Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Hypothetical rules question about Curse cards  (Read 4043 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

petrie911

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 147
  • Respect: +109
    • View Profile
Hypothetical rules question about Curse cards
« on: February 06, 2012, 01:16:53 pm »
0

OK, so what's the difference between Witch, Torturer, Sea Hag, and Embargo vs Familiar, Mountebank, Young Witch, Jester, Followers, and Ill-Gotten Gains?  The answer is that the former group tells you to gain Curse cards, while the latter group tells you to gain Curses.

Now, normally this doesn't matter, since Curses are the only cards with type Curse.  But suppose the following card existed.

Ghost Town
$2 Action-Curse
+1 Card
+2 Actions
Worth -1 VP

Would you be allowed to gain that when one of the former group tells you to "gain a Curse card"?

On a similar note, Fortune Teller says "Victory or Curse card" and not "Victory card or Curse".  Would it stop on the above card?
« Last Edit: February 06, 2012, 01:19:12 pm by petrie911 »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetical rules question about Curse cards
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2012, 02:19:18 pm »
0

I think that question is the exact reason there will never be another card with the type "Curse." Sure, you could put something in the rules clarifying "if you are instructed to gain a Curse, you may gain any card of type "Curse", but there would always be questions. And distinguishing between "Curse" and "Curse Card" would just cause more confusion, I think.

Still, interesting observation that different cards use different wording for that!

MTG uses similar wording, and it's quite important. Some things affect "Elves" while other things affect "Elf Cards." And it matters.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

rinkworks

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +937
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Hypothetical rules question about Curse cards
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2012, 04:45:23 pm »
0

My sense is that the distinction between "Curse card" and "Curse" is not meaningful.

The reason is simply that this difference is in evidence with other cards as a well:   Bureaucrat and Explorer, for example, tell you to gain a "Silver card," while Trader and Jack tell you to gain a "Silver."  But both wordings amount to the same meaning.

Similarly, Mine says to trash a "Treasure card," while Spice Merchant says to trash a "Treasure."  So we have this same difference, but this time concerning a card type rather than a card name.  Again, though, the meaning is the same.

(The thing to notice is that the ones that use the word "card" are the first three sets -- Base, Intrigue, and Seaside -- while the later ones drop the word.)

I can't think of any evidence to support whether "Curse" and "Curse card" refers to a card name or a card type, though.  I'm only saying that the two wordings would mean the same thing.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25671
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetical rules question about Curse cards
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2012, 08:43:24 pm »
+2

OK, so what's the difference between Witch, Torturer, Sea Hag, and Embargo vs Familiar, Mountebank, Young Witch, Jester, Followers, and Ill-Gotten Gains?  The answer is that the former group tells you to gain Curse cards, while the latter group tells you to gain Curses.
I stopped putting in the word "card" in places where I thought I could get away with dropping it. It has to be "action card," because "action" has another meaning, but it doesn't have to be "treasure card." "Victory" without "card" doesn't sound right so what can you do there.

I will not be making another card with "Curse" on the bottom line, because it would create confusion over whether "Curse" meant the card or the type.
Logged

tlloyd

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • Respect: +84
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetical rules question about Curse cards
« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2012, 09:39:49 pm »
+2

I will not be making another card with "Curse" on the bottom line, because it would create confusion over whether "Curse" meant the card or the type.

Aha! So you WILL be making another card with "Curse" on the TOP!  ;)
Logged

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1490
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetical rules question about Curse cards
« Reply #5 on: February 09, 2012, 05:13:19 am »
0

I will not be making another card with "Curse" on the bottom line, because it would create confusion over whether "Curse" meant the card or the type.

Aha! So you WILL be making another card with "Curse" on the TOP!  ;)

I have heart there will be one in the set of March...
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3412
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetical rules question about Curse cards
« Reply #6 on: February 09, 2012, 06:45:16 am »
0

Other Curse cards would make games with those cards doubly awful, because the Curse pile would be twice as deep.
10 Curses each = ouch!
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetical rules question about Curse cards
« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2012, 01:20:09 pm »
0

Unless the card rules indicated that it replaced the standard curse pile. Then you might be able to do some interesting things.
Logged

Ozle

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3625
  • Sorry, this text is personal.
  • Respect: +3360
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetical rules question about Curse cards
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2012, 01:24:11 pm »
0

What, like replacing the standard curse cards with a pile that were worth -2 VP?
Or -1VP +$1
etc...
Logged
Try the Ozle Google Map Challenge!
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7466.0

Sullying players Enjoyment of Innovation since 2013 Apparently!

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2746
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3668
    • View Profile
Re: Hypothetical rules question about Curse cards
« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2012, 01:49:06 pm »
0

The hard part of this idea is balancing. Basically, you want the card to be potentially worthwhile even without curse giving cards, otherwise it's just a dead pile most of the time. And if it is sometimes worthwhile to get, then you basically make curse giving cards useless, because you don't want to hand your opponent these things for free. I'm pretty sure this subject has been talked to death and is unlikely to ever actually work well.

Also since there are no provisions in teh rules for playing a curse type card, the card would have to be dual type action/curse or treasure/curse.
Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.046 seconds with 20 queries.