Print

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

[werothegreat]

Grand Castle just mentions Victory cards "in play", not that *you* have in play.  Does that mean that if my Platinum is Swindled into a Grand Castle on my opponent's turn, and he has a Great Hall in play, I should get +1 from his Great Hall, in addition to the from any Victory cards in my hand?

[Roadrunner7671]

Yes, that is the (edge) case.

[Donald X.]

Grand Castle just mentions Victory cards "in play", not that *you* have in play.  Does that mean that if my Platinum is Swindled into a Grand Castle on my opponent's turn, and he has a Great Hall in play, I should get +1 from his Great Hall, in addition to the from any Victory cards in my hand?

Yes.

[Jeebus]

Grand Castle just mentions Victory cards "in play", not that *you* have in play.  Does that mean that if my Platinum is Swindled into a Grand Castle on my opponent's turn, and he has a Great Hall in play, I should get +1 from his Great Hall, in addition to the from any Victory cards in my hand?

Yes.

So if I have my Estate token on a Fishing Village (or other Duration), and you buy Grand Castle, you get +1 VP for every Estate I have in play? I would have thought "in your hand and/or in play" was short for "that you have in your hand and/or have in play". That's just the common sense interpretation (according to my sense of English), but I guess you're going for the literal parsing here.

[Donald X.]

Grand Castle just mentions Victory cards "in play", not that *you* have in play.  Does that mean that if my Platinum is Swindled into a Grand Castle on my opponent's turn, and he has a Great Hall in play, I should get +1 from his Great Hall, in addition to the from any Victory cards in my hand?

Yes.

So if I have my Estate token on a Fishing Village (or other Duration), and you buy Grand Castle, you get +1 VP for every Estate I have in play? I would have thought "in your hand and/or in play" was short for "that you have in your hand and/or have in play". That's just the common sense interpretation (according to my sense of English), but I guess you're going for the literal parsing here.

I have chosen to go with the literal interpretation.

[Jeebus]

Grand Castle just mentions Victory cards "in play", not that *you* have in play.  Does that mean that if my Platinum is Swindled into a Grand Castle on my opponent's turn, and he has a Great Hall in play, I should get +1 from his Great Hall, in addition to the from any Victory cards in my hand?

Yes.

So if I have my Estate token on a Fishing Village (or other Duration), and you buy Grand Castle, you get +1 VP for every Estate I have in play? I would have thought "in your hand and/or in play" was short for "that you have in your hand and/or have in play". That's just the common sense interpretation (according to my sense of English), but I guess you're going for the literal parsing here.

I have chosen to go with the literal interpretation.

I see. That made me wonder about "in play" though.

If "in play" considers all play areas (rather than just the player who is addressed by the ability), what makes Lighthouse just work for the player who has it in play, rather than all the players? I mean, a card with "when you buy/gain this" works for any player. Why doesn't "when another player plays an Attack card" work for any player in the same way (as long as Lighthouse is "in play")?

[AdrianHealey]

Grand Castle just mentions Victory cards "in play", not that *you* have in play.  Does that mean that if my Platinum is Swindled into a Grand Castle on my opponent's turn, and he has a Great Hall in play, I should get +1 from his Great Hall, in addition to the from any Victory cards in my hand?

Yes.

So if I have my Estate token on a Fishing Village (or other Duration), and you buy Grand Castle, you get +1 VP for every Estate I have in play? I would have thought "in your hand and/or in play" was short for "that you have in your hand and/or have in play". That's just the common sense interpretation (according to my sense of English), but I guess you're going for the literal parsing here.

I have chosen to go with the literal interpretation.

I see. That made me wonder about "in play" though.

If "in play" considers all play areas (rather than just the player who is addressed by the ability), what makes Lighthouse just work for the player who has it in play, rather than all the players? I mean, a card with "when you buy/gain this" works for any player. Why doesn't "when another player plays an Attack card" work for any player in the same way (as long as Lighthouse is "in play")?

Cause it explicitly says: 'doesn't affect you'?

[GendoIkari]

Grand Castle just mentions Victory cards "in play", not that *you* have in play.  Does that mean that if my Platinum is Swindled into a Grand Castle on my opponent's turn, and he has a Great Hall in play, I should get +1 from his Great Hall, in addition to the from any Victory cards in my hand?

Yes.

So if I have my Estate token on a Fishing Village (or other Duration), and you buy Grand Castle, you get +1 VP for every Estate I have in play? I would have thought "in your hand and/or in play" was short for "that you have in your hand and/or have in play". That's just the common sense interpretation (according to my sense of English), but I guess you're going for the literal parsing here.

I have chosen to go with the literal interpretation.

I see. That made me wonder about "in play" though.

If "in play" considers all play areas (rather than just the player who is addressed by the ability), what makes Lighthouse just work for the player who has it in play, rather than all the players? I mean, a card with "when you buy/gain this" works for any player. Why doesn't "when another player plays an Attack card" work for any player in the same way (as long as Lighthouse is "in play")?

Cause it explicitly says: 'doesn't affect you'?

This sounds right. "Another player" is defined as "a player other than the player who played this card." And "you" is defined as "the player who played this card." So Lighthouse reads as:

"While this is in play, when a player other than the player who played this card plays an Attack card, it doesn't affect the player who played this card."

[Donald X.]

If "in play" considers all play areas (rather than just the player who is addressed by the ability), what makes Lighthouse just work for the player who has it in play, rather than all the players? I mean, a card with "when you buy/gain this" works for any player. Why doesn't "when another player plays an Attack card" work for any player in the same way (as long as Lighthouse is "in play")?

Lighthouse's text is addressing a specific player. It's fair to say, how do we know which player is being addressed? It's not as clear as it could be, probably because it never confused anyone ever in that form. It is addressing the player who played it though.

It would be reasonable to make a card that more specifically cared about cards in play no matter whose cards they were; a duration card could have such an ability where the card itself was making sure the situation could come up (so that there was any point to it). Probably it would clarify in parentheses that everyone's copies counted, because that would be a common question. It's probably not a common question with Grand Castle.

I considered this with Grand Castle when working on it - that technically it counted other players' cards - and decided that that was okay.

[Jeebus]

Ok, I understand that the intention of Lighthouse is to address the player who played it, so it's kind of like an unwritten clause there that amounts to more or less what GendoIkari said.

I don't mean to keep an argument about this going. But I do want to say that it's wrong to say that this is explicitly stated on Lighthouse. There is no clear connection between the play ability and the when-in-play ability. As I said, "when you buy/gain" is addressing "you" without it meaning the player who played the card (and of course nobody played it). We could imagine a card "Hands" that moves a card "Hot Potato" from one player's play area to another, and Hot Potato saying "while you have this in play, when you buy a card, gain a Curse" or something. On that card "you" does not mean "the player who played this card". There's nothing in the known rules of Dominion prohibiting such a card from existing. (Of course, there could be a rule as-of-yet unstated by Donald prohibiting it.)

[eHalcyon]

As I said, "when you buy/gain" is addressing "you" without it meaning the player who played the card (and of course nobody played it).

In that case, "you" obviously refers to the player who bought or gained the card.

We could imagine a card "Hands" that moves a card "Hot Potato" from one player's play area to another, and Hot Potato saying "while you have this in play, when you buy a card, gain a Curse" or something. On that card "you" does not mean "the player who played this card". There's nothing in the known rules of Dominion prohibiting such a card from existing. (Of course, there could be a rule as-of-yet unstated by Donald prohibiting it.)

How do we know "you" doesn't mean "the player who played this card"?  This is all hypothetical, so maybe it does mean that.  Certainly it could also mean "the player whose play area this card is in", but that's not the only possible interpretation.  Surely this would be clarified in the rulebook, or phrased so as to be less ambiguous, or get scrapped during the playtesting process. 

Maybe for cards in play, "you" always refers to whoever's play area it's in; that works fine for Lighthouse too.  But for right now, it doesn't seem like a rule that needs to be made.

[chipperMDW]

Grand Castle just mentions Victory cards "in play", not that *you* have in play.  Does that mean that if my Platinum is Swindled into a Grand Castle on my opponent's turn, and he has a Great Hall in play, I should get +1 from his Great Hall, in addition to the from any Victory cards in my hand?

Yes.

So if I have my Estate token on a Fishing Village (or other Duration), and you buy Grand Castle, you get +1 VP for every Estate I have in play? I would have thought "in your hand and/or in play" was short for "that you have in your hand and/or have in play". That's just the common sense interpretation (according to my sense of English), but I guess you're going for the literal parsing here.

I have chosen to go with the literal interpretation.

I see. That made me wonder about "in play" though.

If "in play" considers all play areas (rather than just the player who is addressed by the ability), what makes Lighthouse just work for the player who has it in play, rather than all the players? I mean, a card with "when you buy/gain this" works for any player. Why doesn't "when another player plays an Attack card" work for any player in the same way (as long as Lighthouse is "in play")?

Cause it explicitly says: 'doesn't affect you'?

This sounds right. "Another player" is defined as "a player other than the player who played this card." And "you" is defined as "the player who played this card." So Lighthouse reads as:

"While this is in play, when a player other than the player who played this card plays an Attack card, it doesn't affect the player who played this card."

I think the question is why some abilities (Lighthouse, Goons, Talisman, etc.) operate in a context where "you" means a specific player, while other abilities (Border Village, Farmland, Duchess, etc.) operate in a context where "you" is shorthand for "any player."  And where they get that context from.

Imagine that, someday, there's a way to get any card into play without having played it. "Choose a card in the trash and put it in play without playing it" (don't make that card, Donald).  So, the "while this is in play" abilities should still work in general, right?  I mean, nobody would have any problems with Highway there.  But then what would Lighthouse do?  Who would "you" be at that point?   Do you say "Oh, I guess 'you' is now also the player who puts a card into play"?  Would Lighthouse's ability even mean anything in that case? (Those are rhetorical questions, by the way; not asking for an actual ruling.)

It's almost like stuff like Lighthouse's second ability should actually be above the horizontal line. So they would set up that state while they were still in a context where "you" meant the specific player who played the card.  And if they somehow got into play without being played, no big deal; the state that would refer to "you" never even got set up. (That interpretation would make the Hot Potato thing Jeebus posted while I was typing this not work, though. The Hot Potato would probably have to say "while this is yours" or something.)


EDIT:
Actually, Haunted Woods and Swamp Hag already do things that way.  Above the horizontal line (well, ok, there is no horizontal line), they set up a state that refers to "any other player."  So they do that in a context where that concept is meaningful (because "you" refers to a specific player).

[Donald X.]

We could imagine a card "Hands" that moves a card "Hot Potato" from one player's play area to another, and Hot Potato saying "while you have this in play, when you buy a card, gain a Curse" or something. On that card "you" does not mean "the player who played this card". There's nothing in the known rules of Dominion prohibiting such a card from existing. (Of course, there could be a rule as-of-yet unstated by Donald prohibiting it.)

On the hypothetical card you provide, "you" would mean the same "you" as "while you have this in play," which thus narrows it down to one player.

There could be a card with a rule that applied to everyone while it was in play (along the lines we mean - there are existing cards that have such rules, e.g. Highway). It would try to be very clear because people would need that clarity to understand it.

[Donald X.]

I think the question is why some abilities (Lighthouse, Goons, Talisman, etc.) operate in a context where "you" means a specific player, while other abilities (Border Village, Farmland, Duchess, etc.) operate in a context where "you" is shorthand for "any player."  And where they get that context from.

The answer of course is just that I am trying to give cards good wordings, that make it clear what they do and how they interact with other cards. They can't be maximally friendly because interactions wouldn't be clear, but they can't be computer programs because many people would pass on playing that game. No-one has ever asked before "wait who is this you person below the line on these cards." So I think those wordings did the trick and avoided confusing people, hooray.

It has been possible for years to play Royal Seal via Black Market, then Ambassador a card; the question of "wait can I put the card on my deck" has not come up. People get that Royal Seal is talking about them, and that Border Village is talking about them; it's hard to spot that there's a question there to ask.

In my imagination, "you" in what-this-does-when-played is the person who played the card, and "you" is the person reading the card on things that happen at other times (i.e. "any player"). I don't think this is precisely stated anywhere. And it does not work for certain below-the-line things like Lighthouse. To be technically correct they would need to say e.g. "while you have this in play," and then you have to ask, is that really an improvement (repeat speech about friendly texts vs. computer programs). Changing it might create questions - why is this one different, oh do they not work how I thought.

[chipperMDW]

I think the question is why some abilities (Lighthouse, Goons, Talisman, etc.) operate in a context where "you" means a specific player, while other abilities (Border Village, Farmland, Duchess, etc.) operate in a context where "you" is shorthand for "any player."  And where they get that context from.

The answer of course is just that I am trying to give cards good wordings, that make it clear what they do and how they interact with other cards. They can't be maximally friendly because interactions wouldn't be clear, but they can't be computer programs because many people would pass on playing that game. No-one has ever asked before "wait who is this you person below the line on these cards." So I think those wordings did the trick and avoided confusing people, hooray.

Yeah, that all makes good sense.

So, when I started typing my post that said "I think the question is...", the posts I replied to were the last ones there, and I was trying to explain to those people what I understood Jeebus to be asking about.  And then your post and a lot of other posts happened while I was typing and I posted it anyway.  I guess it probably ended up sounding like I wrote it after your reply and was dissatisfied and said "answer more of this," and that's not what I meant it to sound like.  Sorry if I caused any misunderstanding.

[Donald X.]

Yeah, that all makes good sense.

So, when I started typing my post that said "I think the question is...", the posts I replied to were the last ones there, and I was trying to explain to those people what I understood Jeebus to be asking about.  And then your post and a lot of other posts happened while I was typing and I posted it anyway.  I guess it probably ended up sounding like I wrote it after your reply and was dissatisfied and said "answer more of this," and that's not what I meant it to sound like.  Sorry if I caused any misunderstanding.

There are no problems, everyone is happy.

[Jeebus]

Imagine that, someday, there's a way to get any card into play without having played it. "Choose a card in the trash and put it in play without playing it" (don't make that card, Donald).  So, the "while this is in play" abilities should still work in general, right?  I mean, nobody would have any problems with Highway there.  But then what would Lighthouse do?  Who would "you" be at that point?   Do you say "Oh, I guess 'you' is now also the player who puts a card into play"?  Would Lighthouse's ability even mean anything in that case? (Those are rhetorical questions, by the way; not asking for an actual ruling.)

Well, given what I've learned in this thread, if such a card would someday exist, and it moved Lighthouse or Highway to play, they wouldn't do anything, since they implicitly refer to the player who played the card, not to whoever has it in play. (And so since it's not explicitly stated who "you" refers to on Lighthouse, Highway etc, such a card could probably never exist; it would be too confusing.)

[Jeebus]

We could imagine a card "Hands" that moves a card "Hot Potato" from one player's play area to another, and Hot Potato saying "while you have this in play, when you buy a card, gain a Curse" or something. On that card "you" does not mean "the player who played this card". There's nothing in the known rules of Dominion prohibiting such a card from existing. (Of course, there could be a rule as-of-yet unstated by Donald prohibiting it.)

On the hypothetical card you provide, "you" would mean the same "you" as "while you have this in play," which thus narrows it down to one player.

Yes, exactly. I was trying to illustrate (for those that didn't get it) how "you" in while-in-play abilities does not explicitly refer to the player who played the card. Nobody even played Hot Potato. In Lighthouse that's implicit, not explicit. Following the card text literally, "you" below the line on Lighthouse is "any player", as you state here:

In my imagination, "you" in what-this-does-when-played is the person who played the card, and "you" is the person reading the card on things that happen at other times (i.e. "any player"). I don't think this is precisely stated anywhere. And it does not work for certain below-the-line things like Lighthouse.

I'm pretty sure it hasn't been stated, but to me it's self-evident, given the other rules, especially that all play abilities have an implicit "when you play this". That's why I assumed that "while this is in play" meant "while this is in your play area" or somesuch. (Anyway, I've gotten my answer, thanks.)

[AJD]

Imagine that, someday, there's a way to get any card into play without having played it. "Choose a card in the trash and put it in play without playing it" (don't make that card, Donald).  So, the "while this is in play" abilities should still work in general, right?  I mean, nobody would have any problems with Highway there.  But then what would Lighthouse do?  Who would "you" be at that point?   Do you say "Oh, I guess 'you' is now also the player who puts a card into play"?  Would Lighthouse's ability even mean anything in that case? (Those are rhetorical questions, by the way; not asking for an actual ruling.)

Well, given what I've learned in this thread, if such a card would someday exist, and it moved Lighthouse or Highway to play, they wouldn't do anything, since they implicitly refer to the player who played the card, not to whoever has it in play.

I'm certain this is wrong.

[Jeebus]

Imagine that, someday, there's a way to get any card into play without having played it. "Choose a card in the trash and put it in play without playing it" (don't make that card, Donald).  So, the "while this is in play" abilities should still work in general, right?  I mean, nobody would have any problems with Highway there.  But then what would Lighthouse do?  Who would "you" be at that point?   Do you say "Oh, I guess 'you' is now also the player who puts a card into play"?  Would Lighthouse's ability even mean anything in that case? (Those are rhetorical questions, by the way; not asking for an actual ruling.)

Well, given what I've learned in this thread, if such a card would someday exist, and it moved Lighthouse or Highway to play, they wouldn't do anything, since they implicitly refer to the player who played the card, not to whoever has it in play.

I'm certain this is wrong.

Oh. I thought it was pretty clear, but maybe I misunderstood something.

On Grand Castle, "in play" means whichever play area (not just the play area of the player being addressed).

So by inference, "in play" means whichever play area also on Lighthouse. Therefore I asked Donald how we know that the ability only applies to the player who has it in play. The answer was that the unstated part of the card is that it's addressing the player who played it.

The answer was not that it's addressing whoever has it in play. I took it to mean that the words "in play" in "while this is in play" are exactly like on Grand Castle, referring to whichever play area. (I mean, why make a ruling on Grand Castle following a literal reading of "in play" if the meaning of "in play" on all other cards is the opposite?)

[LastFootnote]

"While this is in play" refers to the same thing on Grand Castle and on Lighthouse. But Lighthouse says "you". And the only common-sense ruling there is that "you" refers to the owner of the card. If it's your Lighthouse, you're the one who is protected. And if it's in your play area, it's yours, regardless of how it got there.

[Jeebus]

"While this is in play" refers to the same thing on Grand Castle and on Lighthouse. But Lighthouse says "you". And the only common-sense ruling there is that "you" refers to the owner of the card. If it's your Lighthouse, you're the one who is protected. And if it's in your play area, it's yours, regardless of how it got there.

Sure, I agree that card ownership would be a common-sense ruling. It's not the explanation Donald gave though.

[GendoIkari]

The fact is that the owner of the card, the person who played the card, and the person who has the card in their play area are always the same person in Dominion... at least for now. So until some new card is created that lets you put a card from your hand into an opponent's play area, all these possible interpretations are actually the same thing.

[Jeebus]

The fact is that the owner of the card, the person who played the card, and the person who has the card in their play area are always the same person in Dominion... at least for now. So until some new card is created that lets you put a card from your hand into an opponent's play area, all these possible interpretations are actually the same thing.

Yeah, I don't think anybody has disputed that?

(Edit: The meaning of "in play" though, matters. Because of that, we need to assume certain unstated meaning on Lighthouse, but as you say, there are a couple of interpretations that work.)

[AJD]

The fact is that the owner of the card, the person who played the card, and the person who has the card in their play area are always the same person in Dominion... at least for now. So until some new card is created that lets you put a card from your hand into an opponent's play area, all these possible interpretations are actually the same thing.

Yeah, I don't think anybody has disputed that?

(Edit: The meaning of "in play" though, matters. Because of that, we need to assume certain unstated meaning on Lighthouse, but as you say, there are a couple of interpretations that work.)

The meaning of "in play" is not in dispute. The only thing at issue here as far as I can tell is who "you" refers to in various contexts.

[Jeebus]

The fact is that the owner of the card, the person who played the card, and the person who has the card in their play area are always the same person in Dominion... at least for now. So until some new card is created that lets you put a card from your hand into an opponent's play area, all these possible interpretations are actually the same thing.

Yeah, I don't think anybody has disputed that?

(Edit: The meaning of "in play" though, matters. Because of that, we need to assume certain unstated meaning on Lighthouse, but as you say, there are a couple of interpretations that work.)

The meaning of "in play" is not in dispute. The only thing at issue here as far as I can tell is who "you" refers to in various contexts.

I was just stating how the issue at the heart of this, at least for me, is that "in play" doesn't mean what I thought before this thread. As I wrote: I assumed that "while this is in play" meant "while this is in your play area" or somesuch.
And the reason I thought that, was the fact that that meaning would actually make Lighthouse etc. work without any further implied meaning of who "you" is. But since it doesn't mean that, we need some further implied meaning.

I'm a little bit confused what you and a few other people are trying to express. You said that you were certain that a hypothetical was wrong, with no explanation then or since. After that a few other people have posted mostly redundant things. Or maybe I'm not getting it.

Of course this post was also redundant. :p

[AJD]

The fact is that the owner of the card, the person who played the card, and the person who has the card in their play area are always the same person in Dominion... at least for now. So until some new card is created that lets you put a card from your hand into an opponent's play area, all these possible interpretations are actually the same thing.

Yeah, I don't think anybody has disputed that?

(Edit: The meaning of "in play" though, matters. Because of that, we need to assume certain unstated meaning on Lighthouse, but as you say, there are a couple of interpretations that work.)

The meaning of "in play" is not in dispute. The only thing at issue here as far as I can tell is who "you" refers to in various contexts.

I was just stating how the issue at the heart of this, at least for me, is that "in play" doesn't mean what I thought before this thread. As I wrote: I assumed that "while this is in play" meant "while this is in your play area" or somesuch.

This remains true.

And the reason I thought that, was the fact that that meaning would actually make Lighthouse etc. work without any further implied meaning of who "you" is.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. This interpretation is a "futher implied meaning of who 'you' is". That's the only thing you've posited here. Saying that "while this is in play" means 'while this is in your play area' is the same as saying that "you"  within the scope of a "while this is in play" refers to the person whose play area it's in. Which is correct.

But since it doesn't mean that, we need some further implied meaning.

I'm a little bit confused what you and a few other people are trying to express. You said that you were certain that a hypothetical was wrong, with no explanation then or since.

Your inference that "you" within the scope of "while this is in play" would refer to the person who played a card rather than the person whose play area the card is in, in the hypothetical scenario that those could be different, is not well-supported in the text of this thread (even though Donald has said that, in a case where they were likely to be different, he would probably use more specific wording); and your conclusion that this would continue to apply even if it were possible for a card to be in play without anyone having played it is a further inference beyond that and even less supported.  I don't see where your inference that Highway would have no effect in this scenario comes from at all, since its text doesn't even contain "you".

[Jeebus]

I was just stating how the issue at the heart of this, at least for me, is that "in play" doesn't mean what I thought before this thread. As I wrote: I assumed that "while this is in play" meant "while this is in your play area" or somesuch.

This remains true.

And the reason I thought that, was the fact that that meaning would actually make Lighthouse etc. work without any further implied meaning of who "you" is.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. This interpretation is a "futher implied meaning of who 'you' is". That's the only thing you've posited here. Saying that "while this is in play" means 'while this is in your play area' is the same as saying that "you"  within the scope of a "while this is in play" refers to the person whose play area it's in. Which is correct.

I guess the meaning of "in play" is in dispute after all then. :p

Edit, since I didn't reply according to exactly what you wrote:
Yes, it's the same (but not correct). What I meant was, I thought the meaning of "in play" with no other specification, meant "your play area". I think that's more of an implied meaning of what "in play" means, rather than what "you" means, but no matter. Since it in fact doesn't mean that, we need a further (or another, whatever) implied meaning of who is referred to by the word "you" in the actual ability that is active whenever the card is in a play area.

But since it doesn't mean that, we need some further implied meaning.

I'm a little bit confused what you and a few other people are trying to express. You said that you were certain that a hypothetical was wrong, with no explanation then or since.

Your inference that "you" within the scope of "while this is in play" would refer to the person who played a card rather than the person whose play area the card is in, in the hypothetical scenario that those could be different, is not well-supported in the text of this thread (even though Donald has said that, in a case where they were likely to be different, he would probably use more specific wording); and your conclusion that this would continue to apply even if it were possible for a card to be in play without anyone having played it is a further inference beyond that and even less supported.  I don't see where your inference that Highway would have no effect in this scenario comes from at all, since its text doesn't even contain "you".

Well, I went with what Donald said. It could also be based on card ownership, but he didn't even mention card ownership.

It could not be solely based on having the card in your play area (only as a result of card ownership, as stated by LastFootnote), because "in play" specifically means "in any play area". In other words, "while this is in play" applies to all players, but the "you" in the text that follows applies to a specific player. According to Donald, that player is the player who played the card. If you say that in "while this is in play", "in play" actually means "your play area", the Grand Castle ruling is very inconsistent. Luckily, Donald's reply did not support that it does.

You're right about Highway. I was thinking about cards like Goons etc, and not thinking about what Highway actually says. :p

[AJD]

But since it doesn't mean that, we need some further implied meaning.

I'm a little bit confused what you and a few other people are trying to express. You said that you were certain that a hypothetical was wrong, with no explanation then or since.

Your inference that "you" within the scope of "while this is in play" would refer to the person who played a card rather than the person whose play area the card is in, in the hypothetical scenario that those could be different, is not well-supported in the text of this thread (even though Donald has said that, in a case where they were likely to be different, he would probably use more specific wording); and your conclusion that this would continue to apply even if it were possible for a card to be in play without anyone having played it is a further inference beyond that and even less supported.  I don't see where your inference that Highway would have no effect in this scenario comes from at all, since its text doesn't even contain "you".

Well, I went with what Donald said. It could also be based on card ownership, but he didn't even mention card ownership.

I don't think what Donald said supports your point.

He said: "Lighthouse's text is addressing a specific player.... It is addressing the player who played it though."

I assume this is what you're thinking of when you say that Donald said the meaning of "you" in the scope of "while this is in play" is 'the person who played the card'. However, that's not actually what Donald said here—he said that the person being addressed is the person who played the card, but not that they're being addressed by virtue of having played the card (instead of by virtue of having the card in their play area). The person who played the card is the person with the card in their play area, so the fact that that person is being addressed—they are the semantic extension of "you" on the card—does not disambiguate what the semantic intension is.

Donald also said: "To be technically correct [cards like Lighthouse] would need to say e.g. 'while you have this in play.'" This is a statement about the intension of how cards like Lighthouse are meant to be interpreted, and is incompatible with your hypothesis that a Lighthouse somehow placed in play without anyone playing it would not protect its owner. If you want you can consider this a miswording like the text of Nomad Camp; I don't agree with you on that, but I don't think the ruling is ambiguous in any case.

It could not be solely based on having the card in your play area (only as a result of card ownership, as stated by LastFootnote), because "in play" specifically means "in any play area". In other words, "while this is in play" applies to all players, but the "you" in the text that follows applies to a specific player. According to Donald, that player is the player who played the card.

The player who played the card is the player whose play area it's in.

If you say that in "while this is in play", "in play" actually means "your play area", the Grand Castle ruling is very inconsistent.

Grand Castle doesn't say "while this is in play".

But I continue to insist that what's at issue here is not the meaning of "in play" but the meaning of "you", because I think you're equivocating on whether "you" is to be treated as a bound or free variable (roughly speaking). The difference between "while this is in play" and "while this is in your play area" as a statement of when a card ability is active is not in the condition that they establish, but in how the pronoun "you" is bound. The latter explicitly defines "you" (i.e., identifies the person being addressed) as the person with Lighthouse in their play area; and then "you" showing up later in the text would be bound to that definition. The real text of Lighthouse, as you note, doesn't make that explicit definition of the variable, and so then when "you" shows up under the scope of "while this is in play" it's as an unbound pronoun and we need to figure out who it refers to; and the convention or implication is that it refers to the person whose play area it's in.

Contrast this with Grand Castle. Grand Castle says "when you gain this"—thus defining "you" as referring to the person who gains the card, and any future occurrences of "you" in the card text are bound to that referent of "you". In this context, "in play" and "in your play area" have very different meanings, because which "you" is already a bound variable—i.e., because the referent of "you" has already been defined.

But on Lighthouse, "when this is in play" and "when this is in your play area" have the same functional meaning, because the referent of "you" is not yet bound to a specific player.

[AJD]

(I'm a sociophonetician, but here I am trying to talk about semantics. Well, so it goes.)

[Kirian]

The fact is that the owner of the card, the person who played the card, and the person who has the card in their play area are always the same person in Dominion... at least for now. So until some new card is created that lets you put a card from your hand into an opponent's play area, all these possible interpretations are actually the same thing.

Yeah, I don't think anybody has disputed that?

(Edit: The meaning of "in play" though, matters. Because of that, we need to assume certain unstated meaning on Lighthouse, but as you say, there are a couple of interpretations that work.)

The meaning of "in play" is not in dispute. The only thing at issue here as far as I can tell is who "you" refers to in various contexts.

Paging Bill Clinton...

[LastFootnote]

"In play" means: in the play area of any player. "You" on wihle-in-play effects refers to the player whose play area the card is in. This is not rocket science.

[Jeebus]

Ok, I think I understand now, and I grant you that what you're saying works too.

You're saying that "you" on Lighthouse could refer to "the player whose play area this is in". So you're saying this, I think: Lighthouse says that while it's in the play area of any player, the player whose play area it's in, gets the effect. Well, it's certainly not intuitive, but as I said, it works, and with a consistent definition of "in play". (Although it kind of seems like it's inconsistent, it's not when you look hard and squint.)

"You" could still be the player who owns the card or the player who played it. (I don't see that your argumentation supports a claim that it couldn't.) But the second quote from Donald seems to support your definition.

[Donald X.]

"In play" means: in the play area of any player. "You" on wihle-in-play effects refers to the player whose play area the card is in. This is not rocket science.

Correct, except, it is equivalent and I think simpler to think of it as, "while this is in play" is implicitly "while you have this in play" (though this would be confusing on cards that don't refer to "you," e.g. Highway).

Again I am not sure if being explicit would be better there; maybe. Again it hasn't caused questions prior to this.

It is a dead-end to talk about "what if a card ends up in play without it being anyone's card." In case anyone thinks of it, I am also not too interested in, what if I play a Lighthouse and then eat it?

[Deadlock39]

How did the FDA let you get away with not printing the nutritional value of the cards on the box?

[Jeebus]

It is a dead-end to talk about "what if a card ends up in play without it being anyone's card."

I don't think anyone asked that in this thread. The question that was asked was, what if a card ends up being in play without being played. Not too crazy, considering Reserve cards. Of course, no Reserve cards currently exist with "while this is in play". But hypotheticals can sometimes help us to arrive at an understanding of the actual current rule. I think people are going to continue to employ them for that reason.

[SuperHans]

How did the FDA let you get away with not printing the nutritional value of the cards on the box?

I can't believe they changed the recipe for the Adventures cards.

[GendoIkari]

In case anyone thinks of it, I am also not too interested in, what if I play a Lighthouse and then eat it?

But you've ruled in the past that sometimes you have to play until everyone starves to death. In these games, I think eating a Lighthouse could be relevant.