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 2751 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LibraryAdventurer

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1452
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +1156
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #25 on: April 13, 2020, 09:41:02 pm »
+2

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.

The Alternate cost is trashing an action. How does that mean that the cost changes? It has a cost of $7 and an alternate cost of trashing an action. The cost doesn't change.

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.

It's not even an exception. If you can trash an action, then you can afford (one of) its cost(s).

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #26 on: April 13, 2020, 09:46:14 pm »
0

The Alternate cost is trashing an action. How does that mean that the cost changes? It has a cost of $7 and an alternate cost of trashing an action. The cost doesn't change.

So then you're saying it has two costs at all times. What happens when you remodel it then?

Also, I have stated many times all the things that contradict this, so if you disagree, maybe reply to that?
« Last Edit: April 13, 2020, 09:47:43 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

hhelibebcnofnena

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 522
  • he/him
  • Respect: +398
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #27 on: April 14, 2020, 12:01:34 am »
+1

So then you're saying it has two costs at all times. What happens when you remodel it then?

Or what happens with Wayfarer, for that matter? Can you now trash an action to gain Wayfarer instead of paying?

I must agree that "instead of paying" sounds an awful lot like another way to buy it, introducing a (not unheard of) exception, whether or not there are any contradictions elsewhere (although Jeebus is pretty clear with these, if you actually read the full first post. I'm fairly sure at least the post Donald X. upvoted afterwards is a clear contradiction, even if maybe some of the other examples aren't).
« Last Edit: April 14, 2020, 12:06:21 am by hhelibebcnofnena »
Logged
Hydrogen Helium Lithium Beryllium Boron Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen Fluorine Neon Sodium

LibraryAdventurer

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1452
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +1156
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #28 on: April 14, 2020, 03:41:52 am »
+1

The Alternate cost is trashing an action. How does that mean that the cost changes? It has a cost of $7 and an alternate cost of trashing an action. The cost doesn't change.

So then you're saying it has two costs at all times. What happens when you remodel it then?

Also, I have stated many times all the things that contradict this, so if you disagree, maybe reply to that?
Sorry, the only contradiction I'm seeing is in your definition of "alternate cost".

The linked post that Donald upvoted says "and the cost of animal fair is 7$. The trashing a card thing is something you can do instead of paying its cost."  something you can do instead of paying its (coin) cost is an alternate cost.
It seems clear to me that the misunderstanding comes from different people (you and Donald) having different ways of thinking about things. You think more in strict definitions and rules for every detail, which is good for writing a rules document, but not as good IMO for interpreting the rules as given by Donald who thinks differently than you and gets frustrated when it seems like you're overthinking things.

I was wondering why I'm posting in this thread, but I think semi-subconsciously, I'm trying to be a mediator. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure anyone actually wants me to do that...

PS: And now I understand why Donald rarely upvotes forum posts.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2020, 03:45:07 am by LibraryAdventurer »
Logged

Chris is me

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2732
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +3420
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #29 on: April 14, 2020, 08:15:11 am »
+3

So if I'm reading this right, basically the trashing thing bothers Jeebus because people use the word cost to describe it, and the card's property Cost is always $7.

Let's try this: Animal Fair costs $7. You can buy the card by paying $7, or alternately, you can trash an Action card from your hand instead of paying its cost in Coins. This trashing of an Action is an alternate... resource that you consume to buy the card. But not a cost.
Logged
Twitch channel: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisisme2791

bug me on discord

pm me if you wanna do stuff for the blog

they/them

hhelibebcnofnena

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 522
  • he/him
  • Respect: +398
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #30 on: April 14, 2020, 08:37:20 am »
+1

I think I can see another way this could work: an "option 4", if you will. Animal Fair has two costs. One is a coin amount -- -- and another is an effect you can resolve -- trash an action card from your hand. When a card refers to a "cost," there is an implicit rule that it is looking for a specific numerical form of (plus any numerical currencies which may be added later), and if a card has two costs, it prefers that one. In this way, Animal Fair is not an exception -- it has two costs, but only one numerical cost. I believe this is the way most people are thinking about it anyway, and I don't believe this contradicts anything anyone said.
Logged
Hydrogen Helium Lithium Beryllium Boron Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen Fluorine Neon Sodium

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #31 on: April 14, 2020, 12:41:06 pm »
0

The linked post that Donald upvoted says "and the cost of animal fair is 7$. The trashing a card thing is something you can do instead of paying its cost."  something you can do instead of paying its (coin) cost is an alternate cost.

Just because you can do something else instead of doing something, doesn't necessarily mean it's an alternate "that thing". Trader lets you gain a Silver instead of gaining a card, but it's not an alternate version of gaining that card (as we know because of the Ironworks interaction). The gain of the original card is completely cancelled. (Trader could perfectly well have been "draw a card instead".) Similarly, Way of the Chameleon gives you +Coins instead of +Cards. +Coins is not an "alternate" +Cards, so you can't remove your -1 Card token from getting thos +Coins. They do not count as +Cards in any way whatsoever.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2020, 07:01:20 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

LostPhoenix

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 258
  • Shuffle iT Username: Lost Phoenix
  • Your resident lurker
  • Respect: +302
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #32 on: April 14, 2020, 12:54:03 pm »
+6

I am still slightly confused at the end goal of this thread. You know how the card behaves in-game, and therefore can write in your rules document whatever makes the most sense to explain said rules.

Are you calling for the official card wording to be changed?
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #33 on: April 14, 2020, 01:03:13 pm »
0

I am still slightly confused at the end goal of this thread. You know how the card behaves in-game, and therefore can write in your rules document whatever makes the most sense to explain said rules.

Are you calling for the official card wording to be changed?

No, I have never mentioned anything like that. See this post. The mechanic could matter. For instance, if I had just written that it has an alternate cost at all times, it would imply that Wayfarer gets that cost. Writing the rules in an exact way, if you write it wrong, can come back to bite you when cards are intruduced later that suddenly don't work correctly; like I mentioned with Crown.

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #34 on: April 14, 2020, 01:16:54 pm »
0

Precisely defined concepts matter more in board games than in life, and more in Dominion than in most board games. This doesn't necessarily mean that the words always have to be consistent (e.g. "when this is your first buy" is a variant of "when you buy"), although it helps.

The point of saying that Animal Fair has an alternate cost is that this would mean that you can choose it without breaking the rule that you can only choose a card "costing as much $ as you have or less". It would be a cost that you don't pay, rather you do something else instead. We have precedent for this, with Debt. Debt comes with a rule that you don't pay the Debt cost, you take tokens instead. So Animal Fair would have the cost "$7; or trash an Action card from your hand". Since the basic buying rule is that you pay from what "you have" to cover the cost, we actually need to define that the "trash a card" part of the cost is like Debt, that you don't pay it.* (The card says that you trash a card instead of paying its cost.) This has to be an implicit extra rule. Unlike Debt this cost is something you have to "have", so we need to also say that having an Action card in your hand means you "have" enough to cover that cost.

But if that is really the cost (at all times), then Wayfarer would get that cost (just like with Debt), to just state the simplest example. So unless the cost varies (which is what I said was contradicted by several things), we need more implicit extra rules, like hhelibebcnofnena says. We need to redefine what "cost" means! But only in certain situations - only when cards mention cost, not when the rules for buying mention cost, because then we would be back to square one! So on all cards, "cost" now means numerical cost - including Animal Fair itself - while in the rules it would vary: sometimes "cost" means "cost", sometimes it means "numerical cost". I don't think this is a good way to view this.

I really don't think Animal Fair is supposed to redefine what "cost" means in the game (certainly not in an inconsistent way), rather it's supposed to be an exception to the buying rule, allowing itself to be chosen even if you don't have the cost, as long as you have an Action card to trash.

Also, it's just very unintuitive that the card says to trash a card instead of paying its cost if trashing a card is also its cost.


*I see that some places in the rules, and Donald's writings, say that trashing a card is a way to pay for Animal Fair. Obviously this is not the normal definition of "pay" used anywhere else, which means to deduct the cost from your pool of coins (or potions). (Debt does not say that taking Debt tokens is a way of paying.) It's probably best viewed as a shorthand for doing something else instead of paying, understandable used in the context of buying Animal Fair.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2020, 08:34:46 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8861
  • Respect: +9644
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #35 on: April 14, 2020, 01:35:19 pm »
0

*I see that some places in the rules, and Donald's writings, say that trashing a card is a way to pay for Animal Fair. Obviously this is not the normal definition of "pay" used anywhere else, which means to deduct the cost from your pool of coins (or potions). (Debt does not say that taking Debt tokens is a way of paying.) It's probably best viewed as a shorthand for doing something else instead of paying, understandable used in the context of buying Animal Fair.

I think with "pay", we can be less precise than we want to be with "cost"; and just treat it like it's normal English usage. The only cards that use the word "pay" (not counting "overpay") are Storyteller, Pageant, Capital, and Animal Fair. The first 2 specifically refer to paying , Capital is using it in a completely different way to talk about paying off debt (which happens to involve paying , but theoretically could have been something else that pays off debt), and of course Animal Fair, which talks about not paying the cost. (Which as it happens, the cost you aren't paying is a cost in ).

So within the context of Dominion cards and rules "pay" is restricted to either paying off debt, or paying some amount of . And I assume the Alchemy rulebook refers to paying as well. But there shouldn't be any rules confusions or issues caused by people thinking of or talking about trashing an action card from your hand as a way of "paying" for Animal Fair.
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

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2848
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #36 on: April 16, 2020, 12:31:06 am »
0

MtG always defines effects like this as things you did instead of paying the cost, to evade assumptions that you did was modify the cost to become <fancy thing>, and then you paid the devil's price of <fancy thing>.  Paying cost was just a default way to get something.  You can get a margarita by paying 7$, or flirting with the waiter. 

I tend to prefer that definition, I think it's more future proof.

Surprise, it's buy one get one free Margarita Tuesday.  Will you get a second margarita in addition to the first one you got from flirting with the waiter? Obviously not, that's obviously irrelevant.
Logged

LibraryAdventurer

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1452
  • Shuffle iT Username: LibraryAdventurer
  • Respect: +1156
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #37 on: April 16, 2020, 03:27:56 am »
+1

Now that I get what the difference is (I think), I'll point back to the answer Donald gave you already because it's probably all he's going to say on the matter anytime soon:

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

Lost Phoenix also gave a good answer:

You know how the card behaves in-game, and therefore can write in your rules document whatever makes the most sense to explain said rules.

/out

Ingix

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 212
  • Shuffle iT Username: Ingix
  • Respect: +295
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #38 on: April 16, 2020, 05:39:11 am »
0

Jeebus wrote:

Quote
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."

I think your first sentence does not imply the first part of the rulebook quote. You could, in theory, buy it without the coin or an action card in hand. Of course, the game would then become "stuck" as you have no way to either pay the cost of $7, or do the "instead" action indicated on the card.

MtG has a rewind mechanism, because the announcement process got so complicated over time that sometimes you really can't know at the start if you are able to finish. I don't think it would be wise to have that here.  So I would propose a slight change to what Jeebus wrote:

Animal Fair has a special unstated rule which means you're allowed to choose it when buying if you have an Action card in your hand, even if you can't afford it.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8861
  • Respect: +9644
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #39 on: April 16, 2020, 09:46:38 am »
+2

MtG always defines effects like this as things you did instead of paying the cost, to evade assumptions that you did was modify the cost to become <fancy thing>, and then you paid the devil's price of <fancy thing>.  Paying cost was just a default way to get something.  You can get a margarita by paying 7$, or flirting with the waiter. 

I tend to prefer that definition, I think it's more future proof.

Surprise, it's buy one get one free Margarita Tuesday.  Will you get a second margarita in addition to the first one you got from flirting with the waiter? Obviously not, that's obviously irrelevant.

Actually MTG does also define "alternative cost" as a specific game concept. Miracle, Overload, Madness, Flashback, etc; are all "alternative costs".

118.9. Some spells have alternative costs. An alternative cost is a cost listed in a spell’s text, or applied to it from another effect, that its controller may pay rather than paying the spell’s mana cost. Alternative costs are usually phrased, “You may [action] rather than pay [this object’s] mana cost,” or “You may cast [this object] without paying its mana cost.”

In order to make this work, they also define a spell's "mana cost" as a separate fixed thing that doesn't change.

118.9c An alternative cost doesn’t change a spell’s mana cost, only what its controller has to pay to cast it. Spells and abilities that ask for that spell’s mana cost still see the original value.

If Dominion went this way, it would be a rule that says that "cost" always means "cost in coins+debt+potions" (basically the same as MTG's "mana cost"), and that cards can have "alternative costs" as well, which never affect the actual cost. You would also need to clarify that when choosing a card to buy, you can choose anything for which you can either afford the cost, or can afford an alternative cost.

There's no real issue with this; other than the fact that its simpler and less rules to simply use "thing you do instead of paying costs" rather than "alternative cost" for the rules. Also, when it comes to "what can you choose to buy", MTG basically gets around this by saying that you can choose to start casting any spell whether you can afford it or not. You don't pay the costs until the spell is on the stack, and then if you can't or don't want to pay the costs, the game basically "rewinds" to the point before you started casting it. In rare cases, it may be that you don't actually know until after you start to cast a spell whether you will be able to afford it or not... similar to Ticket to Ride Europe's tunnels.
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: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #40 on: April 16, 2020, 01:59:36 pm »
0

Now that I get what the difference is (I think), I'll point back to the answer Donald gave you already because it's probably all he's going to say on the matter anytime soon:

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

Stef is not programming Dominion Online that technically accurate, at least not always. Cards are made to function correctly in the normal circumstances but not always in obscure circumstances. With Animal Fair, Stef would of course implement it so that it interacts correctly with Wayfarer, but beyond that the underlying logic probably doesn't matter currently. I don't see how Stef would even know unless Donald shared it with him but is unwilling to say it in the forum (which I don't believe).

Lost Phoenix also gave a good answer:

You know how the card behaves in-game, and therefore can write in your rules document whatever makes the most sense to explain said rules.

I replied to this with this post (and a follow-up).

I think your first sentence does not imply the first part of the rulebook quote. You could, in theory, buy it without the coin or an action card in hand. Of course, the game would then become "stuck" as you have no way to either pay the cost of $7, or do the "instead" action indicated on the card.

MtG has a rewind mechanism, because the announcement process got so complicated over time that sometimes you really can't know at the start if you are able to finish. I don't think it would be wise to have that here.  So I would propose a slight change to what Jeebus wrote:

Animal Fair has a special unstated rule which means you're allowed to choose it when buying if you have an Action card in your hand, even if you can't afford it.

Right, I was not trying to make that sentence completely accurate. Maybe I should have. I wrote it accurately other places in this thread.

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2848
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #41 on: April 16, 2020, 07:05:35 pm »
0

MtG always defines effects like this as things you did instead of paying the cost, to evade assumptions that you did was modify the cost to become <fancy thing>, and then you paid the devil's price of <fancy thing>.  Paying cost was just a default way to get something.  You can get a margarita by paying 7$, or flirting with the waiter. 

I tend to prefer that definition, I think it's more future proof.

Surprise, it's buy one get one free Margarita Tuesday.  Will you get a second margarita in addition to the first one you got from flirting with the waiter? Obviously not, that's obviously irrelevant.

Actually MTG does also define "alternative cost" as a specific game concept. Miracle, Overload, Madness, Flashback, etc; are all "alternative costs".

118.9. Some spells have alternative costs. An alternative cost is a cost listed in a spell’s text, or applied to it from another effect, that its controller may pay rather than paying the spell’s mana cost. Alternative costs are usually phrased, “You may [action] rather than pay [this object’s] mana cost,” or “You may cast [this object] without paying its mana cost.”

In order to make this work, they also define a spell's "mana cost" as a separate fixed thing that doesn't change.

118.9c An alternative cost doesn’t change a spell’s mana cost, only what its controller has to pay to cast it. Spells and abilities that ask for that spell’s mana cost still see the original value.

If Dominion went this way, it would be a rule that says that "cost" always means "cost in coins+debt+potions" (basically the same as MTG's "mana cost"), and that cards can have "alternative costs" as well, which never affect the actual cost. You would also need to clarify that when choosing a card to buy, you can choose anything for which you can either afford the cost, or can afford an alternative cost.

There's no real issue with this; other than the fact that its simpler and less rules to simply use "thing you do instead of paying costs" rather than "alternative cost" for the rules. Also, when it comes to "what can you choose to buy", MTG basically gets around this by saying that you can choose to start casting any spell whether you can afford it or not. You don't pay the costs until the spell is on the stack, and then if you can't or don't want to pay the costs, the game basically "rewinds" to the point before you started casting it. In rare cases, it may be that you don't actually know until after you start to cast a spell whether you will be able to afford it or not... similar to Ticket to Ride Europe's tunnels.
I was thinking of effects like Djinn of Wishes, Bloodbraid Elf, and Omniscience.  None of them have an alternative cost of 0, they just don't have any cost at all.  Usually when you cast a spell for no mana in magic you don't use an alternate cost, you somehow don't pay the cost, and Animal Farm doesn't require $ so that's where I saw some parallel.
It's a pretty liberal reading of the actual text of Animal Fair to say that "Animal Fair is saying as long as this is in the kingdom, there's this action you can take where you trash an action from your hand and lose a buy and gain Animal Fair as if by magic" similar to those effects, and it's a less liberal reading to come up with this schema where it has a different cost that applies at certain times, but I think it clarifies some rule puzzlements if it did work that first way.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8861
  • Respect: +9644
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #42 on: April 16, 2020, 07:30:52 pm »
0

MtG always defines effects like this as things you did instead of paying the cost, to evade assumptions that you did was modify the cost to become <fancy thing>, and then you paid the devil's price of <fancy thing>.  Paying cost was just a default way to get something.  You can get a margarita by paying 7$, or flirting with the waiter. 

I tend to prefer that definition, I think it's more future proof.

Surprise, it's buy one get one free Margarita Tuesday.  Will you get a second margarita in addition to the first one you got from flirting with the waiter? Obviously not, that's obviously irrelevant.

Actually MTG does also define "alternative cost" as a specific game concept. Miracle, Overload, Madness, Flashback, etc; are all "alternative costs".

118.9. Some spells have alternative costs. An alternative cost is a cost listed in a spell’s text, or applied to it from another effect, that its controller may pay rather than paying the spell’s mana cost. Alternative costs are usually phrased, “You may [action] rather than pay [this object’s] mana cost,” or “You may cast [this object] without paying its mana cost.”

In order to make this work, they also define a spell's "mana cost" as a separate fixed thing that doesn't change.

118.9c An alternative cost doesn’t change a spell’s mana cost, only what its controller has to pay to cast it. Spells and abilities that ask for that spell’s mana cost still see the original value.

If Dominion went this way, it would be a rule that says that "cost" always means "cost in coins+debt+potions" (basically the same as MTG's "mana cost"), and that cards can have "alternative costs" as well, which never affect the actual cost. You would also need to clarify that when choosing a card to buy, you can choose anything for which you can either afford the cost, or can afford an alternative cost.

There's no real issue with this; other than the fact that its simpler and less rules to simply use "thing you do instead of paying costs" rather than "alternative cost" for the rules. Also, when it comes to "what can you choose to buy", MTG basically gets around this by saying that you can choose to start casting any spell whether you can afford it or not. You don't pay the costs until the spell is on the stack, and then if you can't or don't want to pay the costs, the game basically "rewinds" to the point before you started casting it. In rare cases, it may be that you don't actually know until after you start to cast a spell whether you will be able to afford it or not... similar to Ticket to Ride Europe's tunnels.
I was thinking of effects like Djinn of Wishes, Bloodbraid Elf, and Omniscience.  None of them have an alternative cost of 0, they just don't have any cost at all.  Usually when you cast a spell for no mana in magic you don't use an alternate cost, you somehow don't pay the cost, and Animal Farm doesn't require $ so that's where I saw some parallel.


Actually no; as seen in my quoted rule; “without paying their mana cost” is defined by the rules as an alternate cost. It just so happens to be a cost of “free”. But it’s still an “alternate cost”.

This matters when going to follow the rules for casting a spell; because one of the rules deals with determining the cost and paying that cost. You still must pay a cost; even if the alternate cost you are paying is nothing.

It also matters when combined with other alternate costs; since you must choose one if you have choices. So if you have Omniscience; you can either cast a spell for its Overload cost or for nothing using Omniscience; but you can’t get the Overload effect for free.

Quote
It's a pretty liberal reading of the actual text of Animal Fair to say that "Animal Fair is saying as long as this is in the kingdom, there's this action you can take where you trash an action from your hand and lose a buy and gain Animal Fair as if by magic" similar to those effects, and it's a less liberal reading to come up with this schema where it has a different cost that applies at certain times, but I think it clarifies some rule puzzlements if it did work that first way.

I don’t think anyone was arguing for that interpretation. It’s definitely still being bought and counts fully as a normal buy. It’s just being bought without paying the cost.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2020, 07:43:56 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

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2848
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #43 on: April 16, 2020, 09:11:19 pm »
0

Huh, didn't realize MtG defined it that way.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8861
  • Respect: +9644
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #44 on: April 16, 2020, 11:14:19 pm »
0

Huh, didn't realize MtG defined it that way.

Probably a good thing that Dominion does not have 2008 separate rules in the rule book like MTG has. (That’s the real number, based on the 2014 rule book. So probably larger now.)
« Last Edit: April 17, 2020, 01:18:31 am 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

silvern

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 125
  • Respect: +169
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #45 on: April 21, 2020, 08:56:32 am »
0

If I were a game designer and had a fanbase that took umbrage with things like this, I think I would feel a little bit cursed every day.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #46 on: April 21, 2020, 10:53:19 am »
+2

If I were a game designer and had a fanbase that took umbrage with things like this, I think I would feel a little bit cursed every day.

If you're referring to my OP, I guess it's good that you're not a game designer. (I also don't understand how you could interpret it as "taking umbrage".)

If I were a game designer, I would be happy with fans that are devoted enough to create wikis and rules documents and care to make them accurate.

Another thing is that you probably haven't been around enough, or cared enough, to know that rules questions about Dominion have often been answered by Donald by analyzing what the cards say and/or the intention of the cards in a pretty deep and technical way. The baseline for interpreting interactions in Dominion is understanding detailed timing rules (or other rules, but it usually involves timing), as decided by the game designer himself.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2020, 08:34:45 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

michaeljb

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1421
  • Shuffle iT Username: michaeljb
  • Respect: +2101
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #47 on: April 21, 2020, 11:05:31 am »
+1

If I were a game designer and had a fanbase that took umbrage with things like this, I think I would feel a little bit cursed every day.

If you're referring to my OP, I guess it's good that you're not a game designer. (I also don't understand how you could interpret it as "taking umbrage".)

If I were a game designer, I would be happy with fans that are devoted enough to create wikis and rules documents and care to make them accurate.

Another thing is that you probably haven't been around enough, or cared enough, to know that rules questions about Dominion have often been answered by Donald by analyzing what the cards says and/or the intention of the cards in a pretty deep and technical way. The baseline for interpreting interactions in Dominion is understanding detailed timing rules (or other rules, but it usually involves timing), as decided by the game designer himself.

I agree with this, but silvern may still have something of a point  :P

Until/unless in-between things are errata'd away; can we get a ruling about whether you lose your leftover actions and coins at the end of turn, or at the start of turn? In other words, if you play Storyteller during a Donate; does it count the coins you had leftover at the end of the turn?
I just, I just feel like I need to make you answer some questions too. Why, GendoIkari? Are you writing your own Dominion program?

No-one needs to know what happens if Storyteller is played during a Donate.
Logged
🚂 18xx is taking over my gaming life 🚂

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8861
  • Respect: +9644
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #48 on: April 21, 2020, 11:19:19 am »
0

If I were a game designer and had a fanbase that took umbrage with things like this, I think I would feel a little bit cursed every day.

If you're referring to my OP, I guess it's good that you're not a game designer. (I also don't understand how you could interpret it as "taking umbrage".)

If I were a game designer, I would be happy with fans that are devoted enough to create wikis and rules documents and care to make them accurate.

Another thing is that you probably haven't been around enough, or cared enough, to know that rules questions about Dominion have often been answered by Donald by analyzing what the cards says and/or the intention of the cards in a pretty deep and technical way. The baseline for interpreting interactions in Dominion is understanding detailed timing rules (or other rules, but it usually involves timing), as decided by the game designer himself.

I agree with this, but silvern may still have something of a point  :P

Until/unless in-between things are errata'd away; can we get a ruling about whether you lose your leftover actions and coins at the end of turn, or at the start of turn? In other words, if you play Storyteller during a Donate; does it count the coins you had leftover at the end of the turn?
I just, I just feel like I need to make you answer some questions too. Why, GendoIkari? Are you writing your own Dominion program?

No-one needs to know what happens if Storyteller is played during a Donate.

That game I started a month ago is STILL sitting there in the middle of my opponent's Donate, waiting to find out how many cards I'm supposed to draw for my Storyteller.  :(
« Last Edit: April 21, 2020, 12:12:50 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

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5827
  • Respect: +23473
    • View Profile
Re: Cost of Animal Fair revisited
« Reply #49 on: April 22, 2020, 11:40:44 am »
+4

If I were a game designer, I would be happy with fans that are devoted enough to create wikis and rules documents and care to make them accurate.
It's great; sometimes it's hard though. I have not been able to gather the energy to figure out what I need to clarify about Animal Fair.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All
 

Page created in 0.097 seconds with 23 queries.