Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Cost of Animal Fair revisited  (Read 9597 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« on: April 11, 2020, 02:53:37 pm »
+2

Cards are allowed to be exceptions to the rules. There are lots of main set rules that cards overturn. You can't look through your discard pile; how can Hermit possibly work? And so on and on. None of that makes the rulebook inaccurate.

I don't want to get mired in rules discussions when the rulebook isn't out yet, but it will all work out somehow. Yes, it has an alternate cost of trashing an Action card.

Yeah, I know cards can be exceptions, that was my alternative 3. But it has also happened that the way we understood a particular rule needed to be updated. But thanks, now I know that it's the card. And it sounds like you're saying that it has an alternate cost rather than triggering when you're about to pay for it.

Wayfarer made me realize it's not that simple. An alternate cost means it applies to all Animal Fairs. What if you Swindler one, can you choose the alternate cost of "$0 and trash an Action card from your hand"? That wouldn't make any sense, so the alternate cost has to apply only when you buy it. It can't apply when you pay for it (like the card says), because that would mean you could never buy it for the alternate cost according to the rules (except if you have $7). So it has to be an alternate cost that you can choose when you choose which card to buy. So I guess it is some kind of trigger at a very weird time, "when you would buy a card" maybe.

I'm going to conclude that Donald misspoke when he said that Animal Fair has an alternate cost of trashing an Action card. It contradicts the card text, it contradicts what he said in the preview, and it contradicts several statements from the rules:

"Some cards in Menagerie have costs marked with a *. Animal Fair uses it as a reminder that you can buy the card another way. Destrier, Fisherman, and Wayfarer all use the * because they have costs that can change during a turn."

"Animal Fair: When buying this card, you can trash an Action card from your hand instead of paying $7."


Also, right after he wrote that, Donald upvoted a post that contradicts it.

Rather, the conclusion must be my alternative 3: Animal Fair has a special unstated rule which means you're allowed to choose it when buying even if you can't afford it.
This is actually pretty much stated in the rulebook: "You can only do this if you have an Action card in hand to trash. You can do this even if you do not have $7."

Dominionaer

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 178
  • Respect: +66
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #1 on: April 11, 2020, 06:59:00 pm »
+1

What is your problem? Do you seek confirmation for your assumptions? Do you look for a more convenient wording? Do you understand it at all? Where is the contradiction, you write of?
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #2 on: April 11, 2020, 07:31:54 pm »
0

What is your problem? Do you seek confirmation for your assumptions? Do you look for a more convenient wording? Do you understand it at all? Where is the contradiction, you write of?

I want to state how this card works in my rules document. I asked Donald, and he gave a (maybe tentative) answer: that it has an alternate cost. You can see it in my quote above and find the context in the other thread. The "problem" is this answer contradicts all the things I wrote. I'm pretty sure of my conclusion, and I'll assume it's true unless Donald chimes in and corrects me.

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1795
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1674
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #3 on: April 11, 2020, 09:14:37 pm »
+1

I don't see the contradiction.

heron

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1055
  • Shuffle iT Username: heron
  • Respect: +1183
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #4 on: April 11, 2020, 10:59:26 pm »
0

I think it is clear that when Donald said that Animal Fair has an alternate cost of trashing an action, he isn't using cost as a formal term.
Obviously if there was another card that was like you can trash an action and pay $2 to buy it but it normally cost 25 then you could not remodel animal fair into this hypothetical card.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2020, 12:20:38 am »
0

I don't see the contradiction.

Can you be more specific? What is it that you don't think contradicts with what, and what do you think those things mean?

I think it is clear that when Donald said that Animal Fair has an alternate cost of trashing an action, he isn't using cost as a formal term.
Obviously if there was another card that was like you can trash an action and pay $2 to buy it but it normally cost 25 then you could not remodel animal fair into this hypothetical card.

Right. That's exactly why I said in the other thread that the cost, if it changes, can only be changed while you're choosing a card to buy, not before or after. But Kieramillar expressed that Animal Fair has two costs, and that was the "formal" cost, because it was an explanation to how it's possible to choose it even while you can't afford its $7 cost. And it really seemed that Donald was agreeing to this when he said right afterwards: "Yes, it has an alternate cost of trashing an Action card." In any case, the question was how Animal Fair works technically, because read literally (and without any unstated rule) it contradicts the rules.

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1795
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1674
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #6 on: April 12, 2020, 12:48:14 am »
+1

I don't see the contradiction.

Can you be more specific? What is it that you don't think contradicts with what, and what do you think those things mean?
I don't see how Animal Fair contradicts the rules.
I don't see how what Donald said contradicts what you said.
I don't really see any contradiction here...

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #7 on: April 12, 2020, 01:11:43 am »
0

I don't see the contradiction.

Can you be more specific? What is it that you don't think contradicts with what, and what do you think those things mean?
I don't see how Animal Fair contradicts the rules.
I don't see how what Donald said contradicts what you said.
I don't really see any contradiction here...

I guess just start by reading my original post in the other thread where I explain it in detail. If you're still not seeing it, tell me what exactly you're disagreeing with.

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1795
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1674
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #8 on: April 12, 2020, 03:05:54 am »
+2

I don't see the contradiction.

Can you be more specific? What is it that you don't think contradicts with what, and what do you think those things mean?
I don't see how Animal Fair contradicts the rules.
I don't see how what Donald said contradicts what you said.
I don't really see any contradiction here...

I guess just start by reading my original post in the other thread where I explain it in detail. If you're still not seeing it, tell me what exactly you're disagreeing with.

meh. I don't really care enough to bother.

Dominionaer

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 178
  • Respect: +66
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #9 on: April 12, 2020, 08:24:54 am »
+1

OK, i cruised trough some of the linked posts and think, you are on a path making something simple very complex.

I assume you start from
Quote
you can buy one card, costing as much as you have or less
and interpret it literally and as strict as possible? So if you have 6 coins, you are not allowed to buy something costing more coins? In that sense i would concede there is a bit of hard to explain in Animal Fair.

I prefer an other interpretation: you need 1 Buy and the appropiate number of treasures to gain a desired card. Technically: you spend the Buy, then (try to) spend the requested coins and if you do successfully, gain the card. If you have not enough coins, you fail to gain (and has wasted the Buy).
« Last Edit: April 12, 2020, 08:26:11 am by Dominionaer »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #10 on: April 12, 2020, 11:12:47 am »
0

OK, i cruised trough some of the linked posts and think, you are on a path making something simple very complex.

I assume you start from
Quote
you can buy one card, costing as much as you have or less
and interpret it literally and as strict as possible? So if you have 6 coins, you are not allowed to buy something costing more coins? In that sense i would concede there is a bit of hard to explain in Animal Fair.

I prefer an other interpretation: you need 1 Buy and the appropiate number of treasures to gain a desired card. Technically: you spend the Buy, then (try to) spend the requested coins and if you do successfully, gain the card. If you have not enough coins, you fail to gain (and has wasted the Buy).

It needs to work in some way, no matter how simple you think that way is. I guess you didn't read my original post. Your way was my option 1.

But what about a theoretical forced Black Market that you Herald'ed into playing? Is the rule really that you could just choose to buy something you couldn't afford in order to not have to buy anything? It seems weird. This has actually been discussed before. What if there was a card that used buys like Storyteller uses coins and Diadem uses Actions? You can't choose to just spend coins "failing" to pay or spend Actions "failing" to play Action cards. So it seems unlikely that it should be different with buys.

In any case, Donald answered that Animal Fair is an exception to the rules, meaning that it isn't the case that the rules are different than they literally say in the rulebook. So much for that.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2020, 12:40:22 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

Wizard_Amul

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 205
  • Respect: +216
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #11 on: April 12, 2020, 01:55:35 pm »
0


But what about a theoretical forced Black Market that you Herald'ed into playing? Is the rule really that you could just choose to buy something you couldn't afford in order to not have to buy anything? It seems weird. This has actually been discussed before. What if there was a card that used buys like Storyteller uses coins and Diadem uses Actions? You can't choose to just spend coins "failing" to pay or spend Actions "failing" to play Action cards. So it seems unlikely that it should be different with buys.

In any case, Donald answered that Animal Fair is an exception to the rules, meaning that it isn't the case that the rules are different than they literally say in the rulebook. So much for that.

These are actually good points. You are allowed to not spend your actions or coins, but you can't choose to actually "spend" them on nothing, so I think you're right about the buys being the same.

I don't fully remember the discussion about Animal Fair, but I think what you figured out was Donald contradicted himself in the forum and the rulebook, right? He said in the forums that Animal Fair is an exception to the rules, but it says something different in the rulebook? I guess Donald changed his mind at some point and misspoke in one of those places.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #12 on: April 12, 2020, 06:43:53 pm »
0

Not quite. Donald said that cards can be exceptions to the rules, implying that the rules as I quoted them from the rulebook stand: you can't (normally) choose to buy a card that you can't afford. But then he said that Animal Fair has an alternate cost, which would actually mean that Animal Fair fits nicely with the rules and is not an exception. I didn't think about that until right now.

But in any case, the Menagerie rulebook (see my first post in this thread) actually says that Animal Fair never has an alternate cost. Several other things also contradict it. I explained it all in my first post in this thread.

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1795
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1674
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #13 on: April 12, 2020, 07:22:44 pm »
+1

I just looked, and the rulebook actually does not say that Animal Fair never has an alternate cost. It just says it "still has a cost of ", which is for the purposes of trash for benefit and other things that look at cost. For buying the card, it has an alternate cost of trashing an action card. What is so complicated about that?
« Last Edit: April 12, 2020, 07:24:12 pm by LibraryAdventurer »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #14 on: April 12, 2020, 07:57:00 pm »
+1

It's working on dominionstrategy. So, you could ask Stef how he programmed it, what that logic is.
Logged

hhelibebcnofnena

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 529
  • she/her
  • Respect: +409
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #15 on: April 13, 2020, 09:50:23 am »
0

Also, right after he wrote that, Donald upvoted a post that contradicts it.

Your conclusions make sense to me. One question though: How can you tell that Donald X. upvoted it?
Logged
Hydrogen Helium Lithium Beryllium Boron Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen Fluorine Neon Sodium

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #16 on: April 13, 2020, 09:57:16 am »
+2

Also, right after he wrote that, Donald upvoted a post that contradicts it.

Your conclusions make sense to me. One question though: How can you tell that Donald X. upvoted it?

Click the little person-looking icon to the right of the arrow that you click to up-vote; it lists all the people who voted.
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

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #17 on: April 13, 2020, 10:45:57 am »
0

I just looked, and the rulebook actually does not say that Animal Fair never has an alternate cost. It just says it "still has a cost of ", which is for the purposes of trash for benefit and other things that look at cost. For buying the card, it has an alternate cost of trashing an action card. What is so complicated about that?

I didn't say it was complicated, I said it was contradicted by several things, the rulebook being one of them, the card text being another, Donald's statements being others. The parts of the rulebook I'm talking about are not what you referred to, they're what I quoted in the OP. It says that Destrier, Fisherman, and Wayfarer have costs that can change and Animal Fair doesn't. It's pretty clear. (Again, if you read the OP I'm sure things will be much clearer for you.) Alternate cost would mean that it changes just as you're choosing cards to buy and changes back after you've paid for it. Instead it's: you can choose Animal Fair even if you can't afford its cost cost as long as you have an Action card in hand.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #18 on: April 13, 2020, 11:55:41 am »
+4

Alternate cost would mean that it changes just as you're choosing cards to buy and changes back after you've paid for it. Instead it's: you can choose Animal Fair even if you can't afford its cost cost as long as you have an Action card in hand.

Since Donald brought up the online implementation; I'll give my input as a programmer who has made a Temporum client...

 - Each Card object has a Cost property.
 - At the start of your buy phase, and each time you play a treasure, and each time you buy a card, you would call a function to decide which cards to highlight as ones that can be bought.
 - This function looks at each card in the Supply and determines if that card can be bought. The best way to do this would be for the Card class to have a method or property that returns if itself can be bought. The base card class would simply return whether or not the cost (in coins and potions) is less than or equal to the amount of coins + potions the person has available. For Animal fair, this method is overridden with logic that checks if either the normal "you can buy" is true, or if you have an action card in hand.

Basically, it would be super weird to actually ever change the value of the Cost property anywhere in there. First off, you can't just change it from to "Trash an action card" while you are showing which cards can be bought; because you don't know which of the 2 things the player will want pay; if they can afford both. So you would have to introduce the concept of a card having more than 1 cost value at the same time.

Code: [Select]
public abstract Class Card
{
    public abstract int CostInCoins {get;}
    public virtual int CostInPotions => 0;

    public virtual bool CanBeBought()
    {
        return GameState.AvailableCoins >= this.CostInCoins && GameState.AvailablePotions >= this.CostInPotions;
    }
}

public Class AnimalFair : Card
{
    public int CostInCoins => 7;

    public override bool CanBeBought()
    {
        if (base.CanBeBought()) //If you can buy it by paying its cost, return true
        {
            return true;
        }

        return GameState.Hand.Any(c => c.Types.Contains(Type.Action))); //Return whether or not they have an action in hand
    }
}
« Last Edit: April 13, 2020, 12:10:20 pm by GendoIkari »
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

LibraryAdventurer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1795
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • I wish my username had the links like it once did.
  • Respect: +1674
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #19 on: April 13, 2020, 02:42:27 pm »
+1

I just looked, and the rulebook actually does not say that Animal Fair never has an alternate cost. It just says it "still has a cost of ", which is for the purposes of trash for benefit and other things that look at cost. For buying the card, it has an alternate cost of trashing an action card. What is so complicated about that?

I didn't say it was complicated, I said it was contradicted by several things, the rulebook being one of them, the card text being another, Donald's statements being others. The parts of the rulebook I'm talking about are not what you referred to, they're what I quoted in the OP. It says that Destrier, Fisherman, and Wayfarer have costs that can change and Animal Fair doesn't. It's pretty clear. (Again, if you read the OP I'm sure things will be much clearer for you.) Alternate cost would mean that it changes just as you're choosing cards to buy and changes back after you've paid for it. Instead it's: you can choose Animal Fair even if you can't afford its cost cost as long as you have an Action card in hand.

"Alternate cost" doesn't mean that the cost changes. It means there another cost you can pay to buy it instead of the coin cost. Animal Fair's cost doesn't change, but it has an alternate cost.  I read the OP, I still don't see the contradiction. I think you just reading too much into the "alternate cost" bit.

scolapasta

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 578
  • Respect: +734
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #20 on: April 13, 2020, 03:14:39 pm »
+4

I really like GendoIkari's explanation and sample code, though I think it helps to remove terms like "property" and "function" from the plain English text. So here's my shot at it:

All cards have a cost. Notwithstanding Bridge (and Highway, Quarry, etc) effects, costs are generally fixed.

Some cards (e.g. Peddler, Fisherman) have variable costs, in that they may change during the course of the turn(s). Animal Fair is not one such card; its cost is fixed at $7.

When cards are bought, you check if the card can be bought. Generally, this is done by checking if you can have equal or more $ (and Potions) than the cost of the card. However, cards can provide an alternative way to determine if they can be bought. The only current such card is Animal Farm.

In other words, phrased as such, it's not specific to just Animal Farm, but a separate mechanic / rule that future cards can someday use. (so Jeebus' #2)
« Last Edit: April 13, 2020, 05:36:02 pm by scolapasta »
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #21 on: April 13, 2020, 04:08:05 pm »
+1

I just looked, and the rulebook actually does not say that Animal Fair never has an alternate cost. It just says it "still has a cost of ", which is for the purposes of trash for benefit and other things that look at cost. For buying the card, it has an alternate cost of trashing an action card. What is so complicated about that?

I didn't say it was complicated, I said it was contradicted by several things, the rulebook being one of them, the card text being another, Donald's statements being others. The parts of the rulebook I'm talking about are not what you referred to, they're what I quoted in the OP. It says that Destrier, Fisherman, and Wayfarer have costs that can change and Animal Fair doesn't. It's pretty clear. (Again, if you read the OP I'm sure things will be much clearer for you.) Alternate cost would mean that it changes just as you're choosing cards to buy and changes back after you've paid for it. Instead it's: you can choose Animal Fair even if you can't afford its cost cost as long as you have an Action card in hand.

"Alternate cost" doesn't mean that the cost changes. It means there another cost you can pay to buy it instead of the coin cost. Animal Fair's cost doesn't change, but it has an alternate cost.  I read the OP, I still don't see the contradiction. I think you just reading too much into the "alternate cost" bit.

"Alternate cost" still implies a "cost". It means that either the cost changes, or there is a second cost. "Alternate way of paying" is different. It implies that there is a way to pay that doesn't involve the cost. And this seems to be how Animal Fair behaves.
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

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1529
  • Respect: +1423
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #22 on: April 13, 2020, 05:21:14 pm »
+2

Turning something straightforward into something convoluted is not a skill that serves any practical purposes beyond involuntary entertainment.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #23 on: April 13, 2020, 06:16:17 pm »
0

"Alternate cost" doesn't mean that the cost changes. It means there another cost you can pay to buy it instead of the coin cost. Animal Fair's cost doesn't change, but it has an alternate cost.  I read the OP, I still don't see the contradiction. I think you just reading too much into the "alternate cost" bit.

"Alternate cost" still implies a "cost". It means that either the cost changes, or there is a second cost. "Alternate way of paying" is different. It implies that there is a way to pay that doesn't involve the cost. And this seems to be how Animal Fair behaves.

Yeah, it makes no sense to say that you can pay a cost that the card doesn't have.

Actually it's not even an alternate way of paying, technically. It's something you do instead of paying, to buy the card. So it's an alternate way of buying. The good thing about this interpretation, is that it's supported by everything ever written about the card (except for that one statement from Donald), including the actual card text: "Instead of paying this card's cost, you may trash an Action card from your hand."

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #24 on: April 13, 2020, 06:18:18 pm »
0

I'll explain why this matters. One of the important points of my rules document is to not introduce any rules that are unclear or open to interpretation. Since the aim is that the reader should be able to determine any interaction, this is important.

Sure, some cards introduce exceptions to the rules. For instance, it's enough in the main rules explanation to say that you buy from the Supply. You don't have to say that Black Market provides an exception; this is explained under the entry for Black Market (in addition to the card text itself allowing it).

But as a counterexample, take Crown being played at start of turn. It matters for Crown whether it's your Buy phase, your Action phase, or neither. So you shouldn't say that the Action phase starts after the start-of-turn abilities, and then explain under the entry for Crown that it plays an Action card anyway (as a special ruling about Crown). You should state that first the Action phase starts, then you do start-of-turn abilities, then you may play Action cards by using Actions. Both approaches would make the reader understand how Crown works at start of turn. But the first approach makes it confusing what happens when you play Crown in another phase (Clean-up or Night) or on another player's turn, all of which are possible now. It's actually the wrong explanation too, because Donald has confirmed that it's your Action phase at start of turn.

The rulebooks state that you can only buy a card that you can afford. This is the rule I have in my document. Up until now, it says that the first step in buying a card is choosing any visible card in the Supply that you can afford. My original question was because of this: should this explanation be changed? My conclusion is that it shouldn't. Animal Fair creates its own exception, it implicitly says that you can choose it even though you can't afford its cost because you can choose to do something else instead of paying that cost.
Pages: [1] 2 3  All
 

Page created in 0.194 seconds with 21 queries.