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 5642 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ingix

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
  • Shuffle iT Username: Ingix
  • Respect: +301
    • 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: 5843
  • Respect: +23530
    • 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: 5843
  • Respect: +23530
    • 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: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • 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: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • 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: 5843
  • Respect: +23530
    • 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: 5843
  • Respect: +23530
    • 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: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • 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: 5843
  • Respect: +23530
    • 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: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • 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: 5843
  • Respect: +23530
    • 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: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • 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: +263
    • 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: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • 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: 5843
  • Respect: +23530
    • 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: 5843
  • Respect: +23530
    • 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: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • 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: 8904
  • Respect: +9685
    • 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: 1924
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1291
    • 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: 8904
  • Respect: +9685
    • 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
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All
 

Page created in 0.182 seconds with 22 queries.