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 4771 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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: 1904
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1278
    • 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: +397
    • 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: 8802
  • Respect: +9594
    • 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: +397
    • 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: 390
  • Respect: +385
    • 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: 1904
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1278
    • 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: +397
    • 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: 5815
  • Respect: +23442
    • 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: 1904
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1278
    • 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: 339
  • Grand Market = cantrip Woodcutter
  • Respect: +385
    • 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 0.077 seconds with 22 queries.