Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Potion/Debt and cost-reduction  (Read 287 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

hhelibebcnofnena

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 272
  • Respect: +152
    • View Profile
Potion/Debt and cost-reduction
« on: May 01, 2019, 10:15:56 am »
+2

This just occurred to me.
If I were to get a Bridge in play (or any other cost reduction card), then the clause which says 'but not less than $0' to prevent cards costing negative amounts wouldn't apply to Potion or Debt costing cards (Vineyard, for example), because $-1 and Potion or $-1 and Debt are not "less than $0" or "more than $0". I would assume that there is an implicit clause preventing cards from costing negative coins and Potion (or Debt). However, strictly according to the wording, this is not the case.

Again, I am 99.99% sure that any official ruling will say that Vineyards still cost $0P, Engineers still cost $0 + 4 Debt, etc. but I haven't found one.
Logged
Hydrogen Helium Lithium Beryllium Boron Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen Fluorine Neon Sodium

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7845
  • Respect: +8670
    • View Profile
Re: Potion/Debt and cost-reduction
« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2019, 10:36:16 am »
+3

I remember this being discussed a long time ago. Yes, it's an example of the wording being technically inaccurate. "But not less than " really should be "the cost in coins cannot be less than ".
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

crj

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1216
  • Respect: +1293
    • View Profile
Re: Potion/Debt and cost-reduction
« Reply #2 on: May 01, 2019, 05:27:55 pm »
+2

"...but at least $0" would do the trick, no?
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
  • Respect: +21671
    • View Profile
Re: Potion/Debt and cost-reduction
« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2019, 05:51:49 pm »
0

If I were to get a Bridge in play (or any other cost reduction card), then the clause which says 'but not less than $0' to prevent cards costing negative amounts wouldn't apply to Potion or Debt costing cards (Vineyard, for example), because $-1 and Potion or $-1 and Debt are not "less than $0" or "more than $0". I would assume that there is an implicit clause preventing cards from costing negative coins and Potion (or Debt). However, strictly according to the wording, this is not the case.

Again, I am 99.99% sure that any official ruling will say that Vineyards still cost $0P, Engineers still cost $0 + 4 Debt, etc. but I haven't found one.
Bridge etc. will not lower the coin amount below $0, even on cards that also cost potions/debt.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5257
    • View Profile
Re: Potion/Debt and cost-reduction
« Reply #4 on: May 02, 2019, 08:41:26 am »
+2

I asked this a while ago and the answer was basically that I was poking at the rules for poking at the rules' sake.

Mmmm... sake. Kanpai.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
  • Respect: +21671
    • View Profile
Re: Potion/Debt and cost-reduction
« Reply #5 on: May 02, 2019, 05:42:40 pm »
+2

I asked this a while ago and the answer was basically that I was poking at the rules for poking at the rules' sake.
- That answer is also accurate.
- It was how you said it.
- It was what you didn't say.
- hhelibebcnofnena just caught me in a good mood - I'd just found a quarter in the sofa.
- And now look at you, with nearly 5000 posts of your own. And this is the thanks I get.
Logged

hhelibebcnofnena

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 272
  • Respect: +152
    • View Profile
Re: Potion/Debt and cost-reduction
« Reply #6 on: May 02, 2019, 10:05:40 pm »
0

the answer was basically that I was poking at the rules for poking at the rules' sake.

- That answer is also accurate.

Guilty as charged. There was absolutely no ambiguity as to what the answer would be, and I even said so in my original post. It's kind of fun to do sometimes. I also poke to find inconsistencies in books or series I read.
Logged
Hydrogen Helium Lithium Beryllium Boron Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen Fluorine Neon Sodium

Ingix

  • Thief
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 97
  • Shuffle iT Username: Ingix
  • Respect: +107
    • View Profile
Re: Potion/Debt and cost-reduction
« Reply #7 on: May 03, 2019, 04:00:21 am »
0

The point at poking at the rules is that what is today an academic discussion can be (after the next expansion)  a question that 'pops up in every second game' (think Priest/Sewers questions for a while).

For those old enough, they might remember the "Wall of Boom" in Magic. http://www.recoculous.com/2012/03/30/the-three-best-combos-that-no-longer-work

Because of old cards (Time Vault) and new cards at that time (Interdict), you could suddenly do something that generated unlimited mana between turns (and that had nothing to do with the cards mentioned for which the rules needed to be adjusted), and Magic players always find uses for unlimited mana, even if they have to use it during upkeep.
Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.08 seconds with 21 queries.