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.