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 5821 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • 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: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • 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: 5844
  • Respect: +23531
    • 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: 5844
  • Respect: +23531
    • 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: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • 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: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • 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: 5844
  • Respect: +23531
    • 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: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • 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: 130
  • Respect: +146
    • 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: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • 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: 11414
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (。 ω 。`)
  • Respect: +12212
    • 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: 130
  • Respect: +146
    • 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: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • 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: 523
  • he/him
  • Respect: +402
    • 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: 217
  • Shuffle iT Username: Ingix
  • Respect: +301
    • 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: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • 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: 217
  • Shuffle iT Username: Ingix
  • Respect: +301
    • 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: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • 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: 5844
  • Respect: +23531
    • 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: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • 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: 5844
  • Respect: +23531
    • 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: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • 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
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  All
 

Page created in 0.095 seconds with 22 queries.