is impractical, untrackable, and unintuitive to the regular player.  The other isn't.

In conclusion, I hate that I ended up making a serious post in this ridiculous discussion.

[scott_pilgrim]

Let's say that in his next expansion, Donald gives us the following card:

Cartographer Jr.
Action -
Reveal the top five cards of your deck, frob the snatz, and put the rest back on top in any order.

With none of us knowing what "frob the snatz" means, we look it up in the rulebook, and the FAQ clarifies that Cartographer Jr's effect is to reveal the top five cards of your deck, discard the revealed Copper, and put the rest back on top in any order.  From this, we conclude that "frob the snatz" probably means "discard the revealed Copper".  In a later expansion, we get another card:

Super Cutpurse
Action-Attack -
Each other player reveals his hand and frobs the snatz.

Most of us would assume that this card makes each other player reveal his hand and discard the revealed Copper.  But maybe Donald would come along and say that no, in this case, because "frob the snatz" is referring to cards in players' hands rather than the top of their deck, "frob the snatz" actually means to discard the revealed silver.  We would have a definition like "frob the snatz" means "discard any Copper revealed from the top of the deck and any Silver revealed from a player's hand".

This would be a valid and consistent definition, that works for both Cartographer Jr. and Super Cutpurse.  But it's not a satisfying definition; we expect the much simpler definition to be the correct one, so that we don't have to learn what the words means in all the different possible cases.

This, I think, is the issue that Awaclus has with Haddock's interpretation.  Haddock's interpretation of the word "while" means something different for self-referential effects than for non-self-referential effects.  It is inherently more complex than the alternative definition, so we would want the simpler definition to be the default unless otherwise specified.  You can say that "while this is in play" should default to have a scope that applies "while that card is in play", but why should it?  No other cards behave that way; all other cards that set up effects above a line have their scope limited either by their text or other rules, and if they don't, we would assume that the scope is not limited because it is not specified anywhere.

It is not necessarily inconsistent to interpret it that way, but you would need to define "while" with a piecewise definition, so that it does something different depending on the context.  The simpler definition should be the default, unless there is a ruling that says otherwise.

So you have two possible interpretations of the hypothetical, obviously terrible text that are both valid (and arguing that either interpretation is invalid probably means that you haven't recognized your assumptions as merely assumptions).  One interpretation is impractical, untrackable, and unintuitive to the regular player.  The other isn't.

I think we all agree that this is not a pragmatic argument, since the text is certainly never going to appear on an actual card.  That it is impractical, untrackable, and unintuitive are all irrelevant to this discussion.  The argument is about what we know about the language of Dominion as far as it has been defined up to this point.

[Jeebus]

I think this is the source of the disagreement.  You just assume that there is no scope, but that's all it is, an assumption.  It is equally valid to say that "while this is in play" has a scope that applies while that card is in play.  It is consistent with official cards because there aren't any official cards with "while this is in play" above the line to contradict it.  It's also a valid interpretation of how "while this is in play" works when it is below the line.

Please remember that we're talking about two different effects here. The cost reduction obviously has the scope of "while this is in play". But you're claiming that "while this is in play" has the recursive scope of "while this is in play".

It's ridiculous to say that an effect that says "while this is in play" below the line, has a scope of "while this is in play". It's redundant. We don't check that it's in play before we check that it's in play. Compare with Hireling. As long as nobody played Hireling, it has no effect. More specifically, "at the start of each of your turns for the rest of the game" is not in effect. When you play it, it is in effect, for the rest of the game. It means that every start-of-turn, we do the next bit ("+1 Card"). By contrast Highway's "while this is in play" is in effect from the start. We don't have to play it or do anything else to activate it. Every time it's in play, we do the next bit (the cost reduction). This is what it means that Highway's "while this is in play" scope is from the beginning of the game (until the end). Playing the Hireling changes the scope of "at the start of each of your turns for the rest of the game". Contrast also Highway with Altered Highway. An effect that puts a card into play (without playing it) would activate Highway's cost reduction, but not so with Altered Highway. I'm sure you agree with that. That's because of the difference in scope (Highway from the start of the game; Altered Highway from you play it).

So you're saying that Altered Highway activates an effect on-play that has the scope of while "this" (this Altered Highway) is in play as a result of this playing of it. If it's played again later (even this turn) after having left play, that effect is no longer active. By the same token then Squeegee should activate an effect on-play that has the scope of while any Gold is in play as a result of... what exactly? Since Squeegee doesn't play any Golds, which Golds is it that Squeegee talks about? You could define it as the Golds this turn (assuming "this turn" is implicit somehow). Okay, then it works. But then that has to be the explanation of Altered Highway too. They have to be consistent, I hope you agree. So then it's not as you say: the scope is not "while this card is in play"; the scope is "this turn". That's the only way to make the two example cards consistent with each other.

So then it's the matter of the implicit "this turn" as the scope on all cards. This is very much against how we've been used to talking about Dominion. Donald has talked about limiting scope before. I'm not going to look for examples now, except for one: Lost Arts. "When you play a card from that pile..." According to you it has an implicit "this turn", which is wrong. It just says "when".
EDIT: All cards that need to, say "this turn". Coppersmith doesn't say just "Copper produces an extra $1" for a reason. Donald chose that all cards that activate abilities lasting for the rest of the turn, explicitly state so. This is the premise for the discussion: consistency with other cards. So of course we assume that Altered Highway does not have an implicit "this turn", since no other card does.

[GendoIkari]

I think this is the source of the disagreement.  You just assume that there is no scope, but that's all it is, an assumption.  It is equally valid to say that "while this is in play" has a scope that applies while that card is in play.  It is consistent with official cards because there aren't any official cards with "while this is in play" above the line to contradict it.  It's also a valid interpretation of how "while this is in play" works when it is below the line.

Please remember that we're talking about two different effects here. The cost reduction obviously has the scope of "while this is in play". But you're claiming that "while this is in play" has the recursive scope of "while this is in play".

I'm not sure if that's what he's claiming, but it's definitely not been my position. My position has been that to a casual reader of English, there's not 2 different effects. The only effect that will be thought about, the only effect that makes sense to think about while playing Dominion, is that while the card is in play, costs are reduced.

An effect that puts a card into play (without playing it) would activate Highway's cost reduction, but not so with Altered Highway. I'm sure you agree with that. That's because of the difference in scope (Highway from the start of the game; Altered Highway from you play it).

Again, I don't know about the others, but I wouldn't agree with that. I'm pretty sure the entire argument rests on the opinion that if a card has a "while this is in play" above the line, then it means that a casual reading of that card would be that the normal "only do stuff on this card when you play it" isn't used. Instead, a "do this stuff when this card is in play" is used. And for me, it stems from the fact that "When you play this, while this is in play, do stuff" is an awkward and confusing English sentence. Thus a reasonable interpretation of that card is to NOT have the normal implicit "when you play this" part. In other words, to treat that text as though it were below a line.

[Awaclus]

Again, I don't know about the others, but I wouldn't agree with that. I'm pretty sure the entire argument rests on the opinion that if a card has a "while this is in play" above the line, then it means that a casual reading of that card would be that the normal "only do stuff on this card when you play it" isn't used. Instead, a "do this stuff when this card is in play" is used. And for me, it stems from the fact that "When you play this, while this is in play, do stuff" is an awkward and confusing English sentence. Thus a reasonable interpretation of that card is to NOT have the normal implicit "when you play this" part. In other words, to treat that text as though it were below a line.

I think we all agree that this is not a pragmatic argument, since the text is certainly never going to appear on an actual card.  That it is impractical, untrackable, and unintuitive are all irrelevant to this discussion.  The argument is about what we know about the language of Dominion as far as it has been defined up to this point.

[Haddock]

Haddock's interpretation of the word "while" means something different for self-referential effects than for non-self-referential effects.

This is not a good argument at all. Of course cards should behave differently if they refer to different things. If a card says "trash this" it means something very different to "trash a copper from your hand". That doesn't mean that the meaning of "trash" is being interpreted differently each time.

It is not necessarily inconsistent to interpret it that way.

glad you agree. That's my only point. All else is subjective.

[eHalcyon]

I think we all agree that this is not a pragmatic argument, since the text is certainly never going to appear on an actual card.  That it is impractical, untrackable, and unintuitive are all irrelevant to this discussion.  The argument is about what we know about the language of Dominion as far as it has been defined up to this point.

But the point is that the language of Dominion, as far as it has been defined up to this point, has been intended to align with what the average player expects.  I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but I know that there are cards with less-than-precise wording because the most precise version would be confusing to the average player, whereas the less precise version gets the intended point across almost every time.  Donald said as much earlier in this thread.

So, pursuant to this, the fact that your interpretation is impractical, untrackable and unintuitive are all relevant to the discussion.

So then it's the matter of the implicit "this turn" as the scope on all cards. This is very much against how we've been used to talking about Dominion. Donald has talked about limiting scope before. I'm not going to look for examples now, except for one: Lost Arts. "When you play a card from that pile..." According to you it has an implicit "this turn", which is wrong. It just says "when".

Lost Arts is an event that you never play and the phrase you're talking about is in parentheses, a whole other can of worms.  It's not applicable here.  If you really want to go there, an argument similar to the "continuous stacking" argument could apply to Lost Arts.  When you buy it, it sets up this free +1 Action effect for whichever card you moved your token to!  But it says "from that pile", not "the pile with your +1 Action token", which means you could move your token again and still get +1 action from the first card you chose!  But that's wrong.

You could also consider Embargo, which uses a similar "when" phrasing as Lost Arts.  If you don't follow the common sense approach, the proper interpretation is that (just like Highway) the scope is unlimited on all 10 copies of Embargo, which means that a single Embargo token should cause the unfortunate victim to gain 10 Curses total, one for each unlimited scope effect.  But that's wrong.

EDIT: All cards that need to, say "this turn". Coppersmith doesn't say just "Copper produces an extra $1" for a reason. Donald chose that all cards that activate abilities lasting for the rest of the turn, explicitly state so. This is the premise for the discussion: consistency with other cards. So of course we assume that Altered Highway does not have an implicit "this turn", since no other card does.

There are no official cards with "while this is in play" above the line.  Therefore every interpretation we come up with is consistent (or inconsistent, depending on your point of view) with official cards, since there are no official cards to contradict, nor official cards with which to be consistent.

Or to come at it from a different approach -- you are saying that the lack of a specific scope means that it is unlimited.  But there are no official cards with unlimited scope effects above the line.  The closest thing is Hireling, which you yourself brought up.  But note -- Hireling specifies scope!  It actually says "for the rest of the game".  Neither Squeegee nor Highway say this, so it is inconsistent to assume that their effect is unlimited in scope and applies for the rest of the game.



I'm skipping the other parts because man, these arguments have already been repeated so many times in this thread.

[scott_pilgrim]

I think we all agree that this is not a pragmatic argument, since the text is certainly never going to appear on an actual card.  That it is impractical, untrackable, and unintuitive are all irrelevant to this discussion.  The argument is about what we know about the language of Dominion as far as it has been defined up to this point.

But the point is that the language of Dominion, as far as it has been defined up to this point, has been intended to align with what the average player expects.  I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but I know that there are cards with less-than-precise wording because the most precise version would be confusing to the average player, whereas the less precise version gets the intended point across almost every time.  Donald said as much earlier in this thread.

So, pursuant to this, the fact that your interpretation is impractical, untrackable and unintuitive are all relevant to the discussion.

I think we're talking past each other now because we have different ideas about what this argument is about.  I'm not talking about how Donald would rule on this card that he's not going to make if he made it.  I'm talking about, given the entire volume of rulings that we have so far, if this card were to come into existence, and we wanted to follow the rules as they are written as closely as possible, what would happen.

Haddock's interpretation of the word "while" means something different for self-referential effects than for non-self-referential effects.

This is not a good argument at all. Of course cards should behave differently if they refer to different things. If a card says "trash this" it means something very different to "trash a copper from your hand". That doesn't mean that the meaning of "trash" is being interpreted differently each time.

"Trash" means the same thing, no matter what follows it.  "Trash x" means move x to the trash pile.  Under your interpretation, I can't tell you what "while" means without breaking it down into two cases: one where the card says "while this", and one where the card says "while x" for "x" other than "this".  Under Awaclus's interpretation, I can tell you what "while" means for all x in "while x".

[Awaclus]

But the point is that the language of Dominion, as far as it has been defined up to this point, has been intended to align with what the average player expects.  I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but I know that there are cards with less-than-precise wording because the most precise version would be confusing to the average player, whereas the less precise version gets the intended point across almost every time.  Donald said as much earlier in this thread.

That's not the point. We're not talking about a real Dominion card, we're talking about an imaginary card which was created for the purpose of having an argument about what the card text should mean in the technical sense, i.e. what a computer program with "knowledge" of all the official Dominion wordings and rulings would expect.

You could also consider Embargo, which uses a similar "when" phrasing as Lost Arts.  If you don't follow the common sense approach, the proper interpretation is that (just like Highway) the scope is unlimited on all 10 copies of Embargo, which means that a single Embargo token should cause the unfortunate victim to gain 10 Curses total, one for each unlimited scope effect.  But that's wrong.

Embargo is one of the cards that have special case rulings in the rulebook. I think it would be better if Embargo actually had the Altered Highway wording.

There are no official cards with "while this is in play" above the line.  Therefore every interpretation we come up with is consistent (or inconsistent, depending on your point of view) with official cards, since there are no official cards to contradict, nor official cards with which to be consistent.

So you would say that "when you draw an Estate, make a Black Market deck out of the Knights pile and win the game" is an entirely valid interpretation for "When you would gain a Smithy"?

Or to come at it from a different approach -- you are saying that the lack of a specific scope means that it is unlimited.  But there are no official cards with unlimited scope effects above the line.  The closest thing is Hireling, which you yourself brought up.  But note -- Hireling specifies scope!  It actually says "for the rest of the game".  Neither Squeegee nor Highway say this, so it is inconsistent to assume that their effect is unlimited in scope and applies for the rest of the game.

There are official cards with unlimited scope effects below the line. Those cards don't say it, so assuming that cards that don't say anything about the scope are unlimited is consistent.

[eHalcyon]

I think we all agree that this is not a pragmatic argument, since the text is certainly never going to appear on an actual card.  That it is impractical, untrackable, and unintuitive are all irrelevant to this discussion.  The argument is about what we know about the language of Dominion as far as it has been defined up to this point.

But the point is that the language of Dominion, as far as it has been defined up to this point, has been intended to align with what the average player expects.  I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but I know that there are cards with less-than-precise wording because the most precise version would be confusing to the average player, whereas the less precise version gets the intended point across almost every time.  Donald said as much earlier in this thread.

So, pursuant to this, the fact that your interpretation is impractical, untrackable and unintuitive are all relevant to the discussion.

I think we're talking past each other now because we have different ideas about what this argument is about.  I'm not talking about how Donald would rule on this card that he's not going to make if he made it.  I'm talking about, given the entire volume of rulings that we have so far, if this card were to come into existence, and we wanted to follow the rules as they are written as closely as possible, what would happen.

Sure.  But the entire body of rules includes those imprecisions for the purpose of clarification. 

If you really want to ignore all that, you'll still find no basis for making a judgement of what this kind of effect has, so you have to make assumptions.  You've made some assumptions, and other people made different assumptions.  Both sets of assumptions are equally valid (as long as you are ignoring intuition, practicality, etc.) because there is nothing that actually sets precedence about this phrase above the line.

But the point is that the language of Dominion, as far as it has been defined up to this point, has been intended to align with what the average player expects.  I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but I know that there are cards with less-than-precise wording because the most precise version would be confusing to the average player, whereas the less precise version gets the intended point across almost every time.  Donald said as much earlier in this thread.

That's not the point. We're not talking about a real Dominion card, we're talking about an imaginary card which was created for the purpose of having an argument about what the card text should mean in the technical sense, i.e. what a computer program with "knowledge" of all the official Dominion wordings and rulings would expect.

And that's why this whole thread is ridiculous.

As much as Dominion tries to be totally logical, there are lots of little wording imprecisions and shortcuts for the sake of clarity.  In the technical sense, a computer would have no idea what to do with this.  Or if it was robust enough to make sense of all the rulings and exceptions and without needing those specific exceptions to be hard-coded in, then it should also be able to account for the natural human interpretation of language and "what an average player would think" becomes relevant again.

There are no official cards with "while this is in play" above the line.  Therefore every interpretation we come up with is consistent (or inconsistent, depending on your point of view) with official cards, since there are no official cards to contradict, nor official cards with which to be consistent.

So you would say that "when you draw an Estate, make a Black Market deck out of the Knights pile and win the game" is an entirely valid interpretation for "When you would gain a Smithy"?

Or to come at it from a different approach -- you are saying that the lack of a specific scope means that it is unlimited.  But there are no official cards with unlimited scope effects above the line.  The closest thing is Hireling, which you yourself brought up.  But note -- Hireling specifies scope!  It actually says "for the rest of the game".  Neither Squeegee nor Highway say this, so it is inconsistent to assume that their effect is unlimited in scope and applies for the rest of the game.

There are official cards with unlimited scope effects below the line. Those cards don't say it, so assuming that cards that don't say anything about the scope are unlimited is consistent.

"When you would gain a Smithy" is "When you would gain _______", of which there are many examples.

Cards with unlimited scope below the line have no bearing on this hypothetical card, because the timing below the line is different from the timing above the line.  You can make an assumption to help direct you on this, but a computer wouldn't.  In a similar vein, the computer would have no idea what to do with "While this is in play, +$1" or even just "+$1" below the line.

(Let us now begin a whole new thread about how that should be interpreted.)

[AJD]

"Trash x" means move x to the trash pile.

It more or less does, but if there were a card that said "Move x to the trash pile," I bet it wouldn't trigger Market Square.

[GendoIkari]

In a similar vein, the computer would have no idea what to do with "While this is in play, +$1" or even just "+$1" below the line.

(Let us now begin a whole new thread about how that should be interpreted.)

Yes, I've found myself actually thinking about this one. Not that I would expect this to be technically consistent or valid to a computer, but if I were playing a game and came across this card, without any ability to look up an official rule on it, then I would interpret it as follows:

+ when this enters play.
- when this leaves play, to a minimum of .

That's for the "while this is in play" version. For the version with just + below the line, I would ignore the line completely and just treat it as a terminal Copper, thinking that the line is a confusing thing that doesn't belong there.

[Jeebus]

Most of you have now shifted to talking about how we could guess what the card would probably mean, given that the actual meaning is impractical and confusing. But that was not the point of the discussion.

Thus a reasonable interpretation of that card is to NOT have the normal implicit "when you play this" part. In other words, to treat that text as though it were below a line.

You're saying that "while this is in play" is exactly the same whether it's above or below the line, because that's what the casual reader would think. As I said, the casual reader wouldn't understand Tournament, so it needs an explanation. Don't always trust the casual reader. We're talking about the literal reading of the card here. This position more or less undermines the whole point of the dividing line, which is what this conversation used to be about, and which Donald has acknowledged is meaningful.

But the point is that the language of Dominion, as far as it has been defined up to this point, has been intended to align with what the average player expects.  I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but I know that there are cards with less-than-precise wording because the most precise version would be confusing to the average player, whereas the less precise version gets the intended point across almost every time.  Donald said as much earlier in this thread.

That would be like the opposite to a card like Tournament, for instance Nomad Camp. But that's the whole point. We've already had discussions about how Nomad Camp's literal meaning is not what the card is actually supposed to do. The card text contradicts the FAQ in the rulebook. So we know that the card text is a "quick and easy", and imprecise, way to say something else. Donald has acknowledged as much. So this whole way of arguing is straying from the subject, which is "why does the dividing line matter in the case of Highway, and what would a Highway without the dividing line literally do?"

[GendoIkari]

Most of you have now shifted to talking about how we could guess what the card would probably mean, given that the actual meaning is impractical and confusing. But that was not the point of the discussion.

Well that's the only thing I've been talking about all along, which is why Awaclus said that he can see where I'm coming from. My stance all along has been that the literal, technical reading isn't what matters here, because of cards like Embargo, Nomad Camp, Pirate Ship, and Envoy (and Band of Misfits until recently). That Dominion cards are not necessarily as technical or precise as MTG cards, and how a card should be played is more important than how a card should be literally interpreted.

Meanwhile other people have been debating what the actual literal, technical reading should be. I haven't really involved myself with that one, because I don't think it matters.

[Jeebus]

Well that's the only thing I've been talking about all along, which is why Awaclus said that he can see where I'm coming from. My stance all along has been that the literal, technical reading isn't what matters here, because of cards like Embargo, Nomad Camp, Pirate Ship, and Envoy (and Band of Misfits until recently). That Dominion cards are not necessarily as technical or precise as MTG cards, and how a card should be played is more important than how a card should be literally interpreted.

Meanwhile other people have been debating what the actual literal, technical reading should be. I haven't really involved myself with that one, because I don't think it matters.

But the discussion started because of the significance of the dividing line. Do you think that line matters to people who don't read cards literally? Do you think all Germans are Throning their Durations in a wrong way?

[Jeebus]

Lost Arts is an event that you never play and the phrase you're talking about is in parentheses, a whole other can of worms.  It's not applicable here.  If you really want to go there, an argument similar to the "continuous stacking" argument could apply to Lost Arts.  When you buy it, it sets up this free +1 Action effect for whichever card you moved your token to!  But it says "from that pile", not "the pile with your +1 Action token", which means you could move your token again and still get +1 action from the first card you chose!  But that's wrong.

You're right that the parenthesis is somewhat imprecise here. "That pile" is supposed to mean "the pile with your token". So it's another example of a short-hand text which is properly explained in the rulebook. There are a few of those (like Nomad Camp) and they're not all in parenthesis. The parenthesis is not a different category of text (look at Prince). Lost Arts is still an example of an effect that you trigger which can't have the scope of "this turn" which you claimed was the scope of all cards unless otherwise specified. Why does it matter that it's not a card you played? You triggered it by buying it. It's clear that there's no essential difference. Cards can leave play and still have their effect active. You can even trigger effects by other means, like revealing them. (And Watchtower works even outside your turn, without specifying so at all.) Why would you think there's a magic specialness to cards you play?

You could also consider Embargo, which uses a similar "when" phrasing as Lost Arts.  If you don't follow the common sense approach, the proper interpretation is that (just like Highway) the scope is unlimited on all 10 copies of Embargo, which means that a single Embargo token should cause the unfortunate victim to gain 10 Curses total, one for each unlimited scope effect.  But that's wrong.

Very true. It has been discussed before, and acknowledged by Donald. See my previous post.

There are no official cards with "while this is in play" above the line.  Therefore every interpretation we come up with is consistent (or inconsistent, depending on your point of view) with official cards, since there are no official cards to contradict, nor official cards with which to be consistent.

Or to come at it from a different approach -- you are saying that the lack of a specific scope means that it is unlimited.  But there are no official cards with unlimited scope effects above the line.  The closest thing is Hireling, which you yourself brought up.  But note -- Hireling specifies scope!  It actually says "for the rest of the game".  Neither Squeegee nor Highway say this, so it is inconsistent to assume that their effect is unlimited in scope and applies for the rest of the game.

So then what would be the scope? As I said, all cards with scope "this turn" says so.

There is absolutely no reason being given in this thread for why something below the line would change completely in meaning when it's above the line. I've shown how "while this is in play" below the line is unlimited in scope, because you claimed otherwise. (You didn't reply to this.) Given this, it's also unlimited in scope above the line (if read literally) - with the difference being that it needs to be played to be activated, like all other cards with on-play effects.

I used Hireling to show what I just mentioned, that scope is unlimited on Highway's below-line. But yes, Hireling, Champion and Prince explicitly state that the scope is the rest of the game. They didn't need to do it, but it makes it clearer for casual players since the cards are unusual in this regard. As I said, all cards that need a limited scope, also state it, so you can't say that not stating a scope automatically means "this turn". We have no effects without stated scope where the scope is implicit. None. We do however have effects with unlimited scope, even though they are all below the line.

I'm skipping the other parts because man, these arguments have already been repeated so many times in this thread.

I haven't seen this explanation of Highway's scope before, or I wouldn't have written it.

Do you agree that Highway's below-line has unlimited scope?

Do you agree that the scope of Altered Highway and Squeegee being "while x is in play" doesn't make sense and that the only way to make them make sense the way you want to interpret them, is that the scope is "this turn"? At least you agree for Squeegee I hope, that one's pretty obvious. (Remember, I'm talking about the effect that happens when you play these cards, since we're talking about above-line effects.)

[Jeebus]

So then it's the matter of the implicit "this turn" as the scope on all cards. This is very much against how we've been used to talking about Dominion. Donald has talked about limiting scope before.

I'm quoting myself, to follow up on this. Here is Donald talking about scope, and the dividing line:

You couldn't just add a line to Scheme. Then the bottom half would have nothing specifying its scope - it could apply from the start of the game, with no Schemes ever bought or played. It would have to be like, "At the start of Clean-up, if this is in play, ..." Herbalist limits its scope by requiring itself to be discarded.

(Of course Scheme says "this turn", but that doesn't make any sense below the dividing line.)

[Awaclus]

The parenthesis is not a different category of text (look at Prince).

It is, actually. Bureaucrat without the parenthesis would let the opponent choose to reveal his hand with no Victory cards and fail to do so, because they don't have a hand with no Victory cards.

[eHalcyon]

As I said, the casual reader wouldn't understand Tournament, so it needs an explanation.
...
That would be like the opposite to a card like Tournament, for instance Nomad Camp.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.  Tournament is very understandable.  I don't know what you mean by "opposite" here.

You're right that the parenthesis is somewhat imprecise here. "That pile" is supposed to mean "the pile with your token". So it's another example of a short-hand text which is properly explained in the rulebook. There are a few of those (like Nomad Camp) and they're not all in parenthesis. The parenthesis is not a different category of text (look at Prince). Lost Arts is still an example of an effect that you trigger which can't have the scope of "this turn" which you claimed was the scope of all cards unless otherwise specified. Why does it matter that it's not a card you played? You triggered it by buying it. It's clear that there's no essential difference. Cards can leave play and still have their effect active. You can even trigger effects by other means, like revealing them. (And Watchtower works even outside your turn, without specifying so at all.) Why would you think there's a magic specialness to cards you play?

So, I don't think I actually said that "this turn" is the default scope of all cards.  Feel free to quote otherwise, but from briefly reading back it looks like you came up with that yourself.  Just in case I did say it, I concede the point and I will clarify:

Unless otherwise specified, card text above the line on action cards is implicitly limited in scope to this turn.

This is a natural assumption that follows from the fact that above-the-line text is triggered and resolved when you play the card, and anything that applies outside of the current turn is always specified, e.g. Durations, Prince.

You can assume otherwise if you want, but it is wrong to say that your assumption is the one true way.  Both are consistent with Dominion rules.

Parentheticals are certainly a different category of text.  They are used for clarification.  On Lost Arts, it is a reminder of what the the +1 Action token means.  It is not an effect that is triggered by buying the card.  The only effect of buying Lost Arts is moving your token.  The parenthetical is clarified in the rule book.

Likewise, the parenthetical on Prince is a clarification that the card must be set aside to be played.  This is also clarified in the rulebook.

The discussion is about the difference between the text above the line and below it.  As you yourself have stated numerous times (even providing a quote from Donald), the line is not meaningless, and the scope is different in each case.  That is an essential difference.

So then what would be the scope? As I said, all cards with scope "this turn" says so.

There is absolutely no reason being given in this thread for why something below the line would change completely in meaning when it's above the line. I've shown how "while this is in play" below the line is unlimited in scope, because you claimed otherwise. (You didn't reply to this.) Given this, it's also unlimited in scope above the line (if read literally) - with the difference being that it needs to be played to be activated, like all other cards with on-play effects.

And all cards with scope outside of "this turn" say so as well, above the line.

You yourself are arguing that it's different depending on whether the text is above the line or below the line.  You are arguing that the meaning is different!  You can't have it both ways.

"While this is in play" below the line can be interpreted as unlimited in scope because all text below the line has different timing.  I'll even use the quote you dug up.

By default, text on cards happens when you play them...  The dividing line lets you know that some stuff doesn't happen when you play the card...

You couldn't just add a line to Scheme. Then the bottom half would have nothing specifying its scope - it could apply from the start of the game, with no Schemes ever bought or played. It would have to be like, "At the start of Clean-up, if this is in play, ..." Herbalist limits its scope by requiring itself to be discarded.

So when the text on Scheme moves below the line, the scope changes.  There is a difference.  And you'll find this to be true across all cards.  Text above the line is on-play and the scope is always specified for continuous/future effects, whether limited to this turn (Scheme, Bridge, Coppersmith) or the next turn (most Durations) or forever (Champion, Hireling).  Always specified.  So when you put text above without specifying scope, there is not one single logical answer.  You have to make some assumptions that aren't actually supported by the body of Dominion rules.

I used Hireling to show what I just mentioned, that scope is unlimited on Highway's below-line. But yes, Hireling, Champion and Prince explicitly state that the scope is the rest of the game. They didn't need to do it, but it makes it clearer for casual players since the cards are unusual in this regard. As I said, all cards that need a limited scope, also state it, so you can't say that not stating a scope automatically means "this turn". We have no effects without stated scope where the scope is implicit. None. We do however have effects with unlimited scope, even though they are all below the line.

That argument can cut both ways.  Bridge and Coppersmith explicitly state the scope is this turn.  They didn't need to do it, but it makes it clearer for casual players.

As I said, all text above the line always states the scope, so you can't just assume that it's unlimited or limited.  You have to make an assumption, which is a human process and not something you can just do if you're trying to remain as technical as possible.

Yes, there are effects with unlimited scope that aren't explicitly stated on the card.  That's because that's what being below the dividing line means.  When you take it above the line, that disappears.  Your Scheme quote shows that.  The rulebook shows that.

I haven't seen this explanation of Highway's scope before, or I wouldn't have written it.

Do you agree that Highway's below-line has unlimited scope?

Do you agree that the scope of Altered Highway and Squeegee being "while x is in play" doesn't make sense and that the only way to make them make sense the way you want to interpret them, is that the scope is "this turn"? At least you agree for Squeegee I hope, that one's pretty obvious. (Remember, I'm talking about the effect that happens when you play these cards, since we're talking about above-line effects.)

Sure, I think it is totally valid to say that Highway's below-line text is unlimited scope.  Because it is below the line.

As for Altered Highway and Squeegee, they make no sense at all.  They say "when you play this, [condition], [effect]".  That is nonsense, and there is no way to interpret it based on existing Dominion rules.  You have to make a new assumption, a ruling to deal with this mess of language.

Your interpretation is that it means "when you play this, set up a new rule saying '[condition], [effect]' that has unlimited scope".  Fine, that works.  But it's your own idea, not based on anything relevant in Dominion.

Another interpretation (which I don't think has been brought up in this thread yet; I haven't been keeping track because the premise of the whole discussion was nonsense) is that they say "when you play this, you get [effect] while in the scope [condition]".

Squeegee: When you play this, you get [cost reduction] while in the scope [while any Gold is in play].  If there is any Gold in play, cost reduction.  If all Gold somehow leaves play, the cost reduction ends.  If another Gold is played, it does nothing because the effect has already ended.

Altered Highway: When you play this, you get [cost reduction] while in the scope [this is in play].  If this is in play, cost reduction.  If this leaves play, the cost reduction ends.  If this somehow gets put back in play without being played, there is no cost reduction, the effect has already ended.  If you actually play it again, start from the beginning.

For point of comparison, this interpretation is totally consistent with official cards.

Hireling: When you play this, you get [+1 card at the start of each of your turns] while in the scope [for the rest of the game].

Champion: When you play this, you get [eternal moat and free actions] while in the scope [for the rest of the game].

Prince: When you play this, set aside a valid card; you get [to play that card at the start of each of your turns] in the scope [until you fail to set it aside again].

Is this more limited interpretation better or worse than the unlimited one?  No.  They are both equally valid.  They are equally (un)intuitive.  The point is that you have to make your own assumptions that don't actually have a basis in official Dominion rules.  If you want to be as technical as possible, there is no possible way forward.  The best you can do is to make assumptions and acknowledge those assumptions, which also means acknowledging that different assumptions are just as valid.  And once you get to that territory, you may as well accept that "intuitive to regular player" is absolutely a valid consideration.

[eHalcyon]

They say "when you play this, [condition], [effect]".  That is nonsense, and there is no way to interpret it based on existing Dominion rules.  You have to make a new assumption, a ruling to deal with this mess of language.

Just realized that the above as I simplified it isn't nonsense.  I had originally written:

"when you play this, while [condition], [effect]"

which is strange and confusing, but my simplification "when you play this, [condition], [effect]" can make sense, e.g.

"when you play this, if [something], [effect]".

So maybe my second interpretation is the best one after all.

[Awaclus]

Unless otherwise specified, card text above the line on action cards is implicitly limited in scope to this turn.

Altered Highway specifies otherwise. It specifies that you get the cost reduction while it is in play.

[eHalcyon]

Unless otherwise specified, card text above the line on action cards is implicitly limited in scope to this turn.

Altered Highway specifies otherwise. It specifies that you get the cost reduction while it is in play.

So you agree with my second interpretation?  This one:

Altered Highway: When you play this, you get [cost reduction] while in the scope [this is in play].  If this is in play, cost reduction.  If this leaves play, the cost reduction ends.  If this somehow gets put back in play without being played, there is no cost reduction, the effect has already ended.  If you actually play it again, start from the beginning.

Because Jeebus (and you too, I am pretty sure) has been arguing that it is unlimited in scope.  e.g.

"While this is in play" is unambiguous - is this physical card in play? If so, do the thing. It doesn't matter how many times the card was played.

Indeed. And if there are multiple "While this is in play" effects, you do all of them if the physical card is in play. And there are multiple "While this is in play" effects when you Throne a card whose on-play effect sets up a "While this is in play" effect.

Even if you agree with my second interpretation, the point is that it is still making certain assumptions that aren't given by official Dominion.  It's not any more technical or logical than other interpretations that have come up in this thread.

[Awaclus]

Unless otherwise specified, card text above the line on action cards is implicitly limited in scope to this turn.

Altered Highway specifies otherwise. It specifies that you get the cost reduction while it is in play.

So you agree with my second interpretation?  This one:

Altered Highway: When you play this, you get [cost reduction] while in the scope [this is in play].  If this is in play, cost reduction.  If this leaves play, the cost reduction ends.  If this somehow gets put back in play without being played, there is no cost reduction, the effect has already ended.  If you actually play it again, start from the beginning.

No. The scope is while it's in play. It doesn't matter how many times it has been in play or left play before; if it's in play, costs are reduced, and if it's not, they aren't. That's what "while this is in play" means.

[GendoIkari]

Unless otherwise specified, card text above the line on action cards is implicitly limited in scope to this turn.

Altered Highway specifies otherwise. It specifies that you get the cost reduction while it is in play.

So you agree with my second interpretation?  This one:

Altered Highway: When you play this, you get [cost reduction] while in the scope [this is in play].  If this is in play, cost reduction.  If this leaves play, the cost reduction ends.  If this somehow gets put back in play without being played, there is no cost reduction, the effect has already ended.  If you actually play it again, start from the beginning.

No. The scope is while it's in play. It doesn't matter how many times it has been in play or left play before; if it's in play, costs are reduced, and if it's not, they aren't. That's what "while this is in play" means.

So very confused... this sounds like exactly what eHalcyon has been saying, and the opposite of what you've been saying...

[eHalcyon]

Unless otherwise specified, card text above the line on action cards is implicitly limited in scope to this turn.

Altered Highway specifies otherwise. It specifies that you get the cost reduction while it is in play.

So you agree with my second interpretation?  This one:

Altered Highway: When you play this, you get [cost reduction] while in the scope [this is in play].  If this is in play, cost reduction.  If this leaves play, the cost reduction ends.  If this somehow gets put back in play without being played, there is no cost reduction, the effect has already ended.  If you actually play it again, start from the beginning.

No. The scope is while it's in play. It doesn't matter how many times it has been in play or left play before; if it's in play, costs are reduced, and if it's not, they aren't. That's what "while this is in play" means.

That's what it says in my quote...

So you're not arguing that the effect stacks between turns?  Because that's what Jeebus has been arguing (and you've been +1ing his posts), and that's what it really sounded like you were arguing before.

[eHalcyon]

Or to come at it from a different approach -- you are saying that the lack of a specific scope means that it is unlimited.  But there are no official cards with unlimited scope effects above the line.  The closest thing is Hireling, which you yourself brought up.  But note -- Hireling specifies scope!  It actually says "for the rest of the game".  Neither Squeegee nor Highway say this, so it is inconsistent to assume that their effect is unlimited in scope and applies for the rest of the game.

There are official cards with unlimited scope effects below the line. Those cards don't say it, so assuming that cards that don't say anything about the scope are unlimited is consistent.

[Awaclus]

That's what it says in my quote...

So you're not arguing that the effect stacks between turns?  Because that's what Jeebus has been arguing (and you've been +1ing his posts), and that's what it really sounded like you were arguing before.

Of course the effect stacks between turns, because the scope is not "this turn", it's "while this is in play". It's in play if it's in play next turn. And if there are multiple "while in play" effects, they all are active when the card is in play.

[eHalcyon]

That's what it says in my quote...

So you're not arguing that the effect stacks between turns?  Because that's what Jeebus has been arguing (and you've been +1ing his posts), and that's what it really sounded like you were arguing before.

Of course the effect stacks between turns, because the scope is not "this turn", it's "while this is in play". It's in play if it's in play next turn. And if there are multiple "while in play" effects, they all are active when the card is in play.

So you're saying the scope of the "while in play" effect is unlimited.  Which I thoroughly addressed in the post.

[Awaclus]

So you're saying the scope of the "while in play" effect is unlimited.  Which I thoroughly addressed in the post.

It's unlimited the way Bridge's "this turn" effect is unlimited; for example, if it's turn 6 when you play it, then you get an effect which is basically "if it's turn 6, reduce costs" for the rest of the game.

[eHalcyon]

So you're saying the scope of the "while in play" effect is unlimited.  Which I thoroughly addressed in the post.

It's unlimited the way Bridge's "this turn" effect is unlimited; for example, if it's turn 6, then you get an effect which is basically "if it's turn 6, reduce costs" for the rest of the game.

Bridge is not at all unlimited.  It's limited to "this turn".  Your reinterpretation of it is not at all how Bridge works, nor how Dominion works, nor how English works.

Let's bring in more ridiculous cards for this scenario.

Reset
$3 - Action
Reset the turn counter to 1.

Let's say you play Bridge on turn 6.  If you play a Reset immediately after, cost is still reduced even though it's no longer "turn 6".  5 turns later, when it is "turn 6" again, costs are not magically reduced.

[Awaclus]

So you're saying the scope of the "while in play" effect is unlimited.  Which I thoroughly addressed in the post.

It's unlimited the way Bridge's "this turn" effect is unlimited; for example, if it's turn 6, then you get an effect which is basically "if it's turn 6, reduce costs" for the rest of the game.

Bridge is not at all unlimited.  It's limited "until the end of this turn".  Your reinterpretation of it is not at all how Bridge works, nor how Dominion works, nor how English works.

Let's bring in more ridiculous cards for this scenario.

Reset
$3 - Action
Reset the turn counter to 1.

Let's say you play Bridge on turn 6.  If you play a Reset immediately after, cost is still reduced even though it's no longer "turn 6".  5 turns later, when it is "turn 6" again, costs are not magically reduced.

It's not "until the end of this turn", it's just "this turn". Whenever it's that turn, you get the cost reduction. It's just that there's no way for there to be that turn ever again once it's over, but there is a way a card can enter play after it has left play.

[eHalcyon]

So you're saying the scope of the "while in play" effect is unlimited.  Which I thoroughly addressed in the post.

It's unlimited the way Bridge's "this turn" effect is unlimited; for example, if it's turn 6, then you get an effect which is basically "if it's turn 6, reduce costs" for the rest of the game.

Bridge is not at all unlimited.  It's limited "until the end of this turn".  Your reinterpretation of it is not at all how Bridge works, nor how Dominion works, nor how English works.

Let's bring in more ridiculous cards for this scenario.

Reset
$3 - Action
Reset the turn counter to 1.

Let's say you play Bridge on turn 6.  If you play a Reset immediately after, cost is still reduced even though it's no longer "turn 6".  5 turns later, when it is "turn 6" again, costs are not magically reduced.

It's not "until the end of this turn", it's just "this turn". Whenever it's that turn, you get the cost reduction. It's just that there's no way for there to be that turn ever again once it's over, but there is a way a card can enter play after it has left play.

I'm sorry, no.  That is not how a computer would interpret the card.  Nobody (except maybe the good people at Goko) would program the game this way.  What you are describing is effectively a memory leak, adding more and more rules and effects in global scope with every play of every card.  It is neither a logical nor an intuitive interpretation of Bridge, or any other card in Dominion.

[Awaclus]

I'm sorry, no.  That is not how a computer would interpret the card.  Nobody (except maybe the good people at Goko) would program the game this way.  What you are describing is effectively a memory leak, adding more and more rules and effects in global scope with every play of every card.  It is neither a logical nor an intuitive interpretation of Bridge, or any other card in Dominion.

In the case of Bridge, you can ignore it in practice because it doesn't make a difference. When you're programming a computer implementation of Dominion, you can still ignore it because it doesn't make a difference. In the case of Altered Highway, it makes a difference, so you can't ignore it just because it makes a computer program take up more resources.

[eHalcyon]

I'm sorry, no.  That is not how a computer would interpret the card.  Nobody (except maybe the good people at Goko) would program the game this way.  What you are describing is effectively a memory leak, adding more and more rules and effects in global scope with every play of every card.  It is neither a logical nor an intuitive interpretation of Bridge, or any other card in Dominion.

In the case of Bridge, you can ignore it in practice because it doesn't make a difference. When you're programming a computer implementation of Dominion, you can still ignore it because it doesn't make a difference. In the case of Altered Highway, it makes a difference, so you can't ignore it just because it makes a computer program take up more resources.

Or you can take the simple, intuitive, logical, completely consistent route and say that the effect only applies while the condition holds, and then it's gone forever.

But fine, if you really want to use this interpretation (which, should be noted, has no support in official Dominion rules), my whole post above still applies.  You're making assumptions about how to interpret the card.  There are other equally valid, equally consistent assumptions that could be made.

[Awaclus]

Or you can take the simple, intuitive, logical, completely consistent route and say that the effect only applies while the condition holds, and then it's gone forever.

But fine, if you really want to use this interpretation (which, should be noted, has no support in official Dominion rules), my whole post above still applies.  You're making assumptions about how to interpret the card.  There are other equally valid, equally consistent assumptions that could be made.

It's not simple, intuitive, logical or consistent to say that the effect only applies while the condition holds, and then it's gone forever. It is simple, intuitive, logical and consistent to say that the effect only applies while the condition holds, period. Adding an extra "and then it's gone forever" to everything is not simple, intuitive, logical or consistent. Regular Highway doesn't have "and then it's gone forever", Peddler doesn't have "and then it's gone forever", there is no reason to assume that other cards have it.

I'm making the assumption which requires the least amount of added rules (i.e. nothing) to work. You're making an assumption which requires a new rule to work. You can't say that they are equally valid; otherwise you could say that "when you play this, while this is in play" really means "when your opponent discards a Rats, until you draw an Ambassador" and that it is an equally valid interpretation.

[eHalcyon]

Or you can take the simple, intuitive, logical, completely consistent route and say that the effect only applies while the condition holds, and then it's gone forever.

But fine, if you really want to use this interpretation (which, should be noted, has no support in official Dominion rules), my whole post above still applies.  You're making assumptions about how to interpret the card.  There are other equally valid, equally consistent assumptions that could be made.

It's not simple, intuitive, logical or consistent to say that the effect only applies while the condition holds, and then it's gone forever. It is simple, intuitive, logical and consistent to say that the effect only applies while the condition holds, period. Adding an extra "and then it's gone forever" to everything is not simple, intuitive, logical or consistent. Regular Highway doesn't have "and then it's gone forever", Peddler doesn't have "and then it's gone forever", there is no reason to assume that other cards have it.

I'm making the assumption which requires the least amount of added rules (i.e. nothing) to work. You're making an assumption which requires a new rule to work. You can't say that they are equally valid; otherwise you could say that "when you play this, while this is in play" really means "when your opponent discards a Rats, until you draw an Ambassador" and that it is an equally valid interpretation.

It is simple and logical: it's how you would program it.

It is intuitive: it is how regular people think of it.  When Bridge says "this turn", the natural and correct interpretation is that it functions from now until the end of this turn.  Nobody thinks that it would function again if, sometime far in the future, it somehow became that turn again.  Nobody thinks that when it says "this turn", it applies retroactively to the rest of this turn, even though that's what it literally says.

It is consistent: every instance of above-line text on an action card works this way.  If scope is specified (as on Bridge, Prince, Hireling, Champion, Scheme, etc.) then it applies as long as that condition holds.  And then it's gone forever.  Highway and Peddler are irrelevant here -- their stuff is below the dividing line which applies its own timing, as I have explained in thorough detail above, complete with relevant rulings.

Your assumption requires adding the rule that effects like Bridge set up a permanent effect.  That is nowhere in Dominion rules and is unnecessary for Bridge or any other card to function correctly.  What rules need to be added for my alternate interpretation?  No more than yours.

Your last argument about Rats and Ambassador is complete nonsense and you know it.

[Awaclus]

It is simple and logical: it's how you would program it.

It is intuitive: it is how regular people think of it.  When Bridge says "this turn", the natural and correct interpretation is that it functions from now until the end of this turn.  Nobody thinks that it would function again if, sometime far in the future, it somehow became that turn again.  Nobody thinks that when it says "this turn", it applies retroactively to the rest of this turn, even though that's what it literally says.

It is consistent: every instance of above-line text on an action card works this way.  If scope is specified (as on Bridge, Prince, Hireling, Champion, Scheme, etc.) then it applies as long as that condition holds.  And then it's gone forever.  Highway and Peddler are irrelevant here -- their stuff is below the dividing line which applies its own timing, as I have explained in thorough detail above, complete with relevant rulings.

Your assumption requires adding the rule that effects like Bridge set up a permanent effect.  That is nowhere in Dominion rules and is unnecessary for Bridge or any other card to function correctly.  What rules need to be added for my alternate interpretation?  No more than yours.

Your last argument about Rats and Ambassador is complete nonsense and you know it.

It is not simple and logical. You're adding extra stuff that isn't there.

It might be intuitive to interpret the particular card that way, but it is not intuitive to just add an "and then it's gone forever" to everything that doesn't have it.

It is not consistent. No instance of above-line text on an action card works that way. If scope is specified, then it applies as long as that condition holds, period. Nothing about being gone forever. Highway and Peddler aren't irrelevant here, because they have the same wording, and wordings need to work the same way regardless of what other stuff is on the card.

My assumption does not require adding a rule. If you want something to end, you need a rule saying when it ends. You don't need a rule to have it not end, i.e. you don't need a rule to nothing.

My argument about Rats and Ambassador are as much nonsense as your argument about Altered Highway. Either you can call adding extra rules where they aren't necessary consistent, or you can't. I'm saying that you can't.

[Haddock]

It is not consistent. No instance of above-line text on an action card works that way.

I find it ironic that you so consistently misuse the term "inconsistent".
There are no counterexamples to the interpretation that ehalcyon is suggesting. That is the very definition of consistency.

My assumption does not require adding a rule.

You believe this only because you are assuming the existence of rule that isnt really a rule.

Either you can call adding extra rules where they aren't necessary consistent, or you can't. I'm saying that you can't.

Then you're wrong. You can add as many rules as you like and still maintain consistency. Here's my new rule. "Whenever you frob the snatz, you must jerp the hantry". This rule is completely unnecessary.  But it is consistent.

[eHalcyon]

It is not simple and logical. You're adding extra stuff that isn't there.

It might be intuitive to interpret the particular card that way, but it is not intuitive to just add an "and then it's gone forever" to everything that doesn't have it.

To clarify, I have not added anything.  "And then it's gone forever" is part of the rules.  When you play a card, you run through it's text in order from start to finish and then it's gone forever.

It is not consistent. No instance of above-line text on an action card works that way. If scope is specified, then it applies as long as that condition holds, period. Nothing about being gone forever. Highway and Peddler aren't irrelevant here, because they have the same wording, and wordings need to work the same way regardless of what other stuff is on the card.

You are still stating assumptions here.  Yes, your interpretation is internally consistent.  So is mine.

I repeat, Highway and Peddler aren't relevant because the property that you ascribe to them, the unlimited scope, is inherent to the dividing line.  This is in the rules.

My assumption does not require adding a rule. If you want something to end, you need a rule saying when it ends. You don't need a rule to have it not end, i.e. you don't need a rule to nothing.

There is nothing in the rules that says this.  Therefore, you are adding it to the rules.

My argument about Rats and Ambassador are as much nonsense as your argument about Altered Highway. Either you can call adding extra rules where they aren't necessary consistent, or you can't. I'm saying that you can't.

I have not added any more extra rules than you have.  I have been perfectly consistent.  The Rats and Ambassador example is not the same situation at all.

[Jeebus]

As I said, the casual reader wouldn't understand Tournament, so it needs an explanation.
...
That would be like the opposite to a card like Tournament, for instance Nomad Camp.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.  Tournament is very understandable.  I don't know what you mean by "opposite" here.

Tournament is misunderstood by most casual players, and many if not most non-casual players, before reading the FAQ in the rulebook. "Each player may reveal a Province from his hand. If you do, discard it and gain a Prize..." Many people intuitively interpret "you" as any of the players. Tournament however functions exactly as stated and doesn't strictly need the FAQ. Nomad Camp is the opposite, it functions like people intuitively think, but not like it strictly speaking says.

Unless otherwise specified, card text above the line on action cards is implicitly limited in scope to this turn.

This is a natural assumption that follows from the fact that above-the-line text is triggered and resolved when you play the card, and anything that applies outside of the current turn is always specified, e.g. Durations, Prince.

Yes, you said that on-play effects only are implicitly limited to this turn. I said that there is no reason why the implicit scope should apply to on-play effects only. What's so magical about playing a card, as opposed to for instance triggering an effect by revealing a card?

And all cards with scope outside of "this turn" say so as well, above the line.

You yourself are arguing that it's different depending on whether the text is above the line or below the line.  You are arguing that the meaning is different!  You can't have it both ways.

I thought this had become clear now. The difference above the line is the assumed "when you play this". And that's the only difference. I'll just cut right to the core here, and save us both some time:

Moving an effect x from below to above the line does one thing and one thing only: It makes it an on-play effect. It means that it activates when you play the card as opposed to already being active. It puts "when you play this" in front of x, thereby limiting the scope.  There is no other magical difference between above and below the line text, so why would the scope of x change further? To put it another way, it's not the fact that it's below the line that makes an effect not have a scope, it's that everything below the line is not preceded by "when you play this". That's it. Actually the assumed "when you play this" above the line is also unlimited in scope. It's always true that "when you play" a card, it does its on-play effect. It's true from the moment the game starts. (However the actual effect that follows "when you play this" has the scope of activating right then, when you play the card.) So there is no difference between the "outer-most" text above and below the line, it's all without scope! "When you play this" and "when you reveal this from your hand" are both active from the start, waiting for a player to do that thing.

If you put Moat's "when another player plays an Attack" above the line, you'd have to play it to get that effect. It's exactly as stupid as Altered Highway, which was the point of Altered Highway. If you play Altered Moat, you now get that effect. The literally same thing, except it didn't start before because you have to play it to get it. Since the effect ("when another player...") has no scope defined in itself, it's unlimited (after it has become active). From now on you have to track where this specific Altered Moat is.

[Awaclus]

It is not simple and logical. You're adding extra stuff that isn't there.

It might be intuitive to interpret the particular card that way, but it is not intuitive to just add an "and then it's gone forever" to everything that doesn't have it.

To clarify, I have not added anything.  "And then it's gone forever" is part of the rules.  When you play a card, you run through it's text in order from start to finish and then it's gone forever.

It's not part of the rules, it's part of the card text. Smithy gives you +3 cards [now]. Merchant Ship gives you +$2 at the start of your next turn. Bridge reduces costs this turn. You don't need "and then it's gone forever" to make these cards work the way they do — they already work the way they do because everything except for the "when you play this" is written on the card.

Also, saying that you run through a card's text in order from start to finish and then it's gone forever doesn't even make any sense. If I play a Merchant Ship, it's clear that I must wait for all of the effects it has set up to finish doing what they do before it's gone forever, because otherwise it would just be a terminal Silver and we can probably all agree that this is not the case. Therefore, it would also make sense that I need to wait for all of Altered Highway's effect to finish doing what they do before they're gone forever, which would be a pretty long wait since they never will finish doing what they do.

It is not consistent. No instance of above-line text on an action card works that way. If scope is specified, then it applies as long as that condition holds, period. Nothing about being gone forever. Highway and Peddler aren't irrelevant here, because they have the same wording, and wordings need to work the same way regardless of what other stuff is on the card.

You are still stating assumptions here.  Yes, your interpretation is internally consistent.  So is mine.

I repeat, Highway and Peddler aren't relevant because the property that you ascribe to them, the unlimited scope, is inherent to the dividing line.  This is in the rules.

Yes, as opposed to "when you play this". Altered Highway has its scope limited by "when you play this" and "while this is in play". It does not have its scope limited by "until this leaves play", "until end of turn", or anything else in addition to what's actually written on it and the implicit "when you play this", and there are no other Action cards that do.

My assumption does not require adding a rule. If you want something to end, you need a rule saying when it ends. You don't need a rule to have it not end, i.e. you don't need a rule to nothing.

There is nothing in the rules that says this.  Therefore, you are adding it to the rules.

There doesn't have to be anything in the rules. I'm saying nothing. Nothing doesn't need to be in the rules, nothing is the default whenever something is not in the rules.

My argument about Rats and Ambassador are as much nonsense as your argument about Altered Highway. Either you can call adding extra rules where they aren't necessary consistent, or you can't. I'm saying that you can't.

I have not added any more extra rules than you have.  I have been perfectly consistent.  The Rats and Ambassador example is not the same situation at all.

Except that I haven't added anything to the rules and you have. The Rats and Ambassador example is the same situation.

Then you're wrong. You can add as many rules as you like and still maintain consistency. Here's my new rule. "Whenever you frob the snatz, you must jerp the hantry". This rule is completely unnecessary.  But it is consistent.

So you think the Rats and Ambassador interpretation is consistent?

[eHalcyon]

I doubt that misinterpretation of Tournament is actually common, but OK then.

I thought this had become clear now. The difference above the line is the assumed "when you play this". And that's the only difference.

Here:

Some cards have a dividing line on them. This separates things that happen at different times. When a card is played, it only does the effects listed above the line; text below the line happens at another time, indicated on each such card.

It has a different timing.  That's the key difference.  The text on Highway is unlimited scope because it is below the line, nothing to do with it saying "While this is in play".  The line opens up the scope of the text to apply for the whole game.  That text has "While this is in play", which limits the scope of the following text describing cost reduction.  You (and I think this is more Awaclus than Jeebus) can't claim it as precedence for the global scope of the phrase; that is already fully explained by the dividing line.  It works the same way with all other cards with dividing lines, e.g. reactions, Embargo, when-gain, when-trash.

If you want, you can say that

when you play this, { card text }

is in unlimited scope, because it's always true and you re-execute { card text } every time you play the card.  But { card text } is within the scope, "when you play this".


Look, each card is like a little computer program with instructions that you resolve from top to bottom in order.  You play a Shanty Town.  It says "if (no cards in hand) { draw 2 cards }".  That if-statement is limited to the scope, "when you play this".  It doesn't exist forever.  In a later turn, if you have no cards in hand, you do not get to draw 2 more cards.

So why should a while-statement be any different?  Why does it have to exist forever?  The answer is that it doesn't have to exist forever.  As soon as the condition evaluates to false, you can be free to clear that subroutine from memory.  Hence, this:

Another interpretation (which I don't think has been brought up in this thread yet; I haven't been keeping track because the premise of the whole discussion was nonsense) is that they say "when you play this, you get [effect] while in the scope [condition]".

Squeegee: When you play this, you get [cost reduction] while in the scope [while any Gold is in play].  If there is any Gold in play, cost reduction.  If all Gold somehow leaves play, the cost reduction ends.  If another Gold is played, it does nothing because the effect has already ended.

Altered Highway: When you play this, you get [cost reduction] while in the scope [this is in play].  If this is in play, cost reduction.  If this leaves play, the cost reduction ends.  If this somehow gets put back in play without being played, there is no cost reduction, the effect has already ended.  If you actually play it again, start from the beginning.

For point of comparison, this interpretation is totally consistent with official cards.

Hireling: When you play this, you get [+1 card at the start of each of your turns] while in the scope [for the rest of the game].

Champion: When you play this, you get [eternal moat and free actions] while in the scope [for the rest of the game].

Prince: When you play this, set aside a valid card; you get [to play that card at the start of each of your turns] in the scope [until you fail to set it aside again].

But again, that's not the only valid interpretation.  You can make different assumptions and arrive at different conclusions.  It still requires making assumptions (which is equivalent to "adding to the rules" as Awaclus puts it).


Here's another snag for you to chew on -- we have an explicit ruling that a card should remain in play until the Clean-up phase of the last turn that it does something.  By your interpretation, Squeegee and Altered Highway never stop doing stuff and thus should never get discarded.

Not only that, if Awaclus's interpretation of Bridge is correct, it is always sustaining that conditional check and it should never be discarded either!  That's clearly not how Dominion works though, is it?

[GendoIkari]

Here's another snag for you to chew on -- we have an explicit ruling that a card should remain in play until the Clean-up phase of the last turn that it does something.  By your interpretation, Squeegee and Altered Highway never stop doing stuff and thus should never get discarded.

Not only that, if Awaclus's interpretation of Bridge is correct, it is always sustaining that conditional check and it should never be discarded either!  That's clearly not how Dominion works though, is it?

This is only a rule for Duration cards.. But Bridge Troll probably makes your point.

[eHalcyon]

It's not part of the rules, it's part of the card text. Smithy gives you +3 cards [now]. Merchant Ship gives you +$2 at the start of your next turn. Bridge reduces costs this turn. You don't need "and then it's gone forever" to make these cards work the way they do — they already work the way they do because everything except for the "when you play this" is written on the card.

Smithy's text does not say "now".  That's part of the rules.  It does not specify the scope, so by default it is simply "now".

Merchant Ship specifies otherwise.  It says "now and at the start of your next turn".  And that's fine.  After the end of next turn, that instance of the effect is gone forever.  You clear it from memory.

Bridge specifies this turn.  Once this turn is over, that instance of the effect is gone forever.  You clear it from memory.

Also, saying that you run through a card's text in order from start to finish and then it's gone forever doesn't even make any sense. If I play a Merchant Ship, it's clear that I must wait for all of the effects it has set up to finish doing what they do before it's gone forever, because otherwise it would just be a terminal Silver and we can probably all agree that this is not the case. Therefore, it would also make sense that I need to wait for all of Altered Highway's effect to finish doing what they do before they're gone forever, which would be a pretty long wait since they never will finish doing what they do.

So you say that Altered Highway will never finish what it's doing.  In that case, it should never be discarded from play.

You also said Bridge works the same way, i.e. Bridge never finishes what it's doing.  So it should never be discarded from play for the same reason.  Except that it is.

Yes, as opposed to "when you play this". Altered Highway has its scope limited by "when you play this" and "while this is in play". It does not have its scope limited by "until this leaves play", "until end of turn", or anything else in addition to what's actually written on it and the implicit "when you play this", and there are no other Action cards that do.

I don't know what you mean anymore.  Your answer here does not follow from the preceding discussion.

There doesn't have to be anything in the rules. I'm saying nothing. Nothing doesn't need to be in the rules, nothing is the default whenever something is not in the rules.

The rules say nothing about the default case of exactly when an effect ends.  They don't need to because every card specifies when its effects end -- Bridge, Champion, Prince, Hireling, etc.

Altered Highway does not specify.  The rules do not cover this situation.  An assumption, i.e. a rule, must be made.  You have said one thing about it, I have offered another.

If "nothing is the default", then we can just as well say that since Altered Highway isn't covered, we default to nothing happening at all.

Except that I haven't added anything to the rules and you have. The Rats and Ambassador example is the same situation.

You have added just as much as me.  You are just somehow inexplicably unable to separate your addition from what is actually in the rules. 

Your Rats/Ambassador thing is actively contradictory to Dominion and the English language.  My interpretation is not.

Here's another snag for you to chew on -- we have an explicit ruling that a card should remain in play until the Clean-up phase of the last turn that it does something.  By your interpretation, Squeegee and Altered Highway never stop doing stuff and thus should never get discarded.

Not only that, if Awaclus's interpretation of Bridge is correct, it is always sustaining that conditional check and it should never be discarded either!  That's clearly not how Dominion works though, is it?

This is only a rule for Duration cards.. But Bridge Troll probably makes your point.

I am pretty sure that it has been stated many times in the forums that it applies to all cards.  The Duration-typing isn't the cause of it, it's the result.

[AJD]

This is only a rule for Duration cards.. But Bridge Troll probably makes your point.

I am pretty sure that it has been stated many times in the forums that it applies to all cards.  The Duration-typing isn't the cause of it, it's the result.

Not so; that's why Possession doesn't stay in play and Outpost does.

[AJD]

Oh, also:

aaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Awaclus]

So why should a while-statement be any different?  Why does it have to exist forever?  The answer is that it doesn't have to exist forever.  As soon as the condition evaluates to false, you can be free to clear that subroutine from memory.

Because it is a while-statement, not an if-statement. Shanty Town checks if it's true once and then it's done. Altered Highway keeps checking it continuously. Unless you're suggesting that the interpretation should be that it reduces costs for a very brief moment in time when you play it, and then they immediately go back to normal (and that this should also be the interpretation of Bridge).

It's not part of the rules, it's part of the card text. Smithy gives you +3 cards [now]. Merchant Ship gives you +$2 at the start of your next turn. Bridge reduces costs this turn. You don't need "and then it's gone forever" to make these cards work the way they do — they already work the way they do because everything except for the "when you play this" is written on the card.

Smithy's text does not say "now".  That's part of the rules.  It does not specify the scope, so by default it is simply "now".

Yes, that's the implicit "when you play this" on every card.

Merchant Ship specifies otherwise.  It says "now and at the start of your next turn".  And that's fine.  After the end of next turn, that instance of the effect is gone forever.  You clear it from memory.

It does not specify otherwise. It specifies in addition. You don't always get "now and at the start of your next turn, +$2", you only get it when you play a Merchant Ship. inb4 most interesting man meme

So you say that Altered Highway will never finish what it's doing.  In that case, it should never be discarded from play.

It's not clear how that rule technically works. Regular Highway never finishes what it's doing, but it's discarded from play normally. All cards have the implicit "when you play this", which is essentially being checked all the time, and most of them are discarded from play normally. The rule, as it's written now, requires human knowledge and intuition of what's going to happen in practice in order to function, and if a card like Altered Highway was actually printed, it would have to be clarified. Probably it would be worded as something like "cards are discarded from play at the clean-up phase of the first turn when it is known that the game state will no longer be changed by the card's on-play effect from the times it was played since it entered play, including that which made it enter play", which would mean that Altered Highway stays in play but Bridge doesn't.

If it wasn't clarified, and if Bridge's explicit wording was "this turn, for the rest of the game, cards cost $1 less", I'd still interpret the current rule to discard Bridge from play after said turn, because it's not really doing anything anymore.

There doesn't have to be anything in the rules. I'm saying nothing. Nothing doesn't need to be in the rules, nothing is the default whenever something is not in the rules.

The rules say nothing about the default case of exactly when an effect ends.  They don't need to because every card specifies when its effects end -- Bridge, Champion, Prince, Hireling, etc.

Altered Highway does not specify.  The rules do not cover this situation.  An assumption, i.e. a rule, must be made.  You have said one thing about it, I have offered another.

If "nothing is the default", then we can just as well say that since Altered Highway isn't covered, we default to nothing happening at all.

The cards don't specify when the effects end, they specify when the effects are active. Bridge's effect is active this turn, Champion's effect is active for the rest of the game, Prince's effect is active at the start of each of your turns, Hireling's effect is active at the start of each of your turns for the rest of the game (which is, in practice, the same as Prince's condition — note that the "for the rest of the game" is not needed there for it to do it for the rest of the game), and Altered Highway's effect is active while it is in play. Its effect is a bit special because it starts and ends multiple times during the game, but other than that, "while this is in play" is not fundamentally different from "this turn" or "for the rest of the game".

Except that I haven't added anything to the rules and you have. The Rats and Ambassador example is the same situation.

You have added just as much as me.  You are just somehow inexplicably unable to separate your addition from what is actually in the rules. 

Your Rats/Ambassador thing is actively contradictory to Dominion and the English language.  My interpretation is not.

The English language is irrelevant to the discussion, and your interpretation is actively contradictory to Dominion.

[Donald X.]

The English language is irrelevant to the discussion

That's interesting.

Dominion has a large number of as-yet undefined terms. "All," "less," and so on - they're just so much gibberish, once you take English out of the picture. For all we know a future rulebook will clarify that they mean "blueberry," thus making it clear that Bridge means:

+1 Buy
+$1
Blueberry cards (blueberry cards blueberry players' hands) cost $1 blueberry blueberry turn, blueberry blueberry blueberry blueberry $0.

Well the scope for that effect seems pretty clear to me. It lasts until the blueberry of the blueberry. Why there's even an argument is beyond me.

[Haddock]

So you think the Rats and Ambassador interpretation is consistent?

You can't have it both ways. Either you are following the rules as you know them as rigorously as possible (in which case yes the rats and ambassador interpretation is consistent according to the definition of the term "consistent") or you are doing what a sensible English speaker would expect based on the English words in front of them (in which case the rats/ambassador thing is obviously complete nonsense).  Which is it? Throughout this argument you've been indicating that you're going for the first thing, rigorous interpretation of the current written rules. If that's not the case then why are we still talking?

[Awaclus]

So you think the Rats and Ambassador interpretation is consistent?

You can't have it both ways. Either you are following the rules as you know them as rigorously as possible (in which case yes the rats and ambassador interpretation is consistent according to the definition of the term "consistent") or you are doing what a sensible English speaker would expect based on the English words in front of them (in which case the rats/ambassador thing is obviously complete nonsense).  Which is it? Throughout this argument you've been indicating that you're going for the first thing, rigorous interpretation of the current written rules. If that's not the case then why are we still talking?

No, the Rats and Ambassador interpretation is not consistent. It requires a special rule explaining that the card does not really do what it says it does. So does your interpretation. Interpretations that require special rules are not consistent.

The English language is irrelevant to the discussion

That's interesting.

Dominion has a large number of as-yet undefined terms. "All," "less," and so on - they're just so much gibberish, once you take English out of the picture. For all we know a future rulebook will clarify that they mean "blueberry," thus making it clear that Bridge means:

+1 Buy
+$1
Blueberry cards (blueberry cards blueberry players' hands) cost $1 blueberry blueberry turn, blueberry blueberry blueberry blueberry $0.

Well the scope for that effect seems pretty clear to me. It lasts until the blueberry of the blueberry. Why there's even an argument is beyond me.

We know how official cards work. Even if all instances of a word were replaced by "blueberry", we would be able to deduce what "blueberry" means because we know what the cards with "blueberry" on them actually do.

[Jeebus]

It has a different timing.  That's the key difference.  The text on Highway is unlimited scope because it is below the line, nothing to do with it saying "While this is in play".  The line opens up the scope of the text to apply for the whole game.  That text has "While this is in play", which limits the scope of the following text describing cost reduction.  You (and I think this is more Awaclus than Jeebus) can't claim it as precedence for the global scope of the phrase; that is already fully explained by the dividing line.  It works the same way with all other cards with dividing lines, e.g. reactions, Embargo, when-gain, when-trash.

If you want, you can say that

when you play this, { card text }

is in unlimited scope, because it's always true and you re-execute { card text } every time you play the card.  But { card text } is within the scope, "when you play this".

Look, each card is like a little computer program with instructions that you resolve from top to bottom in order.  You play a Shanty Town.  It says "if (no cards in hand) { draw 2 cards }".  That if-statement is limited to the scope, "when you play this".  It doesn't exist forever.  In a later turn, if you have no cards in hand, you do not get to draw 2 more cards.

So why should a while-statement be any different?  Why does it have to exist forever?

I agree with everything you say here, so I don't really understand your point in using this to refute what I said about the difference between above and below the line. I don't think you actually read carefully what I wrote in my last post. I'm happy that you've come around to both the fact that above-line has "when you play this" in front, and that when you include that, both above-line and below-line is unlimited in scope. But I don't know if you agree that the only difference is that text. That text is what limits the scope of { card text }. I'll get back to this.

First, your interpretation of Squeegee is not very intuitive. The intuitive interpretation would be Haddock's. (I'm not saying that intuitive is necessarily correct, but that's the reason Squeegee was used as an example.) You're saying that Squeegee only works if you play Gold before you play Squeegee. And then Squeegee works as long as that Gold is in play. It makes it consistent with your interpretation of Altered Highway though, I'll give you that. You and Haddock can argue about Squeegee now.

Not only that, if Awaclus's interpretation of Bridge is correct, it is always sustaining that conditional check and it should never be discarded either!  That's clearly not how Dominion works though, is it?

You can forget about all your arguments about not discarding, because it only applies to Durations. That's the reason Duration is a type with special rules. Possession, as AJD mentioned, is an example of a card that actually wouldn't be discarded if it was a Duration, but it isn't a Duration.

Now to the core, again. I like your computer program thing. I represented it kind of like that too, in a post where I did all the cards.

First of all, punctual effects like +$1 don't need a scope. It does one thing that per definition can't extend. It adds 1 to your pool of coins. (Of course there's a general rule saying that your pool of coins starts at zero at the beginning of the turn.)

Here's how I would represent some cards:

Smithy
Unlimited: When you play this, { +3 Cards }

Moat
Unlimited: When you play this, { +2 Cards }
Unlimited: When another player plays an Attack card, { Unlimited:* you may reveal this... etc }

Highway
Unlimited: When you play this, { +1 Card, +1 Action }
Unlimited: While this is in play, { Unlimited**: cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0. }

Hireling
Unlimited: When you play this, { Unlimited: at the start of your turn***, { +1 Card } }

Altered Highway
Unlimited: When you play this, { +1 Card, +1 Action. Unlimited: while this is in play, { Unlimited: cards cost $1 less, but not less than $0. } }

*Moat's "reveal" can actually be done several times in the defined timespace.

**The second "unlimited" on Highway means that there is no further scope defined within the outer scope ("while this is in play"). It's valid throughout that scope.

***Hireling clearly doesn't need to say "for the rest of the game": see Prince. It doesn't need to say "each of your turns" either: Not specifying a turn would mean all turns. Just like "while this is in play" means every time it happens. Yes, I know that one is above the line, and the other is above. But I'm trying to show that there is no difference except for the assumed "when you play this" above the line. All non-punctual effects are always unlimited, within the scope that is defined "outside" of them.

Please note that Altered Highway just takes the below-line effect from Highway and wraps it in "when you play this". Not adding or subtracting anything.

EDIT: I realized I'm wrong about Moat. What follows "when another player plays an Attack card" is not unlimited. If it were, you would be able to reveal the Moat and get that effect for the rest of the game, whenever you have it in your hand (same for Secret Chamber etc). The same applies to "when you play this". It's not like after you play a Smithy, you can just keep drawing three cards whenever you want. So there is a difference depending on the type of effect. This is a bit more complicated than I thought...

[Donald X.]

We know how official cards work. Even if all instances of a word were replaced by "blueberry", we would be able to deduce what "blueberry" means because we know what the cards with "blueberry" on them actually do.

Without necessarily accepting anything you say in the quoted passage, I can tell you that I was being hilarious! I'll try again.

The English language is irrelevant to the discussion, and your interpretation is actively contradictory to Dominion.

So, you are verifying once and for all what an incredible waste of time it is for anyone to try to argue about this with you. What the card means depends on English, but that's a concept you reject.

I don't want to end up provoked into screaming at you, or for the forums to be a place where people scream at each other. I hope that felt like a good last word Jeebus.