Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Royal carriage and "in play cards"  (Read 70016 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Haddock

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 725
  • Shuffle iT Username: Haddock
  • Doc Cod
  • Respect: +558
    • View Profile
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #225 on: October 09, 2015, 07:06:51 pm »
+1

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.
Logged
The best reason to lynch Haddock is the meltdown we get to witness on the wagon runup. I mean, we should totally wagon him every day just for the lulz.

M Town Wins-Losses (6-2, 75%): 71, 72, 76, 81, 83, 87 - 79, 82.  M Scum Wins-Losses (2-1, 67%): 80, 101 - 70.
RMM Town Wins-Losses (3-1, 75%): 42, 47, 49 - 31.  RMM Scum Wins-Losses (3-3, 50%): 33, 37, 43 - 29, 32, 35.
Modded: M75, M84, RMM38.     Mislynched (M-RMM): None - 42.     Correctly lynched (M-RMM): 101 - 33, 33, 35.       MVPs: RMM37, M87

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #226 on: October 09, 2015, 07:12:47 pm »
+1

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.

Quote from: Awaclus
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.

Quote from: Awaclus
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.

Quote from: Awaclus
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.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #227 on: October 09, 2015, 07:49:31 pm »
+1

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.

Quote from: eHalcyon
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?

Quote from: eHalcyon
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

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11808
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12846
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #228 on: October 09, 2015, 08:03:10 pm »
+1

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.

Quote from: Awaclus
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.

Quote from: Awaclus
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.

Quote from: Awaclus
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?
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 #229 on: October 09, 2015, 08:15:58 pm »
0

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:

Quote from: Adventures Rules
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

Quote
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?
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #230 on: October 09, 2015, 08:24:53 pm »
0

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.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2015, 08:32:58 pm by GendoIkari »
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 #231 on: October 09, 2015, 08:37:06 pm »
0

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.

Quote from: Awaclus
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.

Quote from: Awaclus
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.

Quote from: Awaclus
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.

Quote from: Awaclus
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.
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3292
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4434
    • View Profile
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #232 on: October 09, 2015, 09:18:56 pm »
+1

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.
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3292
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4434
    • View Profile
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #233 on: October 09, 2015, 09:20:11 pm »
+1

Oh, also:

aaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11808
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12846
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #234 on: October 09, 2015, 09:23:55 pm »
0

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.

Quote from: Awaclus
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".

Quote from: Awaclus
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.
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

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25671
    • View Profile
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #235 on: October 09, 2015, 10:44:13 pm »
+8

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.
Logged

Haddock

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 725
  • Shuffle iT Username: Haddock
  • Doc Cod
  • Respect: +558
    • View Profile
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #236 on: October 10, 2015, 03:47:12 am »
0

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?
Logged
The best reason to lynch Haddock is the meltdown we get to witness on the wagon runup. I mean, we should totally wagon him every day just for the lulz.

M Town Wins-Losses (6-2, 75%): 71, 72, 76, 81, 83, 87 - 79, 82.  M Scum Wins-Losses (2-1, 67%): 80, 101 - 70.
RMM Town Wins-Losses (3-1, 75%): 42, 47, 49 - 31.  RMM Scum Wins-Losses (3-3, 50%): 33, 37, 43 - 29, 32, 35.
Modded: M75, M84, RMM38.     Mislynched (M-RMM): None - 42.     Correctly lynched (M-RMM): 101 - 33, 33, 35.       MVPs: RMM37, M87

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11808
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12846
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #237 on: October 10, 2015, 04:57:55 am »
0

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.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2015, 04:59:56 am by Awaclus »
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

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #238 on: October 10, 2015, 09:48:57 am »
+1

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

Quote
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.

Quote from: eHalcyon
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...
« Last Edit: October 10, 2015, 02:23:49 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25671
    • View Profile
Re: Royal carriage and "in play cards"
« Reply #239 on: October 10, 2015, 05:12:46 pm »
+5

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]  All
 

Page created in 0.14 seconds with 21 queries.