Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Inheritance and Nomad Camp  (Read 1306 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

singletee

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
  • Shuffle iT Username: singletee
  • Gold, Silver, Copper, Let's Jam!
  • Respect: +1487
    • View Profile
Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« on: February 10, 2018, 03:05:19 am »
+2

I played an online game recently where I Inherited Nomad Camp and then used Ironworks to gain Estates. I was expecting the gained Estate to be topdecked (and then immediately drawn), but instead it went to my discard pile. I know that when-buy and when-gain abilities of Inherited cards apply when buying/gaining Estates, but Nomad Camp doesn't quite have those, instead having an alternate gain location. So I have a question about two scenarios:

If I buy and subsequently gain an Estate Inheriting Nomad Camp, where does it go?

If I gain an Estate Inheriting Nomad Camp without buying it, where does it go?

Dominionaer

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 111
  • Respect: +26
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2018, 03:46:16 am »
0

You buy and gain only standard Estates. The Estates gain the abilities of the Action card (your Nomad Camp) when they are in your deck.
Logged

AJD

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2879
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +3600
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2018, 04:20:57 am »
+3

That's not quite true. An Estate becomes "yours" when you buy it, so if you buy it, then by the time you gain it it has definitely already inherited Nomad Camp's ability and goes to your deck.

I'm not sure how the timing works out with non-buy gains.
Logged

Dominionaer

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 111
  • Respect: +26
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2018, 04:59:57 am »
0

Sorry, i concede i stated wrong. Should have checked before post.

But then should also the non-buy gains be topdecked.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1120
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +841
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2018, 01:03:24 pm »
+2

I think this is a new question!

The timing of Nomad Camp has been discussed many times, unofficially. The conclusion has always been that it has to be timed as when-would-gain, or it can't change the gaining destination. The current official ruling about interactions between Nomad Camp and cards like Transmogrify also makes this unproblematic. So it seems to be: When you would gain a Nomad Camp, it first changes the gaining destination from your discard pile to your deck. (If you Transmogrify into a Nomad Camp, the gaining destination is not your discard pile, so Nomad Camp can't change it, so it goes to your hand.)

Accordingly, gaining Estate Inheriting Nomad Camp (without buying it), should not top-deck the Estate: It's not yours yet when when-would-gain triggers. But if you buy it, it's yours before when-would-gain triggers, so it should be top-decked.

AJD

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2879
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +3600
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2018, 01:15:19 pm »
+1

Does the interpretation of Nomad Camp's top-decking as a when-would-gain effect still apply with the second-edition wording, "onto your deck (instead of to your discard pile)"?
Logged

singletee

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
  • Shuffle iT Username: singletee
  • Gold, Silver, Copper, Let's Jam!
  • Respect: +1487
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2018, 03:05:34 pm »
+6

Donald X. confirmed on Discord that bought-and-gained Nomad Estates become yours before they are gained, so they go to the top of the deck. Nomad Estates that are gained without being bought go to your discard (or hand in the case of Artisan, etc.).

Jeebus

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1120
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +841
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« Reply #7 on: February 11, 2018, 12:30:26 pm »
+1

Does the interpretation of Nomad Camp's top-decking as a when-would-gain effect still apply with the second-edition wording, "onto your deck (instead of to your discard pile)"?

Yeah, as far as I see, it can still only work as when-would-gain.

Before Transmogrify (or Artisan, Cobbler or Wish) existed, Donald said that Nomad Camp and a hypothetical "Transmogrify" would have the same timing, so you would choose where the Nomad Camp goes. (And it was actually very difficult to figure out what that meant for the timing of cards that gain to your hand or deck - without "visiting" the discard pile - like Mine or hypothetical "Transmogrify".)

But when Transmogrify came out, the rule was different: Transmogrify wins. The new text actually reflects this, since it says "instead of to your discard pile", but in my opinion it would be better without the parenthesis.

sudgy

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3295
  • Shuffle iT Username: sudgy
  • It's pronounced "SOO-jee"
  • Respect: +2527
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« Reply #8 on: February 11, 2018, 04:30:19 pm »
+4

I thought Donald said somewhere that things like Nomad Camp change the rule that says things are gained to your discard.  It's just that it's gained onto your deck rather than your discard, so other effects can change it just like they change normal gains.
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

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4466
  • Respect: +4851
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2018, 05:44:33 am »
+3

Donald X. confirmed on Discord that bought-and-gained Nomad Estates become yours before they are gained, so they go to the top of the deck. Nomad Estates that are gained without being bought go to your discard (or hand in the case of Artisan, etc.).

That's awful.

MatthewCA

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 75
  • Respect: +75
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« Reply #10 on: February 19, 2018, 02:36:38 pm »
0

I know I'm not the best at this sort of thing, but I feel like Nomad Camp should be worded like this

Quote

+$2
+1 Buy

When you gain a Nomad Camp, put it on top of your deck


Or something like that, because that's how it looks like it behaves.

Logged

AJD

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2879
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +3600
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2018, 02:44:22 pm »
0

I know I'm not the best at this sort of thing, but I feel like Nomad Camp should be worded like this

Quote

+$2
+1 Buy

When you gain a Nomad Camp, put it on top of your deck


Or something like that, because that's how it looks like it behaves.

It used to be worded like that! The problem with that wording is that it seems to imply that (1) first you gain it, and then (2) you put it on your deck. But that's not what it's intended to do, and it leads to annoying interactions with the lose-track rule.
Logged

MatthewCA

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 75
  • Respect: +75
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« Reply #12 on: February 19, 2018, 03:19:58 pm »
0

I know I'm not the best at this sort of thing, but I feel like Nomad Camp should be worded like this

Quote

+$2
+1 Buy

When you gain a Nomad Camp, put it on top of your deck


Or something like that, because that's how it looks like it behaves.

It used to be worded like that! The problem with that wording is that it seems to imply that (1) first you gain it, and then (2) you put it on your deck. But that's not what it's intended to do, and it leads to annoying interactions with the lose-track rule.

Then maybe Nomad Camp is gained to the top of your deck

I feel like  naming the card itself, you get rid of the problem with gaining Nomad Estates by other means than buying. The big problem with this proposal I'm seeing it also means that buying Nomad Estates will not top deck them. But I feel like I need to say that I understand that I didn't create this game, and whatever quirks I see in the rules and card interactions probably won't be change as a result of me posting in a forum.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6967
  • Respect: +7790
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« Reply #13 on: February 19, 2018, 03:41:58 pm »
0

I know I'm not the best at this sort of thing, but I feel like Nomad Camp should be worded like this

Quote

+$2
+1 Buy

When you gain a Nomad Camp, put it on top of your deck


Or something like that, because that's how it looks like it behaves.

It used to be worded like that! The problem with that wording is that it seems to imply that (1) first you gain it, and then (2) you put it on your deck. But that's not what it's intended to do, and it leads to annoying interactions with the lose-track rule.

I think it could have ended up fine with that wording, and a rule that it works just like it was worded. So it makes it so that there's certain times when lose-track matters; but that still would have been fine. And it would have been the same in the vast majority of situations when you gain a Nomad Camp.
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

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4894
  • Respect: +19926
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« Reply #14 on: February 19, 2018, 05:34:03 pm »
+6

The problem is 0% Nomad Camp, 100% Inheritance. It's fine to have a card that when gained goes on your deck rather than to your discard pile; it creates a rules question with cards that gain a card to your hand, but that's it, and that question has a straightforward answer. Having some copies of a card change while other copies do not is a crazy thing I knew to avoid from the beginning and then did anyway with Inheritance.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6967
  • Respect: +7790
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« Reply #15 on: February 19, 2018, 07:11:38 pm »
0

Did you have a reason for not wanting it to be a when-gain ability and wording; such that it would visit the discard pile?
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

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4894
  • Respect: +19926
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« Reply #16 on: February 20, 2018, 03:21:43 am »
+4

Did you have a reason for not wanting it to be a when-gain ability and wording; such that it would visit the discard pile?
No-one is actually going to put it into their discard pile and then move it onto their deck.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4466
  • Respect: +4851
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« Reply #17 on: February 20, 2018, 03:58:19 am »
0

Before visiting these forums, I never realized that "when gain" meant "when a card ends up in your discard pile" (which in honesty doesn't say much given the cruddy German rule books). Back then, to me gaining was the time when you had the card in hand while moving it to your discard pile. Same for trashing, it was in the "being trashed" space. After all, you never actually put a card in your discard pile before topdecking or trashing it with Watchtower. If you consequently applied that ruling, it introduces other issues (e.g. every "Gain X, move it to Y" must be written as "Gain X to Y"), but I wasn't aware of that back then. At the very least, it avoids things like Nomad Camp covering up a freshly-gained Border Village so you won't be able to Watchtower it above Nomad Camp, which I think was the type of issue Nomad Camp had. It also makes Nomad Estate go to your deck.

I feel Inheritance/Nomad Camp wouldn't be as confusing if Inheritance didn't trigger on buy, making Nomad Camp behave differently depending on whether you bought it.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6967
  • Respect: +7790
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« Reply #18 on: February 20, 2018, 09:15:42 am »
+2

Before visiting these forums, I never realized that "when gain" meant "when a card ends up in your discard pile" (which in honesty doesn't say much given the cruddy German rule books). Back then, to me gaining was the time when you had the card in hand while moving it to your discard pile. Same for trashing, it was in the "being trashed" space. After all, you never actually put a card in your discard pile before topdecking or trashing it with Watchtower. If you consequently applied that ruling, it introduces other issues (e.g. every "Gain X, move it to Y" must be written as "Gain X to Y"), but I wasn't aware of that back then. At the very least, it avoids things like Nomad Camp covering up a freshly-gained Border Village so you won't be able to Watchtower it above Nomad Camp, which I think was the type of issue Nomad Camp had. It also makes Nomad Estate go to your deck.

I feel Inheritance/Nomad Camp wouldn't be as confusing if Inheritance didn't trigger on buy, making Nomad Camp behave differently depending on whether you bought it.

But in most games, events don't have a duration. In MTG, when you draw a card, it is never halfway between your deck and your hand. I mean, obviously it literally physically is. But the rules don't recognize that. As far as the rules are concerned, it jumped instantly from one to the other. Same with a creature being destroyed and going from the battlefield to the graveyard. And I think this is logical; because otherwise, you have to introduce the concept of the player into the world of the game; your hand and the motion you make moving your hand from one place to another becomes part of the game.

While I agree that the confusion stems from Inheritance triggering on buy; that also still seems like the most logical thing. I think an argument could have been made in the first place for "this card I bought isn't mine yet because I haven't gained it yet", but I also think that the average person would think "of course this is mine; I bought it".
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

Jeebus

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1120
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +841
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« Reply #19 on: February 20, 2018, 10:23:39 am »
+2

I also think it was a mistake to let cards you buy be yours before you gain them. It goes against all other cards and interactions that were already introduced, mostly starting in Hinterlands. As Donald has said himself, to clarify the difference between when-buy and when-gain, buying is paying for the card, gaining is when you get it.

If you buy a card while Possessed, or reveal Trader, you get the when-buy but not the when-gain. Technically this is not inconsistent with Inheritance, the card can still be "yours" between the moment you bought it and the moment you "didn't gain it" (whenever that moment is), but it sure seems cleaner and easier to understand if that were not the case, even for average players, assuming those players are supposed to also get how those Possession and Trader interactions work.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4466
  • Respect: +4851
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« Reply #20 on: February 20, 2018, 11:32:28 am »
0

I also think it was a mistake to let cards you buy be yours before you gain them. It goes against all other cards and interactions that were already introduced, mostly starting in Hinterlands. As Donald has said himself, to clarify the difference between when-buy and when-gain, buying is paying for the card, gaining is when you get it.

If you buy a card while Possessed, or reveal Trader, you get the when-buy but not the when-gain. Technically this is not inconsistent with Inheritance, the card can still be "yours" between the moment you bought it and the moment you "didn't gain it" (whenever that moment is), but it sure seems cleaner and easier to understand if that were not the case, even for average players, assuming those players are supposed to also get how those Possession and Trader interactions work.

We already had the Trader discussion back then, because technically, a not-gained but bought card never leaves your deck, and therefore doesn't satisfy the rulebook's definition of stopping to be my card. It still stops being my card.

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4466
  • Respect: +4851
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« Reply #21 on: February 20, 2018, 11:37:21 am »
0

Before visiting these forums, I never realized that "when gain" meant "when a card ends up in your discard pile" (which in honesty doesn't say much given the cruddy German rule books). Back then, to me gaining was the time when you had the card in hand while moving it to your discard pile. Same for trashing, it was in the "being trashed" space. After all, you never actually put a card in your discard pile before topdecking or trashing it with Watchtower. If you consequently applied that ruling, it introduces other issues (e.g. every "Gain X, move it to Y" must be written as "Gain X to Y"), but I wasn't aware of that back then. At the very least, it avoids things like Nomad Camp covering up a freshly-gained Border Village so you won't be able to Watchtower it above Nomad Camp, which I think was the type of issue Nomad Camp had. It also makes Nomad Estate go to your deck.

I feel Inheritance/Nomad Camp wouldn't be as confusing if Inheritance didn't trigger on buy, making Nomad Camp behave differently depending on whether you bought it.

But in most games, events don't have a duration. In MTG, when you draw a card, it is never halfway between your deck and your hand. I mean, obviously it literally physically is. But the rules don't recognize that. As far as the rules are concerned, it jumped instantly from one to the other. Same with a creature being destroyed and going from the battlefield to the graveyard. And I think this is logical; because otherwise, you have to introduce the concept of the player into the world of the game; your hand and the motion you make moving your hand from one place to another becomes part of the game.

While I agree that the confusion stems from Inheritance triggering on buy; that also still seems like the most logical thing. I think an argument could have been made in the first place for "this card I bought isn't mine yet because I haven't gained it yet", but I also think that the average person would think "of course this is mine; I bought it".

It's not a matter of duration in my eyes, but a matter of space.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6967
  • Respect: +7790
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« Reply #22 on: February 20, 2018, 01:05:54 pm »
+1

Before visiting these forums, I never realized that "when gain" meant "when a card ends up in your discard pile" (which in honesty doesn't say much given the cruddy German rule books). Back then, to me gaining was the time when you had the card in hand while moving it to your discard pile. Same for trashing, it was in the "being trashed" space. After all, you never actually put a card in your discard pile before topdecking or trashing it with Watchtower. If you consequently applied that ruling, it introduces other issues (e.g. every "Gain X, move it to Y" must be written as "Gain X to Y"), but I wasn't aware of that back then. At the very least, it avoids things like Nomad Camp covering up a freshly-gained Border Village so you won't be able to Watchtower it above Nomad Camp, which I think was the type of issue Nomad Camp had. It also makes Nomad Estate go to your deck.

I feel Inheritance/Nomad Camp wouldn't be as confusing if Inheritance didn't trigger on buy, making Nomad Camp behave differently depending on whether you bought it.

But in most games, events don't have a duration. In MTG, when you draw a card, it is never halfway between your deck and your hand. I mean, obviously it literally physically is. But the rules don't recognize that. As far as the rules are concerned, it jumped instantly from one to the other. Same with a creature being destroyed and going from the battlefield to the graveyard. And I think this is logical; because otherwise, you have to introduce the concept of the player into the world of the game; your hand and the motion you make moving your hand from one place to another becomes part of the game.

While I agree that the confusion stems from Inheritance triggering on buy; that also still seems like the most logical thing. I think an argument could have been made in the first place for "this card I bought isn't mine yet because I haven't gained it yet", but I also think that the average person would think "of course this is mine; I bought it".

It's not a matter of duration in my eyes, but a matter of space.

Ok, but same principle applies. There are no spaces other than those defined by the game rules. Even in monopoly, a piece is never considered to be off the board or in between 2 spaces. As far as all game rules matter; it instantly teleports from one space to the other.
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

AJD

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2879
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +3600
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« Reply #23 on: February 20, 2018, 01:38:55 pm »
+2

I also think it was a mistake to let cards you buy be yours before you gain them. It goes against all other cards and interactions that were already introduced, mostly starting in Hinterlands. As Donald has said himself, to clarify the difference between when-buy and when-gain, buying is paying for the card, gaining is when you get it.

If you buy a card while Possessed, or reveal Trader, you get the when-buy but not the when-gain. Technically this is not inconsistent with Inheritance, the card can still be "yours" between the moment you bought it and the moment you "didn't gain it" (whenever that moment is), but it sure seems cleaner and easier to understand if that were not the case, even for average players, assuming those players are supposed to also get how those Possession and Trader interactions work.

We already had the Trader discussion back then, because technically, a not-gained but bought card never leaves your deck, and therefore doesn't satisfy the rulebook's definition of stopping to be my card. It still stops being my card.

The rulebook literally says "An Estate stops being yours if you... are stopped from gaining it due to Possession (from Alchemy) or Trader (from Hinterlands)." So it definitely does satisfy the rulebook's definition of stopping being your card.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6967
  • Respect: +7790
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance and Nomad Camp
« Reply #24 on: February 20, 2018, 01:40:07 pm »
0

I also think it was a mistake to let cards you buy be yours before you gain them. It goes against all other cards and interactions that were already introduced, mostly starting in Hinterlands. As Donald has said himself, to clarify the difference between when-buy and when-gain, buying is paying for the card, gaining is when you get it.

If you buy a card while Possessed, or reveal Trader, you get the when-buy but not the when-gain. Technically this is not inconsistent with Inheritance, the card can still be "yours" between the moment you bought it and the moment you "didn't gain it" (whenever that moment is), but it sure seems cleaner and easier to understand if that were not the case, even for average players, assuming those players are supposed to also get how those Possession and Trader interactions work.

We already had the Trader discussion back then, because technically, a not-gained but bought card never leaves your deck, and therefore doesn't satisfy the rulebook's definition of stopping to be my card. It still stops being my card.

The rulebook literally says "An Estate stops being yours if you... are stopped from gaining it due to Possession (from Alchemy) or Trader (from Hinterlands)." So it definitely does satisfy the rulebook's definition of stopping being your card.

There was something else that the rulebook missed... can't remember what it was. Maybe passing the Estate away with Masquerade?
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
Pages: [1] 2  All
 

Page created in 0.125 seconds with 20 queries.