Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Crown + Small Castle  (Read 2838 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MrSir712

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
  • Shuffle iT Username: MrSir712
  • Respect: +5
    • View Profile
Crown + Small Castle
« on: December 17, 2019, 10:29:33 pm »
0

When I use Crown (or Throne Room I guess) on Small Castle, is it possible to use the "trash this" option both the first and second time playing it to gain the next two Castles?

If not, why? What I want to know is if either of these (hypothetical) rules apply here:
  • Crown "loses track" of Small Castle when it trashes itself?
  • Small Castle cannot trash itself for benefit when it's already in the trash?
Logged

grep

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 297
  • Respect: +449
    • View Profile
Re: Crown + Small Castle
« Reply #1 on: December 18, 2019, 12:00:32 am »
+3

You will play Small Castle twice, but you will only gain one castle because of the "If you do" clause.
Logged

Dominionaer

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 178
  • Respect: +66
    • View Profile
Re: Crown + Small Castle
« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2019, 05:31:46 am »
+1

Small Castle cannot trash itself for benefit when it's already in the trash!
Logged

Chris is me

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +3457
    • View Profile
Re: Crown + Small Castle
« Reply #3 on: December 18, 2019, 08:08:59 am »
0

Crown can be used to play Small Castle twice. The first time, you choose to trash itself, and gain a castle. The second time, you choose to trash itself, but Small Castle has lost track of itself because it is not in play. "If you do" fails and you do not gain a second Castle.
Logged
Twitch channel: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisisme2791

bug me on discord

pm me if you wanna do stuff for the blog

they/them

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Crown + Small Castle
« Reply #4 on: December 18, 2019, 09:18:40 am »
+1

When I use Crown (or Throne Room I guess) on Small Castle, is it possible to use the "trash this" option both the first and second time playing it to gain the next two Castles?

If not, why? What I want to know is if either of these (hypothetical) rules apply here:
  • Crown "loses track" of Small Castle when it trashes itself?
  • Small Castle cannot trash itself for benefit when it's already in the trash?

It is actually both of those rules. Either of those things by itself would be enough to stop you from gaining a second castle, and they both hold true.

A classic example of this exact same thing is Throne Room + Mining Village. The fact that you can't trash it twice with Throne Room is spelled out in the official FAQ.
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

mxdata

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1190
  • Respect: +1335
    • View Profile
Re: Crown + Small Castle
« Reply #5 on: December 19, 2019, 03:46:28 am »
0

When I use Crown (or Throne Room I guess) on Small Castle, is it possible to use the "trash this" option both the first and second time playing it to gain the next two Castles?

If not, why? What I want to know is if either of these (hypothetical) rules apply here:
  • Crown "loses track" of Small Castle when it trashes itself?
  • Small Castle cannot trash itself for benefit when it's already in the trash?

It is actually both of those rules. Either of those things by itself would be enough to stop you from gaining a second castle, and they both hold true.

A classic example of this exact same thing is Throne Room + Mining Village. The fact that you can't trash it twice with Throne Room is spelled out in the official FAQ.

The lose track rule doesn't apply in this case, though.  A card that trashes itself can still be played from the trash.  E.g., if you play a Tragic Hero with a Throne Room/Crown, and it gets trashed on the first play, you can still play it the second time.  It's only the second rule that applies here - since it's already in the trash, you can't trash it a second time (though, you could still trash another Castle from your hand!), and the gaining is contingent upon trashing
Logged
They/them

Chris is me

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +3457
    • View Profile
Re: Crown + Small Castle
« Reply #6 on: December 19, 2019, 08:10:46 am »
+2

When I use Crown (or Throne Room I guess) on Small Castle, is it possible to use the "trash this" option both the first and second time playing it to gain the next two Castles?

If not, why? What I want to know is if either of these (hypothetical) rules apply here:
  • Crown "loses track" of Small Castle when it trashes itself?
  • Small Castle cannot trash itself for benefit when it's already in the trash?

It is actually both of those rules. Either of those things by itself would be enough to stop you from gaining a second castle, and they both hold true.

A classic example of this exact same thing is Throne Room + Mining Village. The fact that you can't trash it twice with Throne Room is spelled out in the official FAQ.

The lose track rule doesn't apply in this case, though.  A card that trashes itself can still be played from the trash.  E.g., if you play a Tragic Hero with a Throne Room/Crown, and it gets trashed on the first play, you can still play it the second time.

Yes, it does. Lose track has nothing to do with playing a card - you don't have to have track of a card to play it. The lose track rule is invoked when the card tries to trash itself and can't find itself. Nobody in the entire thread has claimed that Small Castle isn't played a second time.
Logged
Twitch channel: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisisme2791

bug me on discord

pm me if you wanna do stuff for the blog

they/them

markusin

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3846
  • Shuffle iT Username: markusin
  • I also switched from Starcraft
  • Respect: +2437
    • View Profile
Re: Crown + Small Castle
« Reply #7 on: December 19, 2019, 10:37:45 am »
0

When I use Crown (or Throne Room I guess) on Small Castle, is it possible to use the "trash this" option both the first and second time playing it to gain the next two Castles?

If not, why? What I want to know is if either of these (hypothetical) rules apply here:
  • Crown "loses track" of Small Castle when it trashes itself?
  • Small Castle cannot trash itself for benefit when it's already in the trash?

It is actually both of those rules. Either of those things by itself would be enough to stop you from gaining a second castle, and they both hold true.

A classic example of this exact same thing is Throne Room + Mining Village. The fact that you can't trash it twice with Throne Room is spelled out in the official FAQ.

The lose track rule doesn't apply in this case, though.  A card that trashes itself can still be played from the trash.  E.g., if you play a Tragic Hero with a Throne Room/Crown, and it gets trashed on the first play, you can still play it the second time.

Yes, it does. Lose track has nothing to do with playing a card - you don't have to have track of a card to play it. The lose track rule is invoked when the card tries to trash itself and can't find itself. Nobody in the entire thread has claimed that Small Castle isn't played a second time.

Yeah, the Lose Track rule (renamed "Stop Moving rule") means that a card cannot move to another zone if the card isn't where it normally expects to be. For cards like Mining Village, it expects to be in play. If it's already in the trash, well it can't trash itself because it is not in play. If you play Mining Village with Band of Misfits (post errata), the Mining Village still cannot trash itself because it is still in the supply and not in play, and so you can't get the +$2 because you did not "trash" the card if it didn't move to the trash pile. You do however get the "+1 Card +2 Action" effect. This is the Lose Track rule in action.

Really, I think the whole "can't trash a card already in the trash" rule is redundant in the face of lose track and nothing would change if the former did not exist at all. There are no cards that attempt to trash a card and expect it to be in the trash and then care about whether or not the card was trashed.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Crown + Small Castle
« Reply #8 on: December 19, 2019, 11:29:48 am »
0


Yeah, the Lose Track rule (renamed "Stop Moving rule") means that a card cannot move to another zone if the card isn't where it normally expects to be. For cards like Mining Village, it expects to be in play. If it's already in the trash, well it can't trash itself because it is not in play. If you play Mining Village with Band of Misfits (post errata), the Mining Village still cannot trash itself because it is still in the supply and not in play, and so you can't get the +$2 because you did not "trash" the card if it didn't move to the trash pile. You do however get the "+1 Card +2 Action" effect. This is the Lose Track rule in action.


Yes, this is why I think renaming the rule was a good move; far too many people get confused and think that lose track means you can't play a card.

Quote
Really, I think the whole "can't trash a card already in the trash" rule is redundant in the face of lose track and nothing would change if the former did not exist at all. There are no cards that attempt to trash a card and expect it to be in the trash and then care about whether or not the card was trashed.

I'm not sure if there is a specific actual rule saying that you can't trash a card already in the trash. That simply comes from basic definitions of words. To trash a card means to move it to the trash pile; and you can't move it to the trash pile if it already is in the trash pile. There's no rule needed to state that you can't trash a card already in the trash; that's more of just a clarification on what words mean.
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: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Crown + Small Castle
« Reply #9 on: December 19, 2019, 02:49:22 pm »
+6

I'm not sure if there is a specific actual rule saying that you can't trash a card already in the trash. That simply comes from basic definitions of words. To trash a card means to move it to the trash pile; and you can't move it to the trash pile if it already is in the trash pile. There's no rule needed to state that you can't trash a card already in the trash; that's more of just a clarification on what words mean.
I don't remember if it's in a rulebook, but it's a thing some people need to hear, and it's official: if you try to trash a card in the trash, you fail to.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Crown + Small Castle
« Reply #10 on: December 21, 2019, 05:00:13 pm »
0

  • Crown "loses track" of Small Castle when it trashes itself?

For completeness, yes, this is also true. If Crown hadn't lost track of Small Castle, it would be able to move it to play, and then Small Castle would not have lost track of itself and would be able to trash itself.
So both of these are true:
1) Crown loses track of Small Castle when Small Castle is moved to trash (since Crown didn't move it there).
2) Small Castles loses track of itself when it's not in play upon being played.

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Crown + Small Castle
« Reply #11 on: December 21, 2019, 05:23:29 pm »
0

Yes, this is why I think renaming the rule was a good move; far too many people get confused and think that lose track means you can't play a card.

True, but I think "lose track" is more accurate, because it says that abilities keep track of cards. "Stop moving" just describes what happens, not why or when. Donald pointed out that he changed the name because usually the player doesn't lose track of the card, but it's actually important to know that abilites keep track of cards. That's why it doesn't make a difference if the card moves back. It isn't enough to say that an ability expects a card to be in a certain place at the moment the ability tries to move it. The ability actually tracks the card from the moment it refers to it. Whenever the card moves from the expected location, the ability immediately loses track of it. So it has already lost track if the card moves back.

markusin

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3846
  • Shuffle iT Username: markusin
  • I also switched from Starcraft
  • Respect: +2437
    • View Profile
Re: Crown + Small Castle
« Reply #12 on: December 21, 2019, 11:56:28 pm »
0

Yes, this is why I think renaming the rule was a good move; far too many people get confused and think that lose track means you can't play a card.

True, but I think "lose track" is more accurate, because it says that abilities keep track of cards. "Stop moving" just describes what happens, not why or when. Donald pointed out that he changed the name because usually the player doesn't lose track of the card, but it's actually important to know that abilites keep track of cards. That's why it doesn't make a difference if the card moves back. It isn't enough to say that an ability expects a card to be in a certain place at the moment the ability tries to move it. The ability actually tracks the card from the moment it refers to it. Whenever the card moves from the expected location, the ability immediately loses track of it. So it has already lost track if the card moves back.

It gets muddy because the reason a card loses track of the thing it's tracking is always that the card moved "unexpectedly". It's sort of a coincidence that a card "stops" moving due to it having moved in a way that it is "lost track" of. "Stop moving" has the word "moving" in it, which is related to the reason a card is lost track of, so it's sort of appropriate, but only by coincidence.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Crown + Small Castle
« Reply #13 on: December 22, 2019, 08:46:04 pm »
0

Hmm. Well, first of all, I don't know if you meant to imply otherwise, but what "expectedly" means is actually clear. It's if another ability moves the card. Ability x tracks a card, and loses track if any other ability moves it (including the tracked card's own ability of course).

The wrinkle here is that the tracked card doesn't actually have to move while it is being tracked. If it's not where the ability expects to be, for any reason, at any point, the ability loses track. The classic example is when a card is played from the trash. The card's own play ability expects it to be in play. Since it's not, it loses track of the card from the moment it starts tracking it. But it doesn't technically "lose" track, since it never got track in the first place!

And this is actually an important use of the lose-track rule now, since we have Necromancer, Captain, new BoM, new Overlord and new Inheritance (in addtion to TR variants playing a card that trashed itself or moved itself somewhere else).

So is "stop moving" better then? For the reason I said above, I don't think so. But... at first glance you have a point that a card is lost track of because it moves, and then can't move further, so it "stops moving". However! that is, actually, often not the case at all. Let's take a closer look. Let's say Captain plays a Mining Village. The MV's play ability loses track of the MV from the start, even though it has not moved at all! We see that it's the exact same thing for the classic TR + MV. Yes, the MV was trashed earlier, but when MV is played for the second time, it loses track because it's not in play, not because it moved.

So to amend what I said above: To be last track of, the tracked card doesn't actually have to move at all. It only has to not be where the tracking ability expects it to be.

markusin

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3846
  • Shuffle iT Username: markusin
  • I also switched from Starcraft
  • Respect: +2437
    • View Profile
Re: Crown + Small Castle
« Reply #14 on: December 24, 2019, 03:09:28 pm »
+1

Hmm. Well, first of all, I don't know if you meant to imply otherwise, but what "expectedly" means is actually clear. It's if another ability moves the card. Ability x tracks a card, and loses track if any other ability moves it (including the tracked card's own ability of course).

The wrinkle here is that the tracked card doesn't actually have to move while it is being tracked. If it's not where the ability expects to be, for any reason, at any point, the ability loses track. The classic example is when a card is played from the trash. The card's own play ability expects it to be in play. Since it's not, it loses track of the card from the moment it starts tracking it. But it doesn't technically "lose" track, since it never got track in the first place!

And this is actually an important use of the lose-track rule now, since we have Necromancer, Captain, new BoM, new Overlord and new Inheritance (in addtion to TR variants playing a card that trashed itself or moved itself somewhere else).

So is "stop moving" better then? For the reason I said above, I don't think so. But... at first glance you have a point that a card is lost track of because it moves, and then can't move further, so it "stops moving". However! that is, actually, often not the case at all. Let's take a closer look. Let's say Captain plays a Mining Village. The MV's play ability loses track of the MV from the start, even though it has not moved at all! We see that it's the exact same thing for the classic TR + MV. Yes, the MV was trashed earlier, but when MV is played for the second time, it loses track because it's not in play, not because it moved.

So to amend what I said above: To be last track of, the tracked card doesn't actually have to move at all. It only has to not be where the tracking ability expects it to be.

Oh man, this gives me flashbacks of when Band of Misfits was a shapeshifter and stopped being locked into its chosen card while being throned if it moved to the trash.

You can argue that "resisting movement" like a mining village being played from the trash by a command card is also a form of movement, but I see your point. I still think "stop moving" gives a better idea of when you should be looking up the rules, as it describes the consequence of the rule rather than a descriptor for the cause.
Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.051 seconds with 20 queries.