Print

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

[Jeebus]

I'm hoping someone can help me out here. In compiling the complete rules for Dominion, I've written down the following rule.

A) When several abilities happen at the same time, after determining the order of the abilities, resolve all of them, even if the condition that triggered an ability changes before that ability is resolved.

There's also a second part:

B) However, if an ability refers to a card which is no longer defined (for instance a "gained card" that wasn't gained after all), then that ability can't be carried out.

But it's the first part (A) I'm concerned with now, and specifically the bolded part. It's a rule I've been having in my head, but I can't source it to anything official. I know of several posts by forum members where it's mentioned. But what I'm after is a post where Donald refers to the rule, or any place in any rulebook where it's implicit (since I doubt that it's explicitly stated anywhere), or any ruling by Donald where it's implicit.

I'm even having a hard time thinking of examples where it would apply. But I managed to come up with one: I buy a Mandarin with Royal Seal in play. Royal Seal's when-gain triggers because it's in play. I elect to resolve the Mandarin's when-gain first, putting all Treasures on top of my deck. Then I resolve Royal Seal's when-gain even though it's no longer in play, and put the Mandarin on the deck. According to this rule, this is allowed. On isotropic it also works.

So I want to confirm that the above is correct, and that the rule is correct. And any other examples where it would apply would be greatly appreciated.

[Kirian]

It seems to me that's a bug with Isotropic, unless I'm missing something.  Consider the parallel situation of Alchemist-Herbalist, where in top-decking the only Potion in play (via Herbalist) causes all the Alchemists to fail.

Top-decking the Royal Seal ought to cause RS's on-buy ability to fail; it's no longer in play.

[dondon151]

Technically they're both on-gain abilities, not on-buy abilities.

In the case where one buys Mint instead of Mandarin (with Royal Seal in play), Mint's on-buy ability resolves before Royal Seal's on-gain ability can be resolved, and you can't top-deck Mint.

[Jeebus]

Consider the parallel situation of Alchemist-Herbalist, where in top-decking the only Potion in play (via Herbalist) causes all the Alchemists to fail.

That's not the same thing; that is to say, the Alchemist-Herbalist case does not invoke this rule. Two abilities don't resolve at the same time, as in the Mandarin+Royal Seal case. You discard cards from play one at a time, so you have separate discarding events for each card, which may trigger when-discard effects like Herbalist's or Alchemist's.
Mandarin and Royal Seal both trigger at the exact same time, when gaining the Mandarin.

Technically they're both on-gain abilities, not on-buy abilities.

Thanks! Fixed. I knew that, just screwed up when writing the post.

[Anon79]

Isn't there an on-buy version too: buying Mint with Talisman & Quarry in play?

[Jeebus]

Isn't there an on-buy version too: buying Mint with Talisman & Quarry in play?

As far as I can see, all of the cases involving Mint, Talisman, Quarry and Royal Seal neither confirms or refutes the rule.

Play Talisman and Quarry, buy Mint. Talisman's when-buy and Mint's when-buy trigger. You do Talisman's first, so you gain another Mint. Then Mint's when-buy, trashing alle the Treasures. Now if you did Mint's first, trashing the Talisman, would you still gain another Mint? You would if this rule is correct. But since you can just choose to do Talisman's when-gain first, I don't think this has ever come up.

Play Talisman, Quarry and Royal Seal, buy Mint. Talisman's when-buy and Mint's when-buy trigger. You do Talisman's first, so you gain another Mint. Now Royal Seal's when-gain triggers for the second Mint, so you put it on your deck. The first Mint's when-buy happens, trashing all Treasures. Then the first Mint's when-gain happens, but now there's no Royal Seal in play. The rule wasn't invoked on this one, since the Royal Seal's when-gain never triggered for the first Mint.

[Anon79]

Isn't there an on-buy version too: buying Mint with Talisman & Quarry in play?

As far as I can see, all of the cases involving Mint, Talisman, Quarry and Royal Seal neither confirms or refutes the rule.

Play Talisman and Quarry, buy Mint. Talisman's when-buy and Mint's when-buy trigger. You do Talisman's first, so you gain another Mint. Then Mint's when-buy, trashing alle the Treasures. Now if you did Mint's first, trashing the Talisman, would you still gain another Mint? You would if this rule is correct. But since you can just choose to do Talisman's when-gain first, I don't think this has ever come up.

Play Talisman, Quarry and Royal Seal, buy Mint. Talisman's when-buy and Mint's when-buy trigger. You do Talisman's first, so you gain another Mint. Now Royal Seal's when-gain triggers for the second Mint, so you put it on your deck. The first Mint's when-buy happens, trashing all Treasures. Then the first Mint's when-gain happens, but now there's no Royal Seal in play. The rule wasn't invoked on this one, since the Royal Seal's when-gain never triggered for the first Mint.

Bolded the part where it does occur. If Talisman's does occur, you cannot choose to refuse the second Mint by resolving Mint's effect first.

[Jeebus]

Seems like I've stumped the band. Here's hoping Donald at least confirms whether this concrete case with Royal Seal and Mandarin is correct. Please?

[Donald X.]

Seems like I've stumped the band. Here's hoping Donald at least confirms whether this concrete case with Royal Seal and Mandarin is correct. Please?

When two things trigger at the same time, you determine the order to resolve them (current player picks or go in turn order, depending), then resolve them. The resolution of the first won't stop us from trying to resolve the second. So isotropic has Royal Seal / Mandarin right.

[Jeebus]

won't stop us from trying to resolve the second. So isotropic has Royal Seal / Mandarin right.

Thank you! Now I know the rule is correct. If only I knew where I'd gotten it from in the first place. (It's not from Royal Seal+Mandarin or Mint+Quarry+Talisman.)
At least I can use this thread as a source. (Creating my own sources is not very encyclopedic.)