Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GendoIkari]

To not further sidetrack the preview thread with rules questions / debates; here’s a thread for this question.

You discard Tunnel and Village Green at the same time, and put Village Green on top (actually at the same time; no Militia question here. Let’s just say you played Horse Traders on your own turn). Under pre-errata rules, you could reveal Tunnel even though in theory this required you to dig through your discard pile which wasn’t allowed. Under the errata, no problem, you can dig through your discard pile to reveal the a Tunnel.

But what happens if you choose to play Village Green first, and draw a card, which triggers a reshuffle? Can you still use Tunnel's reaction to gain a Gold? Or can you not because it is impossible to reveal the Tunnel now that it is in your deck?

While it does seem like it’s impossible to reveal it, under pre-errata rules it was also impossible to reveal it from your discard pile, but the rule was that you can reveal it anyway. The justification being that in practice, you reveal it as you discard it, not after it’s in the discard pile. Does this same justification work for using the reaction after it is shuffled in?

Actually it doesn’t matter which one was on top for this question. Though under pre-errata rules, the question only came up if Tunnel was buried.

[Donald X.]

You discard Tunnel and Village Green at the same time, and put Village Green on top (actually at the same time; no Militia question here. Let’s just say you played Horse Traders on your own turn). Under pre-errata rules, you could reveal Tunnel even though in theory this required you to dig through your discard pile which wasn’t allowed. Under the errata, no problem, you can dig through your discard pile to reveal the a Tunnel.

But what happens if you choose to play Village Green first, and draw a card, which triggers a reshuffle? Can you still use Tunnel's reaction to gain a Gold? Or can you not because it is impossible to reveal the Tunnel now that it is in your deck?

You can't do it. Tunnel doesn't enable you to search for it. You didn't reveal it.

While it does seem like it’s impossible to reveal it, under pre-errata rules it was also impossible to reveal it from your discard pile, but the rule was that you can reveal it anyway. The justification being that in practice, you reveal it as you discard it, not after it’s in the discard pile. Does this same justification work for using the reaction after it is shuffled in?

The support for pre-errata rules is: now we have errata. I mean trying to answer questions about pre-errata world is really beyond the scope for me.

[SSLY]

Bonus Preview 3: Village Green

hmm, Village Green doesn't require you to reveal it. So, even when you discard multiple Village Greens and resolving one causes the others to be shuffled into deck, you may "play" them...... you can resolve without putting them into play, right? Multiple Village Greens theirselves can do the same as Village Green+Vassal does.

[popsofctown]

Yeah since we have the commands that say to "play a card, leaving it there", it seems like the Village Green would not need to be able to move to play to be played.

[mxdata]

Yeah since we have the commands that say to "play a card, leaving it there", it seems like the Village Green would not need to be able to move to play to be played.

But those command cards are a special case.  They explicitly say "leaving it there", overriding the usual rule that a card must be moved to the in-play area to be played.  There's no such override on Village Green, so it would have to follow the normal rule

[GendoIkari]

Yeah since we have the commands that say to "play a card, leaving it there", it seems like the Village Green would not need to be able to move to play to be played.

But those command cards are a special case.  They explicitly say "leaving it there", overriding the usual rule that a card must be moved to the in-play area to be played.  There's no such override on Village Green, so it would have to follow the normal rule

No, there is no normal rule that a card must be moved to the in-play area to be played. The normal rule is that when you play a card, you move it to the in-play area... it's the other way around. Moving it to the in-play area isn't a requirement of getting it played; but playing it causes you to move it to the in-play area.

A simple example is Throne Room + Feast. The second time you play Feast, you still play it normally, you just don't move it to the in-play area because of the Stop Moving rule. Actually, with Throne Room + anything, you don't move it to the in-play area the second time, because it's already there, and you can't move something to where it is.

By the wordings on the card, I can't see any reason that you wouldn't be able to play a shuffled-in Village Green. But it's obviously an accountability nightmare.

[SSLY]

I can't see any reason that you wouldn't be able to play a shuffled-in Village Green. But it's obviously an accountability nightmare.

Yes. I wonder why VG is not contingent on reveal (like Tunnel)/set aside (like Innovation).

[mxdata]

Yeah since we have the commands that say to "play a card, leaving it there", it seems like the Village Green would not need to be able to move to play to be played.

But those command cards are a special case.  They explicitly say "leaving it there", overriding the usual rule that a card must be moved to the in-play area to be played.  There's no such override on Village Green, so it would have to follow the normal rule

No, there is no normal rule that a card must be moved to the in-play area to be played. The normal rule is that when you play a card, you move it to the in-play area... it's the other way around. Moving it to the in-play area isn't a requirement of getting it played; but playing it causes you to move it to the in-play area.

A simple example is Throne Room + Feast. The second time you play Feast, you still play it normally, you just don't move it to the in-play area because of the Stop Moving rule. Actually, with Throne Room + anything, you don't move it to the in-play area the second time, because it's already there, and you can't move something to where it is.

By the wordings on the card, I can't see any reason that you wouldn't be able to play a shuffled-in Village Green. But it's obviously an accountability nightmare.

Okay, that's a valid point.  I think the intention is clearly "put this in play", and that "you can't play a shuffled-in card" is in the spirit (but not the letter) of the Stop-Moving Rule, but you are technically correct that there's nothing stopping the VG from being played after being shuffled in

[GendoIkari]

Yeah since we have the commands that say to "play a card, leaving it there", it seems like the Village Green would not need to be able to move to play to be played.

But those command cards are a special case.  They explicitly say "leaving it there", overriding the usual rule that a card must be moved to the in-play area to be played.  There's no such override on Village Green, so it would have to follow the normal rule

No, there is no normal rule that a card must be moved to the in-play area to be played. The normal rule is that when you play a card, you move it to the in-play area... it's the other way around. Moving it to the in-play area isn't a requirement of getting it played; but playing it causes you to move it to the in-play area.

A simple example is Throne Room + Feast. The second time you play Feast, you still play it normally, you just don't move it to the in-play area because of the Stop Moving rule. Actually, with Throne Room + anything, you don't move it to the in-play area the second time, because it's already there, and you can't move something to where it is.

By the wordings on the card, I can't see any reason that you wouldn't be able to play a shuffled-in Village Green. But it's obviously an accountability nightmare.

Okay, that's a valid point.  I think the intention is clearly "put this in play", and that "you can't play a shuffled-in card" is in the spirit (but not the letter) of the Stop-Moving Rule, but you are technically correct that there's nothing stopping the VG from being played after being shuffled in

Yeah as far as the stop-moving rule goes, there's no difference between a card that's been shuffled in and a card that's been trashed. Both cannot be moved to in-play anymore. So stop-moving definitely won't apply here. There would need to be a different general rule such as "a card cannot be played if that card is not publicly available to see" or something like that.

[mxdata]

Yeah since we have the commands that say to "play a card, leaving it there", it seems like the Village Green would not need to be able to move to play to be played.

But those command cards are a special case.  They explicitly say "leaving it there", overriding the usual rule that a card must be moved to the in-play area to be played.  There's no such override on Village Green, so it would have to follow the normal rule

No, there is no normal rule that a card must be moved to the in-play area to be played. The normal rule is that when you play a card, you move it to the in-play area... it's the other way around. Moving it to the in-play area isn't a requirement of getting it played; but playing it causes you to move it to the in-play area.

A simple example is Throne Room + Feast. The second time you play Feast, you still play it normally, you just don't move it to the in-play area because of the Stop Moving rule. Actually, with Throne Room + anything, you don't move it to the in-play area the second time, because it's already there, and you can't move something to where it is.

By the wordings on the card, I can't see any reason that you wouldn't be able to play a shuffled-in Village Green. But it's obviously an accountability nightmare.

Okay, that's a valid point.  I think the intention is clearly "put this in play", and that "you can't play a shuffled-in card" is in the spirit (but not the letter) of the Stop-Moving Rule, but you are technically correct that there's nothing stopping the VG from being played after being shuffled in

Yeah as far as the stop-moving rule goes, there's no difference between a card that's been shuffled in and a card that's been trashed. Both cannot be moved to in-play anymore. So stop-moving definitely won't apply here. There would need to be a different general rule such as "a card cannot be played if that card is not publicly available to see" or something like that.

Amusingly, your proposed rule would let Necromancer's "turn it face-down" clause be retroactively interpreted as invoking it.  You turn the card face-down, making it no longer publicly visible, and hence, unable to be played

[GendoIkari]

Yeah since we have the commands that say to "play a card, leaving it there", it seems like the Village Green would not need to be able to move to play to be played.

But those command cards are a special case.  They explicitly say "leaving it there", overriding the usual rule that a card must be moved to the in-play area to be played.  There's no such override on Village Green, so it would have to follow the normal rule

No, there is no normal rule that a card must be moved to the in-play area to be played. The normal rule is that when you play a card, you move it to the in-play area... it's the other way around. Moving it to the in-play area isn't a requirement of getting it played; but playing it causes you to move it to the in-play area.

A simple example is Throne Room + Feast. The second time you play Feast, you still play it normally, you just don't move it to the in-play area because of the Stop Moving rule. Actually, with Throne Room + anything, you don't move it to the in-play area the second time, because it's already there, and you can't move something to where it is.

By the wordings on the card, I can't see any reason that you wouldn't be able to play a shuffled-in Village Green. But it's obviously an accountability nightmare.

Okay, that's a valid point.  I think the intention is clearly "put this in play", and that "you can't play a shuffled-in card" is in the spirit (but not the letter) of the Stop-Moving Rule, but you are technically correct that there's nothing stopping the VG from being played after being shuffled in

Yeah as far as the stop-moving rule goes, there's no difference between a card that's been shuffled in and a card that's been trashed. Both cannot be moved to in-play anymore. So stop-moving definitely won't apply here. There would need to be a different general rule such as "a card cannot be played if that card is not publicly available to see" or something like that.

Amusingly, your proposed rule would let Necromancer's "turn it face-down" clause be retroactively interpreted as invoking it.  You turn the card face-down, making it no longer publicly visible, and hence, unable to be played

That would be fine though; because you don't turn it down until you've already played it.. or at least started to play it.

[mxdata]

Yeah since we have the commands that say to "play a card, leaving it there", it seems like the Village Green would not need to be able to move to play to be played.

But those command cards are a special case.  They explicitly say "leaving it there", overriding the usual rule that a card must be moved to the in-play area to be played.  There's no such override on Village Green, so it would have to follow the normal rule

No, there is no normal rule that a card must be moved to the in-play area to be played. The normal rule is that when you play a card, you move it to the in-play area... it's the other way around. Moving it to the in-play area isn't a requirement of getting it played; but playing it causes you to move it to the in-play area.

A simple example is Throne Room + Feast. The second time you play Feast, you still play it normally, you just don't move it to the in-play area because of the Stop Moving rule. Actually, with Throne Room + anything, you don't move it to the in-play area the second time, because it's already there, and you can't move something to where it is.

By the wordings on the card, I can't see any reason that you wouldn't be able to play a shuffled-in Village Green. But it's obviously an accountability nightmare.

Okay, that's a valid point.  I think the intention is clearly "put this in play", and that "you can't play a shuffled-in card" is in the spirit (but not the letter) of the Stop-Moving Rule, but you are technically correct that there's nothing stopping the VG from being played after being shuffled in

Yeah as far as the stop-moving rule goes, there's no difference between a card that's been shuffled in and a card that's been trashed. Both cannot be moved to in-play anymore. So stop-moving definitely won't apply here. There would need to be a different general rule such as "a card cannot be played if that card is not publicly available to see" or something like that.

Amusingly, your proposed rule would let Necromancer's "turn it face-down" clause be retroactively interpreted as invoking it.  You turn the card face-down, making it no longer publicly visible, and hence, unable to be played

That would be fine though; because you don't turn it down until you've already played it.. or at least started to play it.

Right, that's what I meant - Necromancer can only play a face-up card and turns cards face-down after being used.  With your rule, instead of being a Necromancer-specific rule, the first part falls out naturally from your rule, and the second part is just a specific mechanism used by Necromancer to invoke your rule

[popsofctown]

Please let me play Village Green from "somewhere within my deck I don't know where" I just want to see the world burn ok.  PLEASE

[GendoIkari]

Please let me play Village Green from "somewhere within my deck I don't know where" I just want to see the world burn ok.  PLEASE

Especially fun when that same Village Green is the only card in your deck. Play Village Green to draw itself!

[Donald X.]

hmm, Village Green doesn't require you to reveal it. So, even when you discard multiple Village Greens and resolving one causes the others to be shuffled into deck, you may "play" them...... you can resolve without putting them into play, right? Multiple Village Greens theirselves can do the same as Village Green+Vassal does.

Yes; in a tournament setting, call a judge to make sure the person actually had those Village Greens. In a friendly game, make sure everyone is actually friends, and online, it will be enforcing legal plays.

This is not great and has an easy fix, which is not letting you play cards you can't put into play. Man I tried to use this fix, I tried. The online community rebelled, no-one could give up on Throne Feast.

At one point during Menagerie testing, I expected that fix to go through, and that's how we played. The big thing that came up repeatedly was that you couldn't Mastermind Horses.

Conceivably I could have a watered down version of it, and just not let you play a card shuffled into your deck. Or, Village Green could be "you may reveal it to play it," which maybe doesn't look insane, it looks like "this is how I choose to do this," even though the whole point is to make sure you have the card.

[popsofctown]

YES

[GendoIkari]

Or, Village Green could be "you may reveal it to play it," which maybe doesn't look insane, it looks like "this is how I choose to do this," even though the whole point is to make sure you have the card.

I mean, it's just exactly what Tunnel says anyway. Tunnel could have skipped revealing if you'd wanted to in the first place also.

[scolapasta]

Just a brainstorming idea, but would it be too radical (as is being considered for Militia's discard down to 3) if *all* discards were one at a time?

The biggest change, I think, is that you could draw new cards mid resolve that you would choose to discard. A small change would be that your opponents would get to see all your discards.

And I'm sure there'd still be details / ambiguities that need to be answered by FAQ. For example, with Cellar, "discard any number of cards" would mean that you first choose the number of cards you want to discard, then discard them, one by one, resolving any on discard events as you go along.

So with an empty deck you play Cellar and choose to discard 2 Village Greens, you discard the first, play it (putting it in play), shuffle (assuming you chose the draw now option), draw a card, then discard the 2nd, putting it in play, drawing another card; and then you draw 2 cards to finish resolving Cellar.

Are there consequences of this that I'm missing? Would the buff of possibly drawing better discard targets outweigh the benefit of less confusion (playing Village Greens that have been shuffled into your deck)?

[Donald X.]

Just a brainstorming idea, but would it be too radical (as is being considered for Militia's discard down to 3) if *all* discards were one at a time?

It might work; I'm not looking to change things just to change them though. It's the opposite, I only want to change what I have to.

[Donald X.]

Or, Village Green could be "you may reveal it to play it," which maybe doesn't look insane, it looks like "this is how I choose to do this," even though the whole point is to make sure you have the card.

I mean, it's just exactly what Tunnel says anyway. Tunnel could have skipped revealing if you'd wanted to in the first place also.

To be clear, that wording would be years off; the cards are printed, you know what they say.

[Jeebus]

While it does seem like it’s impossible to reveal it, under pre-errata rules it was also impossible to reveal it from your discard pile, but the rule was that you can reveal it anyway. The justification being that in practice, you reveal it as you discard it, not after it’s in the discard pile.

That wasn't the justification. This is what I already wrote in the other thread:

The reason it was possible to reveal a covered Tunnel from your discard pile must have been because you knew where the Tunnel was (and revealing it was not moving it, so lose-track didn't enter into it even when covered cards in discard were lost-track of). But if you actually shuffle the Tunnel, how can you reveal it?

We had a long thread about this in BGG back in the day, and the conclusion was that there is no rule stopping you from revealing cards that you know the location of, even in your discard pile (since revealing from your discard pile does not count as moving). Donald also supported this view.

[GendoIkari]

While it does seem like it’s impossible to reveal it, under pre-errata rules it was also impossible to reveal it from your discard pile, but the rule was that you can reveal it anyway. The justification being that in practice, you reveal it as you discard it, not after it’s in the discard pile.

That wasn't the justification. This is what I already wrote in the other thread:

The reason it was possible to reveal a covered Tunnel from your discard pile must have been because you knew where the Tunnel was (and revealing it was not moving it, so lose-track didn't enter into it even when covered cards in discard were lost-track of). But if you actually shuffle the Tunnel, how can you reveal it?

We had a long thread about this in BGG back in the day, and the conclusion was that there is no rule stopping you from revealing cards that you know the location of, even in your discard pile (since revealing from your discard pile does not count as moving). Donald also supported this view.

But the problem is that despite me saying otherwise a couple posts ago, it seems that revealing a card is moving it. It gets moved to some sort of "being revealed" area. We know this because a card revealed from your deck is not still on your deck; if you need to draw a card while the top card of your deck is revealed (Lookout + Rats); you draw the next card from your deck.

Plus, if revealing a card doesn't count as moving it; then why can't you reveal a Tunnel that has been shuffled in? I could be wrong, but I was assuming that Donald's response to my initial question in this thread was based on the Stop Moving rule. If it isn't, what rule is there that says that you can't reveal it while it's shuffled in? Another rule separate from "stop moving" called "stop revealing"? I suppose it could fall under the "do as much as you can" principle... you choose to reveal the card; but then you fail to do so because you literally can't reveal it, anymore than you could discard it from your hand now that it's not in your hand.

I dunno, probably doesn't matter at all in practice... but what I do know is that Tunnel broke a rule. Maybe not the stop-moving / lose-track rule. But in order to reveal it from the discard, you are forced to look through your discard even though there's no rule allowing you to look through your discard (prior to errata). I don't see any significant difference between looking through your discard to find the burred Tunnel and looking through your draw pile to find the buried Tunnel. Luckily now we don't have these problems because errata rules state that we are allowed to look through our discard pile in this case.

[scolapasta]

Just a brainstorming idea, but would it be too radical (as is being considered for Militia's discard down to 3) if *all* discards were one at a time?

It might work; I'm not looking to change things just to change them though. It's the opposite, I only want to change what I have to.

Sure, I get that and agree that limiting changes as much as possible is the way to go. I just wanted to get the idea out there since Militia type discards are also being discussed. Unlike the issue I have with Gamble's "Otherwise" (where I do feel like consistency should be paramount) or something older, like Capitalism affecting Teacher*, I don't feel strongly about this. Not that how I, random person on the internet, feel matters much, but I have always appreciated your willingness to engage with us on these forums.

* I never understood "the +$1 token" as a +$ amount, but rather the proper name of the token. /rant

[Jeebus]

But the problem is that despite me saying otherwise a couple posts ago, it seems that revealing a card is moving it. It gets moved to some sort of "being revealed" area. We know this because a card revealed from your deck is not still on your deck; if you need to draw a card while the top card of your deck is revealed (Lookout + Rats); you draw the next card from your deck.

Plus, if revealing a card doesn't count as moving it; then why can't you reveal a Tunnel that has been shuffled in? I could be wrong, but I was assuming that Donald's response to my initial question in this thread was based on the Stop Moving rule. If it isn't, what rule is there that says that you can't reveal it while it's shuffled in? Another rule separate from "stop moving" called "stop revealing"? I suppose it could fall under the "do as much as you can" principle... you choose to reveal the card; but then you fail to do so because you literally can't reveal it, anymore than you could discard it from your hand now that it's not in your hand.

I dunno, probably doesn't matter at all in practice... but what I do know is that Tunnel broke a rule. Maybe not the stop-moving / lose-track rule. But in order to reveal it from the discard, you are forced to look through your discard even though there's no rule allowing you to look through your discard (prior to errata). I don't see any significant difference between looking through your discard to find the burred Tunnel and looking through your draw pile to find the buried Tunnel. Luckily now we don't have these problems because errata rules state that we are allowed to look through our discard pile in this case.

Well, the basis is that Donald has ruled that revealing cards from your deck specifically, makes the cards move. This seems not to apply to revealing from other places such as your hand. Maybe it's because after revealing from your deck, you are making a decision or doing some other action before possibly putting the card back. Discarding from your hand is more about flashing the card, and Tunnel is the same.

When it comes to finding the Tunnel, you are not looking through your discard. You know where the Tunnel is, since you know in what order you discarded the cards. If revealing it doesn't constitute moving, there's no problem. The difference when it's shuffled is exactly that you don't know where it is. You just can't physically reveal a card that you don't know where is.