Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All]

Author Topic: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations  (Read 5234 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23474
    • View Profile
Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« on: January 24, 2020, 07:55:53 pm »
+12

I play Merchant Ship. I buy Bonfire to trash it and Villa to go back to my Action phase, more to do. I gain the Merchant Ship with Rogue and trigger a shuffle with Vassal and it plays a Merchant Ship. Is it the same Merchant Ship? It matters. If it is Vassal stays in play, otherwise it doesn't.

But there's no way to know. Throne Rooms care "is this that card" in just the way I was trying to get rid of in other cards.

So, the ruling in these situations is, once you've shuffled a card into a deck, there are no cards that are "that card." For my example, Vassal does not stay in play.

Edit: Later in the discussion below, this turned into: "In the circumstance where you can no longer move a card, it's also no longer "that card" for effects that track a specific card."
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 02:44:05 pm by Donald X. »
Logged

spineflu

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 679
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • +1 Coffers, +1 Respect
  • Respect: +404
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2020, 09:55:52 pm »
+2

so if you top-decked it with mountain village harbinger, then vassal'd it, it would be the same merchant ship? or once it is face-down, it is anonymous and couldve been any merchant ship?

basically: is the shuffle the key operation, or is the returning-to-deck?
« Last Edit: January 25, 2020, 04:50:22 pm by spineflu »
Logged

mxdata

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 461
  • Respect: +482
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2020, 10:48:51 pm »
0

I'm confused - why does it matter whether it's the same card or not?  Wouldn't Vassal stay in play in either case by virtue of playing a Duration card?
Logged
They/them

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +3965
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2020, 12:16:29 am »
+3

The current version of the rule is, if card X causes a Duration to be played multiple times, like Throne Room or Royal Carriage, then card X remains in play with the Duration. But if card X causes a Duration to be played only once, like Herald or Vassal, it's cleaned up as usual this turn.
Logged

singletee

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 914
  • Shuffle iT Username: singletee
  • Gold, Silver, Copper, Let's Jam!
  • Respect: +1593
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2020, 12:34:51 am »
0

The current version of the rule is, if card X causes a Duration to be played multiple times, like Throne Room or Royal Carriage, then card X remains in play with the Duration. But if card X causes a Duration to be played only once, like Herald or Vassal, it's cleaned up as usual this turn.

Right, so why would Vassal ever stay in play? It's not a Command and it's not Throne-like.

mxdata

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 461
  • Respect: +482
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2020, 12:35:09 am »
0

The current version of the rule is, if card X causes a Duration to be played multiple times, like Throne Room or Royal Carriage, then card X remains in play with the Duration. But if card X causes a Duration to be played only once, like Herald or Vassal, it's cleaned up as usual this turn.

Oh!  Okay, that makes sense now.  Thanks!
Logged
They/them

mxdata

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 461
  • Respect: +482
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2020, 12:44:51 am »
0

The current version of the rule is, if card X causes a Duration to be played multiple times, like Throne Room or Royal Carriage, then card X remains in play with the Duration. But if card X causes a Duration to be played only once, like Herald or Vassal, it's cleaned up as usual this turn.

Right, so why would Vassal ever stay in play? It's not a Command and it's not Throne-like.

Right, I got confused by the talk about it staying out and wasn't even thinking about it not being Throne Room-like

For clarification: When the original card was trashed, would it or would it not have the duration effect on the next turn?
Logged
They/them

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8862
  • Respect: +9645
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #7 on: January 25, 2020, 12:46:30 am »
0

The current version of the rule is, if card X causes a Duration to be played multiple times, like Throne Room or Royal Carriage, then card X remains in play with the Duration. But if card X causes a Duration to be played only once, like Herald or Vassal, it's cleaned up as usual this turn.

Right, so why would Vassal ever stay in play? It's not a Command and it's not Throne-like.

Yeah I’m missing something. Even if it were considered the same Merchant Ship; the Vassal wouldn’t have cause it to be played multiple times... it would have caused it to be played a second time. It wasn’t responsible for the first play; so it doesn’t get credit for playing it multiple times no matter what.

I could see the argument if Vassal played Merchant ship, then both were Bonfires, gained back, and same Vassal played same Merchant Ship again. Then the Vassal played Merchant Ship multiple times; and we need this rule to stop Vassal from staying out.
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

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8862
  • Respect: +9645
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #8 on: January 25, 2020, 12:47:26 am »
+3

The current version of the rule is, if card X causes a Duration to be played multiple times, like Throne Room or Royal Carriage, then card X remains in play with the Duration. But if card X causes a Duration to be played only once, like Herald or Vassal, it's cleaned up as usual this turn.

Right, so why would Vassal ever stay in play? It's not a Command and it's not Throne-like.

Right, I got confused by the talk about it staying out and wasn't even thinking about it not being Throne Room-like

For clarification: When the original card was trashed, would it or would it not have the duration effect on the next turn?

It would; removing a Duration card from play never stops it from still working normally next turn.
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

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +3965
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #9 on: January 25, 2020, 01:15:23 am »
+3

The current version of the rule is, if card X causes a Duration to be played multiple times, like Throne Room or Royal Carriage, then card X remains in play with the Duration. But if card X causes a Duration to be played only once, like Herald or Vassal, it's cleaned up as usual this turn.

Right, so why would Vassal ever stay in play? It's not a Command and it's not Throne-like.

Yeah I’m missing something. Even if it were considered the same Merchant Ship; the Vassal wouldn’t have cause it to be played multiple times... it would have caused it to be played a second time. It wasn’t responsible for the first play; so it doesn’t get credit for playing it multiple times no matter what.

Scepter and Royal Carriage stay in play, even though they're not responsible for an Action being played the first time, only the second time. In the scenario in question, Vassal is responsible for playing the card a second time like those.
Logged

spineflu

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 679
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • +1 Coffers, +1 Respect
  • Respect: +404
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #10 on: January 25, 2020, 01:17:31 am »
+1

The current version of the rule is, if card X causes a Duration to be played multiple times, like Throne Room or Royal Carriage, then card X remains in play with the Duration. But if card X causes a Duration to be played only once, like Herald or Vassal, it's cleaned up as usual this turn.

Right, so why would Vassal ever stay in play? It's not a Command and it's not Throne-like.

Yeah I’m missing something. Even if it were considered the same Merchant Ship; the Vassal wouldn’t have cause it to be played multiple times... it would have caused it to be played a second time. It wasn’t responsible for the first play; so it doesn’t get credit for playing it multiple times no matter what.

I could see the argument if Vassal played Merchant ship, then both were Bonfires, gained back, and same Vassal played same Merchant Ship again. Then the Vassal played Merchant Ship multiple times; and we need this rule to stop Vassal from staying out.

it might matter for a new card and we're getting this ruling in terms of existing cards ahead of time.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23474
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #11 on: January 25, 2020, 04:45:27 am »
0

so if you top-decked it with mountain village, then vassal'd it, it would be the same merchant ship? or once it is face-down, it is anonymous and couldve been any merchant ship?

basically: is the shuffle the key operation, or is the returning-to-deck?
The current version of the rule is, if card X causes a Duration to be played multiple times, like Throne Room or Royal Carriage, then card X remains in play with the Duration. But if card X causes a Duration to be played only once, like Herald or Vassal, it's cleaned up as usual this turn.

Right, so why would Vassal ever stay in play? It's not a Command and it's not Throne-like.

Yeah I’m missing something. Even if it were considered the same Merchant Ship; the Vassal wouldn’t have cause it to be played multiple times... it would have caused it to be played a second time. It wasn’t responsible for the first play; so it doesn’t get credit for playing it multiple times no matter what.

Scepter and Royal Carriage stay in play, even though they're not responsible for an Action being played the first time, only the second time. In the scenario in question, Vassal is responsible for playing the card a second time like those.
Correct. Vassal (and other cards will do this too, e.g. Herald, Golem) is just like Royal Carriage here. If it played a Duration card for a second time, it should stay in play. But there's no way to know if it did or not, in this very contrived example.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23474
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #12 on: January 25, 2020, 04:48:34 am »
+1

so if you top-decked it with mountain village, then vassal'd it, it would be the same merchant ship? or once it is face-down, it is anonymous and couldve been any merchant ship?

basically: is the shuffle the key operation, or is the returning-to-deck?
We let you remember a topdecked card, e.g. I can gain a Nomad Camp and trash it from the top with Watchtower. So the shuffle is the key thing. We can conceivably know the 10th card down and well. When we do, we do know it; that's not a rules hole to fix and this situation was never happening to start with, and is even less likely there.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23474
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #13 on: January 25, 2020, 04:50:38 am »
0

For clarification: When the original card was trashed, would it or would it not have the duration effect on the next turn?
Trashing a Duration card doesn't stop it from functioning (except for below-the-line stuff e.g. Bridge Troll's cost reduction).

Ideally there would be no way to get Duration cards out of play until the Clean-up that they're done. Procession has been fixed; Bonfire and Mandarin have not.
Logged

J Reggie

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 741
  • Shuffle iT Username: J Reggie
  • Respect: +1214
    • View Profile
    • Jeff Rosenthal Music
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #14 on: January 25, 2020, 12:26:00 pm »
+3

So if I gained the Merchant Ship with Graverobber, the Vassal would stay out?

Edit: what if there are multiple Merchant Ships in the trash? Do I get to choose which one I gain?

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23474
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #15 on: January 25, 2020, 04:41:11 pm »
0

So if I gained the Merchant Ship with Graverobber, the Vassal would stay out?

Edit: what if there are multiple Merchant Ships in the trash? Do I get to choose which one I gain?
In the OP I am making a ruling that specifically says, it's a different Merchant Ship now, Vassal does not stay out. Prior to this ruling, there was no way to know f Vassal should stay in play or not.
Logged

mxdata

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 461
  • Respect: +482
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #16 on: January 25, 2020, 04:50:05 pm »
0

So if I gained the Merchant Ship with Graverobber, the Vassal would stay out?

Edit: what if there are multiple Merchant Ships in the trash? Do I get to choose which one I gain?

I don't think it matters which card was used to gain it - only that it was gained from the trash, so this ruling would apply equally well to Graverobber, or Lurker for that matter, and any potential future gain-from-trash cards

As for the second part of your question, yes, you can obviously chose which one you gain, in an in-person game at least (though the online implementation doesn't give you the option so I wonder how the server would treat this?), so I would think that the principle would be the same - if it doesn't get shuffled back (for example, returned to the top by Watchtower or retrieved from the discard pile by Mountain Village), then it counts as the same card being played twice.  That's just my interpretation though
Logged
They/them

J Reggie

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 741
  • Shuffle iT Username: J Reggie
  • Respect: +1214
    • View Profile
    • Jeff Rosenthal Music
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #17 on: January 25, 2020, 05:42:38 pm »
+2

The reason it would matter which card was used to gain it is because Graverobber topdecks it. My question would also apply to gaining it with Rogue or Lurker and then revealing Watchtower etc. So is it being in the trash that makes it stop being "that card" or only being shuffled into a deck? I'm sorry if I'm not understanding something obvious.

I guess the simple solution would be to not trash your durations with Bonfire.

spineflu

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 679
  • Shuffle iT Username: spineflu
  • +1 Coffers, +1 Respect
  • Respect: +404
    • View Profile
    • my instagram, where i paint things
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #18 on: January 25, 2020, 05:45:58 pm »
+1

The reason it would matter which card was used to gain it is because Graverobber topdecks it. My question would also apply to gaining it with Rogue or Lurker and then revealing Watchtower etc. So is it being in the trash that makes it stop being "that card" or only being shuffled into a deck? I'm sorry if I'm not understanding something obvious.

I guess the simple solution would be to not trash your durations with Bonfire.


so if you top-decked it with mountain village, then vassal'd it, it would be the same merchant ship? or once it is face-down, it is anonymous and couldve been any merchant ship?

basically: is the shuffle the key operation, or is the returning-to-deck?
We let you remember a topdecked card, e.g. I can gain a Nomad Camp and trash it from the top with Watchtower. So the shuffle is the key thing. We can conceivably know the 10th card down and well. When we do, we do know it; that's not a rules hole to fix and this situation was never happening to start with, and is even less likely there.

Worblehat

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
  • Respect: +6
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #19 on: January 25, 2020, 05:52:23 pm »
0

For clarification: When the original card was trashed, would it or would it not have the duration effect on the next turn?
Trashing a Duration card doesn't stop it from functioning (except for below-the-line stuff e.g. Bridge Troll's cost reduction).

But it should stop it from functioning - if there's no card in play, how can one be sure that the players will remember all the effects on that player's next turn? If this Bonfire-a-Duration scenario ever came up in my group (and why on earth would it?? :P) I'd certainly say that it means there's no duration effect on the following turn.

To me, that's the key issue in these kinds of discussions. Duration effects must be represented by cards in play; one Duration represented by the card itself, two by Throne Room or whatever caused a second copy of the effect. And in the case of Bonfire, the number of Duration effects on the following turn must be zero because there's no way to have any cards in play to remind everyone. (Again, not that there's any reason I can imagine why anyone would Bonfire a Duration...).

Using this interpretation of trashing Durations would allow the errata on Procession to be lifted. Go ahead, Procession a Caravan, you get two cantrip effects and draw no extra cards at the start of your next turn (that's something I could see occasionally being worth doing, at least).
Logged

mxdata

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 461
  • Respect: +482
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #20 on: January 25, 2020, 06:21:13 pm »
+2

For clarification: When the original card was trashed, would it or would it not have the duration effect on the next turn?
Trashing a Duration card doesn't stop it from functioning (except for below-the-line stuff e.g. Bridge Troll's cost reduction).

But it should stop it from functioning - if there's no card in play, how can one be sure that the players will remember all the effects on that player's next turn? If this Bonfire-a-Duration scenario ever came up in my group (and why on earth would it?? :P) I'd certainly say that it means there's no duration effect on the following turn.

To me, that's the key issue in these kinds of discussions. Duration effects must be represented by cards in play; one Duration represented by the card itself, two by Throne Room or whatever caused a second copy of the effect. And in the case of Bonfire, the number of Duration effects on the following turn must be zero because there's no way to have any cards in play to remind everyone. (Again, not that there's any reason I can imagine why anyone would Bonfire a Duration...).

Using this interpretation of trashing Durations would allow the errata on Procession to be lifted. Go ahead, Procession a Caravan, you get two cantrip effects and draw no extra cards at the start of your next turn (that's something I could see occasionally being worth doing, at least).

But that's based on the usual principle that an action can still continue to be played from the trash.  E.g., if you Throne Room a Tragic Hero, and it gets trashed on its first play, you can still get the +3 cards +1 buy and the treasure on the second play

And this is precisely why Procession got its errata - because without that errata you could do exactly that.  But in practice, it could be easy to forget that you'd processioned a duration on your previous turn.  So, to prevent that confusion, the non-duration qualification was added to Procession

EDIT: I just realized I misread the second part of your post.  It's certainly true that if it worked that way, we wouldn't need the errata, but that would be an actual change in the rules, not just a minor difference in interpretation - you'd be adding a rule that stops Duration cards, and only Duration cards, from working when trashed, as opposed to changing the way one particular card (Procession) works to avoid a potentially confusing effect of an existing rule
« Last Edit: January 25, 2020, 07:03:31 pm by mxdata »
Logged
They/them

crj

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1415
  • Respect: +1573
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #21 on: January 25, 2020, 06:49:44 pm »
+2

If this was at all common, I'd be suggesting that instead of trashing cards from play, Bonfire should put tokens on cards to designate that they should be trashed when discarded from play.

If such a mechanic were introduced, it could also deal more neatly with Improve, Scheme and self-trashers - albeit not identically.

It would, IMHO, be way cleaner. But a lot of trouble to go to for a corner case.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23474
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #22 on: January 25, 2020, 07:38:01 pm »
+6

For clarification: When the original card was trashed, would it or would it not have the duration effect on the next turn?
Trashing a Duration card doesn't stop it from functioning (except for below-the-line stuff e.g. Bridge Troll's cost reduction).

But it should stop it from functioning - if there's no card in play, how can one be sure that the players will remember all the effects on that player's next turn?
If I got to make the game from scratch today, sure. It's bad to have an effect you're supposed to remember without the card reminding you. I would totally get rid of that.

I'm not making the game from scratch today though. I'm dealing with not just an existing game with all its cards, but also an existing body of players. So like, ideally you wouldn't be able to "play" a card without putting it into play - if you can't put it into play, you fail to play it, and nothing further happens. A similar thing. I considered this change when doing the errata to fix Band of Misfits etc. People absolutely hated it. So I didn't do it. In a new game though, sure, don't let cards function without being in play, absolutely.

As things stand, the fix here is to not provide ways to get Duration cards out of play, since with the errata to Procession there's just Bonfire and and Mandarin. Bonfire is easy. Mandarin would look weird. But, it's something I can consider still when those sets get reprinted.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23474
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #23 on: January 25, 2020, 07:39:09 pm »
0

If this was at all common, I'd be suggesting that instead of trashing cards from play, Bonfire should put tokens on cards to designate that they should be trashed when discarded from play.

If such a mechanic were introduced, it could also deal more neatly with Improve, Scheme and self-trashers - albeit not identically.

It would, IMHO, be way cleaner. But a lot of trouble to go to for a corner case.
The cleanest way to do Bonfire is just, trash up to two Coppers from play. You are almost always trashing Coppers, and they aren't Duration cards. Putting tokens on cards to remember to do things later is in no way clean.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #24 on: January 26, 2020, 11:55:28 am »
+2

So if I gained the Merchant Ship with Graverobber, the Vassal would stay out?

Edit: what if there are multiple Merchant Ships in the trash? Do I get to choose which one I gain?
In the OP I am making a ruling that specifically says, it's a different Merchant Ship now, Vassal does not stay out. Prior to this ruling, there was no way to know f Vassal should stay in play or not.

The reason it would matter which card was used to gain it is because Graverobber topdecks it. My question would also apply to gaining it with Rogue or Lurker and then revealing Watchtower etc. So is it being in the trash that makes it stop being "that card" or only being shuffled into a deck? I'm sorry if I'm not understanding something obvious.

I'm not clear on the answer to this question. I play Merchant Ship, buy Bonfire and Villa. I Graverobber the Merchant Ship onto my deck. I play Vassal. So the Vassal stays out, since nothing got shuffled? But as J Reggie says, if there are several Merchant Ships in the trash, how do we know if this was the same one? I would think that any card that is trashed can never be "that card" either, since the trash pile is an unordered pile where you can have several copies of cards.

« Last Edit: January 26, 2020, 12:14:20 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #25 on: January 26, 2020, 12:07:33 pm »
+1

As things stand, the fix here is to not provide ways to get Duration cards out of play, since with the errata to Procession there's just Bonfire and and Mandarin. Bonfire is easy. Mandarin would look weird. But, it's something I can consider still when those sets get reprinted.

It's not just Bonfire and Mandarin though. :( With Capitalism, it's also Mint and Counterfeit.

Crypt and Herbalist can also remove played Durations via Capitalism, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't matter with current cards. (With Herbalist we would need a way to go back from the Clean-up phase. With Crypt we would need a way to go back from the Night phase (or Clean-up phase), or Night cards that could gain from trash and play cards.)

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #26 on: January 26, 2020, 12:13:31 pm »
0

Right, so why would Vassal ever stay in play? It's not a Command and it's not Throne-like.

Just a side comment about Command cards. Command cards have no rules attached to them about staying in play. You're thinking of cards that play a card while leaving it where it is (which currently includes 3 Command cards and 2 non-Command cards).

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23474
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #27 on: January 26, 2020, 09:26:01 pm »
+4

So if I gained the Merchant Ship with Graverobber, the Vassal would stay out?

Edit: what if there are multiple Merchant Ships in the trash? Do I get to choose which one I gain?
In the OP I am making a ruling that specifically says, it's a different Merchant Ship now, Vassal does not stay out. Prior to this ruling, there was no way to know f Vassal should stay in play or not.

The reason it would matter which card was used to gain it is because Graverobber topdecks it. My question would also apply to gaining it with Rogue or Lurker and then revealing Watchtower etc. So is it being in the trash that makes it stop being "that card" or only being shuffled into a deck? I'm sorry if I'm not understanding something obvious.

I'm not clear on the answer to this question. I play Merchant Ship, buy Bonfire and Villa. I Graverobber the Merchant Ship onto my deck. I play Vassal. So the Vassal stays out, since nothing got shuffled? But as J Reggie says, if there are several Merchant Ships in the trash, how do we know if this was the same one? I would think that any card that is trashed can never be "that card" either, since the trash pile is an unordered pile where you can have several copies of cards.
I misread his post, sorry. It's all clear now.

I have to make a ruling for, in what circumstances is a card no longer "that card." I need this because we can actually lose a card while still caring if it's "that card." In particular if it's shuffled into a deck we've lost it; so, a card shuffled into a deck is no longer "that card."

Trashing a card can't mean "it's no longer that card" because then Thief wouldn't work. Putting it onto your deck can't mean it's no longer that card, because rulebook rulings say you can e.g. buy Nomad Camp and then trash it with Watchtower.

In practice we can totally know if we have the right card; and if we aren't sure which physical card is which that doesn't matter, I can say, "I take the one that's the same one" or "I take a different one." In these situations that never come up. But, shuffle it into a deck and man, we don't know and there's no way out (except now this ruling).
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23474
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #28 on: January 26, 2020, 09:27:46 pm »
0

As things stand, the fix here is to not provide ways to get Duration cards out of play, since with the errata to Procession there's just Bonfire and and Mandarin. Bonfire is easy. Mandarin would look weird. But, it's something I can consider still when those sets get reprinted.

It's not just Bonfire and Mandarin though. :( With Capitalism, it's also Mint and Counterfeit.
I wondered if there were more, and there they are.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #29 on: January 28, 2020, 11:50:19 am »
0

Another possibility would be to say that the card stays in play if it caused a Duration to be played multiple times with the Duration in play. Then it would never stay in play in any of these corner cases. These kinds of rulings never make it into rulebooks anyway, since they're so marginal.

urza

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
  • Respect: +13
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #30 on: January 28, 2020, 01:23:08 pm »
+1

Scepter and Royal Carriage stay in play, even though they're not responsible for an Action being played the first time, only the second time. In the scenario in question, Vassal is responsible for playing the card a second time like those.
Is this what's important, though?  I always thought that "replay" was a special type of thing.  Both Scepter and Royal Carriage specifically say "replay", and they both only work on actions that haven't left play.  I don't see the original scenario as being a problem at all: yes, Vassal technically played a duration card for the second time, but it doesn't "replay" it, so Vassal would never stay in play.

Is the rule really that, if a card would play a certain physical duration card, and that physical duration card had already been played for any reason previously in the turn, then the first card stays in play for as long as that duration?  Can't the rule just apply to cards that either directly play a duration multiple times (e.g. Throne Room), or replay it?  Is there anything you lose by doing it that way?
« Last Edit: January 29, 2020, 02:11:14 pm by urza »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #31 on: January 28, 2020, 01:41:34 pm »
0

Scepter and Royal Carriage stay in play, even though they're not responsible for an Action being played the first time, only the second time. In the scenario in question, Vassal is responsible for playing the card a second time like those.
Is this what's important, though?  I always thought that "replay" was a special type of thing.  Both Scepter and Royal Carriage both specifically say "replay", and they both only work on actions that haven't left play.  I don't see the original scenario as being a problem at all: yes, Vassal technically played an action card for the second time, but it didn't "replay" an action and so it never would stay in play. 

Is the rule really that, if a card would play a certain physical duration card, and that physical duration card had already been played for any reason previously in the turn, then the first card stays in play for as long as that duration?  Can't the rule just apply to cards that either directly play a duration multiple times (e.g. Throne Room), or replay it?  Is there anything you lose by doing it that way?

I think your instinct is what almost everybody would think too. But the rule, technically, is that it needs to play a Duration an extra time. "Replay" is not special, it just mean to play it one more time. The Vassal plays the Duration one more time. The rule from the 2nd-edition rulebooks is, "if a Duration card is played multiple times by a card such as Throne Room, that card also stays in play until the Duration card is discarded." This is not technically accurate, since it excludes Royal Carriage and Scepter. But with the Renaissance rulebook we finally got the actual rule in print: it says "extra" instead of "multiple". (Maybe there are later printings of the other rulebooks too with this phrasing.) We need to rephrase it a little to allow your interpretation, as I mentioned above.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23474
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #32 on: January 28, 2020, 06:53:41 pm »
0

Right now the most recent versions of the Duration paragraph cover Royal Carriage and Scepter in that particular way. As written they create this issue with Vassal, that isn't really an issue except for e.g. Stef's program and Jeebus's document. This rules issue doesn't weigh on me enough to want the Duration paragraph to be in any way worse, in particular more complex. Just changing it at all is hard to agree to, just because, I have a working paragraph and want to be consistent. I did live with changing it for e.g. Royal Carriage and well that was a thing that really came up in games.

So that aside, it could be that I made "replay" special, or cared about the Duration card being in play. I guess I prefer replay there, because caring about Duration cards being in play leads to, wait why can a Duration card function at all without being in play - these other rules changes that I'm not making because ultimately they make players sad. Making "replay" special would mainly be, reverting to the previous Duration paragraph and uh maybe updating those FAQs.

It's not compelling yet though. I don't know that I get anything out of it.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #33 on: January 29, 2020, 11:31:50 am »
0

I get that the paragraph in the rulebooks shouldn't be more complex (and the addition of "in play" makes it more complex).

Instead it would be making the rule to be about only Throne Room and Scepter variants. It would be comparable to the new tracking rule for BoM etc. with Durations: It's only about cards that specifically tell you to leave the played card, not cards that happen to leave it. Vassal happens to replay the card, it doesn't specifically tell you to replay it.

Maybe something like this would be enough to cover it:

If a card that replays cards, such as Throne Room/Scepter, plays a Duration card, that card also stays in play until the Duration card is discarded, to track the fact that the Duration card was replayed.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2020, 11:33:56 am by Jeebus »
Logged

Wizard_Amul

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 128
  • Respect: +145
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #34 on: January 29, 2020, 11:44:21 am »
+1

I get that the paragraph in the rulebooks shouldn't be more complex (and the addition of "in play" makes it more complex).

Instead it would be making the rule to be about only Throne Room and Scepter variants. It would be comparable to the new tracking rule for BoM etc. with Durations: It's only about cards that specifically tell you to leave the played card, not cards that happen to leave it. Vassal happens to replay the card, it doesn't specifically tell you to replay it.

Maybe something like this would be enough to cover it:

If a card that replays cards, such as Throne Room/Scepter, plays a Duration card, that card also stays in play until the Duration card is discarded, to track the fact that the Duration card was replayed.

Like you mention, one issue with this is that cards don't specifically mention "replay." From this rule, how are you supposed to know what card "replays" a card vs one that just "plays" a card? Also, like with Vassal, it turns out that cards replay other cards only sometimes (i.e., Vassal does not "replay" a card every time you play it but only in certain circumstances). I don't have a good suggestion for this other than saying that if you're going to write a description for this, it would be good to have a clear definition for when a card is being "replayed."
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #35 on: January 29, 2020, 11:52:59 am »
0

Like you mention, one issue with this is that cards don't specifically mention "replay." From this rule, how are you supposed to know what card "replays" a card vs one that just "plays" a card? Also, like with Vassal, it turns out that cards replay other cards only sometimes (i.e., Vassal does not "replay" a card every time you play it but only in certain circumstances). I don't have a good suggestion for this other than saying that if you're going to write a description for this, it would be good to have a clear definition for when a card is being "replayed."

Every rulebook has one or two examples there. For instance Nocturne has "Throne Room". Adventures has "Disciple or Throne Room". It would be important to always mention a card like Throne Room that doesn't have "replay" in the card text. (Renaissance could say "Scepter or Throne Room".) If a card like Throne Room is given as an example, it's obvious what "replay" means.

You're right that Vassal can sometimes replay a card. My idea was that that doesn't make it a "card that replays cards" per se. The clarification that it doesn't would be an extra-rulebook ruling, like many others that are very marginal.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2020, 11:55:01 am by Jeebus »
Logged

urza

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
  • Respect: +13
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #36 on: January 29, 2020, 03:29:28 pm »
0

Like you mention, one issue with this is that cards don't specifically mention "replay." From this rule, how are you supposed to know what card "replays" a card vs one that just "plays" a card? Also, like with Vassal, it turns out that cards replay other cards only sometimes (i.e., Vassal does not "replay" a card every time you play it but only in certain circumstances). I don't have a good suggestion for this other than saying that if you're going to write a description for this, it would be good to have a clear definition for when a card is being "replayed."
But Scepter and Royal Carriage do indeed say "replay"!  I'm proposing that "replay" should have special meaning, and that something is only a replay if the card actually says "replay".  Vassal (along with its variants) doesn't use that keyword, and therefore can never cause a replay, even when it causes the same physical card to be played twice in one turn.  Intuitively, Vassal should never be responsible for tracking durations, and this seems like a good, consistent solution.

The real problem is that you can Bonfire durations.  Fortunately, there's no reason to do this in a real game almost ever.  You can fiddle while your durations burn, but that's on you.  I guess go get some sticky notes to keep track of the game state.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11405
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12199
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #37 on: January 29, 2020, 03:36:06 pm »
+1

I guess go get some sticky notes to keep track of the game state.

Or write on your belly using your own blood.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The Twitch channel where I stream DominionThe YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's albums for free

Wizard_Amul

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 128
  • Respect: +145
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #38 on: January 29, 2020, 03:45:09 pm »
+1

Like you mention, one issue with this is that cards don't specifically mention "replay." From this rule, how are you supposed to know what card "replays" a card vs one that just "plays" a card? Also, like with Vassal, it turns out that cards replay other cards only sometimes (i.e., Vassal does not "replay" a card every time you play it but only in certain circumstances). I don't have a good suggestion for this other than saying that if you're going to write a description for this, it would be good to have a clear definition for when a card is being "replayed."
But Scepter and Royal Carriage do indeed say "replay"!  I'm proposing that "replay" should have special meaning, and that something is only a replay if the card actually says "replay".  Vassal (along with its variants) doesn't use that keyword, and therefore can never cause a replay, even when it causes the same physical card to be played twice in one turn.  Intuitively, Vassal should never be responsible for tracking durations, and this seems like a good, consistent solution.

The real problem is that you can Bonfire durations.  Fortunately, there's no reason to do this in a real game almost ever.  You can fiddle while your durations burn, but that's on you.  I guess go get some sticky notes to keep track of the game state.

Oops, I didn't even check Scepter and Royal Carriage to see the wording. My point was just that Donald used Vassal in his example as a card that can replay a card even though it doesn't say the word "replay."
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #39 on: January 31, 2020, 11:00:15 am »
0

First two scenarios that are essentially the same, and I'm 99% sure that the BoM doesn't stay in play.

1) I play BoM, playing a TR from Supply, playing a Fishing Village. I trash the Fishing Village (with DonateBonfire). The BoM doesn't stay in play?

2) I have Capitalism. I play BoM, playing a Counterfeit from Supply, playing and trashing a Fishing Village. The BoM doesn't stay in play?
EDIT: BoM can't play Counterfeit.

But what about this one:

3) I have Capitalism. I play Counterfeit, playing and trashing a Fishing Village. I Graverobber the FV onto my deck, and play it with Vassal. So the Vassal stays in play because we know that it's "that card". But then the Counterfeit also stays in play?
« Last Edit: January 31, 2020, 12:58:40 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

hhelibebcnofnena

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 522
  • he/him
  • Respect: +398
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #40 on: January 31, 2020, 12:11:46 pm »
+1

First two scenarios that are essentially the same, and I'm 99% sure that the BoM doesn't stay in play.

1) I play BoM, playing a TR from Supply, playing a Fishing Village. I trash the Fishing Village (with Donate). The BoM doesn't stay in play?

2) I have Capitalism. I play BoM, playing a Counterfeit from Supply, playing and trashing a Fishing Village. The BoM doesn't stay in play?

But what about this one:

3) I have Capitalism. I play Counterfeit, playing and trashing a Fishing Village. I Graverobber the FV onto my deck, and play it with Vassal. So the Vassal stays in play because we know that it's "that card". But then the Counterfeit also stays in play?

I'm confused about the second scenario. How does the BoM play a Counterfeit?
Logged
Hydrogen Helium Lithium Beryllium Boron Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen Fluorine Neon Sodium

Ingix

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 212
  • Shuffle iT Username: Ingix
  • Respect: +295
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #41 on: January 31, 2020, 12:25:53 pm »
+1

First two scenarios that are essentially the same, and I'm 99% sure that the BoM doesn't stay in play.

1) I play BoM, playing a TR from Supply, playing a Fishing Village. I trash the Fishing Village (with Donate). The BoM doesn't stay in play?

2) I have Capitalism. I play BoM, playing a Counterfeit from Supply, playing and trashing a Fishing Village. The BoM doesn't stay in play?


1) Correct, assuming Donate really means Bonfire.
2) BoM can't play Counterfeit (not an Action card). But assuming it could, also correct.

3) I have Capitalism. I play Counterfeit, playing and trashing a Fishing Village. I Graverobber the FV onto my deck, and play it with Vassal. So the Vassal stays in play because we know that it's "that card". But then the Counterfeit also stays in play?

You picked up on a problem that isn't solved with the "stop moving" rule: Sometimes card identities matter beside the question if a card should move someplace else. I think this is an area that isn't really covered in the rules at the moment.

For example, are you sure you used Graverobber to put the exact same FV onto your deck that you just trashed, or was it maybe one of the 9 other FV that were already in the trash? Do you have to decide/announce when you resolve Graverobber which FV you take? Should the answer to the scenario you described really depend on if the FV just trashed was the only one in the trash or not?

I don't have answers to that  :(, but the problem does exist, unfortunately.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #42 on: January 31, 2020, 01:02:33 pm »
+2

You picked up on a problem that isn't solved with the "stop moving" rule: Sometimes card identities matter beside the question if a card should move someplace else. I think this is an area that isn't really covered in the rules at the moment.

For example, are you sure you used Graverobber to put the exact same FV onto your deck that you just trashed, or was it maybe one of the 9 other FV that were already in the trash? Do you have to decide/announce when you resolve Graverobber which FV you take? Should the answer to the scenario you described really depend on if the FV just trashed was the only one in the trash or not?

I don't have answers to that  :(, but the problem does exist, unfortunately.

Actually, Donald has answered that earlier in the thread. It doesn't matter which FV it is you pick from the trash, we still regard it as "that card" (the FV that was trashed). This is why I know that the Vassal stays in play. The question was if Counterfeit also does. But I'm pretty sure it has to.

The reason Donald gave was that if cards in the trash are "lost", then Thief (and Noble Brigand) wouldn't work, which is a very good point. But actually it makes me think that it seems wrong and inconsistent that Thief does work - for exactly the reasons you're giving. Too late for that now though!
« Last Edit: January 31, 2020, 01:03:43 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

Ingix

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 212
  • Shuffle iT Username: Ingix
  • Respect: +295
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #43 on: January 31, 2020, 03:08:44 pm »
+2

Thief is IMO different in that respect. It's one effect of one card that moves cards around, it makes sense that it is able to track cards over the "short time" of its resolution. In your case, different effects move a card around, during the buy phase. That is much longer and harder to keep track of than during a single effects resolution.

To me the question if a given card is the same as one referred to by another effect is very similar to the problem that the stop moving rule is supposed to solve: Sometimes you can't find a card, so the rule specifies conditions when the card can be found, and the conditions are such that in RL play they really mean the card can be found. The solution to this problem should IMO be very similar. Specify conditions under which an effect can still determine if a given card is the same as another specified one. If it can't determine that, the assumption is that it is different.

Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #44 on: January 31, 2020, 03:42:03 pm »
+1

Hmm, thinking about it, I agree!

Thief is fundamentally different from Graverobber. Thief actually tracks the cards it trashes, and even though the trash pile is unordered, the cards are still in trash, so Thief doesn't lose track. In a physical game it's theoretically possible to "lose" a Thief-trashed Silver among some other trashed Silvers, but for game-state purposes we shouldn't do that. (In practice it doesn't matter if we do, because we can pretend it's any Silver.)

Graverobber, on the other hand, is not tracking any of the cards in the trash. This means that for game-state purposes, the gained FV could be another one, not the one I trashed.

In other words, Thief always gets the card that was trashed, Graverobber gets an unknown card.

It actually seems pretty clear that a card fished out of the trash can never be "that card" unless the ability that fishes it out is tracking it. Given this, I think Donald should revert that ruling. That would mean that there is no way for a Vassal to stay in play.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2020, 03:44:11 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23474
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #45 on: January 31, 2020, 04:56:34 pm »
0

Thief is IMO different in that respect. It's one effect of one card that moves cards around, it makes sense that it is able to track cards over the "short time" of its resolution. In your case, different effects move a card around, during the buy phase. That is much longer and harder to keep track of than during a single effects resolution.

To me the question if a given card is the same as one referred to by another effect is very similar to the problem that the stop moving rule is supposed to solve: Sometimes you can't find a card, so the rule specifies conditions when the card can be found, and the conditions are such that in RL play they really mean the card can be found. The solution to this problem should IMO be very similar. Specify conditions under which an effect can still determine if a given card is the same as another specified one. If it can't determine that, the assumption is that it is different.
I'm not sure how this is different from my approach. Currently I have a rule, that if you shuffle a card into a deck, it's no longer "that card." I think that's the only situation where I can say that. If the rule applied to trashing, I would then need to explain in the rule how Thief was different; it seems better to not do that.

The Duration rules say, "that card also stays in play until the Duration card is discarded." While this technically didn't happen in the case of Counterfeit, I feel like the Duration card leaving play should be enough. "Until the Duration card leaves play." Of course it almost always leaves play due to being discarded; I'm not sure that helpful bit of rules wants to cover Capitalism / Counterfeit. But, that's sounding like a good ruling there now: the card playing a Duration card extra times stays in play until the Duration card is discarded (or otherwise leaves play).
Logged

avorian

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
  • Respect: +29
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #46 on: January 31, 2020, 05:17:04 pm »
+2

I think "replay" having a special rules connotation is the way to go, just not in terms of the wording on the card. Throne Room and Sceptre are fundamentally different from this odd vassal case because the second play is in some way conditional upon the first, you cannot (re)play a card with sceptre or TR without it having been played. Vassal technically does replay it, but vassal doesn't need it to have been played before.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #47 on: January 31, 2020, 05:42:13 pm »
0

But, that's sounding like a good ruling there now: the card playing a Duration card extra times stays in play until the Duration card is discarded (or otherwise leaves play).

Right, that sounds like a good call, because the TR+Duration rule has been that the TR stays as long as the Duration does; the Duration doesn't have to be discarded. That's why Procession + Duration meant that Procession was discarded.

I'm not sure how this is different from my approach. Currently I have a rule, that if you shuffle a card into a deck, it's no longer "that card." I think that's the only situation where I can say that. If the rule applied to trashing, I would then need to explain in the rule how Thief was different; it seems better to not do that.

Well, I assume none of the rulings in this thread, starting with the one you posted at first, are ever going to make it into a published rulebook. But if you mean explaining in forums like this, I think it really makes sense to say that Thief is tracking the card and can pull out that exact card, while Graverobber cannot pull out any specific card. I'm actually trying to follow the rules and mechanics of the game when I reach that conclusion. Before Ingix pointed it out, I thought that Thief and Graverobber work the same, but now I really don't.

Edit: Think about it in terms of a computer implementation where every card is tracked by the game engine. Thief would always gain the card it trashed. When you play Graverobber, either you get to choose a FV in the trash, or the game just chooses one of them when you click "FV". In either case, it would be arbitrary whether you get the one that was trashed earlier in the turn. Of course you can say that this means if you do get that one, the Vassal stays in play, because the engine knows it's that one. If you interpret it that way, it means that this interaction can only work online, never in a physical game. It's akin to the scenarios where we end up playing a card and not knowing what it is (which contributed to your decision to errata BoM). But another, also valid, interpretation, which doesn't cause the game to break, is that the fact that you can't know which one it is is enough to say that it can't be "that card". Another interpretation is to say that Vassal stays in play if there is one FV in trash, and not if there is more than one. But I think it's better to interpret it as, it can't be that card if you potentially can't know.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2020, 05:55:04 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23474
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #48 on: January 31, 2020, 07:44:17 pm »
0

But, that's sounding like a good ruling there now: the card playing a Duration card extra times stays in play until the Duration card is discarded (or otherwise leaves play).

Right, that sounds like a good call, because the TR+Duration rule has been that the TR stays as long as the Duration does; the Duration doesn't have to be discarded. That's why Procession + Duration meant that Procession was discarded.

I'm not sure how this is different from my approach. Currently I have a rule, that if you shuffle a card into a deck, it's no longer "that card." I think that's the only situation where I can say that. If the rule applied to trashing, I would then need to explain in the rule how Thief was different; it seems better to not do that.

Well, I assume none of the rulings in this thread, starting with the one you posted at first, are ever going to make it into a published rulebook. But if you mean explaining in forums like this, I think it really makes sense to say that Thief is tracking the card and can pull out that exact card, while Graverobber cannot pull out any specific card. I'm actually trying to follow the rules and mechanics of the game when I reach that conclusion. Before Ingix pointed it out, I thought that Thief and Graverobber work the same, but now I really don't.

Edit: Think about it in terms of a computer implementation where every card is tracked by the game engine. Thief would always gain the card it trashed. When you play Graverobber, either you get to choose a FV in the trash, or the game just chooses one of them when you click "FV". In either case, it would be arbitrary whether you get the one that was trashed earlier in the turn. Of course you can say that this means if you do get that one, the Vassal stays in play, because the engine knows it's that one. If you interpret it that way, it means that this interaction can only work online, never in a physical game. It's akin to the scenarios where we end up playing a card and not knowing what it is (which contributed to your decision to errata BoM). But another, also valid, interpretation, which doesn't cause the game to break, is that the fact that you can't know which one it is is enough to say that it can't be "that card". Another interpretation is to say that Vassal stays in play if there is one FV in trash, and not if there is more than one. But I think it's better to interpret it as, it can't be that card if you potentially can't know.
Thief tracks a card, and Graverobber doesn't. But Throne Room does (and Counterfeit etc.). I Throne Room the Fishing Village, Throne Room specifically tracks it.

IRL I can't potentially not know if I got the right card with Graverobber; it has to be shuffled into a deck to really lose it. I mean I can have a stroke, or shuffle the trash and act like this should matter, but you know, I know which card is the Fishing Village I trashed in the same way that I know all other things in the game that you have to track: what two things I picked for Pawn and how many cards I discarded to Vault and which card Band of Misfits played and so on.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #49 on: January 31, 2020, 11:41:15 pm »
0

Thief tracks a card, and Graverobber doesn't. But Throne Room does (and Counterfeit etc.). I Throne Room the Fishing Village, Throne Room specifically tracks it.

Hmm, I don't understand what you're saying here. In the scenario in question, Throne Room/Counterfeit loses track the moment the card is trashed. No card is tracking the trashed Fishing Village.

IRL I can't potentially not know if I got the right card with Graverobber; it has to be shuffled into a deck to really lose it. I mean I can have a stroke, or shuffle the trash and act like this should matter, but you know, I know which card is the Fishing Village I trashed in the same way that I know all other things in the game that you have to track: what two things I picked for Pawn and how many cards I discarded to Vault and which card Band of Misfits played and so on.

Yes, you're right about IRL, but I still think that is not relevant when it comes to game state (for the same reason that a moved card can be lost track of even though I know where it is).

But given what you're saying, that it's because I know which FV is the trashed FV, that must then mean that it's my choice. If there are several copies in trash, I choose if I want the trashed one, which will lead to Vassal staying in play, or another one, which will lead to Vassal being discarded. Right?

Edit: And by that reasoning, a shuffled card can also sometimes be "that card" - if I know that it's that card. If it's the only FV in my deck, I know it's that card.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2020, 12:31:44 am by Jeebus »
Logged

Ingix

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 212
  • Shuffle iT Username: Ingix
  • Respect: +295
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #50 on: February 01, 2020, 04:50:14 am »
0

IRL I can't potentially not know if I got the right card with Graverobber; it has to be shuffled into a deck to really lose it. I mean I can have a stroke, or shuffle the trash and act like this should matter, but you know, I know which card is the Fishing Village I trashed in the same way that I know all other things in the game that you have to track: what two things I picked for Pawn and how many cards I discarded to Vault and which card Band of Misfits played and so on.

What I don't understand is why you are treating this kind of knowledge fundamentally different from the knowledge for the stop moving rule. If I gain a card to my discard pile, then topdeck it with Watchtower, everything else that has triggered and wants to move the card can't do it anymore, even though it's perfectly clear where the card is. This kind of "dissonance" is especially clear for the reworded Shapeshifters. If I use BoM to play an Embargo in the Supply, everybody is perfectly aware where the Embargo is, still it can't be trashed.

The stop moving rule is there to have clarity in all cases, and will often declare a card not movable if IRL you know where it is. The recent change for the discard pile means a card can be found/moved in more cases now, which is good.

Using the same or a very similar approach here would make it consistent. If a card moved into another zone, it's lost it's identity for every effect except the moving one. This solves exactly the kind of edge case problems the stop moving rule is solving. Especially in cases like Jeebus constructed, where the Fishing Village is trashed by Counterfeit. Once that has happened, the reason why the "Throne Rooms stay in play" rule was made is already violated. Trying to preserve it's intent after a chain of effects to bring the Fishing Village back into play seems ill-guided to me.

Tl;dnr: Using the same mechanism as developed for "stop moving" would help solve "I'm uncertain if this is the same card" problem, at (IMO) no loss of intended interactions.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2020, 04:52:15 am by Ingix »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23474
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #51 on: February 01, 2020, 05:53:28 pm »
0

Thief tracks a card, and Graverobber doesn't. But Throne Room does (and Counterfeit etc.). I Throne Room the Fishing Village, Throne Room specifically tracks it.

Hmm, I don't understand what you're saying here. In the scenario in question, Throne Room/Counterfeit loses track the moment the card is trashed. No card is tracking the trashed Fishing Village.
I see what you're saying. Throne Room cares if it's "that card" but "loses track." The "lose track" isn't about this, and the words "lose track" aren't used anymore, the rule is about not moving cards; see below. However Throne Room does track the card, in that the card matters for whether or not Throne Room stays in play, and Throne Room does have to stop tracking the card once it leaves play.

So then there's Vassal. Vassal wasn't in play or doing anything earlier in the turn, it wasn't tracking anything. But it shows up and asks, was this card played earlier this turn? I still feel like, there has to be a rule that answers this question, or I haven't answered it.

Here's the current "stop moving" rule:
Quote
Sometimes an effect may try to move a card but be unable to. An effect can move a card if it specifies where the card is coming from, or if the effect put the card where it is now. If a card isn't where the effect would expect it to be, it cannot move the card. Played cards expect to be in play; they cannot move themselves if they are not. Gained cards are expected to be where they were gained to, even if this is not the discard pile. Cards in discard piles can be moved even if covered up by other cards; cards on top of a deck cannot be moved once covered up. So for example, if you use Counterfeit to play Spoils, you will be unable to trash it, as Counterfeit expects to find Spoils in play (but Spoils returned to its pile).

But given what you're saying, that it's because I know which FV is the trashed FV, that must then mean that it's my choice. If there are several copies in trash, I choose if I want the trashed one, which will lead to Vassal staying in play, or another one, which will lead to Vassal being discarded. Right?

Edit: And by that reasoning, a shuffled card can also sometimes be "that card" - if I know that it's that card. If it's the only FV in my deck, I know it's that card.
Sure, sometimes you know it's the same card. That doesn't stop me from having a rule that says it's not "that card."

You choose whether you want the same or a different Fishing Village in the trash, yes. And of course ideally the rules are such that that doesn't matter, it never makes a difference.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23474
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #52 on: February 01, 2020, 06:19:21 pm »
0

Using the same or a very similar approach here would make it consistent. If a card moved into another zone, it's lost it's identity for every effect except the moving one. This solves exactly the kind of edge case problems the stop moving rule is solving. Especially in cases like Jeebus constructed, where the Fishing Village is trashed by Counterfeit. Once that has happened, the reason why the "Throne Rooms stay in play" rule was made is already violated. Trying to preserve it's intent after a chain of effects to bring the Fishing Village back into play seems ill-guided to me.

Tl;dnr: Using the same mechanism as developed for "stop moving" would help solve "I'm uncertain if this is the same card" problem, at (IMO) no loss of intended interactions.
It sounds like this works. It's still extra though, I mean the quoted upcoming rulebook rule doesn't address it.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #53 on: February 01, 2020, 07:53:37 pm »
0

I see what you're saying. Throne Room cares if it's "that card" but "loses track." The "lose track" isn't about this, and the words "lose track" aren't used anymore, the rule is about not moving cards; see below. However Throne Room does track the card, in that the card matters for whether or not Throne Room stays in play, and Throne Room does have to stop tracking the card once it leaves play.

First about "lose track"

Whether you call the rule "lose track" or "stop moving", it's still about both things: Abilities tracking cards, and not being able to move them. It's not just about the card being in the expected place at the moment the ability tries to move it. If that were the case, the ability could move a card that moved and moved back. It's actually about the ability tracking the card from the moment it references it, and if at any moment the card is not where it's expected to be, the ability loses track forever. It's crucial that it's thought of in terms of abilities tracking cards.

I see from your quoted rule that you're again missing this aspect. I pointed it out in the original "errata and rules tweaks" thread, and as a result you updated the rule with the added phrase "or has moved away from there and then back". (I still think the rule is not phrased accurately, since it doesn't mention tracking.)

But if your intent is to change the rule (so that a card that moved back can actually be moved), then we don't necessarily need to think in terms of keeping track anymore. It's enough to look at where the card is when the ability tries to move it.

***

When I talked about Thief tracking the card, I meant in terms of "lose track" (or "stop moving"). That's why it's not comparable to Graverobber. Thief can and must get the right card. Graverobber just gets an arbitrary card.

Sure, sometimes you know it's the same card. That doesn't stop me from having a rule that says it's not "that card."

I think it does if the rule is based on what I know (like you were arguing about my knowledge of how many cards I discarded etc) instead of game state. You said originally in this thread that the shuffled card is lost because "there's no way to know". Well, if it's the only one in my deck, I do know. I assumed that you meant that "potentially there's no way to know", just like potentially a trashed card is unknown. But if it's all supposed to be, do I know?, then I don't see how you can say that a shuffled card is always unknown.

You choose whether you want the same or a different Fishing Village in the trash, yes. And of course ideally the rules are such that that doesn't matter, it never makes a difference.

My point is that it does make a difference with this ruling. I choose which FV, so I choose whether Vassal gets discarded or not. Since you're saying that I can get that card because I know which one it is, then I can also choose to get another card.

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #54 on: February 01, 2020, 08:00:19 pm »
0

Using the same or a very similar approach here would make it consistent. If a card moved into another zone, it's lost it's identity for every effect except the moving one. This solves exactly the kind of edge case problems the stop moving rule is solving. Especially in cases like Jeebus constructed, where the Fishing Village is trashed by Counterfeit. Once that has happened, the reason why the "Throne Rooms stay in play" rule was made is already violated. Trying to preserve it's intent after a chain of effects to bring the Fishing Village back into play seems ill-guided to me.

Tl;dnr: Using the same mechanism as developed for "stop moving" would help solve "I'm uncertain if this is the same card" problem, at (IMO) no loss of intended interactions.
It sounds like this works. It's still extra though, I mean the quoted upcoming rulebook rule doesn't address it.

Wait, are you saying that you agree now? That a card in trash is always unknown except for the ability that put it there? Because that was part of Ingix's point.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23474
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #55 on: February 02, 2020, 12:39:10 am »
+1

Whether you call the rule "lose track" or "stop moving", it's still about both things: Abilities tracking cards, and not being able to move them. It's not just about the card being in the expected place at the moment the ability tries to move it. If that were the case, the ability could move a card that moved and moved back. It's actually about the ability tracking the card from the moment it references it, and if at any moment the card is not where it's expected to be, the ability loses track forever. It's crucial that it's thought of in terms of abilities tracking cards.
The rule is whatever it is; it's the text of the rule, not e.g. the intentions behind it.

I see from your quoted rule that you're again missing this aspect. I pointed it out in the original "errata and rules tweaks" thread, and as a result you updated the rule with the added phrase "or has moved away from there and then back". (I still think the rule is not phrased accurately, since it doesn't mention tracking.)
Thanks, I forgot about that, but will add it to the Dark Ages rulebook.

I think it does if the rule is based on what I know (like you were arguing about my knowledge of how many cards I discarded etc) instead of game state. You said originally in this thread that the shuffled card is lost because "there's no way to know". Well, if it's the only one in my deck, I do know. I assumed that you meant that "potentially there's no way to know", just like potentially a trashed card is unknown. But if it's all supposed to be, do I know?, then I don't see how you can say that a shuffled card is always unknown.
Sigh. I'm not sure why you're going here. Of course it's possible to know for sure that that Merchant Ship is the right one - there could only be one in my deck, there could only be one card in my deck period, the Merchant Ship could be the copy I got the artist to sign.

It's all super moot. Yes, it's not that you have no way of knowing in any circumstances if the card is the same, as if I could have possibly meant that; it's that you might have no way of knowing if it's the same card (I say "might" but of course it's a common scenario); therefore the rules need to treat that situation as if you don't know (or provide tracking so you know for sure). Once we have that rule, it will be invoked even in cases where you do know; I will not get any value from having a different rule to cover cases where you know.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23474
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #56 on: February 02, 2020, 12:49:07 am »
0

Using the same or a very similar approach here would make it consistent. If a card moved into another zone, it's lost it's identity for every effect except the moving one. This solves exactly the kind of edge case problems the stop moving rule is solving. Especially in cases like Jeebus constructed, where the Fishing Village is trashed by Counterfeit. Once that has happened, the reason why the "Throne Rooms stay in play" rule was made is already violated. Trying to preserve it's intent after a chain of effects to bring the Fishing Village back into play seems ill-guided to me.

Tl;dnr: Using the same mechanism as developed for "stop moving" would help solve "I'm uncertain if this is the same card" problem, at (IMO) no loss of intended interactions.
It sounds like this works. It's still extra though, I mean the quoted upcoming rulebook rule doesn't address it.

Wait, are you saying that you agree now? That a card in trash is always unknown except for the ability that put it there? Because that was part of Ingix's point.
It wasn't an optical illusion. It sounds to me like it can be: In the circumstance where you can no longer move a card, it's also no longer "that card" for effects that track a specific card.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #57 on: February 02, 2020, 10:27:43 am »
0

Sigh. I'm not sure why you're going here. Of course it's possible to know for sure that that Merchant Ship is the right one - there could only be one in my deck, there could only be one card in my deck period, the Merchant Ship could be the copy I got the artist to sign.

It's all super moot. Yes, it's not that you have no way of knowing in any circumstances if the card is the same, as if I could have possibly meant that; it's that you might have no way of knowing if it's the same card (I say "might" but of course it's a common scenario); therefore the rules need to treat that situation as if you don't know (or provide tracking so you know for sure). Once we have that rule, it will be invoked even in cases where you do know; I will not get any value from having a different rule to cover cases where you know.

I think you might have glanced over some of the stuff I've written. I actually agree with you about shuffling: The card is potentially unknown, so we regard it as unknown. As I said, that's what I thought you meant in the first place (the top post). My point is that it has to be the same for trashed cards. The card is potentially unknown (except for abilities that track it), so we regard it as unknown. It can't be based on what I know - neither when the card is shuffled nor when it's trashed. This is why Graverobber can never get a known card out of the trash. Unlike Thief, it's not tracking any cards in the trash.

It wasn't an optical illusion. It sounds to me like it can be: In the circumstance where you can no longer move a card, it's also no longer "that card" for effects that track a specific card.

Ingix' point was: According to "lose track"/"stop moving", a card that moves is lost track of (and can't be moved) except by the ability that moved it. Using the same mechanism for card identity, a card that moves is now unknown except by the ability that moved it. So a Graverobbered card would be unknown, and can't be "that card".

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23474
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #58 on: February 02, 2020, 04:28:49 pm »
0

I think you might have glanced over some of the stuff I've written. I actually agree with you about shuffling: The card is potentially unknown, so we regard it as unknown. As I said, that's what I thought you meant in the first place (the top post). My point is that it has to be the same for trashed cards. The card is potentially unknown (except for abilities that track it), so we regard it as unknown. It can't be based on what I know - neither when the card is shuffled nor when it's trashed. This is why Graverobber can never get a known card out of the trash. Unlike Thief, it's not tracking any cards in the trash.
A trashed card isn't potentially unknown, except to the degree that all information in the game is potentially unknown, e.g. maybe I just had a stroke.

Maybe it's a language problem? Having the game not track something isn't the same as my brain not knowing it. A shuffled-in card is potentially "my brain doesn't know it." A trashed card is not. We don't want the game to track the trashed card but that doesn't say anything about my brain.

I do not see how my brain stops knowing the trashed card. I don't see it. I don't think I'm going to see it. It's not relevant either as far as I can see; I have a solution and it doesn't lean on that.

Maybe you are thinking, I could shuffle the trash, there's no stopping me. For me this is a huge stretch. No-one ever would, except to prove a point here. If we are paying attention to which card in the trash is which, everyone will know not to shuffle it, and nothing ever tells them to shuffle the trash, and something is telling them that we care about this card. Whereas the rules tell you to shuffle your deck, they force you to lose the card. I think in fact it would be reasonable for people to conclude/argue that they are not allowed to shuffle the trash here; similarly they will figure, they can't shuffle together their in-play Fishing Villages and thus not know which exact ones stay out for next turn. I don't need to decide this point but this whole direction sure does not seem helpful to me.

Ingix' point was: According to "lose track"/"stop moving", a card that moves is lost track of (and can't be moved) except by the ability that moved it. Using the same mechanism for card identity, a card that moves is now unknown except by the ability that moved it. So a Graverobbered card would be unknown, and can't be "that card".
My point is what I just said; I'm not sure we get anywhere repeating these things. Man I guess I can paste it. If you don't see a problem with having an obscure rule that says "In the circumstance where you can no longer move a card, it's also no longer "that card" for effects that track a specific card" then hooray, we got there. I don't want to argue about Ingix's word choices and whatever other things he meant or you meant.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #59 on: February 02, 2020, 05:17:36 pm »
0

My point is what I just said; I'm not sure we get anywhere repeating these things. Man I guess I can paste it. If you don't see a problem with having an obscure rule that says "In the circumstance where you can no longer move a card, it's also no longer "that card" for effects that track a specific card" then hooray, we got there. I don't want to argue about Ingix's word choices and whatever other things he meant or you meant.

Sorry if you think you've been super-clear, and if you want to think to yourself that I'm an idiot for not getting it, go ahead. But to be very specific: Are you saying that (with this obscure rule) the Graverobbered Duration will always be unknown - so that Vassal won't stay in play?

If so, you may skip the next part if you wish (although it's still what I think of course).

Maybe you are thinking, I could shuffle the trash, there's no stopping me. For me this is a huge stretch. No-one ever would, except to prove a point here. If we are paying attention to which card in the trash is which, everyone will know not to shuffle it, and nothing ever tells them to shuffle the trash, and something is telling them that we care about this card. Whereas the rules tell you to shuffle your deck, they force you to lose the card. I think in fact it would be reasonable for people to conclude/argue that they are not allowed to shuffle the trash here; similarly they will figure, they can't shuffle together their in-play Fishing Villages and thus not know which exact ones stay out for next turn. I don't need to decide this point but this whole direction sure does not seem helpful to me.

Okay, so the core of the matter is whether the identity of a trashed card can ever possibly be lost. To me the fact that the trash is an unordered pile means that it can. That's about game state. When it comes to "paying attention to which card in the trash is which": People can (and do) put cards in the trash without being careful that they don't get mixed with copies of that card. There is nothing in the stated or inferred rules telling the players that they need to be careful with that, whereas cards you put in play definitely have those rules. The only inferred rule that could be said to say that about trashed cards, is the very scenario we're talking about, but it would be circular logic to say that the conclusion that it's "that card" in this scenario means that we should pay attention to which card in the trash is which.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23474
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #60 on: February 02, 2020, 07:49:01 pm »
+1

Sorry if you think you've been super-clear, and if you want to think to yourself that I'm an idiot for not getting it, go ahead. But to be very specific: Are you saying that (with this obscure rule) the Graverobbered Duration will always be unknown - so that Vassal won't stay in play?
I know it can be hard to communicate clearly on the internet. It is frustrating repeating stuff and I mean I just want to have the rules cover everything, and I think I have a rule that covers the case that did not feel covered.

I think I see why this isn't clear yet. Vassal wasn't tracking the card before; it's not that Vassal "can no longer move the card" - in fact it even moves it. But the idea is that, if we care about "is this that card," and "that card" couldn't be moved, then it also isn't "that card."

You Procession a Fishing Village, Graverobber it, then Vassal it. Is it "that Fishing Village"? The rulebook rule says you can't move "that card," thus it isn't "that card." Vassal does not stay out.

Okay, so the core of the matter is whether the identity of a trashed card can ever possibly be lost. To me the fact that the trash is an unordered pile means that it can. That's about game state. When it comes to "paying attention to which card in the trash is which": People can (and do) put cards in the trash without being careful that they don't get mixed with copies of that card. There is nothing in the stated or inferred rules telling the players that they need to be careful with that, whereas cards you put in play definitely have those rules. The only inferred rule that could be said to say that about trashed cards, is the very scenario we're talking about, but it would be circular logic to say that the conclusion that it's "that card" in this scenario means that we should pay attention to which card in the trash is which.
Again I can cite Thief. In-between trashing a card with Thief, and gaining the card, I shuffle the trash. Oops now I don't know what card to gain, we lost track. Is an argument someone could make. I counter that with: no, you don't get to. We don't require the trash to be in a particular order, but if you have to track a card in the trash for some reason, e.g. Thief, then you have to track that card, you don't get to try to lose it in the trash.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #61 on: February 02, 2020, 11:01:35 pm »
0

You Procession a Fishing Village, Graverobber it, then Vassal it. Is it "that Fishing Village"? The rulebook rule says you can't move "that card," thus it isn't "that
card." Vassal does not stay out.

Thanks for your explanation.

Again I can cite Thief. In-between trashing a card with Thief, and gaining the card, I shuffle the trash. Oops now I don't know what card to gain, we lost track. Is an argument someone could make. I counter that with: no, you don't get to. We don't require the trash to be in a particular order, but if you have to track a card in the trash for some reason, e.g. Thief, then you have to track that card, you don't get to try to lose it in the trash.

My emphasis above.

This is now largely theoretical, but: My point is that there is no given reason to track the trashed Fishing Village in this case. The only reason would be because this ruling says you should, but that's circular reasoning. Thief gives you a reason because it's tracking the card (I mean because of the lose track/stop moving rule). This is the same logic that leads to Ingix' argument, but it's not a new rule IMO as much as it follows from existing ones.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2020, 11:28:00 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

Wolphmaniac

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 194
  • Shuffle iT Username: DividedSpy
  • Respect: +262
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #62 on: February 05, 2020, 12:47:05 pm »
+2

The tone of this conversation is get a bit duchy.
I think Donald estated the rule clearly and developed a good argument.
But there were fair grounds for reactions.
This thread is a good guide.  Now let's turn the page.
 
Logged

dane-m

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 112
  • Shuffle iT Username: dane-m
  • Respect: +162
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #63 on: February 08, 2020, 11:54:57 am »
0

I rather lost track of the discussion in this thread during the back-and-forth between Donald and Jeebus (and Ingix).  Having now read through the thread again, I've come to the conclusion that this is the critical point...
 
I have to make a ruling for, in what circumstances is a card no longer "that card." I need this because we can actually lose a card while still caring if it's "that card." In particular if it's shuffled into a deck we've lost it; so, a card shuffled into a deck is no longer "that card."

Trashing a card can't mean "it's no longer that card" because then Thief wouldn't work. Putting it onto your deck can't mean it's no longer that card, because rulebook rulings say you can e.g. buy Nomad Camp and then trash it with Watchtower.

In practice we can totally know if we have the right card; and if we aren't sure which physical card is which that doesn't matter, I can say, "I take the one that's the same one" or "I take a different one." In these situations that never come up. But, shuffle it into a deck and man, we don't know and there's no way out (except now this ruling).
One other possibility would be to rule that any card gained in a turn is not the same as any card removed from play earlier in the turn (even if players know otherwise).  I think that would achieve the result that Ingix and Jeebus were in favour of, while being a simple rule to state.  But would it cause any unwanted side-effects?
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #64 on: February 08, 2020, 04:08:57 pm »
0

I was not arguing from the standpoint of being in favor of the result. My argument (as I stated in my last post) was that the result follows from the existing rules, so there's no need for an extra rule. Thief is fundamentally different from Graverobber.

dane-m

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 112
  • Shuffle iT Username: dane-m
  • Respect: +162
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #65 on: February 09, 2020, 02:21:37 am »
0

I was not arguing from the standpoint of being in favor of the result. My argument (as I stated in my last post) was that the result follows from the existing rules, so there's no need for an extra rule. Thief is fundamentally different from Graverobber.
Yes, I realise that (and for what it's worth I tended to agree with your argument).  Nonetheless the result that came from your argument seems preferable (for reasons that I shall explain below) to the result from Donald's argument, so I was looking for a ruling that would give the same result that Donald might feel was simple enough to be acceptable.

Why don't I like the result that comes from Donald's argument?  Mainly because it causes an obscure corner case to make life difficult for both Stef and the company implementing the standalone app, but also because in some circumstances it could make life difficult in a ftf game.  I'll explain the latter first.  There's no problem if the player is happy for the card gained from the trash to be the same as the one that was trashed earlier in the turn.  If, however, they want it to be different, they have to root through the trash to find another one, assuming of course that there is one (there might not be).  Some games have large trash piles.

Now consider the programming overhead required.  It probably goes something like this:
Code: [Select]
If card being gained from trash has the same name as one trashed earlier in the turn
  If there is more than one card with this name in the trash
    Ask the player if they want the same card or a different one
  Else
    It's the same card
  End if
Else
  This is not the same card as one played earlier in the turn
End if
Plus of course there's the extra code required when Vassal or Herald play a card.  It all seems rather OTT for an obscure corner case.  If a gained card were ruled to always be different from any card that had left play earlier in the turn, the programming overhead would disappear.
Logged

dane-m

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 112
  • Shuffle iT Username: dane-m
  • Respect: +162
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #66 on: February 09, 2020, 02:29:44 am »
+2

The cleanest way to do Bonfire is just, trash up to two Coppers from play. You are almost always trashing Coppers, and they aren't Duration cards. Putting tokens on cards to remember to do things later is in no way clean.
If you do ever change Bonfire, I think the suggestion that one or two people made of "Trash up to two non-Duration cards from play" would be preferable.  Necropolis is often fine material for a Bonfire, and there are other cards that can outlive their usefulness in one's deck, so having some flexibility in what Bonfire can trash seems desirable.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23474
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #67 on: February 09, 2020, 03:58:00 am »
0

Why don't I like the result that comes from Donald's argument?  Mainly because it causes an obscure corner case to make life difficult for both Stef and the company implementing the standalone app, but also because in some circumstances it could make life difficult in a ftf game.
I think you must not have read the whole thread. The way I ended up ruling it, life is not difficult for anyone ever.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23474
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #68 on: February 09, 2020, 04:01:51 am »
+1

The cleanest way to do Bonfire is just, trash up to two Coppers from play. You are almost always trashing Coppers, and they aren't Duration cards. Putting tokens on cards to remember to do things later is in no way clean.
If you do ever change Bonfire, I think the suggestion that one or two people made of "Trash up to two non-Duration cards from play" would be preferable.  Necropolis is often fine material for a Bonfire, and there are other cards that can outlive their usefulness in one's deck, so having some flexibility in what Bonfire can trash seems desirable.
If Bonfire had always trashed up to 2 Coppers, no-one would have ever thought, what is this nonsense, we demand more. But because it can e.g. trash Necropolis, there are people who cling to that, as you are demonstrating. This makes it much harder to make any changes whatsoever.
Logged

dane-m

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 112
  • Shuffle iT Username: dane-m
  • Respect: +162
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #69 on: February 09, 2020, 01:11:30 pm »
0

Why don't I like the result that comes from Donald's argument?  Mainly because it causes an obscure corner case to make life difficult for both Stef and the company implementing the standalone app, but also because in some circumstances it could make life difficult in a ftf game.
I think you must not have read the whole thread. The way I ended up ruling it, life is not difficult for anyone ever.
No, I did read the whole thread, but like I said in a previous post, I rather lost track of the discussion during the back-and-forth between you and Jeebus (and Ingix) and finished up even more confused than Jeebus was (at least at one stage) about whether you'd changed your original ruling.  I think my confusion arose because even after you'd done so, there was still a lively debate about the grounds for having done so, which I misinterpreted as being a debate about the merits or otherwise of changing the ruling.

Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #70 on: February 09, 2020, 04:15:52 pm »
+1

Dane-m, I agree with you about the unfortunate result of saying that a card gained from the trash can be "that card". But as Donald said, it's not relevant anymore since he decided to add a new rule. The rule, inspired by Ingix's post, is that cards that are lost track of (according to the lose-track rule) can't be "that card". (I hope that phrasing is accurate.) Given this rule, your new suggested rule is not needed; but I haven't thought through whether it's identical to Donald's rule in practice, or what the differences would be.

I realize that there is a potential (but highly theoretical) benefit to Donald's rule as opposed to just accepting my interpretation of existing rules. That is to say, it's a benefit if we want the result to be that a Vassal can never be forced to stay in play because it played a Duration. My interpretation just says that a trashed card can't be "that card". But what if a Duration card leaves play in other ways? I'm pretty sure it can't happen with current cards. But let's say I play a theoretical Procession variant that returns the played Duration to the supply (instead of trashing it). Then I could gain back that card and Vassal it. With my interpretation the Vassal stays in play; with Donald's rule it doesn't.

But this requires either a new Procession variant that can actually play Durations, or a new Counterfeit variant that returns the played card (or moves it somewhere else) and can (via Capitalism) play a Duration. Neither of these are likely, since Donald wants to avoid the tracking problems with removing Durations from play. The only other way would be a Duration that removes itself from play, but that is of course ridiculous. Maybe there are other ways, with current or future cards, that I'm not seeing.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8862
  • Respect: +9645
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #71 on: February 09, 2020, 06:24:01 pm »
0

Quote
400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. There are nine exceptions to this rule:

This rule from MTG basically encompasses both the “stop moving” rule and the “is this that card” rule/question. And I’m pretty sure that the rules in Dominion work out to the same thing that they do in Magic. The exceptions referred to but not quoted here are basically things like “Thief trashed the card, so it is still able to find that card in the trash.”
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

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #72 on: February 10, 2020, 10:04:08 am »
0

I realized that there is a way that the new rule makes a difference with existing cards!

Play Throne Room + Fishing Village. Gain Mandarin; via Capitalism the Fishing Village is topdecked. Play Vassal.

According to Donald's new rule, the Vassal doesn't stay in play and neither does the Throne Room. With just existing rules, we know that the Fishing Village is the same card, so the Vassal would stay in play (and I actually think the Throne Room would too).

(I still think a better rule would be to limit it to cards that replay, like we talked about earlier in the thread.)

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8862
  • Respect: +9645
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #73 on: February 10, 2020, 10:27:45 am »
+2

(I still think a better rule would be to limit it to cards that replay, like we talked about earlier in the thread.)

I think I said this a few years ago, but I'd be all for never leaving out any card other than the Duration itself. Tracking is an extra nice-to-have, not a necessity. We already have weird edge cases that require you to remember that you played a Duration last turn; I don't see a big problem with simply remembering that the Duration you have out was actually played twice last turn instead of once.
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

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 112
  • Shuffle iT Username: dane-m
  • Respect: +162
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #74 on: February 12, 2020, 11:02:52 am »
+1

Dane-m, I agree with you about the unfortunate result of saying that a card gained from the trash can be "that card". But as Donald said, it's not relevant anymore since he decided to add a new rule. The rule, inspired by Ingix's post, is that cards that are lost track of (according to the lose-track rule) can't be "that card". (I hope that phrasing is accurate.)
After some more thought I've realised why (or perhaps more accurately 'another reason why', given that I'd failed to notice the change of ruling) I had been struggling to understand the discussion.  In thinking of the application of the lose-track rule (or rather whatever that rule is now called – I've not yet managed to reprogram my memory to call it by its new name) I had incorrectly been considering only instances in which that rule had already mattered for some other reason, rather than thinking in terms of 'This card would have been considered to have been lost track of, therefore it can no longer be "that card."'
Logged

dane-m

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 112
  • Shuffle iT Username: dane-m
  • Respect: +162
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #75 on: February 12, 2020, 11:11:16 am »
+1

I realized that there is a way that the new rule makes a difference with existing cards!

Play Throne Room + Fishing Village. Gain Mandarin; via Capitalism the Fishing Village is topdecked. Play Vassal.

According to Donald's new rule, the Vassal doesn't stay in play and neither does the Throne Room. With just existing rules, we know that the Fishing Village is the same card, so the Vassal would stay in play (and I actually think the Throne Room would too).
That also means that the rule that I suggested wouldn't be functionally equivalent to Donald's, and hence would be inferior (since I think it's desirable to make the answer to the question "Is it the same card?" as simple as possible).  To be functionally equivalent it would have to be widened to something like "Any card played in a turn is not the same as any card removed from play earlier in the turn."
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #76 on: February 12, 2020, 11:28:11 am »
0

I just thought of another potential can of worms that we avoid with having such a rule: What if you know it's the same card, but the other players don't?

Play Throne Room + Fishing Village. Gain Mandarin; via Capitalism the Fishing Village is topdecked. Draw it. Play it with Conclave.

Does the Conclave stay in play? You know it's the same card, but the other players don't. (In any case, with this ruling, the Fishing Village is not "that card" so the Conclave would not stay in play.)

hhelibebcnofnena

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 522
  • he/him
  • Respect: +398
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #77 on: February 12, 2020, 12:54:46 pm »
0

I realized that there is a way that the new rule makes a difference with existing cards!

Play Throne Room + Fishing Village. Gain Mandarin; via Capitalism the Fishing Village is topdecked. Play Vassal.

According to Donald's new rule, the Vassal doesn't stay in play and neither does the Throne Room. With just existing rules, we know that the Fishing Village is the same card, so the Vassal would stay in play (and I actually think the Throne Room would too).

(I still think a better rule would be to limit it to cards that replay, like we talked about earlier in the thread.)

Wait. Why don't the Vassal or Throne Room stay in play? I thought Donald was saying that the shuffle was what stopped the card from being "that card". Topdecking it doesn't trigger a shuffle. Am I missing something? I understood this rule at first, but I am now very confused. I think I understand that the Throne Room doesn't stay in play because the Fishing Village left, but shouldn't Vassal stay?
Logged
Hydrogen Helium Lithium Beryllium Boron Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen Fluorine Neon Sodium

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8862
  • Respect: +9645
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #78 on: February 12, 2020, 01:02:19 pm »
0

I feel like topdecking multiple cards in an order that isn't public knowledge to all players has to count as shuffling.
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

hhelibebcnofnena

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 522
  • he/him
  • Respect: +398
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #79 on: February 12, 2020, 01:03:43 pm »
0

Also, what happens if the Fishing Village goes into your hand first?
I don't understand whether Jeebus is saying "The Fishing Village is no longer the same Fishing Village under the current ruling" or "Under another change (probably specified earlier in the thread, but I have completely lost track by this point), which is not the same as what the current ruling is, the Fishing Village would no longer be the same Fishing Village. Under the current ruling, we don't know."
Logged
Hydrogen Helium Lithium Beryllium Boron Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen Fluorine Neon Sodium

scolapasta

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393
  • Respect: +387
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #80 on: February 12, 2020, 01:17:13 pm »
0

The issue with it going into your hand first is that you could have another Fishing Village in your hand, so if you play with Conclave, other players can't know if it's the same or different FV. (analogous to topdecking multiple cards in an order that isn't public knowledge)

Of course, you may have only gained one FV in the game, which is similar to the discussion of "there's only one FV in the trash" or "you only gained one FV so even with shuffle you technically know it's the same". In these cases, rules that ignore whether you gained one or multiple seem best.
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #81 on: February 12, 2020, 01:50:59 pm »
+4

I'll try to sort out the confusion.

Donald's current ruling is to create a new rule saying the following: Cards that are lost track of (according to the lose-track rule a.k.a stop-moving rule) can't be "that card". This means the card's identity is unknown.

The impact of this rule is that the Fishing Village is no longer the same Fishing Village in any of the scenarios brought up in this thread. In effect, only Throne Rooms (including Royal Carriage and Scepter) will ever stay in play due to playing a Duration.

I think it would have been cleaner to tweak the TR + Duration rule so that it only includes Throne Rooms. But the effect is the same.

(What I was saying earlier is that a trashed card will lose its identity anyway, no need for a new rule. But we do need the new rule if we want to encompass all possible scenarios, even when the card isn't trashed.)

hhelibebcnofnena

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 522
  • he/him
  • Respect: +398
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #82 on: February 12, 2020, 07:57:47 pm »
0

I'll try to sort out the confusion.

Donald's current ruling is to create a new rule saying the following: Cards that are lost track of (according to the lose-track rule a.k.a stop-moving rule) can't be "that card". This means the card's identity is unknown.

The impact of this rule is that the Fishing Village is no longer the same Fishing Village in any of the scenarios brought up in this thread. In effect, only Throne Rooms (including Royal Carriage and Scepter) will ever stay in play due to playing a Duration.

I think it would have been cleaner to tweak the TR + Duration rule so that it only includes Throne Rooms. But the effect is the same.

(What I was saying earlier is that a trashed card will lose its identity anyway, no need for a new rule. But we do need the new rule if we want to encompass all possible scenarios, even when the card isn't trashed.)

Thank you. I understand now.
Logged
Hydrogen Helium Lithium Beryllium Boron Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen Fluorine Neon Sodium

dane-m

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 112
  • Shuffle iT Username: dane-m
  • Respect: +162
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #83 on: February 14, 2020, 07:00:24 am »
+1

I'll try to sort out the confusion.
Perhaps we could encourage Donald to add an edit to his original post so that the revised ruling will be obvious to newcomers to the thread.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23474
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #84 on: March 12, 2020, 12:49:15 am »
0

Instead it would be making the rule to be about only Throne Room and Scepter variants. It would be comparable to the new tracking rule for BoM etc. with Durations: It's only about cards that specifically tell you to leave the played card, not cards that happen to leave it. Vassal happens to replay the card, it doesn't specifically tell you to replay it.
Here in March I am coming around to this viewpoint. It might be simpler for this case. Cards that play something multiple times or replay something have to stay out with Durations. Vassal manages to play a card for a 2nd time due to weirdness and isn't the kind of card that stays out with Thrones.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #85 on: July 13, 2020, 05:42:29 pm »
0

Update on this thread: Donald decided to do what he said in the last post.

Now it's actually easier than ever to make Vassal "replay" a Duration, just play Vassal and flip a Village Green. Now you can play it first with Village Green and then with Vassal. (Vassal doesn't stay out.)

jonaskoelker

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 340
  • Grand Market = cantrip Woodcutter
  • Respect: +386
    • View Profile
Re: Obscure ruling for single-players / play-removers / durations
« Reply #86 on: September 14, 2020, 04:38:02 pm »
0

I have to make a ruling for, in what circumstances is a card no longer "that card." I need this because we can actually lose a card while still caring if it's "that card." In particular if it's shuffled into a deck we've lost it; so, a card shuffled into a deck is no longer "that card."
[...]
In practice we can totally know if we have the right card; and if we aren't sure which physical card is which that doesn't matter, I can say, "I take the one that's the same one" or "I take a different one." In these situations that never come up. But, shuffle it into a deck and man, we don't know and there's no way out (except now this ruling).

I love edge cases. I think this one says the decision you went with later is a good one, and the "it's no longer 'that card' when you shuffle" is incomplete. Here's the edge case:

I play a duration card, let's say Fishing Village. I take it out of play and put it back into hand. Using Secret Passage I put the Fishing Village somewhere in the middle of my deck without counting. Then I play Scrying Pool, drawing cards up until roughly about where I put the Fishing Village. I play Vassal, hitting a Fishing Village.

Is it "that card"? Who the ??? knows...

The duct-tapiest workaround ever is to say that you either count where you put the Secret Passage card, or else what you're doing is a very limited form of shuffling, and so it's no longer "that card". What does that do to Stash?  :-\

Like I said, I like your later decision.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All]
 

Page created in 0.173 seconds with 21 queries.