Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Priest + Failed to trash?  (Read 1023 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

anordinaryman

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 285
  • Respect: +345
    • View Profile
Priest + Failed to trash?
« on: June 23, 2021, 03:28:41 pm »
0

When you play Priest and then trash a card without putting the card in the trash, what happens?

Example 1: Play Priest, and then play Chapel trashing Fortress. Do you have +$2 or +$4?

Example 2: Play Priest, and then play Captain to play Acting Troupe from the Supply, failing to trash it. Do you have +$2 now or +$4?

Example 3: Play Priest, and then play Throne Room to play Pixie twice choosing to self-trash Pixie both times. Do you have +$4 or +$6? (Assuming your boons do not grant money or do any trashing)
Logged

scolapasta

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 526
  • Respect: +642
    • View Profile
Re: Priest + Failed to trash?
« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2021, 03:53:33 pm »
+5

Fortress actually gets trashed, then moves. the others don't actually get trashed. (well Pixie does once)

So:
1 +4
2.+2
3.+4
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

mxdata

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 815
  • Respect: +835
    • View Profile
Re: Priest + Failed to trash?
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2021, 08:27:41 pm »
+1

When you play Priest and then trash a card without putting the card in the trash, what happens?

Example 1: Play Priest, and then play Chapel trashing Fortress. Do you have +$2 or +$4?

Example 2: Play Priest, and then play Captain to play Acting Troupe from the Supply, failing to trash it. Do you have +$2 now or +$4?

Example 3: Play Priest, and then play Throne Room to play Pixie twice choosing to self-trash Pixie both times. Do you have +$4 or +$6? (Assuming your boons do not grant money or do any trashing)

As Scolapasta said, in example 1 you did, in fact, trash Fortress.  Fortress doesn't say "this can't be trashed", it says "when you trash this, put it into your hand"

The key point is that "trash" means "move the card to the trash".  Examples 2 and 3 are not trashing, because in example 2, the card stays in the Supply, never going to the trash, and in example 3, it's already in the trash on the second play - it can't go to the trash because it's already there - Fortress on the other hand, does technically go into the trash, it just immediately leaves it
« Last Edit: June 23, 2021, 08:29:54 pm by mxdata »
Logged
They/them

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9119
  • Respect: +9966
    • View Profile
Re: Priest + Failed to trash?
« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2021, 10:01:57 pm »
0

Note that in case 2, the stop-moving rule is why the card doesn’t get trashed; because it isn’t where the effect expects it to be (in play).

In case 3, there are two separate reasons the card doesn’t get trashed. The stop-moving rule still applies because the effect expects the card to be in play, but instead it is in the trash (and it also didn’t move into in-play because of the stop-moving rule). And secondly, a card that is currently in the trash cannot be trashed because trashing involves moving to the trash.
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

mxdata

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 815
  • Respect: +835
    • View Profile
Re: Priest + Failed to trash?
« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2021, 10:10:42 pm »
0

Note that in case 2, the stop-moving rule is why the card doesn’t get trashed; because it isn’t where the effect expects it to be (in play).

In case 3, there are two separate reasons the card doesn’t get trashed. The stop-moving rule still applies because the effect expects the card to be in play, but instead it is in the trash (and it also didn’t move into in-play because of the stop-moving rule). And secondly, a card that is currently in the trash cannot be trashed because trashing involves moving to the trash.

Wait, why would the stop-moving rule be the issue in case 2? Imagine a card that works just like Captain, but without the "leaving it in place" rule. If this alt-Captain played Acting Troupe, then wouldn't the Acting Troupe trash itself and you'd get the +$2?  Isn't the the main reason for the "leaving it in place" clause, specifically so that self-trashers don't end up in the trash?
Logged
They/them

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9119
  • Respect: +9966
    • View Profile
Re: Priest + Failed to trash?
« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2021, 01:25:21 am »
+1

Note that in case 2, the stop-moving rule is why the card doesn’t get trashed; because it isn’t where the effect expects it to be (in play).

In case 3, there are two separate reasons the card doesn’t get trashed. The stop-moving rule still applies because the effect expects the card to be in play, but instead it is in the trash (and it also didn’t move into in-play because of the stop-moving rule). And secondly, a card that is currently in the trash cannot be trashed because trashing involves moving to the trash.

Wait, why would the stop-moving rule be the issue in case 2? Imagine a card that works just like Captain, but without the "leaving it in place" rule. If this alt-Captain played Acting Troupe, then wouldn't the Acting Troupe trash itself and you'd get the +$2?  Isn't the the main reason for the "leaving it in place" clause, specifically so that self-trashers don't end up in the trash?

No, “leaving it there” only means “don’t move it to the in-play area like you normally do when you play a card”. The fact the card is not in the in-play area, where the effect “trash this” expects it to be, is what prevents it from getting trashed. The reason for “Leaving it there” has nothing to do with self-trashers, it is needed to prevent the card from being moved to the in-play area (where it would then get discarded along with all other cards you played that turn; in effect letting you gain the card).

If a card just said “play a cheaper action from the supply” without “leaving it there”, then you would move the card you play to your in-play area; it would be no different from how Golem or Throne Room cause cards to be moved to in-play when they make you play cards.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2021, 01:27:42 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

faust

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3035
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +4286
    • View Profile
Re: Priest + Failed to trash?
« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2021, 01:28:45 am »
+3

Note that in case 2, the stop-moving rule is why the card doesn’t get trashed; because it isn’t where the effect expects it to be (in play).

In case 3, there are two separate reasons the card doesn’t get trashed. The stop-moving rule still applies because the effect expects the card to be in play, but instead it is in the trash (and it also didn’t move into in-play because of the stop-moving rule). And secondly, a card that is currently in the trash cannot be trashed because trashing involves moving to the trash.

Wait, why would the stop-moving rule be the issue in case 2? Imagine a card that works just like Captain, but without the "leaving it in place" rule. If this alt-Captain played Acting Troupe, then wouldn't the Acting Troupe trash itself and you'd get the +$2?  Isn't the the main reason for the "leaving it in place" clause, specifically so that self-trashers don't end up in the trash?

No, “leaving it there” only means “don’t move it to the in-play area like you normally do when you play a card”. The fact the card is not in the in-play area, where the effect “trash this” expects it to be, is what prevents it from getting trashed. The reason for “Leaving it there” has nothing to do with self-trashers, it is needed to prevent the card from being moved to the in-play area (where it would then get discarded along with all other cards you played that turn; in effect letting you gain the card).
This is evidenced by the fact that if you play a Workshop with Captain, you are still able to gain that very same Workshop with it, so the "leaving it there" clearly does not apply to all card effects.
Logged
The quiet comprehending of the ending of it all

mxdata

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 815
  • Respect: +835
    • View Profile
Re: Priest + Failed to trash?
« Reply #7 on: June 24, 2021, 02:56:53 am »
0

Note that in case 2, the stop-moving rule is why the card doesn’t get trashed; because it isn’t where the effect expects it to be (in play).

In case 3, there are two separate reasons the card doesn’t get trashed. The stop-moving rule still applies because the effect expects the card to be in play, but instead it is in the trash (and it also didn’t move into in-play because of the stop-moving rule). And secondly, a card that is currently in the trash cannot be trashed because trashing involves moving to the trash.

Wait, why would the stop-moving rule be the issue in case 2? Imagine a card that works just like Captain, but without the "leaving it in place" rule. If this alt-Captain played Acting Troupe, then wouldn't the Acting Troupe trash itself and you'd get the +$2?  Isn't the the main reason for the "leaving it in place" clause, specifically so that self-trashers don't end up in the trash?

No, “leaving it there” only means “don’t move it to the in-play area like you normally do when you play a card”. The fact the card is not in the in-play area, where the effect “trash this” expects it to be, is what prevents it from getting trashed. The reason for “Leaving it there” has nothing to do with self-trashers, it is needed to prevent the card from being moved to the in-play area (where it would then get discarded along with all other cards you played that turn; in effect letting you gain the card).
This is evidenced by the fact that if you play a Workshop with Captain, you are still able to gain that very same Workshop with it, so the "leaving it there" clearly does not apply to all card effects.

Ah, that makes sense
Logged
They/them

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9119
  • Respect: +9966
    • View Profile
Re: Priest + Failed to trash?
« Reply #8 on: June 24, 2021, 08:26:34 am »
0

Note that in case 2, the stop-moving rule is why the card doesn’t get trashed; because it isn’t where the effect expects it to be (in play).

In case 3, there are two separate reasons the card doesn’t get trashed. The stop-moving rule still applies because the effect expects the card to be in play, but instead it is in the trash (and it also didn’t move into in-play because of the stop-moving rule). And secondly, a card that is currently in the trash cannot be trashed because trashing involves moving to the trash.

Wait, why would the stop-moving rule be the issue in case 2? Imagine a card that works just like Captain, but without the "leaving it in place" rule. If this alt-Captain played Acting Troupe, then wouldn't the Acting Troupe trash itself and you'd get the +$2?  Isn't the the main reason for the "leaving it in place" clause, specifically so that self-trashers don't end up in the trash?

No, “leaving it there” only means “don’t move it to the in-play area like you normally do when you play a card”. The fact the card is not in the in-play area, where the effect “trash this” expects it to be, is what prevents it from getting trashed. The reason for “Leaving it there” has nothing to do with self-trashers, it is needed to prevent the card from being moved to the in-play area (where it would then get discarded along with all other cards you played that turn; in effect letting you gain the card).
This is evidenced by the fact that if you play a Workshop with Captain, you are still able to gain that very same Workshop with it, so the "leaving it there" clearly does not apply to all card effects.

Works with Feast too, which is extra interesting because you fail to trash it also.
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

anordinaryman

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 285
  • Respect: +345
    • View Profile
Re: Priest + Failed to trash?
« Reply #9 on: June 25, 2021, 02:05:09 pm »
+1

Note that in case 2, the stop-moving rule is why the card doesn’t get trashed; because it isn’t where the effect expects it to be (in play).

In case 3, there are two separate reasons the card doesn’t get trashed. The stop-moving rule still applies because the effect expects the card to be in play, but instead it is in the trash (and it also didn’t move into in-play because of the stop-moving rule). And secondly, a card that is currently in the trash cannot be trashed because trashing involves moving to the trash.

Wait, why would the stop-moving rule be the issue in case 2? Imagine a card that works just like Captain, but without the "leaving it in place" rule. If this alt-Captain played Acting Troupe, then wouldn't the Acting Troupe trash itself and you'd get the +$2?  Isn't the the main reason for the "leaving it in place" clause, specifically so that self-trashers don't end up in the trash?

No, “leaving it there” only means “don’t move it to the in-play area like you normally do when you play a card”. The fact the card is not in the in-play area, where the effect “trash this” expects it to be, is what prevents it from getting trashed. The reason for “Leaving it there” has nothing to do with self-trashers, it is needed to prevent the card from being moved to the in-play area (where it would then get discarded along with all other cards you played that turn; in effect letting you gain the card).
This is evidenced by the fact that if you play a Workshop with Captain, you are still able to gain that very same Workshop with it, so the "leaving it there" clearly does not apply to all card effects.

This came up in a game yesterday. Does that mean Necromancer can play a Lurker from the trash to gain that specific Lurker from the trash? It seems like it.
Logged

mxdata

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 815
  • Respect: +835
    • View Profile
Re: Priest + Failed to trash?
« Reply #10 on: June 25, 2021, 03:24:31 pm »
+1

Note that in case 2, the stop-moving rule is why the card doesn’t get trashed; because it isn’t where the effect expects it to be (in play).

In case 3, there are two separate reasons the card doesn’t get trashed. The stop-moving rule still applies because the effect expects the card to be in play, but instead it is in the trash (and it also didn’t move into in-play because of the stop-moving rule). And secondly, a card that is currently in the trash cannot be trashed because trashing involves moving to the trash.

Wait, why would the stop-moving rule be the issue in case 2? Imagine a card that works just like Captain, but without the "leaving it in place" rule. If this alt-Captain played Acting Troupe, then wouldn't the Acting Troupe trash itself and you'd get the +$2?  Isn't the the main reason for the "leaving it in place" clause, specifically so that self-trashers don't end up in the trash?

No, “leaving it there” only means “don’t move it to the in-play area like you normally do when you play a card”. The fact the card is not in the in-play area, where the effect “trash this” expects it to be, is what prevents it from getting trashed. The reason for “Leaving it there” has nothing to do with self-trashers, it is needed to prevent the card from being moved to the in-play area (where it would then get discarded along with all other cards you played that turn; in effect letting you gain the card).
This is evidenced by the fact that if you play a Workshop with Captain, you are still able to gain that very same Workshop with it, so the "leaving it there" clearly does not apply to all card effects.

This came up in a game yesterday. Does that mean Necromancer can play a Lurker from the trash to gain that specific Lurker from the trash? It seems like it.

Yes. That's specifically mentioned on the wiki:
Quote
The restriction on movement only applies to effects that would have moved the card out of the play area if it were played normally, for example, Island will fail to move itself out of the trash and onto your Island Mat, although any other effect will still apply, such as moving a card from your hand onto your Island Mat; if a card is looking to move a card out of the trash, it may move itself - thus, if you choose to play a Lurker, Graverobber or Rogue in the trash, it can gain itself out of the trash as a result.
Logged
They/them

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9119
  • Respect: +9966
    • View Profile
Re: Priest + Failed to trash?
« Reply #11 on: June 25, 2021, 04:08:09 pm »
+1

Note that in case 2, the stop-moving rule is why the card doesn’t get trashed; because it isn’t where the effect expects it to be (in play).

In case 3, there are two separate reasons the card doesn’t get trashed. The stop-moving rule still applies because the effect expects the card to be in play, but instead it is in the trash (and it also didn’t move into in-play because of the stop-moving rule). And secondly, a card that is currently in the trash cannot be trashed because trashing involves moving to the trash.

Wait, why would the stop-moving rule be the issue in case 2? Imagine a card that works just like Captain, but without the "leaving it in place" rule. If this alt-Captain played Acting Troupe, then wouldn't the Acting Troupe trash itself and you'd get the +$2?  Isn't the the main reason for the "leaving it in place" clause, specifically so that self-trashers don't end up in the trash?

No, “leaving it there” only means “don’t move it to the in-play area like you normally do when you play a card”. The fact the card is not in the in-play area, where the effect “trash this” expects it to be, is what prevents it from getting trashed. The reason for “Leaving it there” has nothing to do with self-trashers, it is needed to prevent the card from being moved to the in-play area (where it would then get discarded along with all other cards you played that turn; in effect letting you gain the card).
This is evidenced by the fact that if you play a Workshop with Captain, you are still able to gain that very same Workshop with it, so the "leaving it there" clearly does not apply to all card effects.

This came up in a game yesterday. Does that mean Necromancer can play a Lurker from the trash to gain that specific Lurker from the trash? It seems like it.

Yes. That's specifically mentioned on the wiki:
Quote
The restriction on movement only applies to effects that would have moved the card out of the play area if it were played normally, for example, Island will fail to move itself out of the trash and onto your Island Mat, although any other effect will still apply, such as moving a card from your hand onto your Island Mat; if a card is looking to move a card out of the trash, it may move itself - thus, if you choose to play a Lurker, Graverobber or Rogue in the trash, it can gain itself out of the trash as a result.

That wiki quote seems a bit misleading, if by "the restriction on movement" it's referring to the "leaving it there" text. "Leaving it there" does not apply to effects that would have moved the card out of the play area if it were played normally... the stop-moving rule is what causes that, not the text on Necromancer. Granted, the "leaving it there" is why stop-moving ends up coming into play; but it's not a special case of stop-moving or anything; it's the exact same thing that happens if you Throne Room a Pillage or a Madman.
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

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3105
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4059
    • View Profile
Re: Priest + Failed to trash?
« Reply #12 on: June 25, 2021, 04:38:08 pm »
+1

Note that in case 2, the stop-moving rule is why the card doesn’t get trashed; because it isn’t where the effect expects it to be (in play).

In case 3, there are two separate reasons the card doesn’t get trashed. The stop-moving rule still applies because the effect expects the card to be in play, but instead it is in the trash (and it also didn’t move into in-play because of the stop-moving rule). And secondly, a card that is currently in the trash cannot be trashed because trashing involves moving to the trash.

Wait, why would the stop-moving rule be the issue in case 2? Imagine a card that works just like Captain, but without the "leaving it in place" rule. If this alt-Captain played Acting Troupe, then wouldn't the Acting Troupe trash itself and you'd get the +$2?  Isn't the the main reason for the "leaving it in place" clause, specifically so that self-trashers don't end up in the trash?

No, “leaving it there” only means “don’t move it to the in-play area like you normally do when you play a card”. The fact the card is not in the in-play area, where the effect “trash this” expects it to be, is what prevents it from getting trashed. The reason for “Leaving it there” has nothing to do with self-trashers, it is needed to prevent the card from being moved to the in-play area (where it would then get discarded along with all other cards you played that turn; in effect letting you gain the card).
This is evidenced by the fact that if you play a Workshop with Captain, you are still able to gain that very same Workshop with it, so the "leaving it there" clearly does not apply to all card effects.

This came up in a game yesterday. Does that mean Necromancer can play a Lurker from the trash to gain that specific Lurker from the trash? It seems like it.

Yes. That's specifically mentioned on the wiki:
Quote
The restriction on movement only applies to effects that would have moved the card out of the play area if it were played normally, for example, Island will fail to move itself out of the trash and onto your Island Mat, although any other effect will still apply, such as moving a card from your hand onto your Island Mat; if a card is looking to move a card out of the trash, it may move itself - thus, if you choose to play a Lurker, Graverobber or Rogue in the trash, it can gain itself out of the trash as a result.

That wiki quote seems a bit misleading, if by "the restriction on movement" it's referring to the "leaving it there" text. "Leaving it there" does not apply to effects that would have moved the card out of the play area if it were played normally... the stop-moving rule is what causes that, not the text on Necromancer. Granted, the "leaving it there" is why stop-moving ends up coming into play; but it's not a special case of stop-moving or anything; it's the exact same thing that happens if you Throne Room a Pillage or a Madman.

In context, "the restriction on movement" does not appear to refer to the "leaving it there" text. It refers to the text from the FAQ, which says "if an effect tries to move it... it will fail to move it."
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9119
  • Respect: +9966
    • View Profile
Re: Priest + Failed to trash?
« Reply #13 on: June 25, 2021, 05:39:13 pm »
0

Note that in case 2, the stop-moving rule is why the card doesn’t get trashed; because it isn’t where the effect expects it to be (in play).

In case 3, there are two separate reasons the card doesn’t get trashed. The stop-moving rule still applies because the effect expects the card to be in play, but instead it is in the trash (and it also didn’t move into in-play because of the stop-moving rule). And secondly, a card that is currently in the trash cannot be trashed because trashing involves moving to the trash.

Wait, why would the stop-moving rule be the issue in case 2? Imagine a card that works just like Captain, but without the "leaving it in place" rule. If this alt-Captain played Acting Troupe, then wouldn't the Acting Troupe trash itself and you'd get the +$2?  Isn't the the main reason for the "leaving it in place" clause, specifically so that self-trashers don't end up in the trash?

No, “leaving it there” only means “don’t move it to the in-play area like you normally do when you play a card”. The fact the card is not in the in-play area, where the effect “trash this” expects it to be, is what prevents it from getting trashed. The reason for “Leaving it there” has nothing to do with self-trashers, it is needed to prevent the card from being moved to the in-play area (where it would then get discarded along with all other cards you played that turn; in effect letting you gain the card).
This is evidenced by the fact that if you play a Workshop with Captain, you are still able to gain that very same Workshop with it, so the "leaving it there" clearly does not apply to all card effects.

This came up in a game yesterday. Does that mean Necromancer can play a Lurker from the trash to gain that specific Lurker from the trash? It seems like it.

Yes. That's specifically mentioned on the wiki:
Quote
The restriction on movement only applies to effects that would have moved the card out of the play area if it were played normally, for example, Island will fail to move itself out of the trash and onto your Island Mat, although any other effect will still apply, such as moving a card from your hand onto your Island Mat; if a card is looking to move a card out of the trash, it may move itself - thus, if you choose to play a Lurker, Graverobber or Rogue in the trash, it can gain itself out of the trash as a result.

That wiki quote seems a bit misleading, if by "the restriction on movement" it's referring to the "leaving it there" text. "Leaving it there" does not apply to effects that would have moved the card out of the play area if it were played normally... the stop-moving rule is what causes that, not the text on Necromancer. Granted, the "leaving it there" is why stop-moving ends up coming into play; but it's not a special case of stop-moving or anything; it's the exact same thing that happens if you Throne Room a Pillage or a Madman.

In context, "the restriction on movement" does not appear to refer to the "leaving it there" text. It refers to the text from the FAQ, which says "if an effect tries to move it... it will fail to move it."

That make sense, though now I'm bugged by the fact that the official FAQ refers to Encampment failing to return to the supply, but doesn't mention that first it would fail to get set aside.
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
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.086 seconds with 21 queries.