Print

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

[scott_pilgrim]

So the -1 Card token is like having a blank card that does nothing on top of your deck, that vanishes when you draw it?  That seems like it would lead to the most intuitive rulings.

But cards like Scrying Pool and Catacombs...

Oh yeah...it has to not be there for any non-drawing effects that could interact with the top of your deck.

[werothegreat]

So the -1 Card token is like having a blank card that does nothing on top of your deck, that vanishes when you draw it?  That seems like it would lead to the most intuitive rulings.

But cards like Scrying Pool and Catacombs...

Oh yeah...it has to not be there for any non-drawing effects that could interact with the top of your deck.

Interestingly, choosing to "take the top 3" with Catacombs, even with an empty deck, will leave the token there, but choosing "discard, then +3 Cards" will remove it.

[Seprix]

So the -1 Card token is like having a blank card that does nothing on top of your deck, that vanishes when you draw it?  That seems like it would lead to the most intuitive rulings.

But cards like Scrying Pool and Catacombs...

Oh yeah...it has to not be there for any non-drawing effects that could interact with the top of your deck.

Interestingly, choosing to "take the top 3" with Catacombs, even with an empty deck, will leave the token there, but choosing "discard, then +3 Cards" will remove it.

Can Donald confirm?

[LastFootnote]

So the -1 Card token is like having a blank card that does nothing on top of your deck, that vanishes when you draw it?  That seems like it would lead to the most intuitive rulings.

But cards like Scrying Pool and Catacombs...

Oh yeah...it has to not be there for any non-drawing effects that could interact with the top of your deck.

Interestingly, choosing to "take the top 3" with Catacombs, even with an empty deck, will leave the token there, but choosing "discard, then +3 Cards" will remove it.

Can Donald confirm?

He doesn't need to; it's obviously true. In one case you're putting looked-at cards into your hand. In the other case you're drawing cards.

[drsteelhammer]

So the -1 Card token is like having a blank card that does nothing on top of your deck, that vanishes when you draw it?  That seems like it would lead to the most intuitive rulings.

But cards like Scrying Pool and Catacombs...

Oh yeah...it has to not be there for any non-drawing effects that could interact with the top of your deck.

Interestingly, choosing to "take the top 3" with Catacombs, even with an empty deck, will leave the token there, but choosing "discard, then +3 Cards" will remove it.

Can Donald confirm?

He doesn't need to; it's obviously true. In one case you're putting looked-at cards into your hand. In the other case you're drawing cards.

I just realized the differnce between the two a few weeks ago when playing with the -1 card token. Was there a difference between them before the token was introduced?

[GendoIkari]

Pretty sure I know the answer to this, but... if you have 7 cards in hand with the -1 card token on deck, will playing Library remove the token? I would assume no. Though I'm not sure how this is very different from playing Smithy when your deck is empty...

[Donald X.]

Pretty sure I know the answer to this, but... if you have 7 cards in hand with the -1 card token on deck, will playing Library remove the token? I would assume no. Though I'm not sure how this is very different from playing Smithy when your deck is empty...

No, because Library doesn't try to draw you any cards there.

[GendoIkari]

Pretty sure I know the answer to this, but... if you have 7 cards in hand with the -1 card token on deck, will playing Library remove the token? I would assume no. Though I'm not sure how this is very different from playing Smithy when your deck is empty...

No, because Library doesn't try to draw you any cards there.

I'm thinking that the empty deck ruling is inconsistent with Trader rulings. If someone plays Witch while Curses are empty, you can't reveal a Trader to get a silver (right?). This is because "would gain" means "unless you reveal this card, you really will gain". So why doesn't "would draw" mean "unless you have this token, you really will draw"?

[Marcory]

Also Loan, Venture, Adventurer, and Scout.

[LastFootnote]

Pretty sure I know the answer to this, but... if you have 7 cards in hand with the -1 card token on deck, will playing Library remove the token? I would assume no. Though I'm not sure how this is very different from playing Smithy when your deck is empty...

No, because Library doesn't try to draw you any cards there.

I'm thinking that the empty deck ruling is inconsistent with Trader rulings. If someone plays Witch while Curses are empty, you can't reveal a Trader to get a silver (right?). This is because "would gain" means "unless you reveal this card, you really will gain". So why doesn't "would draw" mean "unless you have this token, you really will draw"?

Well, as has been mentioned, you also check if your discard pile is empty before actually giving up on drawing a card. And you checked the token before you check for cards in your discard.

[GendoIkari]

Pretty sure I know the answer to this, but... if you have 7 cards in hand with the -1 card token on deck, will playing Library remove the token? I would assume no. Though I'm not sure how this is very different from playing Smithy when your deck is empty...

No, because Library doesn't try to draw you any cards there.

I'm thinking that the empty deck ruling is inconsistent with Trader rulings. If someone plays Witch while Curses are empty, you can't reveal a Trader to get a silver (right?). This is because "would gain" means "unless you reveal this card, you really will gain". So why doesn't "would draw" mean "unless you have this token, you really will draw"?

Well, as has been mentioned, you also check if your discard pile is empty before actually giving up on drawing a card. And you checked the token before you check for cards in your discard.

But the question here is what does "when you would draw a card" mean? If the ruling stands, then it must mean "when you are instructed to draw a card." Which is a fine definition, but oddly different than the one used for "when you would gain a card".

Basically I'm looking for a consistent definition of "when you would do an action". But here we have it defined as "when you are instructed to do that action" in one place, and "when that action will take place if not for this intervening clause" in another.

[chipperMDW]

Basically I'm looking for a consistent definition of "when you would do an action". But here we have it defined as "when you are instructed to do that action" in one place, and "when that action will take place if not for this intervening clause" in another.

You can always instruct someone to draw a card. Drawing a card doesn't take a "parameter." It's just a sequence of instructions you carry out that (often) end up putting a card in your hand.

So instructing someone to draw a card always tries to carry out the draw instructions, triggering the -1 Card Token.

But in order to instruct someone to gain a card (at least as far as what Trader's looking for), you must ultimately tell them a specific card to gain. Gaining a card takes a "parameter." If you can't point someone to a specific card, you can't instruct them to gain it. When Witch tells someone to "gain a Curse," that's not doing the thing Trader is looking for (yet); that's just a shorthand for "if there's a card named Curse visible in the supply, gain that card." If there are no Curses, no actual gain instruction is issued.

So instructing someone to gain a Curse when Curses are empty doesn't trigger Trader because the instructions bail out before a gain is attempted.

Here's some pseudocode that describes how it works in my head:

Code: [Select]

Witch:
for each other player P
P gains a card specified by name "Curse"

Player P gains a card specified by name N:
if there's a card C with name N visible in the supply
(currently, there can be no more than one such card)
player P gains specific card C
else
nothing happens

Player P gains specific card C:
fire a "P would gain C" event
if the event triggered something that vetoed the gain
nothing happens
else
move card C to the discard pile (I know it's not that simple)
fire a "P gains C" event

Trader:
while in P's hand, trigger on a "P would gain C" event:
if P wants to reveal Trader
reveal P's Trader
P gains a card specified by name "Silver"
veto the event
else
nothing happens
don't veto the event

--

Player P draws a card:
fire a "P would draw a card" event
if the event triggered something that vetoed the draw
nothing happens
return success (so Library et. al. will continue drawing)
else
if P's deck empty
reshuffle
if P's deck still empty
nothing happens
return failure (so Library can stop)
else
move top card of P's deck, C, into P's hand
return success (Library keeps going)

-1 Card Token:
while player P has his -1 Card Token, trigger on "P would draw a card" event:
P stops having his -1 Card Token
veto the event

EDIT: Meant to say "not that simple."

[GendoIkari]

Basically I'm looking for a consistent definition of "when you would do an action". But here we have it defined as "when you are instructed to do that action" in one place, and "when that action will take place if not for this intervening clause" in another.

You can always instruct someone to draw a card. Drawing a card doesn't take a "parameter." It's just a sequence of instructions you carry out that (often) end up putting a card in your hand.

So instructing someone to draw a card always tries to carry out the draw instructions, triggering the -1 Card Token.

But in order to instruct someone to gain a card (at least as far as what Trader's looking for), you must ultimately tell them a specific card to gain. Gaining a card takes a "parameter." If you can't point someone to a specific card, you can't instruct them to gain it. When Witch tells someone to "gain a Curse," that's not doing the thing Trader is looking for (yet); that's just a shorthand for "if there's a card named Curse visible in the supply, gain that card." If there are no Curses, no actual gain instruction is issued.

So instructing someone to gain a Curse when Curses are empty doesn't trigger Trader because the instructions bail out before a gain is attempted.

Here's some pseudocode that describes how it works in my head:

Code: [Select]

Witch:
for each other player P
P gains a card specified by name "Curse"

Player P gains a card specified by name N:
if there's a card C with name N visible in the supply
(currently, there can be no more than one such card)
player P gains specific card C
else
nothing happens

Player P gains specific card C:
fire a "P would gain C" event
if the event triggered something that vetoed the gain
nothing happens
else
move card C to the discard pile (I know it's that simple)
fire a "P gains C" event

Trader:
while in P's hand, trigger on a "P would gain C" event:
if P wants to reveal Trader
reveal P's Trader
P gains a card specified by name "Silver"
veto the event
else
nothing happens
don't veto the event

--

Player P draws a card:
fire a "P would draw a card" event
if the event triggered something that vetoed the draw
nothing happens
return success (so Library et. al. will continue drawing)
else
if P's deck empty
reshuffle
if P's deck still empty
nothing happens
return failure (so Library can stop)
else
move top card of P's deck, C, into P's hand
return success (Library keeps going)

-1 Card Token:
while player P has his -1 Card Token, trigger on "P would draw a card" event:
P stops having his -1 Card Token
veto the event


This is a decent explanation, and it appeals to me as a programmer. I guess I would argue that "draw a card" takes a parameter as well, which happens now to always be the top card of your deck (separately there are instructions saying that anytime you need the top card of your deck, and your deck is empty, then you shuffle your discard). But your way seems valid as well. Here's my code for how draw works:

Code: [Select]

public Card TopCard
{
    get
    {
        if (this.DrawPile.Count = 0)
        {
            this.ShuffleDiscard();
        }
        if (this.DrawPile.Count = 0)
        {
             return null;
        }
        else
        {
            return this.DrawPile[0];
        }
    }
}

public void Draw()
{
    Draw(this.TopCard);
}

public void Draw(Card cardToDraw)
{
    if (cardToDraw == null)
    {
        return;
    }

    bool drawReplaced = Game.CheckWouldDrawTriggers();
    if (!drawReplaced)
    {
        Deck.Remove(cardToDraw);
        Hand.Add(cardToDraw);
    }
}


[eHalcyon]

This is a decent explanation, and it appeals to me as a programmer. I guess I would argue that "draw a card" takes a parameter as well, which happens now to always be the top card of your deck (separately there are instructions saying that anytime you need the top card of your deck, and your deck is empty, then you shuffle your discard). But your way seems valid as well. Here's my code for how draw works:

Code: [Select]

public Card TopCard
{
    get
    {
        if (this.DrawPile.Count = 0)
        {
            this.ShuffleDiscard();
        }
        if (this.DrawPile.Count = 0)
        {
             return null;
        }
        else
        {
            return this.DrawPile[0];
        }
    }
}

public void Draw()
{
    Draw(this.TopCard);
}

public void Draw(Card cardToDraw)
{
    if (cardToDraw == null)
    {
        return;
    }

    bool drawReplaced = Game.CheckWouldDrawTriggers();
    if (!drawReplaced)
    {
        Deck.Remove(cardToDraw);
        Hand.Add(cardToDraw);
    }
}


But if the parameter is always the top card of your deck, it really shouldn't be a parameter.  That's just making the code unnecessarily complicated.

[GendoIkari]

This is a decent explanation, and it appeals to me as a programmer. I guess I would argue that "draw a card" takes a parameter as well, which happens now to always be the top card of your deck (separately there are instructions saying that anytime you need the top card of your deck, and your deck is empty, then you shuffle your discard). But your way seems valid as well. Here's my code for how draw works:

Code: [Select]

public Card TopCard
{
    get
    {
        if (this.DrawPile.Count = 0)
        {
            this.ShuffleDiscard();
        }
        if (this.DrawPile.Count = 0)
        {
             return null;
        }
        else
        {
            return this.DrawPile[0];
        }
    }
}

public void Draw()
{
    Draw(this.TopCard);
}

public void Draw(Card cardToDraw)
{
    if (cardToDraw == null)
    {
        return;
    }

    bool drawReplaced = Game.CheckWouldDrawTriggers();
    if (!drawReplaced)
    {
        Deck.Remove(cardToDraw);
        Hand.Add(cardToDraw);
    }
}


But if the parameter is always the top card of your deck, it really shouldn't be a parameter.  That's just making the code unnecessarily complicated.

Interestingly enough; just 10 minutes ago at my actual job, I wrote a method IsActiveOnDate(DateTime dateToCheck), which checks if an item is active for a particular date. I also wrote an IsCurrentlyActive(), which calls IsActiveOnDate, passing in the current date. Only IsCurrentlyActive is ever called at the moment. As a general rule, I always opt for never writing code that's not needed; but in cases like this it provides extra flexibility for minimal extra effort; and it follows a pattern established by our team. Draw seems similar to me; just because it defaults to "draw the top card" doesn't mean that "draw" by itself can't have other meanings.

But even if "the top card" is hardcoded into "draw", instead of being a parameter; you could still only call CheckWouldDrawTriggers() after checking that you have a top card to draw, which seems like the most logical thing to me:

Code: [Select]


public void Draw()
{
    if (this.TopCard == null)
    {
        return;
    }

    bool drawReplaced = Game.CheckWouldDrawTriggers();
    if (!drawReplaced)
    {
        Deck.Remove(this.TopCard);
        Hand.Add(this.TopCard);
    }
}


[eHalcyon]

Do you expect to use that method with other dates though?  If so, being ready for that is cool.  If not, it should be easy enough to refactor in the future if needed.

Personally, I think the most logical way to go would be to code the -1 token as if it were a card on top of your deck, but only when drawing.  It wouldn't count when revealing/looking or when in your hand (which is where it usually is).  I believe that would handle all the interactions properly, and it would work even if you want to first check if there is a card to draw, because it would count as one.

[GendoIkari]

Do you expect to use that method with other dates though?  If so, being ready for that is cool.  If not, it should be easy enough to refactor in the future if needed.

My team prefers over-preparedness when it's not a big effort; I wouldn't personally have done it that way.

Personally, I think the most logical way to go would be to code the -1 token as if it were a card on top of your deck, but only when drawing.  It wouldn't count when revealing/looking or when in your hand (which is where it usually is).  I believe that would handle all the interactions properly, and it would work even if you want to first check if there is a card to draw, because it would count as one.

I think this is basically the intent/design of it. Thus why it's a square token that sits on your deck. But I was going off the literal wording on the token ("When you would draw a card").

[Moneymodel]

I've always wondered if there could be a way to make this work with Minion. It'd be hard to set up, but the attack (a random 3 cards) could be very mean.

It's like if they played Outpost.

[Limetime]

I've always wondered if there could be a way to make this work with Minion. It'd be hard to set up, but the attack (a random 3 cards) could be very mean.

It's like if they played Outpost.

Minion, relic, spy, storyteller pin
Every one starts with pseudo 2 average card hands.
Too bad its countered by minion kind of

[Jeebus]

I agree with GendoIkari that "when you would gain a card" and "when you would draw a card" are inconsistent with each other under the current ruling.

I don't buy the argument that Witch is not issuing a gain instruction if the Curse pile is empty. First of all, no player would ever answer "no" to the question of whether Witch told you to gain a Curse. Similarly, if you buy a Copper with Haggler in play, nobody would think that Haggler didn't tell you to gain a card. Secondly, there is no technical difference between gaining a card and drawing a card. They both reference a specific card. The fact that drawing always references the top card of your deck is incidental. "Draw a card" per the rules means "put the top card of your deck into your hand". If there is no card in your deck, it fails just like "gain a Curse from supply" fails if there is no Curse in supply.

Now, we could treat the -1 Card Token as a card that is only there when drawing. In effect this means that the token actually triggers when you are instructed to draw a card, rather than when you would draw a card (using the same definition of "when you would" as on Trader and Possession). The actual token uses the "when you would" wording though, so yeah, "when you would" is not consistent with Trader then.

[terminalCopper]

There are a lot of good ideas in this thread, but I feel like some concrete advices might be helpful.

1.) Usually, your first relic is better than gold.

You have one coin less, but your opponent loses one card. The latter is usually more important. Unless ...

2.) You might favor gold over relic, if you want to hit a certain price point ASAP, but your opponent doesn’t.

If your strategy depends a lot on when you get that Forge/Inheritance/Pathfinding, and your oppenent does something where a missing card
is not similarly crucial, look at your own purposes and get a gold.
To be honest, this advice is theory-crafted, I haven’t had this situation yet. However, it seems legit to me.

3.) In a BM-Mirror, buy one or two relics before gaining gold.
In general, Relic is 1$ less than gold for you, and for your opponent the average loss is the product of his average money Density times the probability that your Relic didn’t collide with others. So, when does your opponent lose more than you? Examples given,
if his Money Density is 1.5$ per card, your Relic needs to be non-colliding with a likelihood of 2/3;
if his Money Density is 2$ per card, your Relic needs to be non-colliding every other play.
That being said, it seems logic that a third Relic is usually weaker than a Gold, because the risk of collision is often closer to 1/2, whereas your opponents Money Density is rarely above 1.5$. Whether a second Relic is better than Gold is more complicated; I assume that simulators will tell us more about the perfect number. In doubt, a late game Relic is stronger than an early one, both because of the lower risk of collision, and the higher money density.

Btw, I have absolutely no idea if a second relic is good when your opponent goes engine. One day, logs will let us know.

4.) Get X instead of your first relic, if you prefer X over a grand market without +buy.

Grand Market nets you +2$ + buy, Relic nets +2$, „-card“ for you, „-card" for opponent. Unless there is some evidence that „-card“ is considerably more impactful either for you or for your opponent, Relics relative effect is like a Grand Market without +buy. I feel like this concept can be helpful in both directions: On the one hand, Grand Market is really good for engines, if there are costy components, and so is Relic; on the other hand, there are more powerful $5-cards in many kingdoms, e.g. Junk Attacks or strong trashers like Junk Dealer.

5.) If you plan to draw your deck, buy exactly one relic.

Simply put, the advantages of a second Relic are outweighed by its disavantages. With increasing likeliness to draw your deck, your second Relic tends to become a silver. And asides being too expensive at 5$, Silver is usually bad in a drawing engine.

6.) With Borrow on board, Relic is more like silver than grand market.

Once you’ve purchased your Relics, your opponent will use Borrow on a regular basis, which sabotages your attack.

[Davio]

Pretty sure I know the answer to this, but... if you have 7 cards in hand with the -1 card token on deck, will playing Library remove the token? I would assume no. Though I'm not sure how this is very different from playing Smithy when your deck is empty...

No, because Library doesn't try to draw you any cards there.

I'm thinking that the empty deck ruling is inconsistent with Trader rulings. If someone plays Witch while Curses are empty, you can't reveal a Trader to get a silver (right?). This is because "would gain" means "unless you reveal this card, you really will gain". So why doesn't "would draw" mean "unless you have this token, you really will draw"?

There is no inconsistency here.

When you would gain a card only happens when you're about to physically grab a card from the supply and put it in your discard pile.
When you would draw only happens when you're just about to physically move the top card from your deck into your hand.

Trader and the -1 Card tokens add preconditions to things that would otherwise happen, so if your draw deck is empty, -1 Card doesn't even trigger.

[Chris is me]

Pretty sure I know the answer to this, but... if you have 7 cards in hand with the -1 card token on deck, will playing Library remove the token? I would assume no. Though I'm not sure how this is very different from playing Smithy when your deck is empty...

No, because Library doesn't try to draw you any cards there.

I'm thinking that the empty deck ruling is inconsistent with Trader rulings. If someone plays Witch while Curses are empty, you can't reveal a Trader to get a silver (right?). This is because "would gain" means "unless you reveal this card, you really will gain". So why doesn't "would draw" mean "unless you have this token, you really will draw"?

There is no inconsistency here.

When you would gain a card only happens when you're about to physically grab a card from the supply and put it in your discard pile.
When you would draw only happens when you're just about to physically move the top card from your deck into your hand.

Trader and the -1 Card tokens add preconditions to things that would otherwise happen, so if your draw deck is empty, -1 Card doesn't even trigger.

The inconsistency is that he said the opposite (not with Library, but with somethin trying to draw +1 Card with an empty deck). Library doesn't instruct you to draw a card if you have a hand of >7 cards so it isn't even relevant to this discussion. I kind of prefer the ruling as is but I see where there could be some kind of inconsistency with Trader and the logic of when would gain.

[werothegreat]

Pretty sure I know the answer to this, but... if you have 7 cards in hand with the -1 card token on deck, will playing Library remove the token? I would assume no. Though I'm not sure how this is very different from playing Smithy when your deck is empty...

No, because Library doesn't try to draw you any cards there.

I'm thinking that the empty deck ruling is inconsistent with Trader rulings. If someone plays Witch while Curses are empty, you can't reveal a Trader to get a silver (right?). This is because "would gain" means "unless you reveal this card, you really will gain". So why doesn't "would draw" mean "unless you have this token, you really will draw"?

There is no inconsistency here.

When you would gain a card only happens when you're about to physically grab a card from the supply and put it in your discard pile.
When you would draw only happens when you're just about to physically move the top card from your deck into your hand.

Trader and the -1 Card tokens add preconditions to things that would otherwise happen, so if your draw deck is empty, -1 Card doesn't even trigger.

The inconsistency is that he said the opposite (not with Library, but with somethin trying to draw +1 Card with an empty deck). Library doesn't instruct you to draw a card if you have a hand of >7 cards so it isn't even relevant to this discussion. I kind of prefer the ruling as is but I see where there could be some kind of inconsistency with Trader and the logic of when would gain.

It's more like, imagine a card that puts a token on top of the Curse pile that you remove instead of gaining a Curse.  Sure, you can't reveal Trader if you just remove the token, but Witch telling you to gain a Curse should certainly remove that token even if the pile is empty.  Let's say the token being on the Curse pile does something weird, I dunno.

[Jeebus]

It's more like, imagine a card that puts a token on top of the Curse pile that you remove instead of gaining a Curse.  Sure, you can't reveal Trader if you just remove the token, but Witch telling you to gain a Curse should certainly remove that token even if the pile is empty.  Let's say the token being on the Curse pile does something weird, I dunno.

You just gave another explanation of why "when would gain" on Trader and "when would draw" on the -1 Card token are inconsistent with each other.
You note yourself that the theoretical token on the Curse pile is not timed like Trader - it's not timed on "when would gain". The same is true of the -1 Card token - it's not timed on "when would draw". So yes, as I noted:

We could treat the -1 Card Token as a card that is only there when drawing. In effect this means that the token actually triggers when you are instructed to draw a card, rather than when you would draw a card (using the same definition of "when you would" as on Trader and Possession). The actual token uses the "when you would" wording though, so yeah, "when you would" is not consistent with Trader then.