Print

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

[silverspawn]

I think it's probably more that the problem won't come up with Chapel because people have no reason to play it if they don't want to trash, unlike with Dame Anna and Temple Garden.

[Carline]

I'm saying that, among official cards, you may is only included if there is a good reason. One possible reason is tracking issues, another is if you have a reason to play the card even if you don't trash anything, in which case it becomes a question of powerlevel. Essentially, it has to give you something other than + 1 action.

The reason to play mercenary without trashing anything is to activate urchins.

So, Mercenary has a reason to has "you may" which isn't related to the fact that the card does or not somethng dependent of trashing.

So, cards can have "you may" for other good reasons than this factor.

I don't understand why you think this good reason can't be "I don't want it to be played automatically by Herald, Golem and others."

[gambit05]

I'm saying that, among official cards, you may is only included if there is a good reason. One possible reason is tracking issues, another is if you have a reason to play the card even if you don't trash anything, in which case it becomes a question of powerlevel. Essentially, it has to give you something other than + 1 action.

The reason to play mercenary without trashing anything is to activate urchins.

So, Mercenary has a reason to has "you may" which isn't related to the fact that the card does or not somethng dependent of trashing.

So, cards can have "you may" for other good reasons than this factor.

I don't understand why you think this good reason can't be "I don't want it to be played automatically by Herald, Golem and others."

I don't want to write an essay here, but I have a short answer: Using the wording "You may..." in some cases to avoid drawbacks of rare edge cases is okay-ish. Making it mandatory in those cases is simpler and elegant.

[silverspawn]

I don't understand why you think this good reason can't be "I don't want it to be played automatically by Herald, Golem and others."

Because that applies to every card, but we know that official cards need another reason to say 'you may' (otherwise, all cards would do that).

Also, what others? Aren't herald and Golem the only ones? That's two cards out of 585. Seems objectively a much smaller reason than Mercenary activating Urchin, which is there is every game.

To give some evidence in the other direction, Donald X thinks that throne rooms are a sufficient reason to include 'you may', which I find odd. That's why Small Castle and Death Cart say 'you may'. There are more throne room effects than accidental plays effects, but I'm still surprised that that's enough.

[segura]

I'm saying that, among official cards, you may is only included if there is a good reason. One possible reason is tracking issues, another is if you have a reason to play the card even if you don't trash anything, in which case it becomes a question of powerlevel. Essentially, it has to give you something other than + 1 action.

The reason to play mercenary without trashing anything is to activate urchins.

That is beyond ludicrous. If you play Mercenary and trash nothing, chances are slim that you want another Mercenary.

It is totally fine to have non-mandatory effects. They don’t need any justification (not that buffing the card via making it better with Piazza, Golem, Ghost and Herald isn’t a perfect justification) as they at not better or worse or less or more complex than mandatory effects.

Well, actually non-mandatory effects are better from a decision point perspective. Dominion is a high frequency of micro decisions card game. More options are in general better, albeit these options arguably matter rarely but also, contrary to the claims by folks here, do not increase complexity or slow the game down either. Everybody knows that Spice Merchant is trash a Copper, then Lab or Woodcutter. In the rare cases in which you don’t want to trash yellow, you read the card and realize that you are not forced to do it.

[Carline]

I don't want to write an essay here, but I have a short answer: Using the wording "You may..." in some cases to avoid drawbacks of rare edge cases is okay-ish. Making it mandatory in those cases is simpler and elegant.

Because that applies to every card, but we know that official cards need another reason to say 'you may' (otherwise, all cards would do that).

Also, what others? Aren't herald and Golem the only ones? That's two cards out of 585. Seems objectively a much smaller reason than Mercenary activating Urchin, which is there is every game.

With all these cards a trasher would play differently if it has "You may" or not:

Herald, Golem, Ghost, Piazza, Citadel, Conspirator, Peddler, Scepter, Throne Room, King's Court, Mastermind, Diplomat, Tragic Hero, Library, Watchtower, Cursed Village, Shanty Town, Menagerie, Magic Lamp, Leprechaun, Horn of Plenty, Scheme, Improve, Hunting Party, Coin of the Realm, Royal Carriage, Bonfire, Pilgrimage, Seaway, Lost Arts, Training, Pathfinding, Disciple, Teacher, Crown, Colonnade, Tomb, Changeling, Conclave, Imp, Tormentor, Raider, Kiln, Delay, Summon, Prince.

These are 46 cards, not two edge cases.

If the trasher is also an Attack, add Soldier and Urchin to this list.

Involuntary trasher playing also is affected by opponent's Lurker, Graverobber, Rogue, Necromancer and Goatherd.

53 Cards in total in relation to which the feature of mandatory or voluntary trashing makes some difference.

Not to mention all the indirect consequences of keep in your hand cards you wasn't forced to trash and how these consequences change interactions with many other cards not mentioned here.

My conclusion: Mandatory trashing has a lot of implications; voluntary trashing has a lot of different implications. Choose one feature or the other according to the behavior you want for your card. The only restriction seems to be that is not good to make trashing mandatory if it applies only to a specific type of cards.

[Gubump]

What's the timing for gaining a Ruins via Doppelganger's attack? Is it when you play a second copy of any given card? I think it needs rephrasing to make the timing clear.

[silverspawn]

You guys both seem to think I'm arguing what is good design. I'm primarily saying that it's an official design principle, which it is. No official trasher without a unique reason to be voluntary is voluntary. The 46 cards all apply equally to every card.

In every other case, people take it for granted that official design principles are to be followed.

[Carline]

It's an official design principle.

I wanna know, where else does some other people enunciate this principle, in special those who can do official statements?

To give some evidence in the other direction, Donald X thinks that throne rooms are a sufficient reason to include 'you may', which I find odd.

[silverspawn]

Small Castle says

"Trash this or a Castle from your hand. If you do, gain a Castle."

Looking at this, are you happy with this phrasing? I'm asking because I recall you being unhappy with Soothsayer saying "each other player gains a curse. each player who did draws a card" rather than "each other player gains a curse and draws a card". Small Castle could be "trash this or a castle from your hand and gain a castle."

I personally like the wording you chose both times, but I'm just wondering how you think about the complexity/precision tradeoff and whether it's different between both cases.

For Soothsayer, the "if" is so that you can play Soothsayer with no Curses left and not feel stupid. That was not something I needed to care about. The extra words don't matter much but I didn't need them.

For Small Castle, the "if" is so that one Small Castle doesn't turn into multiple Castles. I still want to do that; it affects how powerful the card is, and better matches intuition. I might reword it today though, because these days I don't like mandatory things to say "if you do." I don't need to rule it out completely but don't like it. It looks weird. I prefer a "you may" typically, though the "you may" is annoying online, where it has to ask you but you sure wanted to do the thing. Here as noted you might be able to say "to" instead. I guess the jury is still out on "to," is that really good enough for casual players.

[Carline]

Small Castle says

"Trash this or a Castle from your hand. If you do, gain a Castle."

Looking at this, are you happy with this phrasing? I'm asking because I recall you being unhappy with Soothsayer saying "each other player gains a curse. each player who did draws a card" rather than "each other player gains a curse and draws a card". Small Castle could be "trash this or a castle from your hand and gain a castle."

I personally like the wording you chose both times, but I'm just wondering how you think about the complexity/precision tradeoff and whether it's different between both cases.

For Soothsayer, the "if" is so that you can play Soothsayer with no Curses left and not feel stupid. That was not something I needed to care about. The extra words don't matter much but I didn't need them.

For Small Castle, the "if" is so that one Small Castle doesn't turn into multiple Castles. I still want to do that; it affects how powerful the card is, and better matches intuition. I might reword it today though, because these days I don't like mandatory things to say "if you do." I don't need to rule it out completely but don't like it. It looks weird. I prefer a "you may" typically, though the "you may" is annoying online, where it has to ask you but you sure wanted to do the thing. Here as noted you might be able to say "to" instead. I guess the jury is still out on "to," is that really good enough for casual players.

IMHO, all this quote is about better wording to implement certain rule and why some cards have some wording, not about how rules should be. I don't see anything from what could be derived a general rule for the use of "you may". Maybe I'm wrong.

Edit: To me, what is said is: There's a kind of contradiction when something is mandatory but you derive a consequence from the fact if it was done or not. So, when you have to derive a consequence from the fact that it's done or not, it's better to make the fact from which you derive the consequence voluntary, using "you may".

It's a specific case in which something can't be mandatory. It doesn't implie that only in this case things can be voluntary.

[silverspawn]

My main point here is that Donald didn't dispute my framing of 'simplicity is super ridiculously important, why did you not do the simple thing in this case?'.

But I don't think you need any more official confirmation for the design principle. The principle is, "if a trasher doesn't have a unique reason to say 'you may', it doesn't do it." This correctly predicts every card that trashes without exception. There are too many cards for this to be coincidence. This is slam-dunk evidence.

I guess it doesn't feel that way because the concept took some clarifying and that's why it seemed like it's unclear or I changed it? But I really didn't.

Either way, if you do doubt it, how about we just ask? Donald still responds to the interview thread (but never looks into the Fan cards section of the forum).

[segura]

Small Castle says

"Trash this or a Castle from your hand. If you do, gain a Castle."

Looking at this, are you happy with this phrasing? I'm asking because I recall you being unhappy with Soothsayer saying "each other player gains a curse. each player who did draws a card" rather than "each other player gains a curse and draws a card". Small Castle could be "trash this or a castle from your hand and gain a castle."

I personally like the wording you chose both times, but I'm just wondering how you think about the complexity/precision tradeoff and whether it's different between both cases.

For Soothsayer, the "if" is so that you can play Soothsayer with no Curses left and not feel stupid. That was not something I needed to care about. The extra words don't matter much but I didn't need them.

For Small Castle, the "if" is so that one Small Castle doesn't turn into multiple Castles. I still want to do that; it affects how powerful the card is, and better matches intuition. I might reword it today though, because these days I don't like mandatory things to say "if you do." I don't need to rule it out completely but don't like it. It looks weird. I prefer a "you may" typically, though the "you may" is annoying online, where it has to ask you but you sure wanted to do the thing. Here as noted you might be able to say "to" instead. I guess the jury is still out on "to," is that really good enough for casual players.

IMHO, all this quote is about better wording to implement certain rule and why some cards have some wording, not about how rules should be. I don't see anything from what could be derived a general rule for the use of "you may". Maybe I'm wrong.

Edit: To me, what is said is: There's a kind of contradiction when something is mandatory but you derive a consequence from the fact if it was done or not. So, when you have to derive a consequence from the fact that it's done or not, it's better to make the fact from which you derive the consequence voluntary, using "you may".

It's a specific case in which something can't be mandatory. It doesn't implie that only in this case things can be voluntary.

It is not just that, he actually wrote „I prefer a you may typically“.
So much about the official taboo and big no-no concerning non-mandatory effects.

[LastFootnote]

I think it's probably more that the problem won't come up with Chapel because people have no reason to play it if they don't want to trash, unlike with Dame Anna and Temple Garden.

Bingo.

[Timinou]

The principle is, "if a trasher doesn't have a unique reason to say 'you may', it doesn't do it." This correctly predicts every card that trashes without exception. There are too many cards for this to be coincidence. This is slam-dunk evidence.

I think you're overextending the principle of simplicity (I don't think there are any "rules" about mandatory vs. optional trashing).  I agree that in general cards that say "you may trash" offer something else of value, so that you may still want to play the card even if you don't want to trash.  And most of the time, cards that only trash usually do not say "you may".  There are exceptions though - for example, Taxman could just as easily have made the trashing mandatory instead of saying "You may".
 

[Carline]

My main point here is that Donald didn't dispute my framing of 'simplicity is super ridiculously important, why did you not do the simple thing in this case?'.

But I don't think you need any more official confirmation for the design principle. The principle is, "if a trasher doesn't have a unique reason to say 'you may', it doesn't do it." This correctly predicts every card that trashes without exception. There are too many cards for this to be coincidence. This is slam-dunk evidence.

I guess it doesn't feel that way because the concept took some clarifying and that's why it seemed like it's unclear or I changed it? But I really didn't.

Either way, if you do doubt it, how about we just ask? Donald still responds to the interview thread (but never looks into the Fan cards section of the forum).

To me, what you call a principle is so generic that it means only "you didn't do something, if you don't have a reason to do it". From it, you derives some rules of what you think is valid as a good reason, based on the frequency something happens, but this logical step isn't deductive. You are making inductive generalization, with some ad-hoc adjustment (like your explain for Mercenary "you may").

What do you mean when you say "unique"? Do you mean the reason to put "you may" has to be specific for that card and no other? I think the reason for "you may" in Taxman, Moneylender and Mine is the same, for example. 

[silverspawn]

What do you mean when you say "unique"?

I meant 'anything other than the things that apply to every card'. The 46 card list you wrote up earlier applies to every card.

Relevant:

In the parts of the forum that shall not be named, there was a disagreement about the design principles for official cards. One person thought there was a soft rule that cards that can trash or Exile other cards don't have 'you may' on them without a good reason. Cards like Spice Merchant have 'you may' for tracking reasons, cards like Sanctuary have it because they provide a benefit other than the Exile; Mercenary has it because it can activate Urchins; Death Cart has it to prevent getting the +5$ twice with Throne Room. But, according to this person, all the cards that usually wouldn't do anything without trashing/Exiling and don't have tracking issues, like Forager or Bounty Hunter or Remodel, are mandatory. Is this a real rule you've followed?

I don't have any rule like that, specific to trashers, no. My "you may" rules are:
- I don't like having a mostly pointless "you may"; if you would mostly achieve not doing whatever it is by not playing the card, or if you will almost always choose the option, then it probably doesn't say "you may." "You may" wants to be used for things where it's really an option, you will play the card and sometimes go one way sometimes the other.
- I use "you may" as a keep-you-honest thing, like on Moneylender; "Trash a Copper from your hand" means you might not trash one and be cheating, and "Trash a Copper from your hand (or reveal a hand without one)" is longer than "You may trash a Copper from your hand."
- In some cases there's a "do x to have y happen" where it reads much better with "you may."
- Reactions of course naturally say "you may."
- When it could go either way, it comes down to power level or fun.
- As always, on pre-Adventures cards, sometimes there wasn't a good reason. Farmland omits "you may" because I required the text to fit in a certain amount of space at a certain font size, and "you may" didn't fit.

I think I will declare 80% victory based on the bolded part (bolding is mine), since that's exactly what I've been saying, but not 100% since it's not an explicit rule.

[segura]

As you said, it is not a rule or design principle or whatever. If you want Mercenary to be able to activate Urchin without trashing anything, you make it non-mandatory. If you want your Exiler to not Exile good stuff with forced players like Herald, Golem, Piazza or Ghost, you make it non-mandatory.
It has far more to do with what a card game designers like or wants (or in this case wants to prevent, nasty interactions with forced players) than any supposed iron design rule. Nobody I play with, including myself, actually remembers whether a cards is mandatory or not. When it matters, you re-read the text and then you know what to do. So non-mandatory stuff is fine and dandy.
If your playing group is prone to OP, overreading cards and seriously slowed down by the increase of the decisions space that a non-mandatory option always leads to, you don't really want to do cards with options.

As DXV said, "it comes down to power level or fun".

I think it is great that we have a community that improves wording and checks rule issues and interactions. That is usually immensly helpful when you design something but were oblivious to some issues of your design.
But this is an instance of a far too narrow mindset for an utterly trivial matter that is of fairly minor practical relevance. It is not about "victory", winning an argument, but helping other people with their designs.

[silverspawn]

It is totally fine to have non-mandatory effects. They don’t need any justification (not that buffing the card via making it better with Piazza, Golem, Ghost and Herald isn’t a perfect justification) as they at not better or worse or less or more complex than mandatory effects.

-I don't like having a mostly pointless "you may"; if you would mostly achieve not doing whatever it is by not playing the card, or if you will almost always choose the option, then it probably doesn't say "you may." "You may" wants to be used for things where it's really an option, you will play the card and sometimes go one way sometimes the other.

As you said, it is not a rule or design principle or whatever.

[Carline]

It is totally fine to have non-mandatory effects. They don’t need any justification (not that buffing the card via making it better with Piazza, Golem, Ghost and Herald isn’t a perfect justification) as they at not better or worse or less or more complex than mandatory effects.

-I don't like having a mostly pointless "you may"; if you would mostly achieve not doing whatever it is by not playing the card, or if you will almost always choose the option, then it probably doesn't say "you may." "You may" wants to be used for things where it's really an option, you will play the card and sometimes go one way sometimes the other.

As you said, it is not a rule or design principle or whatever.

Yes, DXV says to don't use "you may" without a reason. Dot. You are the one who is saying, from your own thoughts, which reasons do you think should be valid or not.

[gambit05]

What's the timing for gaining a Ruins via Doppelganger's attack? Is it when you play a second copy of any given card? I think it needs rephrasing to make the timing clear.

Yes! When a player plays a second copy of a card they gain a Ruins; not for the first and not for the following copies. I was struggling with the wording quite a bit without making the text too long. Do you have any suggestions how to word it unambiguously (and not too much text)?

[Gubump]

What's the timing for gaining a Ruins via Doppelganger's attack? Is it when you play a second copy of any given card? I think it needs rephrasing to make the timing clear.

Yes! When a player plays a second copy of a card they gain a Ruins; not for the first and not for the following copies. I was struggling with the wording quite a bit without making the text too long. Do you have any suggestions how to word it unambiguously (and not too much text)?

"Until your next turn, when any other player plays a second copy of any given Action card, they gain a Ruins."

[gambit05]

What's the timing for gaining a Ruins via Doppelganger's attack? Is it when you play a second copy of any given card? I think it needs rephrasing to make the timing clear.

Yes! When a player plays a second copy of a card they gain a Ruins; not for the first and not for the following copies. I was struggling with the wording quite a bit without making the text too long. Do you have any suggestions how to word it unambiguously (and not too much text)?

"Until your next turn, when any other player plays a second copy of any given Action card, they gain a Ruins."

Brilliant! Thank you very much.

[gambit05]

Part 4

Probably the last couple of cards I want to present here. Maybe finally I will show you some more cards (without comments) that I do not consider being included in my set for one or the other reason.

Golden Fleece $5 Action – Treasure - Night If it’s your… Action phase, +$3;         Buy phase, +1 Buy and +$2;          Night phase, +2 Coffers.

Mutiny       $5 – Action – Attack - Duration        Each other player with 5 or more cards in hand reveals 2. Choose for each player whether they discard those or 2 of the unrevealed cards. At the start of your next turn, +1 Card and +1 Coffers.

Pied Piper $5 - Action +3 Cards Discard a card. -------------------------- While you have this in play,         when you buy a card, you may          overpay for it. For each $1 you overpaid, +1 Villager.

Golden Apples $6 – Treasure $2 +2 Cards. Discard any              number of Action cards,              revealed, for +$1 each.

Golden Fleece
A card that can be played in any of 3 phases.

Mutiny
A nasty hand-size reducer, where also the attacker has a word on what has to be discarded.

Pied Piper
This allows overpaying when other cards are bought, which means that the overpay ability persists and can be used whenever a Pied Piper is in play.
If several Pied Pipers are in play, overpaying multiplies the Villager output. If a card is bought that has the overpay function itself, then overpaying gives the card’s regular bonus plus the Villagers from Pied Piper.

Golden Apples
A Silver that draws cards during the Buy phase. Basically any drawn card is welcome in one way or the other; either for sifting (Victory cards and Curses), for payload (Treasures and Action cards) or for playing them later (Night cards). The other side of the coin is that drawn Action cards (usually) cannot be played in the same turn.

[segura]

I love Golden Fleece! It is pretty good, especially the Night option. But I don't think it is overpowered.