Print

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

[Roadrunner7671]

What even is this card?

1. Bank?
2. With Quarry, you can play Storyteller, then Quarry, then gain an Adventurer with your Workshop, right?
3. Relic still attacks, right?
4. Crown? Like, what?
5. Can you still Counterfeit another Treasure? If so, does the Counterfeited treasure draw you cards or give you moola?
6. If you play Royal Seal with Storyteller, Can you topdeck cards from your Workshop?How about cards you buy?
7. Does Loan do the Loan thing?
8. Rocks?
9. Does Hoard do the fun Hoard Gold gain?

[math]

1. It counts all the treasures, since they're in play.
2. Correct.
3. Yes.
4. It plays an Action card twice, since it's your Action phase.  Afterwards, you go back to resolving Storyteller.
5. Yes, you can, and it gives you money, but then Storyteller pays all your money and draws cards.
6. I'm not sure what you mean here, since Workshop doesn't topdeck cards and you don't normally play Workshop with Storyteller (edge case: Crown)
7. Yes, it does.
8. Rocks doesn't have any weird rules when you play it; it just gives you $1, which Storyteller turns into +1 Card.
9. Yes, it does, since it's still in play.

[Roadrunner7671]

Thanks math!

I fixed question six, but I think I know the answer at this point.

[math]

Yes, Royal Seal still works as normal, and it works on cards you gain in your action phase.

[Seprix]

You only pay the money. You follow all of the effects on the Treasure card as you play them. If you played some Treasure that made you gain an Estate every time you played it, guess what, you gain an Estate when you play the Treasure with Storyteller. It's the same deal with Black Market, only difference is Storyteller "steals" the money used with it's playing treasures effect for draw.

[werothegreat]

The only weird niggle is that playing Counterfeit lets you play more than Storyteller's limit of three Treasures.

Also, for extra inception, play Storyteller, Crown, Storyteller.  ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[Beyond Awesome]

The only weird niggle is that playing Counterfeit lets you play more than Storyteller's limit of three Treasures.

Also, for extra inception, play Storyteller, Crown, Storyteller.  ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

The game is collapsing

[mameluke]

The only weird niggle is that playing Counterfeit lets you play more than Storyteller's limit of three Treasures.

Venture, too! Man, if you really wanted crazy draw, play Royal Seal first, then a Venture, revealing a Tunnel, gaining a Gold, putting in on top of your deck, then play a third Venture to play the Gold. (the second Venture has to play something too of course).

Or three ventures, revealing even more ventures, and finally a Bank. Man, Prosperity is crazy.

[enfynet]

Storyteller - Crown - Storyteller - Venture - Counterfeit - Venture - Bank - Venture 2 - Crown - Storyteller - ? ? ? - Profit?

[junkers]

Storyteller - Crown - Storyteller - Venture - Counterfeit - Venture - Bank - Venture 2 - Crown - Storyteller - ? ? ? - Profit?

f.ds: where making your own head explode is considered a viable strategy.

[werothegreat]

Storyteller - Crown - Storyteller - Venture - Counterfeit - Venture - Bank - Venture 2 - Crown - Storyteller - ? ? ? - Profit?

f.ds: where making your own head explode spending every cent in your deck to draw cards is considered a viable strategy.

FTFY

[Roadrunner7671]

Storyteller - Crown - Storyteller - Venture - Counterfeit - Venture - Bank - Venture 2 - Crown - Storyteller - ? ? ? - Profit?

f.ds: where making your own head explode spending every cent in your deck to draw cards is considered a viable strategy.

FTFY

It is with Vineyards!

[michaeljb]

The only weird niggle is that playing Counterfeit lets you play more than Storyteller's limit of three Treasures.

Kind of like when you Throne Room a Throne Room, you play more than a Throne Room's limit of one other Action card.

I love how all of math's answers are pretty much, "yes, really." A lot of the confusion/questions around Crown (and Storyteller here) lately reminded me of things like Throne Room/Feast and Ironworks/Great Hall; yes you really do get to gain 2 cards, just follow the words; yes you really do get +1 Card and +1 Action.

4. It plays an Action card twice, since it's your Action phase.  Afterwards, you go back to resolving Storyteller.

Roadrunner, I'm sure you'll be pleased to note that this means you can play a Storyteller, use it to play Crown, use the Crown to play Scout twice which nets you +2 Actions and maybe you draw some Harems that you can also play with Storyteller...

[pacovf]

 The thing that is actually confusing is BM + Crown + BM. Which cards do you get to look at...?

[Cuzz]

The only weird niggle is that playing Counterfeit lets you play more than Storyteller's limit of three Treasures.

Kind of like when you Throne Room a Throne Room, you play more than a Throne Room's limit of one other Action card.

I love how all of math's answers are pretty much, "yes, really." A lot of the confusion/questions around Crown (and Storyteller here) lately reminded me of things like Throne Room/Feast and Ironworks/Great Hall; yes you really do get to gain 2 cards, just follow the words; yes you really do get +1 Card and +1 Action.

4. It plays an Action card twice, since it's your Action phase.  Afterwards, you go back to resolving Storyteller.

Roadrunner, I'm sure you'll be pleased to note that this means you can play a Storyteller, use it to play Crown, use the Crown to play Scout twice which nets you +2 Actions and maybe you draw some Harems that you can also play with Storyteller...

Seriously, people. The cards always literally do just exactly what they say except for Pirate Ship

[LastFootnote]

The only weird niggle is that playing Counterfeit lets you play more than Storyteller's limit of three Treasures.

Kind of like when you Throne Room a Throne Room, you play more than a Throne Room's limit of one other Action card.

I love how all of math's answers are pretty much, "yes, really." A lot of the confusion/questions around Crown (and Storyteller here) lately reminded me of things like Throne Room/Feast and Ironworks/Great Hall; yes you really do get to gain 2 cards, just follow the words; yes you really do get +1 Card and +1 Action.

4. It plays an Action card twice, since it's your Action phase.  Afterwards, you go back to resolving Storyteller.

Roadrunner, I'm sure you'll be pleased to note that this means you can play a Storyteller, use it to play Crown, use the Crown to play Scout twice which nets you +2 Actions and maybe you draw some Harems that you can also play with Storyteller...

Seriously, people. The cards always literally do just exactly what they say except for Pirate Ship

And Nomad Camp, and also now Possession.

But yes, your point is still well made.

[AJD]

Seriously, people. The cards always literally do just exactly what they say except for Pirate Ship

And Nomad Camp, and also now Possession.

Also Black Market.

[michaeljb]

The thing that is actually confusing is BM + Crown + BM. Which cards do you get to look at...?

- play Black Market1
-- reveal 3 cards from the BM deck
-- play Crown
-- -- play Black Market2
-- -- -- reveal the next 3 cards from the BM deck, may play Treasures and buy one of those 3
-- -- play Black Market2 a second time
-- -- -- reveal the next 3 cards from the BM deck, may play Treasures and buy one of those 3
-- play any other Treasures you want, may buy one of the originally revealed 3

Once the cards are revealed from the deck, they're not on the deck any more, so subsequent plays of Black Market just look at the deck and know nothing about the cards currently revealed.

It reminds me a little of Lookout+Cultist; you look at 3 cards from your deck with Lookout, if you trash a Cultist, you draw the next 3 cards of your deck, while the other 2 cards you're currently looking at are not part of your deck.

[GendoIkari]

Seriously, people. The cards always literally do just exactly what they say except for Pirate Ship

And Nomad Camp, and also now Possession.

Also Black Market.

And Envoy. But yeah, even with all that said, the answer to almost every rules question in Dominion is "do what the card says to do." Except for Crown, playing a treasure in the action phase is no different than playing it in the buy phase.

[singletee]

Storyteller - Crown - Storyteller - Venture - Counterfeit - Venture - Bank - Venture 2 - Crown - Storyteller - ? ? ? - Profit?

f.ds: where making your own head explode is considered a viable strategy.

Something tells me someone has done this before, but...

[GendoIkari]

Storyteller - Crown - Storyteller - Venture - Counterfeit - Venture - Bank - Venture 2 - Crown - Storyteller - ? ? ? - Profit?

f.ds: where making your own head explode is considered a viable strategy.

Something tells me someone has done this before, but...

I think Villa is more appropriate for that.

[AdrianHealey]

The only weird niggle is that playing Counterfeit lets you play more than Storyteller's limit of three Treasures.

Kind of like when you Throne Room a Throne Room, you play more than a Throne Room's limit of one other Action card.

I love how all of math's answers are pretty much, "yes, really." A lot of the confusion/questions around Crown (and Storyteller here) lately reminded me of things like Throne Room/Feast and Ironworks/Great Hall; yes you really do get to gain 2 cards, just follow the words; yes you really do get +1 Card and +1 Action.

4. It plays an Action card twice, since it's your Action phase.  Afterwards, you go back to resolving Storyteller.

Roadrunner, I'm sure you'll be pleased to note that this means you can play a Storyteller, use it to play Crown, use the Crown to play Scout twice which nets you +2 Actions and maybe you draw some Harems that you can also play with Storyteller...

Seriously, people. The cards always literally do just exactly what they say except for Pirate Ship

And Nomad Camp, and also now Possession.

But yes, your point is still well made.

What's different about Nomad Camp and Pirate Ship? Pirate ship prolly should say something like pirate token or whatever, but I can't figur out what's wrong with what it should say on nomad camp?

And posession: because the tokens now go to you (playing as him) and no longer him?

[AdrianHealey]

Seriously, people. The cards always literally do just exactly what they say except for Pirate Ship

And Nomad Camp, and also now Possession.

Also Black Market.

And Envoy. But yeah, even with all that said, the answer to almost every rules question in Dominion is "do what the card says to do." Except for Crown, playing a treasure in the action phase is no different than playing it in the buy phase.

What's different with how envoy is worded than to what it does?

"

    Envoy is misworded: it should say "Put the rest into your hand" rather than "Draw the rest", and should be treated as such. This is relevant for when the -1 Card token is on your deck; in this case, you still reveal 5 cards, put 4 into your hand (discarding 1), and put the token back on top of your deck. "

Ok, I got that part.

[AJD]

What's different about Nomad Camp and Pirate Ship? Pirate ship prolly should say something like pirate token or whatever, but I can't figur out what's wrong with what it should say on nomad camp?

Yeah, Pirate Ship just says "take a coin token", the same way Candlestick Maker does, but Pirate Ship does not actually give you coin tokens.

Nomad Camp, the deal is, it says "when you gain this" you put it on your deck, but in Dominion "when you gain this" usually means right after you gain something. And with Nomad Camp you put it on your deck as you gain it, not right after.

[AdrianHealey]

In what particular context does that matter? When something wants to move nomad camp?

[AJD]

In what particular context does that matter? When something wants to move nomad camp?

I guess?

[Deadlock39]

In what particular context does that matter? When something wants to move nomad camp?

I guess?

It matters with regard to the "lose track" rule, if it was gained to the discard and then moved itself, Summon would lose track, and be unable to set it aside.  Instead it is gained directly to the top of the deck, and is where Summon expects it to be and is set aside successfully.

Might be other examples. I'm not sure.

[LastFootnote]

In what particular context does that matter? When something wants to move nomad camp?

I guess?

It matters with regard to the "lose track" rule, if it was gained to the discard and then moved itself, Summon would lose track, and be unable to set it aside.  Instead it is gained directly to the top of the deck, and is where Summon expects it to be and is set aside successfully.

Might be other examples. I'm not sure.

It also matters when you gain Nomad Camp to a place other than your discard or deck top (e.g. to your hand with Transmogrify). Anyway Transmogrify gains precedence; you do not have the option of putting the Nomad Camp onto your deck instead.

[AJD]

[It also matters when you gain Nomad Camp to a place other than your discard or deck top (e.g. to your hand with Transmogrify). Anyway Transmogrify gains precedence; you do not have the option of putting the Nomad Camp onto your deck instead.

The wiki says that's not quite true:
"A card that moves Nomad Camp somewhere else when it is gained (such as Transmogrify) gives the player a choice—either gain it to your deck, or where the other card is trying to gain it to—since both destinations try to happen at the same time."

[LastFootnote]

[It also matters when you gain Nomad Camp to a place other than your discard or deck top (e.g. to your hand with Transmogrify). Anyway Transmogrify gains precedence; you do not have the option of putting the Nomad Camp onto your deck instead.

The wiki says that's not quite true:
"A card that moves Nomad Camp somewhere else when it is gained (such as Transmogrify) gives the player a choice—either gain it to your deck, or where the other card is trying to gain it to—since both destinations try to happen at the same time."

I believe that's incorrect. When you gain a card with Armory, you do not get to decide to put that card into your discard pile, even though that's the default destination for gained cards. Nomad Camp just has a different default destination; anything else should override that.

[AJD]

[It also matters when you gain Nomad Camp to a place other than your discard or deck top (e.g. to your hand with Transmogrify). Anyway Transmogrify gains precedence; you do not have the option of putting the Nomad Camp onto your deck instead.

The wiki says that's not quite true:
"A card that moves Nomad Camp somewhere else when it is gained (such as Transmogrify) gives the player a choice—either gain it to your deck, or where the other card is trying to gain it to—since both destinations try to happen at the same time."

I believe that's incorrect. When you gain a card with Armory, you do not get to decided to put that card into your discard pile, even though that's the default destination for gained cards. Nomad Camp just has a different default destination; anything else should override that.

I think the answer to that is, there's no such thing as a "different default destination"; Nomad Camp overrides the default destination in the exact same way that Armory does, and so Nomad Camp and Transmogrify are competing to override the default simultaneously. I think.

[Witherweaver]

What even is this card?

1. Bank?
2. With Quarry, you can play Storyteller, then Quarry, then gain an Adventurer with your Workshop, right?
3. Relic still attacks, right?
4. Crown? Like, what?
5. Can you still Counterfeit another Treasure? If so, does the Counterfeited treasure draw you cards or give you moola?
6. If you play Royal Seal with Storyteller, Can you topdeck cards from your Workshop?How about cards you buy?
7. Does Loan do the Loan thing?
8. Rocks?
9. Does Hoard do the fun Hoard Gold gain?

People think Storyteller don't be like it is, but it do.

[Jeebus]

Seriously, people. The cards always literally do just exactly what they say except for Pirate Ship

And Nomad Camp, and also now Possession.

Also Black Market.

And Envoy. But yeah, even with all that said, the answer to almost every rules question in Dominion is "do what the card says to do."

There are some others. Here are the most important ones:

- Duchess says "in games using this", but should have said "when this is in supply", to account for Black Market. (This is addressed in the rulebook.)

- Ironworks and about 4 or 5 other cards don't specify what "it" means.

- Inn doesn't specify what happens when you choose zero cards from your discard pile.

- Prince has a couple of clarifications in the rulebook that are not addressed on the card (such as Princing an Island).

- Salvager should refer to the cost in coins (mentioned in Alchemy rulebook).

- Stash (obviously) only triggers when it's already in your deck, but doesn't say that.

- Tournament: The setup of the Prize pile (that all Prizes are available) is only mentioned in the rulebook. Likewise that you can choose to gain nothing if either the Prize pile or Duchy pile is empty. Also the timing, which is different from Spy etc.

- Trader: That the whole gain is canceled instead of Silver replacing the card is only in the rulebook.

- Inheritance: Doesn't state when an Estate is yours.

[LastFootnote]

- Trader: That the whole gain is canceled instead of Silver replacing the card is only in the rulebook.

- Inheritance: Doesn't state when an Estate is yours.

These are really stretching. The rulebook explains what "when you would gain" and "your [cardName]" mean and it's fine to have those rules there. This is like complaining that you have to look in the rulebook to see what "+3 Cards" means on Smithy.

[singletee]

- Stash (obviously) only triggers when it's already in your deck, but doesn't say that.

I feel like this could be a great troll move: after you finish turn 2 of a game with Stash, when you reshuffle, just casually pick up the pile and put it on your deck.

[Donald X.]

[It also matters when you gain Nomad Camp to a place other than your discard or deck top (e.g. to your hand with Transmogrify). Anyway Transmogrify gains precedence; you do not have the option of putting the Nomad Camp onto your deck instead.

The wiki says that's not quite true:
"A card that moves Nomad Camp somewhere else when it is gained (such as Transmogrify) gives the player a choice—either gain it to your deck, or where the other card is trying to gain it to—since both destinations try to happen at the same time."

I believe that's incorrect. When you gain a card with Armory, you do not get to decided to put that card into your discard pile, even though that's the default destination for gained cards. Nomad Camp just has a different default destination; anything else should override that.

I think the answer to that is, there's no such thing as a "different default destination"; Nomad Camp overrides the default destination in the exact same way that Armory does, and so Nomad Camp and Transmogrify are competing to override the default simultaneously. I think.

I have ruled - in a PM to Stef - that Nomad Camp's effect is "beaten" by whatever other effect. Transmogrify into a Nomad Camp and it goes to your hand. I think Nomad Camp is the only card this ruling is relevant for; the other ways to affect a gained card's destination, that don't actually gain the card, happen after it visits the discard pile or wherever, and of course only one effect can be causing the gain.

I don't think it's clear from even a hypothetical fixed wording of Nomad Camp, and previously ruled the other way.

[AJD]

[It also matters when you gain Nomad Camp to a place other than your discard or deck top (e.g. to your hand with Transmogrify). Anyway Transmogrify gains precedence; you do not have the option of putting the Nomad Camp onto your deck instead.

The wiki says that's not quite true:
"A card that moves Nomad Camp somewhere else when it is gained (such as Transmogrify) gives the player a choice—either gain it to your deck, or where the other card is trying to gain it to—since both destinations try to happen at the same time."

I believe that's incorrect. When you gain a card with Armory, you do not get to decided to put that card into your discard pile, even though that's the default destination for gained cards. Nomad Camp just has a different default destination; anything else should override that.

I think the answer to that is, there's no such thing as a "different default destination"; Nomad Camp overrides the default destination in the exact same way that Armory does, and so Nomad Camp and Transmogrify are competing to override the default simultaneously. I think.

I have ruled - in a PM to Stef - that Nomad Camp's effect is "beaten" by whatever other effect. Transmogrify into a Nomad Camp and it goes to your hand. I think Nomad Camp is the only card this ruling is relevant for; the other ways to affect a gained card's destination, that don't actually gain the card, happen after it visits the discard pile or wherever, and of course only one effect can be causing the gain.

I don't think it's clear from even a hypothetical fixed wording of Nomad Camp, and previously ruled the other way.

Okay, thanks for the clarification!

[AJD]

- Duchess says "in games using this", but should have said "when this is in supply", to account for Black Market. (This is addressed in the rulebook.)

I'm not sure what you understand the effective difference to be between these wordings.

[Jeebus]

- Trader: That the whole gain is canceled instead of Silver replacing the card is only in the rulebook.

- Inheritance: Doesn't state when an Estate is yours.

These are really stretching. The rulebook explains what "when you would gain" and "your [cardName]" mean and it's fine to have those rules there. This is like complaining that you have to look in the rulebook to see what "+3 Cards" means on Smithy.

It's not stretching, it's nitpicking. I have not said that those rules should be on the cards. I was merely stating that you need the rulebook to play them correctly. This is not at all like Smithy, which only has terms explained in the rules proper. The cards I mentioned have explanations in the FAQ section of the rulebooks, exactly like Black Market and Nomad Camp.

(Just a side note: The rulebook doesn't give the full explanation of what "your Estates" mean either. There are corner cases omitted, like Fortress, Possession...)

[Jeebus]

- Duchess says "in games using this", but should have said "when this is in supply", to account for Black Market. (This is addressed in the rulebook.)

I'm not sure what you understand the effective difference to be between these wordings.

That the ability doesn't apply when Duchess is in the BM deck. It needs to be in supply.
It was clarified in the rulebook FAQ like this: "Duchess does not interact in any special way with Black Market."

[LastFootnote]

- Trader: That the whole gain is canceled instead of Silver replacing the card is only in the rulebook.

- Inheritance: Doesn't state when an Estate is yours.

These are really stretching. The rulebook explains what "when you would gain" and "your [cardName]" mean and it's fine to have those rules there. This is like complaining that you have to look in the rulebook to see what "+3 Cards" means on Smithy.

It's not stretching, it's nitpicking. I have not said that those rules should be on the cards. I was merely stating that you need the rulebook to play them correctly. This is not at all like Smithy, which only has terms explained in the rules proper. The cards I mentioned have explanations in the FAQ section of the rulebooks, exactly like Black Market and Nomad Camp.

(Just a side note: The rulebook doesn't give the full explanation of what "your Estates" mean either. There are corner cases omitted, like Fortress, Possession...)

That's not the same at all. Trader and Inheritance just use rules that aren't used on very many cards. Black Market and Nomad Camp's wordings are actually wrong. Black Market should say "you may play any number of Treasures from your hand" and Nomad Camp should have some other wording that isn't exactly like when-you-gain abilities, since it's not one. Trader and Inheritance are worded correctly.

[Jeebus]

- Trader: That the whole gain is canceled instead of Silver replacing the card is only in the rulebook.

- Inheritance: Doesn't state when an Estate is yours.

These are really stretching. The rulebook explains what "when you would gain" and "your [cardName]" mean and it's fine to have those rules there. This is like complaining that you have to look in the rulebook to see what "+3 Cards" means on Smithy.

It's not stretching, it's nitpicking. I have not said that those rules should be on the cards. I was merely stating that you need the rulebook to play them correctly. This is not at all like Smithy, which only has terms explained in the rules proper. The cards I mentioned have explanations in the FAQ section of the rulebooks, exactly like Black Market and Nomad Camp.

(Just a side note: The rulebook doesn't give the full explanation of what "your Estates" mean either. There are corner cases omitted, like Fortress, Possession...)

That's not the same at all. Trader and Inheritance just use rules that aren't used on very many cards. Black Market and Nomad Camp's wordings are actually wrong. Black Market should say "you may play any number of Treasures from your hand" and Nomad Camp should have some other wording that isn't exactly like when-you-gain abilities, since it's not one. Trader and Inheritance are worded correctly.

Ok, the concept of card ownership was invented (at least officially) for Inheritance, but you could say that it's meant to be a general concept.

However, I don't agree about Trader. It says, "instead, gain a silver," but doesn't specify instead of what. There's nothing special about the word "instead". It's just as wrong as Black Market. Nothing on Black Market is actually wrong, it just omits something. I grant you that it's an extremely more important piece of information that is omitted, but nevertheless.

[eHalcyon]

- Duchess says "in games using this", but should have said "when this is in supply", to account for Black Market. (This is addressed in the rulebook.)

I'm not sure what you understand the effective difference to be between these wordings.

That the ability doesn't apply when Duchess is in the BM deck. It needs to be in supply.
It was clarified in the rulebook FAQ like this: "Duchess does not interact in any special way with Black Market."

But what's the practical difference?  Suppose Duchess is in the BM deck.  You gain a Duchy.  Since the game is using Duchess and the card says what it says, you now have the option of gaining a Duchess.  Except whatever you decide, in practice you can't gain the Duchess because Duchess isn't available to gain in the Supply.

However, I don't agree about Trader. It says, "instead, gain a silver," but doesn't specify instead of what. There's nothing special about the word "instead". It's just as wrong as Black Market. Nothing on Black Market is actually wrong, it just omits something. I grant you that it's an extremely more important piece of information that is omitted, but nevertheless.

"When you would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, instead, gain a Silver."

It's pretty clear to me that the "instead" is replacing the trigger effect with a different effect.

"When you [do a certain thing], you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, instead, [do a different thing]."

[Donald X.]

- Duchess says "in games using this", but should have said "when this is in supply", to account for Black Market. (This is addressed in the rulebook.)

I'm not sure what you understand the effective difference to be between these wordings.

That the ability doesn't apply when Duchess is in the BM deck. It needs to be in supply.
It was clarified in the rulebook FAQ like this: "Duchess does not interact in any special way with Black Market."

While I agree that Duchess could have a better wording, that FAQ doesn't do anything at all; it's just there for people who wonder about it. You can also argue that that FAQ is bad, since why is there a FAQ that says so little; at the time there were people that wanted some mention of Black Market in the FAQ.

You can't gain a card except from the Supply, unless the card spells this out; Duchess doesn't spell it out; thus you can't gain it from the Black Market deck via its ability.

[Jeebus]

- Duchess says "in games using this", but should have said "when this is in supply", to account for Black Market. (This is addressed in the rulebook.)

I'm not sure what you understand the effective difference to be between these wordings.

That the ability doesn't apply when Duchess is in the BM deck. It needs to be in supply.
It was clarified in the rulebook FAQ like this: "Duchess does not interact in any special way with Black Market."

But what's the practical difference?  Suppose Duchess is in the BM deck.  You gain a Duchy.  Since the game is using Duchess and the card says what it says, you now have the option of gaining a Duchess.  Except whatever you decide, in practice you can't gain the Duchess because Duchess isn't available to gain in the Supply.

You are entirely correct about that, and I withdraw Duchess from the list!

However, I don't agree about Trader. It says, "instead, gain a silver," but doesn't specify instead of what. There's nothing special about the word "instead". It's just as wrong as Black Market. Nothing on Black Market is actually wrong, it just omits something. I grant you that it's an extremely more important piece of information that is omitted, but nevertheless.

"When you would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, instead, gain a Silver."

It's pretty clear to me that the "instead" is replacing the trigger effect with a different effect.

"When you [do a certain thing], you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, instead, [do a different thing]."

Why couldn't it just as well be?:
"When you do [a certain thing], you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, instead, do [a different thing]."

Certainly many people thought so, and I really don't see that the text can't be interpreted either way.

[GendoIkari]

However, I don't agree about Trader. It says, "instead, gain a silver," but doesn't specify instead of what. There's nothing special about the word "instead". It's just as wrong as Black Market. Nothing on Black Market is actually wrong, it just omits something. I grant you that it's an extremely more important piece of information that is omitted, but nevertheless.

"When you would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, instead, gain a Silver."

It's pretty clear to me that the "instead" is replacing the trigger effect with a different effect.

"When you [do a certain thing], you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, instead, [do a different thing]."

Why couldn't it just as well be?:
"When you do [a certain thing], you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, instead, do [a different thing]."

Certainly many people thought so, and I really don't see that the text can't be interpreted either way.

I think I have to go with Jeebus here; though not so much with the "card is worded wrong" thing. Nomad Camp, Pirate Ship, and Enovy are all actually incorrect as to what they tell you. Incorrect is different than ambiguous. Black Market is sort of in between; it's also more than just ambiguous; as it doesn't have a wording that could be interpreted 2 different ways; it's just flat-out missing instructions. But its mistake is one of omission.

I think with Trader, we have all for so long known how Trader works that we just assume that it's clear, because we know how to do it. But seeing Jeebus's argument here, I'd have to agree that without any of the discussion or rules surrounding it, Trader could be equally seen as "instead" being "instead of the card you would gain" or "instead of gaining the card".

[Jeebus]

I think I have to go with Jeebus here; though not so much with the "card is worded wrong" thing. Nomad Camp, Pirate Ship, and Enovy are all actually incorrect as to what they tell you. Incorrect is different than ambiguous. Black Market is sort of in between; it's also more than just ambiguous; as it doesn't have a wording that could be interpreted 2 different ways; it's just flat-out missing instructions. But its mistake is one of omission.

Agreed. Possession now also has a "mistake" of omission. I would say the same goes for Tournament (although I assume it's omitted on purpose because of space). The only one I mentioned that is wrong, in the same sense as Nomad Camp, Pirate Ship and Envoy, is Stash (although nobody would ever misunderstand it). The rest of the cards I mentioned are all ambiguities like Trader.

So I guess we have three somewhat loosely defined categories of cards that don't do literally what they say. Only four are really wrong, and three are missing information.

[eHalcyon]

However, I don't agree about Trader. It says, "instead, gain a silver," but doesn't specify instead of what. There's nothing special about the word "instead". It's just as wrong as Black Market. Nothing on Black Market is actually wrong, it just omits something. I grant you that it's an extremely more important piece of information that is omitted, but nevertheless.

"When you would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, instead, gain a Silver."

It's pretty clear to me that the "instead" is replacing the trigger effect with a different effect.

"When you [do a certain thing], you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, instead, [do a different thing]."

Why couldn't it just as well be?:
"When you do [a certain thing], you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, instead, do [a different thing]."

Certainly many people thought so, and I really don't see that the text can't be interpreted either way.

I think I have to go with Jeebus here; though not so much with the "card is worded wrong" thing. Nomad Camp, Pirate Ship, and Enovy are all actually incorrect as to what they tell you. Incorrect is different than ambiguous. Black Market is sort of in between; it's also more than just ambiguous; as it doesn't have a wording that could be interpreted 2 different ways; it's just flat-out missing instructions. But its mistake is one of omission.

I think with Trader, we have all for so long known how Trader works that we just assume that it's clear, because we know how to do it. But seeing Jeebus's argument here, I'd have to agree that without any of the discussion or rules surrounding it, Trader could be equally seen as "instead" being "instead of the card you would gain" or "instead of gaining the card".

I must be missing something here... What does the alternative interpretation of Trader do that is different? I'm not seeing the ambiguity...

[Jeebus]

I must be missing something here... What does the alternative interpretation of Trader do that is different? I'm not seeing the ambiguity...

Whether Trader "interrupts the gaining process" to replace the card with a Silver, or cancels the whole gaining process and creates a new one.
This came up with the question Ironworks + Trader, although it's also implied in the rulebook (since it says that the Silver will come from supply and go to your discard pile no matter what the other card was gonna do). If Trader just replaced the Silver, Ironworks would get you +$1 and there would be no question about what "it" refers to.

[eHalcyon]

I must be missing something here... What does the alternative interpretation of Trader do that is different? I'm not seeing the ambiguity...

Whether Trader "interrupts the gaining process" to replace the card with a Silver, or cancels the whole gaining process and creates a new one.
This came up with the question Ironworks + Trader, although it's also implied in the rulebook (since it says that the Silver will come from supply and go to your discard pile no matter what the other card was gonna do). If Trader just replaced the Silver, Ironworks would get you +$1 and there would be no question about what "it" refers to.

Hmm, alright. But I think Ironworks would fail to give you a bonus with either interpretation of Trader. There would still be a question of whether "it" refers to the card Ironworks originally tried to gain (and didn't) or whatever card was ultimately gained.

[Jeebus]

I must be missing something here... What does the alternative interpretation of Trader do that is different? I'm not seeing the ambiguity...

Whether Trader "interrupts the gaining process" to replace the card with a Silver, or cancels the whole gaining process and creates a new one.
This came up with the question Ironworks + Trader, although it's also implied in the rulebook (since it says that the Silver will come from supply and go to your discard pile no matter what the other card was gonna do). If Trader just replaced the Silver, Ironworks would get you +$1 and there would be no question about what "it" refers to.

Hmm, alright. But I think Ironworks would fail to give you a bonus with either interpretation of Trader. There would still be a question of whether "it" refers to the card Ironworks originally tried to gain (and didn't) or whatever card was ultimately gained.

Yeah, you're right about that last part. If it referred to the card you originally chose, you would get the bonus from that.

If it refers to the card that was gained though, it could be construed to mean the Silver if Silver were just substituted for the original card.

[LastFootnote]

I must be missing something here... What does the alternative interpretation of Trader do that is different? I'm not seeing the ambiguity...

Whether Trader "interrupts the gaining process" to replace the card with a Silver, or cancels the whole gaining process and creates a new one.
This came up with the question Ironworks + Trader, although it's also implied in the rulebook (since it says that the Silver will come from supply and go to your discard pile no matter what the other card was gonna do). If Trader just replaced the Silver, Ironworks would get you +$1 and there would be no question about what "it" refers to.

Hmm, alright. But I think Ironworks would fail to give you a bonus with either interpretation of Trader. There would still be a question of whether "it" refers to the card Ironworks originally tried to gain (and didn't) or whatever card was ultimately gained.

Yeah, you're right about that last part. If it referred to the card you originally chose, you would get the bonus from that.

If it refers to the card that was gained though, it could be construed to mean the Silver if Silver were just substituted for the original card.

What if Trader said, "When you would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand, to instead gain a Silver and an Estate." It would have other problems then, but the point is, which card would Ironworks be referring to?

[GendoIkari]

I must be missing something here... What does the alternative interpretation of Trader do that is different? I'm not seeing the ambiguity...

Whether Trader "interrupts the gaining process" to replace the card with a Silver, or cancels the whole gaining process and creates a new one.
This came up with the question Ironworks + Trader, although it's also implied in the rulebook (since it says that the Silver will come from supply and go to your discard pile no matter what the other card was gonna do). If Trader just replaced the Silver, Ironworks would get you +$1 and there would be no question about what "it" refers to.

Hmm, alright. But I think Ironworks would fail to give you a bonus with either interpretation of Trader. There would still be a question of whether "it" refers to the card Ironworks originally tried to gain (and didn't) or whatever card was ultimately gained.

Ironworks aside, the issue also came up originally with Torturer. If you use Trader to get a Silver instead of a Curse, that Silver goes to your discard pile. If Torturer only replaces the card that you were gaining, a supposed to replacing the gain itself with a different event (also a gain), then th Silver would go to your hand.

[AJD]

I have ruled - in a PM to Stef - that Nomad Camp's effect is "beaten" by whatever other effect. Transmogrify into a Nomad Camp and it goes to your hand. I think Nomad Camp is the only card this ruling is relevant for; the other ways to affect a gained card's destination, that don't actually gain the card, happen after it visits the discard pile or wherever, and of course only one effect can be causing the gain.

So—from another thread—this doesn't apply to Villa, is that right? Villa does visit the discard pile (or wherever) and then move to hand?

[LastFootnote]

I have ruled - in a PM to Stef - that Nomad Camp's effect is "beaten" by whatever other effect. Transmogrify into a Nomad Camp and it goes to your hand. I think Nomad Camp is the only card this ruling is relevant for; the other ways to affect a gained card's destination, that don't actually gain the card, happen after it visits the discard pile or wherever, and of course only one effect can be causing the gain.

So—from another thread—this doesn't apply to Villa, is that right? Villa does visit the discard pile (or wherever) and then move to hand?

Correct.

[Seprix]

It seems to me that Nomad Camp would go on top of your deck when you gain it, even with Transmogrify, but Donald rules what Donald rules.

[Chappy7]

I must be missing something here... What does the alternative interpretation of Trader do that is different? I'm not seeing the ambiguity...

Whether Trader "interrupts the gaining process" to replace the card with a Silver, or cancels the whole gaining process and creates a new one.
This came up with the question Ironworks + Trader, although it's also implied in the rulebook (since it says that the Silver will come from supply and go to your discard pile no matter what the other card was gonna do). If Trader just replaced the Silver, Ironworks would get you +$1 and there would be no question about what "it" refers to.

Hmm, alright. But I think Ironworks would fail to give you a bonus with either interpretation of Trader. There would still be a question of whether "it" refers to the card Ironworks originally tried to gain (and didn't) or whatever card was ultimately gained.

Ironworks aside, the issue also came up originally with Torturer. If you use Trader to get a Silver instead of a Curse, that Silver goes to your discard pile. If Torturer only replaces the card that you were gaining, a supposed to replacing the gain itself with a different event (also a gain), then th Silver would go to your hand.

So where does the silver end up? It's quite possible I've been playing trader wrong.

[Awaclus]

I must be missing something here... What does the alternative interpretation of Trader do that is different? I'm not seeing the ambiguity...

Whether Trader "interrupts the gaining process" to replace the card with a Silver, or cancels the whole gaining process and creates a new one.
This came up with the question Ironworks + Trader, although it's also implied in the rulebook (since it says that the Silver will come from supply and go to your discard pile no matter what the other card was gonna do). If Trader just replaced the Silver, Ironworks would get you +$1 and there would be no question about what "it" refers to.

Hmm, alright. But I think Ironworks would fail to give you a bonus with either interpretation of Trader. There would still be a question of whether "it" refers to the card Ironworks originally tried to gain (and didn't) or whatever card was ultimately gained.

Ironworks aside, the issue also came up originally with Torturer. If you use Trader to get a Silver instead of a Curse, that Silver goes to your discard pile. If Torturer only replaces the card that you were gaining, a supposed to replacing the gain itself with a different event (also a gain), then th Silver would go to your hand.

So where does the silver end up? It's quite possible I've been playing trader wrong.

In your discard pile.

[Asper]

- Trader: That the whole gain is canceled instead of Silver replacing the card is only in the rulebook.

- Inheritance: Doesn't state when an Estate is yours.

These are really stretching. The rulebook explains what "when you would gain" and "your [cardName]" mean and it's fine to have those rules there. This is like complaining that you have to look in the rulebook to see what "+3 Cards" means on Smithy.

I agree on Trader, but Inheritance triggering on buy is not at all obvious from my perspective.

Edit: I guess there are two pieces of my confusion here: First, is "mine" about possession or property? Maybe the bought card is my property, but obviously it wouldn't be worth any points if the game ended this instant, would it? It's not part of my kingdom. Given that cards bought by one player can become part of what another player "has" with Masquerade, and that you can actually not end up not having something you bought thanks to Trader, my intuition would tell me Dominion is about actual possession, and not owning stuff.

Second: Doesn't ownership change AFTER buying? I mean, did I buy an Estate that's mine? Probably not, right? I bought the supply's Estate, now it's mine, I gain my Estate.

[Donald X.]

I agree on Trader, but Inheritance triggering on buy is not at all obvious from my perspective.

I don't think it's obvious, but I did think that anyone Inheriting a card with a +Buy trigger was going to expect to do that trigger. So that's how the rules work there.

[pacovf]

Second: Doesn't ownership change AFTER buying? I mean, did I buy an Estate that's mine? Probably not, right? I bought the supply's Estate, now it's mine, I gain my Estate.

Sorry had to

[Asper]

It's interesting to me how different games can be.

Dominion barely has any hardcoded interactions at all, which I find immensely impressive, as for the most part, you can just logically deduce how things have to be. On the other hand, theme is without meaning, gameplay-wise.

Another one of my favourite games has dozends of hardcoded interactions. However, it is also immensely thematic, which means you can always just go with what "makes sense".

This isn't really an answer to anything, it just occured to me when thinking about how people approach unclear rules.