Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Inheritance and Gladiator  (Read 795 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

neonJP

  • Pawn
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
  • Respect: +3
    • View Profile
Inheritance and Gladiator
« on: November 02, 2017, 05:12:55 am »
+2

I had inherited something and my opponent hadn't inherited anything.
I played Gladiator and revealed Estate. My opponent had his Estate in hand.
Can he reveal his Estate to prevent my gaining bonus?
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4495
  • Respect: +17974
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Gladiator
« Reply #1 on: November 02, 2017, 05:23:22 am »
+4

I had inherited something and my opponent hadn't inherited anything.
I played Gladiator and revealed Estate. My opponent had his Estate in hand.
Can he reveal his Estate to prevent my gaining bonus?
Inheritance makes your Estates gain the abilities and types of another card; they keep all other information, including name. And "a copy" means "a card with the same name."

So yes, he can reveal Estate.
Logged

jamfamsam

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 679
  • Respect: +1132
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Gladiator
« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2017, 06:42:42 pm »
0

So does that Estate have multiple types now for Courtier's effect?
Logged
"There is no extra charge for awesomeness..."

LaLight

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 564
  • Shuffle iT Username: LaLight
  • Because I'm a potato
  • Respect: +647
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Gladiator
« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2017, 06:43:36 pm »
+3

So does that Estate have multiple types now for Courtier's effect?

Yes.
Logged
Wow where is all this LaLight love coming from all of the sudden?

Wins: M87, M85, M92, M99, M107, RMM37, RMM39, RMM44, RMM45, BM24, M86, M94, M95, M100, ZM24
Losses: M88, M90, RMM38, NM8, NM9, M97, M106, RMM46, ZM23, NM10, M108
Draws: RMM40
MVPs: RMM39, RMM44
Mod/Co-mod: RMM37, M89, M93, M91, M96, RMM41, M98, M101, M102, M104, M105, M109

Cave-o-sapien

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 518
  • Respect: +807
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Gladiator
« Reply #4 on: November 02, 2017, 07:13:49 pm »
0

Inheritance makes your Estates gain the abilities and types of another card; they keep all other information, including name. And "a copy" means "a card with the same name."

Is this the only time (so far) that this distinction between a card's name and its abilities has mattered?

Enchantress doesn't "rewrite" a card in this way. Band of Misfits and Overlord "become" the other card in every respect.

Am I forgetting something else?
Logged

ConMan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1207
  • Respect: +1375
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Gladiator
« Reply #5 on: November 02, 2017, 10:15:03 pm »
0

Inheritance makes your Estates gain the abilities and types of another card; they keep all other information, including name. And "a copy" means "a card with the same name."

Is this the only time (so far) that this distinction between a card's name and its abilities has mattered?

Enchantress doesn't "rewrite" a card in this way. Band of Misfits and Overlord "become" the other card in every respect.

Am I forgetting something else?
I'm pretty sure that Inheritance is the first, which also matters for Treasure Map and Crossroads (because they both reference their own name in their effect).
Logged

Jeebus

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 984
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +700
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Gladiator
« Reply #6 on: November 05, 2017, 12:58:12 pm »
0

Well, I assume Envious changes the abilities of Silver and Gold, while of course they keep their names. So playing a Silver with Merchant still produces +$1, and you may trash a card with Sauna, and if you go back to your Action phase with Villa, you can still reveal a Gold for Legionary.

The other interpretation is that Envious is like Enchantress, that you get $1 instead of following the instructions of Silver/Gold, but Envious is not worded that way. (It doesn't make a difference in how Envious functions, as far as I can see.)

Watno

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2628
  • Shuffle iT Username: Watno
  • Respect: +2770
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Gladiator
« Reply #7 on: November 05, 2017, 01:47:21 pm »
+1

I think it's pretty likely Envious works like Coppersmith.
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6936
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9004
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Gladiator
« Reply #8 on: November 05, 2017, 02:28:21 pm »
+1

Inheritance makes your Estates gain the abilities and types of another card; they keep all other information, including name. And "a copy" means "a card with the same name."

Is this the only time (so far) that this distinction between a card's name and its abilities has mattered?

Enchantress doesn't "rewrite" a card in this way. Band of Misfits and Overlord "become" the other card in every respect.

Am I forgetting something else?

It matters for every token card.  +Card token on (say) Peddler doesn't work on Estates if I've Inherited Peddler.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

Jeebus

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 984
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +700
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Gladiator
« Reply #9 on: November 05, 2017, 02:32:13 pm »
0

I think it's pretty likely Envious works like Coppersmith.

And which way is that?

I can see three ways to interpret Coppersmith. Either one of the two ways I described for Envious, or just giving +$1 like Champion gives +1 Action. And the latter can't work for Envious.

chipperMDW

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
  • Respect: +323
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Gladiator
« Reply #10 on: November 05, 2017, 03:45:54 pm »
0

I think it's pretty likely Envious works like Coppersmith.

And which way is that?

I can see three ways to interpret Coppersmith. Either one of the two ways I described for Envious, or just giving +$1 like Champion gives +1 Action. And the latter can't work for Envious.

I've always treated it as treasures having a "produces" (or "makes" or "is worth") property and Coppersmith (and now Envious) having an ongoing effect that modifies that property (in much the same way that Bridge modifies each card's cost property). Coppersmith increases that property by 1 for Coppers and Envious sets that property to 1 to Silvers and Golds.

And then you can either regard treasures as having a "produce" instruction (perhaps occurring wherever the big coin appears, or whenever the card says "this is worth $X") that adds an amount of coins (and potions) equal to the card's "produces" value, or you can say that cards are in general capable of producing resources equal to their "produces" property after they're played, but all the non-treasure cards just have a 0 value for that property and so don't produce anything. Both are currently equivalent as far as I know.

That's essentially the same thing saying Coppersmith and Envious "change the abilities" of those cards, but I think it gives a cleaner and more precise description of what's going on.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2017, 03:58:31 pm by chipperMDW »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 984
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +700
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Gladiator
« Reply #11 on: November 05, 2017, 10:13:10 pm »
0

I've always treated it as treasures having a "produces" (or "makes" or "is worth") property and Coppersmith (and now Envious) having an ongoing effect that modifies that property (in much the same way that Bridge modifies each card's cost property). Coppersmith increases that property by 1 for Coppers and Envious sets that property to 1 to Silvers and Golds.

And then you can either regard treasures as having a "produce" instruction (perhaps occurring wherever the big coin appears, or whenever the card says "this is worth $X") that adds an amount of coins (and potions) equal to the card's "produces" value, or you can say that cards are in general capable of producing resources equal to their "produces" property after they're played, but all the non-treasure cards just have a 0 value for that property and so don't produce anything. Both are currently equivalent as far as I know.

That's essentially the same thing saying Coppersmith and Envious "change the abilities" of those cards, but I think it gives a cleaner and more precise description of what's going on.

The thing is that Action cards are also capable of producing coins, and it's effectively exactly the same as what Treasures do (even though on Actions it has a plus in front). And of course Treasures can also have abilities. It seems weird to say that Loan has an ability but its coin production isn't part of its ability but something separate. I mean, both things happen when you play it, exactly like with Militia.

But I agree that it doesn't change anything.

chipperMDW

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
  • Respect: +323
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Gladiator
« Reply #12 on: November 06, 2017, 01:20:41 am »
0

The thing is that Action cards are also capable of producing coins, and it's effectively exactly the same as what Treasures do (even though on Actions it has a plus in front). And of course Treasures can also have abilities. It seems weird to say that Loan has an ability but its coin production isn't part of its ability but something separate. I mean, both things happen when you play it, exactly like with Militia.

I did mention the option of treating the big coin symbol as a "produce" instruction. That way it is a part of the ability; it's just linked to a convenient "hook" that gives effects a well-defined way to modify its behavior. (Equivalent to how Catacombs's instruction "gain a cheaper card" effectively has a hook (Catacombs's cost) allowing effects to modify its behavior.)

The other way has the weirdness you mention (and I don't like it for that same reason), but I included it in case it worked better for you with Bank and Fool's Gold, which don't have the big coin symbol. Doing it that way would avoid the need to clarify that their "this is worth X" instructions are not just Envious-style instructions that modify a property, but also implicit "produce" instructions.

« Last Edit: November 06, 2017, 01:48:52 am by chipperMDW »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 984
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +700
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Gladiator
« Reply #13 on: November 06, 2017, 10:05:41 am »
0

Ok, I see now. I do see "$X (big coin)" and "this is worth $X" as the same as "+$X". They all mean "produce $X".

But about the basic idea of a coin property similar to the cost... It would mean that all cards have that property, not just Treasures, because all cards can produce coins. But cards can also produce other things, like actions and buys. To me there's nothing special about producing coins.

You could see Bank as modifying its own property, but then so would Mining Village (if you trash it), and even Pawn etc. And then you would need an action property and a buy property, which would be modified by all cards that can produce variable amounts of those.

To me it's cleaner to regard them all as instructions based on a number that is described in the instruction, just like "+2 cards" or even "gain 2 Coppers".

chipperMDW

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
  • Respect: +323
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Gladiator
« Reply #14 on: November 06, 2017, 04:54:32 pm »
0

Ok, I see now. I do see "$X (big coin)" and "this is worth $X" as the same as "+$X". They all mean "produce $X".

But about the basic idea of a coin property similar to the cost... It would mean that all cards have that property, not just Treasures, because all cards can produce coins. But cards can also produce other things, like actions and buys. To me there's nothing special about producing coins.

You could see Bank as modifying its own property, but then so would Mining Village (if you trash it), and even Pawn etc. And then you would need an action property and a buy property, which would be modified by all cards that can produce variable amounts of those.

To me it's cleaner to regard them all as instructions based on a number that is described in the instruction, just like "+2 cards" or even "gain 2 Coppers".

I wasn't proposing that everything that gives coins (or even a variable number of coins) should key off of a "produces" property.  Mining Village's ability should just be, like you said, an instruction based on a number that is described in the instruction.  So should Salvager's.  So should anything that says any form of "+$N."

The only things that I was suggesting should key off of a modifiable property were the things that an ongoing effect modifies.  Specifically, for this discussion, the "abilities" represented by the big coin on Copper, Silver, and Gold (whose behavior is modified by ongoing effects from Coppersmith and Envious).  And, well, the big coin should mean the same thing wherever it appears, so it can be treated the same way even on treasures that nothing cares to modify.

Even using that paradigm, it's up for interpretation whether or not a Bank operates by modifying its own copy of such a property.  But I completely disagree that treating Bank as doing that somehow necessitates treating Mining Village as doing the same (and especially disagree that it implies anything at all about how actions and buys should be handled).  The purpose of having the "produces" property wouldn't be to address the concept of a variable amount (e.g. +$1 per something), as you seem to be inferring; the purpose would be to address the concept of an ongoing effect (e.g. this card will now make $N whenever it actually produces coins).  Just because a card like Bank could use an ongoing effect to make itself worth a variable number of coins doesn't mean that anything trying to give a variable number of coins must or even should do so via that mechanism.

If you wanted to argue that an ongoing effect is not necessary for expressing what Bank does, and that it is simpler to have it just determine N and then do +$N, I could see your point. The reason I was treating it as an ongoing effect is just that there exist ongoing effects that modify the coin values of some treasures, so I imagine all treasures as being potentially modifiable in the same way.  That and the wording "this is worth $N" suggests an ongoing effect to me.
Logged

Co0kieL0rd

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 696
  • Respect: +778
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Gladiator
« Reply #15 on: November 06, 2017, 05:31:19 pm »
+2

Welcome to f.ds, where a rules question about Inheritance and Gladiator turns into a discussion about Envious and Coppersmith!

I love this place :)
Logged
Check out my fan cards!
Dominion: Seasons - a small set Asper and I made that revolves around a unique and original mechanic
Roots and Renewal - this set is about interacting with the Supply and manipulating your opening turns
Flash cards - trying out a new concept

sudgy

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3222
  • Shuffle iT Username: sudgy
  • It's pronounced "SOO-jee"
  • Respect: +2399
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Gladiator
« Reply #16 on: November 06, 2017, 05:40:30 pm »
0

If it helps, I've always imagined the big coin symbol as being equivalent to +$.
Logged
If you're wondering what my avatar is, watch this.

Check out my logic puzzle blog!

   Quote from: sudgy on June 31, 2011, 11:47:46 pm

Jeebus

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 984
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +700
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Gladiator
« Reply #17 on: November 06, 2017, 05:41:09 pm »
0


I understood that you were only suggesting that coin production on Treasures should be based on a property. My point is that I see no difference between that coin production and +$X on an Action card, and also that I see nothing special about coin production as opposed to action or buy production. Treating coin production on Treasures as special is not "clean" to me.

I don't see how Bank has an ongoing effect. It calculates X and then produces X coins right when you play it.

Also Band of Misfits, Overlord and Inheritance have ongoing effects that modify. They change properies like types, cost and name, but also on-play ability. So even if we were to define Coppersmith and Envious as changing only a property and not the actual on-play ability, we still need the concept of changing on-play abilities. Also for this reason I don't see that introducing this property makes things any cleaner or easier.

chipperMDW

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
  • Respect: +323
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Gladiator
« Reply #18 on: November 06, 2017, 06:51:54 pm »
0

I understood that you were only suggesting that coin production on Treasures should be based on a property. My point is that I see no difference between that coin production and +$X on an Action card, and also that I see nothing special about coin production as opposed to action or buy production. Treating coin production on Treasures as special is not "clean" to me.

So we'll agree to disagree about the cleanest way to describe it.


Quote
I don't see how Bank has an ongoing effect. It calculates X and then produces X coins right when you play it.

I said I could see your point if you argued that. If you're unwilling to take the view that a treasure has an instruction that produces a coin value equal to its worth at a given moment, then there is indeed no reason for you to consider Bank to have an ongoing effect.


Quote
Also Band of Misfits, Overlord and Inheritance have ongoing effects that modify. They change properies like types, cost and name, but also on-play ability. So even if we were to define Coppersmith and Envious as changing only a property and not the actual on-play ability, we still need the concept of changing on-play abilities. Also for this reason I don't see that introducing this property makes things any cleaner or easier.

Indeed. The difference is that those are modification of identity (BoM and Overlord), which replaces all abilities outright, and modification by gaining entire abilities (Inheritance). There's never any need to "peek" inside any of the abilities; you operate on them as atomic items.

I suppose you could express Envious as replacing the entire "+$3" ability on Gold with the entire ability "+$1," and I would not consider that "unclean."

But with Coppersmith, you have to describe "reaching into" the "+$1" ability on Copper, extracting the 1, incrementing it to 2, and rewriting the ability with the 2. And then you have to describe your next Coppersmith reaching into the modified "+$2" ability to extract the 2, and...  Rules describing how to perform surgery on other pieces of rules text is not my idea of clean.

For an example of how messy the direct manipulation of rules text could get, in outtakes, there's a card "Enchant" that would increase all numerical values on an individual card by 1. (If that ever became a thing, then I'd describe it by saying that each instance of N on a card is shorthand for {N+K}, where N is hard-coded, and K is a property of the card that is normally 0, but which Enchant could modify.)
Logged

sudgy

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3222
  • Shuffle iT Username: sudgy
  • It's pronounced "SOO-jee"
  • Respect: +2399
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Gladiator
« Reply #19 on: November 06, 2017, 07:05:59 pm »
+1

But with Coppersmith, you have to describe "reaching into" the "+$1" ability on Copper, extracting the 1, incrementing it to 2, and rewriting the ability with the 2. And then you have to describe your next Coppersmith reaching into the modified "+$2" ability to extract the 2, and...  Rules describing how to perform surgery on other pieces of rules text is not my idea of clean.

You could just change Copper completely when Coppersmith is in the game.  Copper could then be "+${1 + (number of Coppersmiths played)}".
Logged
If you're wondering what my avatar is, watch this.

Check out my logic puzzle blog!

   Quote from: sudgy on June 31, 2011, 11:47:46 pm

Jeebus

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 984
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +700
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Gladiator
« Reply #20 on: November 06, 2017, 07:21:34 pm »
+1

Actually my idea of Coppersmith has always been like Champion: "When you play a Copper, +$1." That would avoid the "uncleanliness". :)

sudgy

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3222
  • Shuffle iT Username: sudgy
  • It's pronounced "SOO-jee"
  • Respect: +2399
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Gladiator
« Reply #21 on: November 06, 2017, 07:58:01 pm »
0

Actually my idea of Coppersmith has always been like Champion: "When you play a Copper, +$1." That would avoid the "uncleanliness". :)

I feel like this isn't what Coppersmith is saying, though.  The Champion effect happens before everything else, so Coppersmith's effect this way would give you money separately from the money that Copper does.  However, Coppersmith says that Copper "produces an extra $1", which implies that it's adding to some existing value.
Logged
If you're wondering what my avatar is, watch this.

Check out my logic puzzle blog!

   Quote from: sudgy on June 31, 2011, 11:47:46 pm

chipperMDW

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
  • Respect: +323
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Gladiator
« Reply #22 on: November 06, 2017, 08:09:49 pm »
+1

Actually my idea of Coppersmith has always been like Champion: "When you play a Copper, +$1." That would avoid the "uncleanliness". :)

Atomic ability replacement plus Champion-for-coins would not be sufficiently general to express all possibilities, though. Imagine Terrible Goldsmith, who causes Gold to produce 1 fewer coin (but not fewer than 0).
Logged

Jeebus

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 984
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +700
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Gladiator
« Reply #23 on: November 06, 2017, 10:52:03 pm »
0

For the purposes of how Coppersmith functions, I think my interpretation is sufficient, and it matches Champion's. In both cases it doesn't matter if you get the extra resource before or after.

But sure, ok, if you want to get really technical, so be it.

Outpost triggers on "would draw" in Clean-up, and replaces "draw 5 cards" with "draw 3 cards" before you do it.

Enchantress is effectively, "when you would resolve the play ability, instead get +1 Card and +1 Action". It replaces the act of resolving the play ability. Playing another Enchantress doesn't make a difference, because "resolving the play ability" is already replaced.

The -$1 token effectively says, "when you would get $1, instead get $1 less and return this". It replaces an effect (right before it's resolved) of "+$X" with "+$(X-1)". If you have two -$1 tokens (possible through Possession) and get +$3, the first token first lowers it to +$2, then the second lowers it to +$1, and then you resolve it, getting +$1.

So I don't think it's outside the established conventions to view Coppersmith as, "Copper's play ability is to produce $1 more instead of what it currently produces".

Atomic ability replacement plus Champion-for-coins would not be sufficiently general to express all possibilities, though. Imagine Terrible Goldsmith, who causes Gold to produce 1 fewer coin (but not fewer than 0).

Terrible Goldsmith functions more or less like the -$1 token. In any case, if you want to venture into theoretical cards, your "produces" property certainly doesn't cover all possibilities either. Imagine Terrible Carpenter, who causes Villages to produce 1 fewer actions.
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.083 seconds with 21 queries.