Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All

Author Topic: 4est's Cards  (Read 4962 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4626
  • Respect: +4993
    • View Profile
Re: 4est's Cards
« Reply #50 on: February 11, 2018, 06:23:10 pm »
0

Also rules question with Undertaker: If I were to for example trash 2 cards to Trading Post and reveal an Undertaker to discard them instead do I still gain the Silver?

I think you'd basically have to apply Trader rules and search for the appropriate patterns in the wording, e.g. looking whether it's one or two sentences, "this" or "the trashed card" etc.. So I agree with Fragasnap that Trading Post would fail, but I'm not sure you could say it simply "extends to all effects". Trader for sure doesn't.

4est

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 106
  • Shuffle iT Username: 4est
  • Respect: +387
    • View Profile
Re: 4est's Cards
« Reply #51 on: February 12, 2018, 10:51:01 am »
0

Thanks Holunder, Gazbag, Asper, and Fragasnap for the comments thus far, very helpful! 

I had thought Undertaker would probably need corrected wording--thank you Fragasnap for pointing this out.  Of course, the "reveal from hand" is missing, I'll add that.  I thought about the clean-up thing, and had assumed that since clean-up requires players to put their hand and cards in play into their discard pile at the same time, Undertaker would never actually be in hand to be revealed during clean-up, rendering clean-up phase language on the card redundant.  Is this a correct rule understanding?  If not, I can add clean-up language. 

As for the lose track stuff (e.g. with Trading Post, etc.), it appears that a number of other effects would not occur as I had intended, so different wording is needed.  While I hate to have to invoke Possession, that is the only official card I can think of that gets around this interaction with its "cards that are trashed are set aside" language.  Unless I'm misunderstanding the rule, if a Possessed player plays Trading Post and trashes two cards, I believe a Silver is still gained (albeit to the Possessor), even though the two cards that were trashed end up in the discard pile later.  Is that correct? 

Thus, what if Undertaker read:

Quote
Undertaker
Action - Reaction
Cost: $3

+3 Cards
Discard 2 cards.
When you discard or trash any number of cards, you may reveal this from your hand to set those cards aside and trash them or discard them at end of turn.

Would this be enough to still allow "if you did" or "for" effects to work on cards like Trading Post, etc.?  If not, what would the wording need to be?  As much as I'd love to get this unique effect to work fairly, if it's too complicated or requires tortured wording to work properly, I'll have to drop it. 


Also, I played a few games this weekend with Rebellion, and it definitely needs balancing as written and felt unnecessarily complicated for an attack.  Revisions pending.
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1123
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +870
    • View Profile
Re: 4est's Cards
« Reply #52 on: February 13, 2018, 01:30:01 am »
0

I think Undertaker is a neat card without the weird "if you did" combos with stuff like Trading Post. Don't ditch it.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4626
  • Respect: +4993
    • View Profile
Re: 4est's Cards
« Reply #53 on: February 13, 2018, 02:17:09 am »
0

Thanks Holunder, Gazbag, Asper, and Fragasnap for the comments thus far, very helpful! 

I had thought Undertaker would probably need corrected wording--thank you Fragasnap for pointing this out.  Of course, the "reveal from hand" is missing, I'll add that.  I thought about the clean-up thing, and had assumed that since clean-up requires players to put their hand and cards in play into their discard pile at the same time, Undertaker would never actually be in hand to be revealed during clean-up, rendering clean-up phase language on the card redundant.  Is this a correct rule understanding?  If not, I can add clean-up language. 

As for the lose track stuff (e.g. with Trading Post, etc.), it appears that a number of other effects would not occur as I had intended, so different wording is needed.  While I hate to have to invoke Possession, that is the only official card I can think of that gets around this interaction with its "cards that are trashed are set aside" language.  Unless I'm misunderstanding the rule, if a Possessed player plays Trading Post and trashes two cards, I believe a Silver is still gained (albeit to the Possessor), even though the two cards that were trashed end up in the discard pile later.  Is that correct? 

Thus, what if Undertaker read:

Quote
Undertaker
Action - Reaction
Cost: $3

+3 Cards
Discard 2 cards.
When you discard or trash any number of cards, you may reveal this from your hand to set those cards aside and trash them or discard them at end of turn.

Would this be enough to still allow "if you did" or "for" effects to work on cards like Trading Post, etc.?  If not, what would the wording need to be?  As much as I'd love to get this unique effect to work fairly, if it's too complicated or requires tortured wording to work properly, I'll have to drop it. 


Also, I played a few games this weekend with Rebellion, and it definitely needs balancing as written and felt unnecessarily complicated for an attack.  Revisions pending.

Sadly no. It loses track of all discarded cards but the one on top, failing to trash them.

4est

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 106
  • Shuffle iT Username: 4est
  • Respect: +387
    • View Profile
Re: 4est's Cards
« Reply #54 on: February 13, 2018, 10:29:44 am »
+1

Thanks Asper, you're right about the lose track thing for discards, I forgot about that.  Man, that pesky lose track rule.  I found a fix for trashing situations, but it breaks discards.  That's too bad. 

Well, let's see then, if my understanding of the lose track rule and the blue dog rule are correct, then Undertaker's current wording (with "reveal from hand" added) basically "breaks" any card that has a discard-for-benefit effect contingent on the discarded cards (Cellar, Storeroom, Vault, Mill, Artificer, Hamlet, Stables, etc.) or trash-for-benefit contingent on the trashed cards (Remodel, Replace, Trading Post, Upgrade, Salvager, Bishop, Expand, Apprentice, Forge, Remake, Develop, Farmland, Trader, Mercenary, Procession, Graverobber, Rebuild, Stonemason, Butcher, Raze, Catapult, Sacrifice, etc.).   

It does still "work" with any card that discards or trashes without a contingent benefit as Fragasnap explains, but the above list is a hefty chunk of cards, including many interactions I had been excited about.  I'll need to keep thinking about if there's any concise way the card can still somehow allow discard-for-benefit and trash-for-benefit cards to function normally while activating Undertaker's ability, without getting snagged on lose track and blue dog stuff. 

Don't worry LibraryAdventurer, I won't ditch it just yet, but I would like Undertaker to function with more than it currently does, if possible.  I feel like there's got to be a way to do it--it's a pretty simple effect to understand conceptually, it's just a matter of getting it to be worded such that it still abides by the rules of the Dominion universe.  Anyway, thanks folks for the help on this one so far!
Logged

Gazbag

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 540
  • Shuffle iT Username: Gazbag
  • Respect: +721
    • View Profile
Re: 4est's Cards
« Reply #55 on: February 13, 2018, 12:06:58 pm »
+3

Thinking about Undertaker more, it should definitely be restricted to just discarding/trashing from hand (assuming a fixed wording that works). Otherwise you have Salt the Earth discarding Provinces from the supply, Lurker discarding Actions from the supply, infinite Mining Village loops and it becomes less crazy with things like Sage.

Logged

4est

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 106
  • Shuffle iT Username: 4est
  • Respect: +387
    • View Profile
Re: 4est's Cards
« Reply #56 on: February 13, 2018, 02:53:39 pm »
0

Thanks Gazbag, yes, Undertaker definitely should have a from-hand restriction.  I had actually thought about Salt the Earth while first testing the card and thought that would be kind of a rare but funny interaction to allow, but on second thought, it's definitely safer to get rid of that sort of stuff. 

Here's an awful attempt to retain the Possession-style set-aside language to allow for contingent effects while also trying to save cards from being lost track of when discarding multiple cards:

Quote
Undertaker
Action - Reaction
Cost: $3

+3 Cards
Discard 2 cards.
When you would discard or trash any number of cards from your hand, you may reveal this from your hand to discard or trash them one card at a time, then set each aside, and trash or discard each at end of turn.

I know, it's pretty bad (adding "would" to a card usually means trouble--I'm looking at you, Trader), and I'm not even entirely sure this is worded properly to actually stop lose track for discards.  Essentially, revealing this version of Undertaker is supposed to "modify" how discarding multiple cards works so that you can set each card aside before it gets covered up.  It's terribly clunky and unelegant; this is about as much text as I would feel comfortable cramming onto a card, so hopefully there's another more concise solution.

Thanks again you all for your help in trying to fix this surprisingly complicated card!
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All
 

Page created in 0.094 seconds with 21 queries.