Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10  All

Author Topic: Royal carriage and "in play cards"  (Read 70060 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #200 on: October 09, 2015, 10:15:16 am »
+2

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

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #201 on: October 09, 2015, 10:31:12 am »
0

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.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #202 on: October 09, 2015, 10:54:20 am »
+1

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

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #203 on: October 09, 2015, 11:00:08 am »
0


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?

Quote from: eHalcyon
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.

Quote from: eHalcyon
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.

Quote from: eHalcyon
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

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #204 on: October 09, 2015, 11:51:45 am »
0

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:

Quote
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

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12849
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #205 on: October 09, 2015, 02:06:24 pm »
+2

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.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #206 on: October 09, 2015, 02:19:35 pm »
+2

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.

Quote from: Jeebus
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.

Quote
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.

Quote from: Jeebus
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.

Quote from: Jeebus
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.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2015, 02:25:52 pm by eHalcyon »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #207 on: October 09, 2015, 02:50:31 pm »
0

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. ;)
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12849
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #208 on: October 09, 2015, 03:05:18 pm »
0

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.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #209 on: October 09, 2015, 03:36:27 pm »
0

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:

Quote
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.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12849
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #210 on: October 09, 2015, 04:28:28 pm »
+1

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:

Quote
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.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #211 on: October 09, 2015, 04:39:42 pm »
+1

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:

Quote
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...
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #212 on: October 09, 2015, 04:44:23 pm »
0

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:

Quote
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.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #213 on: October 09, 2015, 04:47:52 pm »
0

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.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12849
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #214 on: October 09, 2015, 04:53:43 pm »
+1

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.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #215 on: October 09, 2015, 04:56:11 pm »
0

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.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12849
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #216 on: October 09, 2015, 04:59:09 pm »
+1

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.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #217 on: October 09, 2015, 05:04:19 pm »
0

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.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2015, 05:07:06 pm by eHalcyon »
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12849
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #218 on: October 09, 2015, 05:08:28 pm »
+1

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.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #219 on: October 09, 2015, 05:13:32 pm »
0

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.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12849
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #220 on: October 09, 2015, 05:27:03 pm »
0

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.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #221 on: October 09, 2015, 05:45:29 pm »
+1

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.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12849
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #222 on: October 09, 2015, 06:01:33 pm »
+2

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.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #223 on: October 09, 2015, 06:23:20 pm »
0

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.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12849
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #224 on: October 09, 2015, 06:45:17 pm »
+1

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.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10  All
 

Page created in 0.714 seconds with 21 queries.