Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Inheritance interaction  (Read 2853 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

majiponi

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 418
  • Respect: +352
    • View Profile
Inheritance interaction
« on: May 11, 2018, 11:36:26 am »
+18

Quote
I've found an undefined behavior on dominion.games.
I played Throne Room to play a inherited Estate(Crown), to play Herald, to reveal and play University, gained Mandarin (topdecked that inherited Estate), played Herald (second time), drew the Estate, revealed and played Ambassador, returned the Estate, and played it (second time) AS THE CARD MY OPPONENT HAD INHERITED.
(This is the summary of this twitter post.)

I don't think I can play other player's card, but I am not sure.

And more, I've noticed another problem. If I have another Estate in my hand, we cannot tell which Estate I played (on dominion.games). Did I play the returned Estate? I mean, do I play Estate as Crown, or play Estate as "solid Estate" (so I fail to play it again)? (Maybe too complicated question...)
« Last Edit: May 11, 2018, 11:50:27 am by majiponi »
Logged

dz

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
  • Shuffle iT Username: DZ
  • Respect: +57
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #1 on: May 11, 2018, 11:48:35 am »
0

Playing a "solid" Estate obv. makes no sense, you can't play Victory cards unless they're a Action or Treasure. 

If you lose track of a card (like that Mandarin/Ambassador craziness), all other effects still happen. So Estate SHOULD still have Crown's instructions.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 7130
  • Respect: +7962
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2018, 12:31:09 pm »
0

Well we know for sure you can play a returned card (and it plays, but fails to move to the in-play area); based on things like Throne-Room + Madman. The question here is if the returned Estate can still be played... and I'm not sure; but here's a much simpler version of what I think is still the same basic question:

You have Estate inheriting Feast. You play Throne Room, choosing an Estate. You play the Estate once, which trashes it (so it's no longer yours). Can you still play the Estate a second time, to get a second Feast effect?

The logic of online sounds like it must be wrong, yet it is logical.... the Estate that you played was owned by your opponent, and thus it had the types and abilities of your opponent's inheritance. I also really want to know if this is correct.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2018, 12:35:34 pm by GendoIkari »
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

dane-m

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 79
  • Shuffle iT Username: dane-m
  • Respect: +135
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #3 on: May 11, 2018, 03:34:36 pm »
+6

You have Estate inheriting Feast. You play Throne Room, choosing an Estate. You play the Estate once, which trashes it (so it's no longer yours). Can you still play the Estate a second time, to get a second Feast effect?
Well, we know that if you Throne Room a Band of Misfits as Feast, then the second play is of Band of Misfits as itself.  So Throne Room obviously looks at the card a second time.  That implies that in the case of an Estate inheriting Feast, Throne Room will find a plain Estate the second time it looks at the card...

Quote
The logic of online sounds like it must be wrong, yet it is logical.... the Estate that you played was owned by your opponent, and thus it had the types and abilities of your opponent's inheritance. I also really want to know if this is correct.
...which implies that this weird behaviour is also correct, but it does require Throne Room to be doing something that might not always be possible, namely knowing the location of a particular card no matter where it goes.  I suspect it would be possible to come up with a more complicated example in which the TRed Estate could be returned to the deck, the deck shuffled, cards drawn from the deck, and then one or two Estates returned to the Estate pile (and from there to an opponent) before TR tries playing the Estate a second time.  How can TR know where the particular Estate now is?  Clearly it can't.

Edit: In fact even in the original example TR shouldn't know where the Estate is.  The player could have had other Estates in hand, so there's no way for TR to know where the Estate it played the first time now is when it comes to play it the second time.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2018, 03:42:59 pm by dane-m »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +20618
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2018, 07:28:48 pm »
+5

Quote
I've found an undefined behavior on dominion.games.
I played Throne Room to play a inherited Estate(Crown), to play Herald, to reveal and play University, gained Mandarin (topdecked that inherited Estate), played Herald (second time), drew the Estate, revealed and played Ambassador, returned the Estate, and played it (second time) AS THE CARD MY OPPONENT HAD INHERITED.
(This is the summary of this twitter post.)

I don't think I can play other player's card, but I am not sure.

And more, I've noticed another problem. If I have another Estate in my hand, we cannot tell which Estate I played (on dominion.games). Did I play the returned Estate? I mean, do I play Estate as Crown, or play Estate as "solid Estate" (so I fail to play it again)? (Maybe too complicated question...)
The behavior is correct, and you are correct about the other problem.

There are two classes of solutions: changing the lose-track rules to lose track harder, and changing Inheritance.

The lose-track change would change Throne / Feast in the original main set; I'm not doing it. People don't know the lose track rule, and the main set rulebook said Throne / Feast worked. For new games this would be a thing to consider; Dominion does not want to mess with that.

The only possible (heavy errata) fix I see for Inheritance is the "during your turn" that Bridge etc. use - all copies everywhere change. Inheritance breaks an important rule, that all copies of a card should be identical, and this convoluted combo exploits that. Inheritance originally said "during your turn"; the problem is that you get super-weird stuff immediately, with trivial rather than convoluted combos. For example I inherit Caravan Guard and play an attack; you respond with Estate because it's Caravan Guard. But on your turn the Estate is in play and has no abilities, or is some other card that you inherited. The rules handle it, but it's super-confusing.

Feel free to simply not play with Inheritance. That actually solves the problem.

In my defense, Inheritance was a lot of fun. Today I would have you do the effect without Estate changing, e.g. you can discard Estate to play the set-aside card, leaving it there, and it's limited to non-durations (like Necromancer). That gives you "my Estates do this thing" but cuts out things like "they are Actions for Herald." And the Estates are always just Estates so so much for that. It's a poor fit for Adventures, since there are lots of Durations and also Reserve cards, which are useless here. It could have been in Empires though. Anyway we wouldn't use errata to effectively make Inheritance some other related thing.
Logged

crj

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 923
  • Respect: +1030
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2018, 08:34:07 pm »
0

Just one voice, but for what it's worth I quite like the idea of Inheritance affecting all Estates everywhere during your turn. That feels simple and intuitive to me.
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7070
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9310
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #6 on: May 11, 2018, 10:06:37 pm »
0

The behavior is correct, and you are correct about the other problem.

Wait, which behavior is correct?  You can't actually play the other person's Inherited card, right?
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

sudgy

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3308
  • Shuffle iT Username: sudgy
  • It's pronounced "SOO-jee"
  • Respect: +2540
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #7 on: May 11, 2018, 10:17:45 pm »
0

The behavior is correct, and you are correct about the other problem.

Wait, which behavior is correct?  You can't actually play the other person's Inherited card, right?

No, I think you do.  It's the only way to make it consistent with TR+BoM+Feast.  The one problem that isn't resolved is the tracking issues.
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

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
  • Respect: +508
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #8 on: May 11, 2018, 10:32:08 pm »
+3

The lose-track change would change Throne / Feast in the original main set; I'm not doing it. People don't know the lose track rule, and the main set rulebook said Throne / Feast worked. For new games this would be a thing to consider; Dominion does not want to mess with that.

I think you can lose track harder and still have Throning Feast work. One way would be to use last-known information for things you lost track of. Throne plays a card in your hand twice. That card's not in your hand anymore after the first play? (Actually true whatever it plays; Feast wouldn't even be a special case.) Ok, just play whatever that card was back when it was in your hand. Throne wants to play an Estate that used to be in your hand but has somehow maybe ended up around the world and in the supply or in your opponent's deck or maybe is still in your hand and nobody really knows for sure where it is? Just play whatever the Estate was when it was in your hand.

There would be complications with BoM, though. The way BoM works now, I guess a Throne would always end up playing it as BoM both times (because that's what it was in your hand) so you'd always get to choose an action to emulate for both plays. If you wanted to change that, maybe you could revert BoM to its old behavior and have it become Feast or whatever as you play it; then Throne would remember it as Feast and play it as Feast twice... which was how that originally worked anyway, I think. (To me, either one of those options seems like an improvement over the current situation where sometimes a Throned BoM is stuck as one card and sometimes it's not.)

Using last-known information would also, I guess, make things like Transmute and Procession work like Ritual and care what stuff looks like just before you trash it, not what it turns into afterwards.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2018, 10:33:25 pm by chipperMDW »
Logged

trivialknot

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 616
  • Respect: +950
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #9 on: May 11, 2018, 10:48:22 pm »
+4

So, Throne Room currently works is like this:
1. Choose an action card from hand.
2. Create a pointer to the physical copy of the card.
3. Play the card being pointed to.
4. Play it again.

The intention is that the card can change its identity or abilities somewhere between steps 3 and 4.  So if you throne a BoM and it becomes a Lighthouse in step 3, then in step 4 you play the Lighthouse.  The problem is that with Inheritance, sometimes you don't even know whether the card has changed its ability.

I'm pretty sure you can recreate this problem even without Inheritance:
Play Throne Room, choose Overlord.
--Play Overlord as Crown, choose Herald.
----Play Herald, which plays University to gain Mandarin.
----Play Herald, which plays Throne Room, choosing an Overlord from your hand.
------Play the Overlord as Lighthouse twice.
--Play Overlord again, but is it a Lighthouse now?

Another way to treat Throne room is like this:
1. Choose an action card from hand.
2. Create a pointer to the physical copy of the card.
3. Store a virtual copy of the card (ie remember its instructions and name and types)
4. Play the card being pointed to.
5a. If the card has moved (even if it later returns to play), then play the virtual copy of it.
5b. If the card has not moved, then play it.

This would have the same behavior with TR-BoM-Feast, but wouldn't have the accountability/uncertainty problems.  It's a bit convoluted, but for what it's worth, this is probably how I'd play it if it ever came up IRL.  ETA: ...which it won't.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2018, 10:55:25 pm by trivialknot »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +20618
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #10 on: May 12, 2018, 12:22:58 am »
+2

The behavior is correct, and you are correct about the other problem.

Wait, which behavior is correct?  You can't actually play the other person's Inherited card, right?
The following is the current game rules being executed correctly by the online program: "I played Throne Room to play a inherited Estate(Crown), to play Herald, to reveal and play University, gained Mandarin (topdecked that inherited Estate), played Herald (second time), drew the Estate, revealed and played Ambassador, returned the Estate, and played it (second time) AS THE CARD MY OPPONENT HAD INHERITED."
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +20618
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #11 on: May 12, 2018, 12:25:36 am »
+6

----Play Herald, which plays University to gain Mandarin.
Clearly, the problem is Mandarin.

That's not even just silly. Moving cards in play ahead of clean-up (e.g. with Procession) creates tracking problems.
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1125
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +871
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #12 on: May 12, 2018, 12:31:49 am »
+4

Quote
I've found an undefined behavior on dominion.games.
I played Throne Room to play a inherited Estate(Crown), to play Herald, to reveal and play University, gained Mandarin (topdecked that inherited Estate), played Herald (second time), drew the Estate, revealed and played Ambassador, returned the Estate, and played it (second time) AS THE CARD MY OPPONENT HAD INHERITED.
(This is the summary of this twitter post.)

I don't think I can play other player's card, but I am not sure.

And more, I've noticed another problem. If I have another Estate in my hand, we cannot tell which Estate I played (on dominion.games). Did I play the returned Estate? I mean, do I play Estate as Crown, or play Estate as "solid Estate" (so I fail to play it again)? (Maybe too complicated question...)

Wow.

The behavior is correct, and you are correct about the other problem.

There are two classes of solutions: changing the lose-track rules to lose track harder, and changing Inheritance.

The lose-track change would change Throne / Feast in the original main set; I'm not doing it. People don't know the lose track rule, and the main set rulebook said Throne / Feast worked. For new games this would be a thing to consider; Dominion does not want to mess with that.

The only possible (heavy errata) fix I see for Inheritance is the "during your turn" that Bridge etc. use - all copies everywhere change. Inheritance breaks an important rule, that all copies of a card should be identical, and this convoluted combo exploits that. Inheritance originally said "during your turn"; the problem is that you get super-weird stuff immediately, with trivial rather than convoluted combos. For example I inherit Caravan Guard and play an attack; you respond with Estate because it's Caravan Guard. But on your turn the Estate is in play and has no abilities, or is some other card that you inherited. The rules handle it, but it's super-confusing.

Feel free to simply not play with Inheritance. That actually solves the problem.

In my defense, Inheritance was a lot of fun. Today I would have you do the effect without Estate changing, e.g. you can discard Estate to play the set-aside card, leaving it there, and it's limited to non-durations (like Necromancer). That gives you "my Estates do this thing" but cuts out things like "they are Actions for Herald." And the Estates are always just Estates so so much for that. It's a poor fit for Adventures, since there are lots of Durations and also Reserve cards, which are useless here. It could have been in Empires though. Anyway we wouldn't use errata to effectively make Inheritance some other related thing.

I'm happy Inheritance is the way it is. It's my favorite card-shaped thing ever. IMO, it (unlike Possession) is worth all the weird rule questions because of how fun it is.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +20618
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #13 on: May 12, 2018, 12:39:15 am »
+1

The lose-track change would change Throne / Feast in the original main set; I'm not doing it. People don't know the lose track rule, and the main set rulebook said Throne / Feast worked. For new games this would be a thing to consider; Dominion does not want to mess with that.

I think you can lose track harder and still have Throning Feast work. One way would be to use last-known information for things you lost track of. Throne plays a card in your hand twice. That card's not in your hand anymore after the first play? (Actually true whatever it plays; Feast wouldn't even be a special case.) Ok, just play whatever that card was back when it was in your hand. Throne wants to play an Estate that used to be in your hand but has somehow maybe ended up around the world and in the supply or in your opponent's deck or maybe is still in your hand and nobody really knows for sure where it is? Just play whatever the Estate was when it was in your hand.

There would be complications with BoM, though. The way BoM works now, I guess a Throne would always end up playing it as BoM both times (because that's what it was in your hand) so you'd always get to choose an action to emulate for both plays. If you wanted to change that, maybe you could revert BoM to its old behavior and have it become Feast or whatever as you play it; then Throne would remember it as Feast and play it as Feast twice... which was how that originally worked anyway, I think. (To me, either one of those options seems like an improvement over the current situation where sometimes a Throned BoM is stuck as one card and sometimes it's not.)

Using last-known information would also, I guess, make things like Transmute and Procession work like Ritual and care what stuff looks like just before you trash it, not what it turns into afterwards.

It's something to think about. We aren't necessarily talking about a Throne Room; an effect could just play a card once, and somehow the card could vanish before being played (e.g. Summon if it didn't say "if you do"). So the rule can't be about what the card was the first time - there may have been no other time. However at some point we knew what card we were talking about, so we can refer to that. It would probably be a confusing rule, though to be fair it covers cases that are confusing any which way. It would be really simple to just not let you play a card without being able to put the physical card into play - like I said, a fine solution for some other game.

As I like to point out, the actual problem situation we are talking about is extremely obscure. So, the rules weight it adds wants to be correspondingly tiny.
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7070
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9310
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #14 on: May 12, 2018, 01:34:03 am »
+2

The behavior is correct, and you are correct about the other problem.

Wait, which behavior is correct?  You can't actually play the other person's Inherited card, right?
The following is the current game rules being executed correctly by the online program: "I played Throne Room to play a inherited Estate(Crown), to play Herald, to reveal and play University, gained Mandarin (topdecked that inherited Estate), played Herald (second time), drew the Estate, revealed and played Ambassador, returned the Estate, and played it (second time) AS THE CARD MY OPPONENT HAD INHERITED."


Ah, OK, I think I understand now.  The Estate/Crown that was initially played with the Throne Room belonged to the opponent by the time it was played again.

But this interaction literally required Crown, Mandarin, Ambassador, Inheritance, a gainer (Uni here but could be something else), a draw card (Herald here), and cost reduction all to be in the kingdom.  I guess you could combine Amb + draw using Masq, maybe?  I don't see how you get this below a six-card combo, with cards from at least four expansions.

While I'd be interested to see someone reduce this interaction to four cards, even with four cards I'm not sure it's worth a ruling for something that'll happen once in a few billion games.  The seven-card interaction here will happen exactly never in the future unless someone sets it up intentionally.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

Violet CLM

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 94
  • Respect: +227
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #15 on: May 12, 2018, 02:44:53 am »
+3

I appreciate this new ability to play other people's cards, because it makes the "if it's still in play" wording on Royal Carriage meaningfully distinct from "if you still have it in play." All you have to do is play a card that a different player already has in play, and then you can call Royal Carriage in response to that. Huzzah!

(For example, suppose you do all the stuff from the original post, but instead of Throne Room, you use King's Court instead. Suppose the second player also inherited Crown; then you play another Herald twice, using it to play first Masquerade (so the second player passes the Estate to the third player), then an attack card. The third player, who inherited Caravan Guard, plays the Estate from their hand, and then finally for the third King's Court round, you play the Estate from the third player's play area. And then you call Royal Carriage to play it again.)
Logged

majiponi

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 418
  • Respect: +352
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #16 on: May 12, 2018, 04:13:25 am »
0

Oh... what I posted makes us discuss a lot.

I like Inheritance. I've never imagined it needs a fix. As Donald points out, the problem is, MANDARIN, which moves cards from play. I also agree that we will never see this lunatic interaction again. The simplest way to overcome this problem is...

When you gain this in your buy phase, topdeck all Treasures  in play.

Mandarin errata like this. This changes the fewest.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +20618
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #17 on: May 12, 2018, 04:35:38 am »
0

When you gain this in your buy phase, topdeck all Treasures  in play.

Mandarin errata like this. This changes the fewest.
That wouldn't be enough for Mandarin - there are reasonable cards that would still break that. However the very similar "When you buy this..." would probably be enough, since it makes sure you aren't in the middle of resolving anything, unless it's something that lets you buy cards (which there aren't likely to be too many more of - Black Market is what does it now). And just having a new card that lets you buy a card isn't enough to be a problem, it would need to be a trigger, or specifically happen in the middle of doing two things with a card.

Though that just changes one word on Mandarin, it also gets rid of the Horn of Plenty trick.

Inheritance still hangs on a thread there, but I'm not seeing how to generate the problem with Bonfire or Procession.
Logged

crj

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 923
  • Respect: +1030
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #18 on: May 12, 2018, 07:39:25 am »
+3

Another way to treat Throne room is like this:
1. Choose an action card from hand.
2. Create a pointer to the physical copy of the card.
3. Store a virtual copy of the card (ie remember its instructions and name and types)
4. Play the card being pointed to.
5a. If the card has moved (even if it later returns to play), then play the virtual copy of it.
5b. If the card has not moved, then play it.
I fear the body of rules you'd then need to create for how a "virtual copy" of a card behaved in every possible circumstance would then be second only to Possession in its baroque intricacy. Specimen question: is a virtual card in play for the purpose of pricing Peddler?
Logged

trivialknot

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 616
  • Respect: +950
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #19 on: May 12, 2018, 11:50:35 am »
+4

Another way to treat Throne room is like this:
1. Choose an action card from hand.
2. Create a pointer to the physical copy of the card.
3. Store a virtual copy of the card (ie remember its instructions and name and types)
4. Play the card being pointed to.
5a. If the card has moved (even if it later returns to play), then play the virtual copy of it.
5b. If the card has not moved, then play it.
I fear the body of rules you'd then need to create for how a "virtual copy" of a card behaved in every possible circumstance would then be second only to Possession in its baroque intricacy. Specimen question: is a virtual card in play for the purpose of pricing Peddler?
You can treat the "virtual" card as the original card, which you have lost track of.  So, you play it, but whenever there's an effect that moves its location, that effect fails. So, it fails to go in to play, and it doesn't affect Peddler.

I like Inheritance. I've never imagined it needs a fix. As Donald points out, the problem is, MANDARIN, which moves cards from play. I also agree that we will never see this lunatic interaction again.


You can create the interaction without Mandarin.

Play King's Court, choosing Band of Misfits
--Play Band of Misfits as Mining Village, trash it
--Play Band of Misfits as Throne Room, choosing Herald
----Play Herald, playing Lurker to gain Band of Misfits
----Play Herald, playing Throne Room, choosing Band of Misfits
------Play Band of Misfits as Lighthouse twice
--Play Band of Misfits again.  But is it a Lighthouse now?

So, do these interactions actually work on Dominion Online?  I'd love to see a video of that.
Logged

trivialknot

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 616
  • Respect: +950
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #20 on: May 12, 2018, 12:06:21 pm »
+1

The lose-track change would change Throne / Feast in the original main set; I'm not doing it. People don't know the lose track rule, and the main set rulebook said Throne / Feast worked. For new games this would be a thing to consider; Dominion does not want to mess with that.

I think you can lose track harder and still have Throning Feast work. One way would be to use last-known information for things you lost track of. Throne plays a card in your hand twice. That card's not in your hand anymore after the first play? (Actually true whatever it plays; Feast wouldn't even be a special case.) Ok, just play whatever that card was back when it was in your hand. Throne wants to play an Estate that used to be in your hand but has somehow maybe ended up around the world and in the supply or in your opponent's deck or maybe is still in your hand and nobody really knows for sure where it is? Just play whatever the Estate was when it was in your hand.

There would be complications with BoM, though. The way BoM works now, I guess a Throne would always end up playing it as BoM both times (because that's what it was in your hand) so you'd always get to choose an action to emulate for both plays. If you wanted to change that, maybe you could revert BoM to its old behavior and have it become Feast or whatever as you play it; then Throne would remember it as Feast and play it as Feast twice... which was how that originally worked anyway, I think. (To me, either one of those options seems like an improvement over the current situation where sometimes a Throned BoM is stuck as one card and sometimes it's not.)

Using last-known information would also, I guess, make things like Transmute and Procession work like Ritual and care what stuff looks like just before you trash it, not what it turns into afterwards.
I like this way of dealing with the problem--not as a modification of Throne Room et al., but a modification of the lose track rule.  Whenever you need to do something to a card that you have lost track of, then not only do all "move" effects fail, you also treat the card as if its name/types/abilities have not changed since losing track.

Although, as noted, this changes the behavior of several interactions.  If you TR-BoM as Feast, then the second time you play the card, you're forced to play as Feast again, since that's what it was when you lost track of it.  If you Procession-BoM as Lighthouse, then you gain a $3-cost, since the card only cost $2 when you lost track of it.  Actually, I think the Procession interaction shouldn't work, since Procession itself put the card in the trash, and as long as it's still in the trash it shouldn't lose track.
Logged

chipperMDW

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
  • Respect: +508
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #21 on: May 12, 2018, 12:11:12 pm »
+1

It's something to think about. We aren't necessarily talking about a Throne Room; an effect could just play a card once, and somehow the card could vanish before being played (e.g. Summon if it didn't say "if you do"). So the rule can't be about what the card was the first time - there may have been no other time. However at some point we knew what card we were talking about, so we can refer to that. It would probably be a confusing rule, though to be fair it covers cases that are confusing any which way. It would be really simple to just not let you play a card without being able to put the physical card into play - like I said, a fine solution for some other game.

(Bolding mine.)

Exactly. Since the rules specify the moment a set of instructions lose track of a card, you can just take the info known prior to that moment. In the Not-Summon situation, the card goes to your discard pile (or wherever it's overridden to go to) and Not-Summon knows where it is and what it looks like at that point. Then a thing happens (e.g. Watchtower or Border Village) and suddenly, from Not-Summon's perspective, the card is gone. Not-Summon still plays the thing it remembers the card looking like last time it saw it.

Quote
As I like to point out, the actual problem situation we are talking about is extremely obscure. So, the rules weight it adds wants to be correspondingly tiny.

I understand. I just feel like there's a way to structure the rules so that the "holes" are closed. I think using last-known information would cut off a whole class of weird interaction issues. If it's guaranteed that nothing ever needs to know anything about a card except for what's currently visible or what's remembered about it from the last time it was, then all of this BoM/Fortress/Inheritance/Quarry/Mandarin/Transmute/Procession stuff becomes moot because, no matter where a card gets bounced around during an interaction and no matter what it ends up looking like, the rules already have it covered so that players don't need information they might not have access to. That way, you can design cool, weird things like Inheritance and know that the weird situations they create are fine and already have answers.


I appreciate this new ability to play other people's cards, because it makes the "if it's still in play" wording on Royal Carriage meaningfully distinct from "if you still have it in play." All you have to do is play a card that a different player already has in play, and then you can call Royal Carriage in response to that. Huzzah!

I don't think the other player's card can ever end up in play through this mechanism. (Did it?) In the case described in the OP, the Throne Room says to play the Estate a second time. It has lost track of it, so it can't move it from wherever it is (opponent's discard pile, probably), but it can still produce its on-play effect (which happens to be different from the first time due to belonging to another player at the moment).
Logged

trivialknot

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 616
  • Respect: +950
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #22 on: May 12, 2018, 12:24:30 pm »
+5

I don't think the other player's card can ever end up in play through this mechanism.
Oh, it surely can!  Suppose your opponent inherited Caravan Guard.  And somewhere in your action chain, after Ambassadoring the Estate, you play an Attack, and your opponent responds by playing several Estates, one of which may or may not have been the Estate you gave to them. 8)
Logged

chipperMDW

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
  • Respect: +508
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #23 on: May 12, 2018, 12:34:05 pm »
0

I don't think the other player's card can ever end up in play through this mechanism.
Oh, it surely can!  Suppose your opponent inherited Caravan Guard.  And somewhere in your action chain, after Ambassadoring the Estate, you play an Attack, and your opponent responds by playing several Estates, one of which may or may not have been the Estate you gave to them. 8)

Oh, I see. I misread that part in Violet CLM's post. Neat!
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +20618
    • View Profile
Re: Inheritance interaction
« Reply #24 on: May 12, 2018, 04:55:43 pm »
0

--Play Band of Misfits as Mining Village, trash it
I see I see. There are of course several cards that trash themselves, and they are a way to have a card leave play.

To get the category as small as possible, my next guess is that it's just these three ways to make a card not be itself: Band of Misfits, Overlord, Inheritance. Can you mess up without those?

Band of Misfits and Overlord should be like Necromancer - play the card leaving it there, non-Duration. Inheritance should be e.g. "discard an Estate to..." (it's trickier than that because there's no terse way to say "you can do this any time you are allowed to play an action," although again it's too big of a change for errata, and if the card weren't published yet I wouldn't be trying to simulate it exactly).
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  All
 

Page created in 0.157 seconds with 21 queries.