Print

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

[DaveS]

If you gained a card on someone else's turn that triggers your Sheepdog (or Falconer) and you play Sheepdog with Way of the Seal, can you then use WotSeal's top deck ability on any future cards you gain during that same player's turn?  How about top decking the gained card that allowed you to play the Way of the Seal?

Scenario:
P1's turn:
...
P1 plays Witch
   P2 gains Curse, plays Sheepdog as Way of the Seal (+$1 is useless)
   Can P2 top deck the Curse here since he/she has added a gain effect WHILE resolving his/her gain effects?
P1 plays Swindler
   P2 trashes Gold and gains Gold.
   P2 puts that Gold on deck via WotSeal gain effect
...
P1's turn ends
P2's WotSeal gain effect (from the Sheepdog play) is no longer triggerable

P2's turn: (starts with zero Treasure as always.)

[mxdata]

If you gained a card on someone else's turn that triggers your Sheepdog (or Falconer) and you play Sheepdog with Way of the Seal, can you then use WotSeal's top deck ability on any future cards you gain during that same player's turn?  How about top decking the gained card that allowed you to play the Way of the Seal?

Scenario:
P1's turn:
...
P1 plays Witch
   P2 gains Curse, plays Sheepdog as Way of the Seal (+$1 is useless)
   Can P2 top deck the Curse here since he/she has added a gain effect WHILE resolving his/her gain effects?
P1 plays Swindler
   P2 trashes Gold and gains Gold.
   P2 puts that Gold on deck via WotSeal gain effect
...
P1's turn ends
P2's WotSeal gain effect (from the Sheepdog play) is no longer triggerable

P2's turn: (starts with zero Treasure as always.)

No. Because you gained those cards before playing Way of the Seal. Anything gained after that point can be topdecked (for example, if your opponent played a second Witch, or had Throned their Witch), but it wouldn't have a retroactive effect

[DaveS]

No. Because you gained those cards before playing Way of the Seal. Anything gained after that point can be topdecked (for example, if your opponent played a second Witch, or had Throned their Witch), but it wouldn't have a retroactive effect

Thanks for the reply mxdata. I would agree with you except that I'm not seeing how this would differ from a triggered Sheepdog drawing another Sheepdog. The drawn Sheepdog also has its gain effect triggered even though it wasn't even in hand when the gain occurred. I get that this was just a rule to avoid the problem that a player could lie about whether the 2nd Sheepdog was already in hand or not... and that problem does not exist here. But what condition would allow the triggering of the drawn Sheepdog's gain effect while disallowing the Sheepdog/WotSeal's gain effect?

[DaveS]

This post seems to agree that the first played WotSeal can top deck the gained card:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12757.msg857344#msg857344

[GendoIkari]

I would think it would be the same as Priest; if trashing a card lets you play a card due to some “when you trash a card” stuff and you play Priest; you don’t get the benefit from Priest I don’t think. The only difference is that Priest says “ For the rest of this turn” and Seal says “this turn”.

[dz]

You can generate this scenario another way. Gain a Livery, play it with Innovation. You don’t get a Horse. Livery says “this turn,” which means “cards gained from now on,” and it can’t see any cards gained previously (including itself).

Using Innovation on Duplicate allows you to call Duplicate. That’s an exercise for the reader. Hint: Duplicate has an implicit “while this is on your Tavern mat,” because it’s a requirement to call it.

Sheepdog works differently because it’s in your hand and doesn’t have a scope like Livery or Seal.

[DaveS]

I would think it would be the same as Priest; if trashing a card lets you play a card due to some “when you trash a card” stuff and you play Priest; you don’t get the benefit from Priest I don’t think. The only difference is that Priest says “ For the rest of this turn” and Seal says “this turn”.

Hi GendoIkari,
I agree you don't get the Priest benefit in your scenario but I'm thinking that's because Priest has its own built in wall from reaping its own benefit: you FULLY resolve the "Trash a card" Priest itself does, THEN you set up the +$2 for any future "trash a card".

[GendoIkari]

I would think it would be the same as Priest; if trashing a card lets you play a card due to some “when you trash a card” stuff and you play Priest; you don’t get the benefit from Priest I don’t think. The only difference is that Priest says “ For the rest of this turn” and Seal says “this turn”.

Hi GendoIkari,
I agree you don't get the Priest benefit in your scenario but I'm thinking that's because Priest has its own built in wall from reaping its own benefit: you FULLY resolve the "Trash a card" Priest itself does, THEN you set up the +$2 for any future "trash a card".

No, to be clear I was talking about trashing a card some other way before playing a Priest. So the priest would get played while you are still resolving other “when you trash” effects from trashing a card. The card you trash when you play Priest would be separate and unrelated to the scenario.

[DaveS]

No, to be clear I was talking about trashing a card some other way before playing a Priest. So the priest would get played while you are still resolving other “when you trash” effects from trashing a card. The card you trash when you play Priest would be separate and unrelated to the scenario.

Oh, I see what you mean now: 
1. Trash a card,  T1
2. While resolving trash effects on T1, somehow a Priest is played. Resolve the Priest play (including any trash effects it generates and THEN setup its trashing bonus)
3. Continue resolving trash effects on T1.

At no time is Priest's +$2 awarded for the trashing of T1. (But any new trashing in step 3 until end of turn would be awarded +$2)

Is there anything out there to test these scenarios? Also wondering how to design the algorithm to allow the Sheepdog drawing Sheepdog case but not these other cases.

[Ingix]

Is there anything out there to test these scenarios? Also wondering how to design the algorithm to allow the Sheepdog drawing Sheepdog case but not these other cases.

Most people will use dominion.games as their reference. Though in this case, it gets it wrong. I tested Forager trashing card, discarding Market Square to gain Gold, play Sheepdog off the gain using Way of the Mouse as Vassal, playing Priest. Priest gives you +$2 for the Forager trashing.

The reason is that in the beginning the emphasis was put on the "opposite direction", cases with Sheepdog drawing Sheepdog, or cards that have "While this is in play" triggered abilities where this kind of counterintuitive trick is supposed to work. For example, with one Haggler in play, you can buy a Gold. This allows you to use the Haggler to gain a cheaper card, say... a Haggler! If you have Innovation in play, you may be able to play it, right now. You are now supposed to get another card cheaper than Gold for the "new" Haggler. That's something many people would not guess immediately.

So in my view, the situation is "not neat". You have the Reactions cards you play (or reveal) from hand, where (in some sense) you have to allow a Sheepdog drawn from a triggered Sheepdog to be also played, because often other players can't know if you just drew it or not. It's different for "all in the open" cards like Haggler + Innovation and Livery + Innovation. That these combos work differently (you get to use the second Haggler with the previous buy but don't gain a Horse from Livery's own gain) is "not neat". Neither situation is IMO "natural" or easy to understand. That there are now different rules for these cases I consider unfortunate.

But, I think the distinction between them is clear enough that it can be implemented in dominion.games.

[Jeebus]

All these scenarious work the same way: When you are in the trigger "window" (when-trash, when-gain etc.), any new thing that gets added will also trigger.

You gain a Curse - you are in the when-gain window for the Curse gain. Are there any when-gain triggers? Yes, Sheepdog. You play Sheepdog using Way of the Seal, adding another when-gain trigger. You are still in the when-gain window for the Curse gain. Now, is there another trigger for that? Yes, the Seal lets you topdeck the Curse. Now, is there another when-gain trigger for the Curse gain? You could now play another Sheepdog for instance. (You could also play this other Sheepdog before topdecking the Curse.)

Gain a Livery - you are in the when-gain window for the Livery. Are there any when-gain triggers? Yes, Innovation lets you play the Livery. Now, are there other when-gain triggers for the Livery gain? Yes, Livery lets you gain a Horse when you gain a card costing $4 or more, so it triggers.
(This doesn't work on dominion.games, which I happened to notice a couple of weeks ago and posted about in their forum.)

Trash a card - you are in the when-trash window. A when-trash ability lets you play a Priest. Now, are there other when-trash triggers for the card you trashed? Yes, Priest gives you +$2.
So if dominion.games does this, it's working correctly.

So the situation is indeed consistent and "neat". There are not different rules for different cards.

[dz]

Gain a Livery - you are in the when-gain window for the Livery. Are there any when-gain triggers? Yes, Innovation lets you play the Livery. Now, are there other when-gain triggers for the Livery gain? Yes, Livery lets you gain a Horse when you gain a card costing $4 or more, so it triggers.
(This doesn't work on dominion.games, which I happened to notice a couple of weeks ago and posted about in their forum.)

It's true that this doesn't work on dominion.games. By coincidence, that's the official Donald X ruling: Livery cannot see gains before it was played. (If you're not on discord, you're just going to have to trust me on this one.)

You should not get a horse from "gain Livery, Innovate to play it."

When this came up before, after whatever discussion where I bet I listened to what people argued, I concluded that Livery is different because of the "this turn" phrasing. It functions for the rest of the turn, starting then. It looks for gains, and its gain happened already.

Oh while you're updating rulings, here's another.

I mean when does Merchant happen? It happens when you play a Silver. What's its scope? The rest of this turn.

So if playing a Silver triggers Merchant showing up, it didn't get its rule in in time and so no +$1. (and not later in the turn either, which should already be true if you just play a Silver to Storyteller and then play a Merchant)

[GendoIkari]

Gain a Livery - you are in the when-gain window for the Livery. Are there any when-gain triggers? Yes, Innovation lets you play the Livery. Now, are there other when-gain triggers for the Livery gain? Yes, Livery lets you gain a Horse when you gain a card costing $4 or more, so it triggers.
(This doesn't work on dominion.games, which I happened to notice a couple of weeks ago and posted about in their forum.)

It's true that this doesn't work on dominion.games. By coincidence, that's the official Donald X ruling: Livery cannot see gains before it was played. (If you're not on discord, you're just going to have to trust me on this one.)

You should not get a horse from "gain Livery, Innovate to play it."

When this came up before, after whatever discussion where I bet I listened to what people argued, I concluded that Livery is different because of the "this turn" phrasing. It functions for the rest of the turn, starting then. It looks for gains, and its gain happened already.

Oh while you're updating rulings, here's another.

I mean when does Merchant happen? It happens when you play a Silver. What's its scope? The rest of this turn.

So if playing a Silver triggers Merchant showing up, it didn't get its rule in in time and so no +$1. (and not later in the turn either, which should already be true if you just play a Silver to Storyteller and then play a Merchant)

Interesting. This is consistent with the general rule that Jeebus referred to as long as you consider “this turn, when you gain” to be a limitation on the gain in the same way that “when you gain a Silver” would be. So you are still in the “when you gain” window for gaining a Curse, however that gain doesn’t meet the requirements of Way of the Seal, because Seal only triggers on gains that happened “this turn” (and “this turn” is interpreted as “from now until the end of the turn”).

[Jeebus]

Gain a Livery - you are in the when-gain window for the Livery. Are there any when-gain triggers? Yes, Innovation lets you play the Livery. Now, are there other when-gain triggers for the Livery gain? Yes, Livery lets you gain a Horse when you gain a card costing $4 or more, so it triggers.
(This doesn't work on dominion.games, which I happened to notice a couple of weeks ago and posted about in their forum.)

It's true that this doesn't work on dominion.games. By coincidence, that's the official Donald X ruling: Livery cannot see gains before it was played. (If you're not on discord, you're just going to have to trust me on this one.)

You should not get a horse from "gain Livery, Innovate to play it."

When this came up before, after whatever discussion where I bet I listened to what people argued, I concluded that Livery is different because of the "this turn" phrasing. It functions for the rest of the turn, starting then. It looks for gains, and its gain happened already.

Oh while you're updating rulings, here's another.

I mean when does Merchant happen? It happens when you play a Silver. What's its scope? The rest of this turn.

So if playing a Silver triggers Merchant showing up, it didn't get its rule in in time and so no +$1. (and not later in the turn either, which should already be true if you just play a Silver to Storyteller and then play a Merchant)

Well, that is very unfortunate, since Donald has already ruled in this forum that Merchant does give +$1 in this scenario.

Also, I don't see how this changed ruling is consistent with the ruling that Haggler, Goons and other "while in play" abilities trigger when they are played after the bought card was bought. Unfortunately this makes the Dominion rules more confusing and inconsistent.

EDIT: I see now that I'm agreeing with what Ingix expressed above regarding the unfortunate inconsistencies.

[dz]

Here's my explanation. I don't know if it'll help anyone understand things better, but maybe.

It may help to imagine that Duplicate and Sheepdog have an implicit "while they're in a certain zone" in their text, because how else are you using that ability. So these two technically have the following text:

Sheepdog:
+2 Cards
While this is in your hand, when you gain a card, you may play this from your hand.

Duplicate:
Put this on your Tavern mat.
While this is on your Tavern mat, when you gain a card costing 6 or more, you may call this, to gain a copy of that card.

These cards basically work the same way as Groundskeeper and friends. The only requirements are A) they're in a certain zone, and B) you gained a card. (Ok Groundskeeper and Duplicate has other requirements for the gained card but whatever.) So if you gain a Duplicate and Innovate it, both conditions are met, so you can call it.

Livery has a different requirement though. Instead of being in a certain zone, the card needs to be gained after the ability has resolved. Is that clear from the wording? I dunno, that's subjective. No casual player is coming across these Innovation edge cases anytime soon. Anyways it's what Donald X. has ruled. So if you Innovate a Livery, it fails the condition and doesn't gain anything.

Oh yeah there's another case: playing Hireling at the start of your turn. It has "for the rest of the game." So why does that work, and Livery doesn't?

"For the rest of the game, at the start of each of your turns" matches Livery, in terms of this "What's the scope of this" issue. A difference though is that "the start of a turn" is less like a thing that happened that could have been missed; it's this time period when stuff happens, more like a start of turn phase, even though it's not phrased like that and I mean isn't that.

Alright that's basically the summary of this discord conversation in April (including the new Merchant ruling). I think there was another edge case involving Way of the Mouse but man screw that card, you will not drag me into that conversation.

[Jeebus]

That explanation doesn't cut it. Let's take Goons, which works when it's in a certain zone (in play), just like Duplicate and Sheepdog (according to you). And Donald has previously ruled that Goons, Haggler etc. trigger on a buy that happened before they're in play when we are still in the when-buy window. Being in a zone is a timing issue just like "from now on for the rest of this turn". There is the period before Goons was in play and the period after it entered play. The buy happened before. For Livery, the gain happened before "the rest of this turn". In both cases we are still resolving "when" abilities. There is no difference.

With Hireling, Donald is writing about "start of your turn", but that isn't the issue. "Start of your turn" for Hireling corresponds to "when you gain" for Livery. There is no question that we are still in the start-of-turn or when-gain window in each case. The question is the start of the ongoing ability. For Livery it's "from now on for the rest of the turn". For Hireling it's "from now on for the rest of the game". Clearly if Hireling works, so must Livery.
EDIT: I see that Donald is saying that "start of turn" is intrinsically different from "when you gain". But it's not; it's a point in time just like when-gain. Donald also acknowledges this by saying that it's not a phase. All "start of turn" abilities trigger at the same time (and therefore you get to decide which to resolve first, etc.). This is the key. It's just like several when-gain abilities triggering at the same time. Start of turn is a point in time occurring at the start of your turn before anything else. It can be missed to the exact same extent as "when you gain".

[dz]

At this point I think the only hope you have for changing the Livery ruling is to bring up an edge case that discord hasn’t thought of, that would cause the ruling to fall apart. We didn’t catch the Citadel Captain thing, so maybe there’s something there. Otherwise, we’re just beating a dead horse and making no progress, and I’d like to do other things.

[Jeebus]

The Goons/Innovation edge case already makes the ruling fall apart, unless it is also reversed. I can't make Donald revert this ruling ("revert" since he already implicitly ruled differently via the Merchant ruling); all I can do is argue why it's inconsistent. If someone wants to argue that it's not, go ahead, but so far i haven't seen any sound arguments supporting that.

[Jeebus]

Scanning through the Discord discussion, I see that Donald initially (in February) wanted to rule that Livery/Innovation didn't give you a Horse, but realized that Haggler/Innovation then couldn't work either. He said that they should work the same, without coming to a clear conclusion. Then in April he stated that Livery doesn't work based on whatever he had said in February, which he didn't remember, but that Haggler should work.

And when asked about how this affected Merchant/Innovation/Silver, he said that he bet he had ruled earlier that it doesn't work. But actually he has ruled earlier that it does.

Quote from Donald: "It is hard to search discord, and we get too much traffic to read it all." How very true. Rules discussions like these should happen in the forum.

Anyway, I see that not even Donald has given a real explanation of how the Livery case could be different from the Haggler case. Quite the opposite, in February he stated that they should work the same.

[Ingix]

From my interpretation, any trigger coming from an on-play ability, like Livery, cannot be applied retroactivly. Since on-play abilities that do something over a duration need to state that duration, that will usually be recognizable by a "this turn" phrase.

Any trigger stated on a "below the line" ability (like Haggler, Duplicate, etc.) can be applied retroactively (if it becomes available in the trigger window). That means a Haggler that comes into play inside a "When you buy" trigger window would allow (even require) it's abilitiy to be used. AFAIK, it has also been ruled that if the Haggler is in play when a card buy happens but leaves play during that window, it's ability also has to be applied. Both things together sound a bit contradictory, but that's what I understand.

Again, this is an interpretation and generalization of what Donald X. said.

[Jeebus]

From my interpretation, any trigger coming from an on-play ability, like Livery, cannot be applied retroactivly. Since on-play abilities that do something over a duration need to state that duration, that will usually be recognizable by a "this turn" phrase.

Any trigger stated on a "below the line" ability (like Haggler, Duplicate, etc.) can be applied retroactively (if it becomes available in the trigger window). That means a Haggler that comes into play inside a "When you buy" trigger window would allow (even require) it's abilitiy to be used. AFAIK, it has also been ruled that if the Haggler is in play when a card buy happens but leaves play during that window, it's ability also has to be applied. Both things together sound a bit contradictory, but that's what I understand.

Again, this is an interpretation and generalization of what Donald X. said.

That would be a clearly stated rule separating the two types of abilities. But I still don't see any actual reason for why those two would behave differently in the trigger window. As noted above, Donald also expressed they would be the same back in February. Do you have a link to this explanation?

Also, it would definitely mean that Hireling doesn't trigger when played at start of turn.

[dz]

I don't know why you're using posts from February when all of my quotes were from April. Surely you would use the most up-to-date source?

Also discord is perfectly fine for people asking quick questions (which is most of the time). For full-on rules discussions with tricky answers (like this), yes it's probably better to have them here. The problem is how to ask a bunch of people to come to the forum just for occasional things like this.

[Jeebus]

I don't know why you're using posts from February when all of my quotes were from April. Surely you would use the most up-to-date source?

Because, as I said above, only in February did he actually address the issue. Quoting myself:

Scanning through the Discord discussion, I see that Donald initially (in February) wanted to rule that Livery/Innovation didn't give you a Horse, but realized that Haggler/Innovation then couldn't work either. He said that they should work the same, without coming to a clear conclusion. Then in April he stated that Livery doesn't work based on whatever he had said in February, which he didn't remember, but that Haggler should work.

(Donald's next sentence after your April quote: "I do not remember the details of that discussion.")

[DaveS]

Thanks for the discussion everyone!

I have another scenario that's been on my mind that seems related to this: the gain effects of Gatekeeper and the Exile mat are opposite each other.

So far I lean toward preferring the rule "any new thing that gets added will also trigger" but doesn't that lead to a weird thing between these two effects?: A gain happens but only one can trigger. But as soon as you apply that effect, the other one triggers and essentially undoes the other's effect.

I see that Gatekeep has the FAQ answer: "Gaining a card that you do have a copy of on your Exile mat is unaffected, and lets you discard copies from your Exile mat if you want to as usual." But doesn't "any new thing that gets added will also trigger" contradict that FAQ answer?

[Ingix]

That would be a clearly stated rule separating the two types of abilities. But I still don't see any actual reason for why those two would behave differently in the trigger window. As noted above, Donald also expressed they would be the same back in February. Do you have a link to this explanation?

No, this is my interpretation, that I came up with, looking at the different rulings presented here. Nothing that Donald X. said, just trying to make sense of for myself.

As for the "actual reason for why those two would behave differently"? I've seen this happen several times in Magic 25 years ago. Some arcane rules interaction gets a ruling. More expansion come out, similar interactions increase in number. Then at some point a new "enabler" appears, that makes the interaction more common and the ruling now is contrary to "common sense" and what most players would expect. The ruling gets changed/amended.

The enabler here was Innovation, enabling a card to be played while still in it's "when-gain" window. The Livery-Innovation example is possibly what made the previous ruling paradoxical in the eyes of players: The Livery is played and sets up a "for the rest of this turn" trigger condition, that (under the rules as communicated before) is now applied to a time when that effect clearly couldn't have existed: when that Livery had just been gained.

That does make a compelling argument to reverse the ruling in that case. How that generalizes, is again my idea is presented above.

[Jeebus]

Thanks fore the discussion everyone!

I have another scenario that's been on my mind that seems related to this: the gain effects of Gatekeeper and the Exile mat are opposite each other.

So far I lean toward preferring the rule "any new thing that gets added will also trigger" but doesn't that lead to a weird thing between these two effects?: A gain happens but only one can trigger. But as soon as you apply that effect, the other one triggers and essentially undoes the other's effect.

I see that Gatekeep has the FAQ answer: "Gaining a card that you do have a copy of on your Exile mat is unaffected, and lets you discard copies from your Exile mat if you want to as usual." But doesn't "any new thing that gets added will also trigger" contradict that FAQ answer?

Good catch. The reason is that the trigger itself is not retroactive. Let's say you gain a Silver when you already have a Silver in Exile. For any when-gain abilities what you gained was "a Silver that you had an Exiled copy of [and which had a certain cost and certain types etc.]". That defines the trigger window. Only abilities with matching triggers can trigger in this window, no matter if the Exiled Silver is discarded.

Another example: You have played Livery, and then gain a Fisherman costing $2. When you resolve when-gain abilities for this gain, the Fisherman costs $5. But what you gained was "a Fisherman costing $2 [and that had certain types etc.]", and only abilities that trigger off of that will trigger. So you don't gain a Horse from Livery.

EDIT: I mistakenly wrote $3 instead of $2, and "do gain" instead of "don't gain".

[Jeebus]

No, this is my interpretation, that I came up with, looking at the different rulings presented here. Nothing that Donald X. said, just trying to make sense of for myself.

I see. You did write that.

The enabler here was Innovation, enabling a card to be played while still in it's "when-gain" window. The Livery-Innovation example is possibly what made the previous ruling paradoxical in the eyes of players: The Livery is played and sets up a "for the rest of this turn" trigger condition, that (under the rules as communicated before) is now applied to a time when that effect clearly couldn't have existed: when that Livery had just been gained.

That does make a compelling argument to reverse the ruling in that case. How that generalizes, is again my idea is presented above.

I agree that Innovation opened up a lot of possibilities that might seem counterintuitive to players. But in my mind, this already happened with "while in play" abilities like Goons and Haggler entering play after the "triggering event" (the buy in this case). Duplicate and Moat are more intuitive because they don't spell out a time frame for when the "triggering event" needs to happen. Haggler says that the "triggering event" needs to happen while the Haggler is in play, which it actually didn't. The same goes for Livery. It's possible to interpret Haggler and Livery such that they work like Duplicate and Moat, but it's not intuitive for many (probably most) players. But again, if Livery doesn't work like that, neither should Haggler.

In this thread, two years ago, we were both actually saying that it would be better if the Haggler scenarios did not work.

[DaveS]

Good catch. The reason is that the trigger itself is not retroactive. Let's say you gain a Silver when you already have a Silver in Exile. For any when-gain abilities what you gained was "a Silver that you had an Exiled copy of [and which had a certain cost and certain types etc.]". That defines the trigger window. Only abilities with matching triggers can trigger in this window, no matter if the Exiled Silver is discarded.

Another example: You have played Livery, and then gain a Fisherman costing $3. When you resolve when-gain abilities for this gain, the Fisherman costs $5. But what you gained was "a Fisherman costing $3 [and that had certain types etc.]", and only abilities that trigger off of that will trigger. So you do gain a Horse from Livery.

Hmmm, gonna have to chew on that idea a bit.  The light bulb has not yet turned on for me Also, in your Livery scenario, I think you mean $2 and "not gain a Horse"?

[Jeebus]

Hmmm, gonna have to chew on that idea a bit.  The light bulb has not yet turned on for me Also, in your Livery scenario, I think you mean $2 and "not gain a Horse"?

You're right! Thanks, I fixed it.

[DaveS]

The reason is that the trigger itself is not retroactive.

So regarding how to process effects, is this algorithm correct:
When a gain occurs, maintain a collection of effects to be resolved (2BR) and a collection of resolved effects (RX).
1. At the moment of the gain, find all gain effects in the mix that are not yet in either collection and add them to 2BR. (A Sheepdog near the top of the deck is NOT YET in the mix, but both an active Gatekeeper and the Exile mat always are).
2. For each effect in 2BR: if its trigger is not enabled, add it to RX; (it won't ever be re-evaluated for THIS gain). This is how we avoid both Gatekeeper and the Exile mat both from ever both enabling.
3. An effect in 2BR is chosen and executed. Add it to RX.
4. Now, we check for any NEW effects in the mix (like a drawn Sheepdog). Rinse and repeat from step 2.

[Jeebus]

The reason is that the trigger itself is not retroactive.

So regarding how to process effects, is this algorithm correct:
When a gain occurs, maintain a collection of effects to be resolved (2BR) and a collection of resolved effects (RX).
1. At the moment of the gain, find all gain effects in the mix that are not yet in either collection and add them to 2BR. (A Sheepdog near the top of the deck is NOT YET in the mix, but both an active Gatekeeper and the Exile mat always are).
2. For each effect in 2BR: if its trigger is not enabled, add it to RX; (it won't ever be re-evaluated for THIS gain). This is how we avoid both Gatekeeper and the Exile mat both from ever both enabling.
3. An effect in 2BR is chosen and executed. Add it to RX.
4. Now, we check for any NEW effects in the mix (like a drawn Sheepdog). Rinse and repeat from step 2.

I don't think what you're describing covers it.

1. At the moment of gain, define what was gained, for instance "a Silver with type Treasure and cost $3 that you have an Exiled copy of".
2. Find all when-gain abilities that have a matching trigger and put them in 2BR.
3. An ability is chosen and resolved, and moved to RX.
4. We check for any new ability: go to step 2.

So if the Exile mat is resolved in step 3, Gatekeeper still won't be added, because its trigger doesn't match what was defined in step 1.

But if a Duplicate is gained, it's a card costing $4 (which is "up to $6"), so if you resolve Innovation's when-gain ability, playing the Duplicate (step 3), then when you go back to step 2, you find that Duplicate's own when-gain ability has a matching trigger, so it is added to 2BR: You may call Duplicate to gain a copy of the Duplicate.

[Jeebus]

Donald, I wonder if you could respond in this thread?

You stated on Discord back in February last year that Livery/Innovation should work like Haggler/Innovation, and I agree. You didn't make a public decision about Livery then, but in April you had made the decision that Livery works differently than Haggler, but I don't see that you gave a good explanation.

I remind you that you previously ruled that Silver/Merchant/Innovation works - which is equivalent to Livery/Innovation.

Haggler's when-buy ability, like Livery's when-gain, is limited by timing. Haggler only works from the moment it's in play, Livery from the moment it's played. In the Innovation scenarios, the gain/buy happened before Livery was played and before Haggler entered play. It's fine to rule that Livery/Innovation doesn't work, but then Haggler/Innovation should be reversed too.

And if Livery/Innovation does not work, neither can Hireling played at start of turn.* (The same goes for Prince, Lost in the Woods and Key played/taken at start of turn.)

A good model, as described by Ingix, is that all abilities trigger when something happens, and then no more abilites trigger during the window: You gain a card - all 10 Sheepdogs and all 10 Duplicates in the game trigger, but only those Groundskeepers that you have in play, and only those Liveries that were already played. If a Moat finds its way to your hand in the window, or a Duplicate to your Tavern mat, you can resolve them - they already triggered. But a Groundskeeper that enters play in the window didn't trigger. The same goes for Liveries that get played in the window. (When buying a card, only those Hagglers that you have in play trigger.) At start of turn, all 10 Ratcatchers trigger, but only those Hirelings that have been played.

The other way is that abilities can trigger during the window - Hagglers, Hirelings and Liveries...

---
* "Start of turn" is a moment in time (not a phase), just like "when you gain a card". It happens right before you start playing Action cards. All abilities trigger at the same time, and then you choose which to resolve first, etc. In both cases, new abilities can be added during the window. I absolutely don't see how you can say that these two windows are different.

[Donald X.]

Donald, I wonder if you could respond in this thread?

I'm there for you.

You stated on Discord back in February last year that Livery/Innovation should work like Haggler/Innovation, and I agree. You didn't make a public decision about Livery then, but in April you had made the decision that Livery works differently than Haggler, but I don't see that you gave a good explanation.

I remind you that you previously ruled that Silver/Merchant/Innovation works - which is equivalent to Livery/Innovation.

Haggler's when-buy ability, like Livery's when-gain, is limited by timing. Haggler only works from the moment it's in play, Livery from the moment it's played. In the Innovation scenarios, the gain/buy happened before Livery was played and before Haggler entered play. It's fine to rule that Livery/Innovation doesn't work, but then Haggler/Innovation should be reversed too.

And if Livery/Innovation does not work, neither can Hireling played at start of turn.* (The same goes for Prince, Lost in the Woods and Key played/taken at start of turn.)

A good model, as described by Ingix, is that all abilities trigger when something happens, and then no more abilites trigger during the window: You gain a card - all 10 Sheepdogs and all 10 Duplicates in the game trigger, but only those Groundskeepers that you have in play, and only those Liveries that were already played. If a Moat finds its way to your hand in the window, or a Duplicate to your Tavern mat, you can resolve them - they already triggered. But a Groundskeeper that enters play in the window didn't trigger. The same goes for Liveries that get played in the window. (When buying a card, only those Hagglers that you have in play trigger.) At start of turn, all 10 Ratcatchers trigger, but only those Hirelings that have been played.

The other way is that abilities can trigger during the window - Hagglers, Hirelings and Liveries...

---
* "Start of turn" is a moment in time (not a phase), just like "when you gain a card". It happens right before you start playing Action cards. All abilities trigger at the same time, and then you choose which to resolve first, etc. In both cases, new abilities can be added during the window. I absolutely don't see how you can say that these two windows are different.

The first thing is, that I should ignore Haggler for now, focus just on Livery. The best solution to "Haggler should work the same as Livery" ultimately is rewording Haggler to match Livery. I have come around to the idea of doing that, when next it's convenient. That doesn't mean that current-wording Haggler somehow doesn't require rulings; but, I only have so much time, I am saving time by not considering those rulings.

And next: what's most important, by far, is having simple rules to explain to people that cover the actual common cases they see in games. For example "this is how Livery works" is vastly more important than "this is how Livery plus Innovation works." Any ruling will ignore the result, which I don't care about, and just focus on, what falls out of the best explanation for normal people about the most common situations.

By that metric I can easily rule out Ingix's model. I would feel like a madman trying to explain that to people.

This question always comes back to Moat / Secret Chamber. I think people in general find it weird and confusing that you can trigger Sheepdog and draw a Sheepdog and also play that Sheepdog. But it's a weird confusing thing with a lot of weight behind it in the history of Dominion. There could be separate rules for hidden triggers and non-hidden ones; it seems simpler to have them all work the same, though that may not be true.

My current ruling is that Livery / Innovation gets you a Horse.

[Jeebus]

My current ruling is that Livery / Innovation gets you a Horse.

Thanks for your reply. So just to clarify, you're changing the ruling you gave back in April? It's not so clear from the rest of your answer, so that's why I'm double-checking.

I support this ruling, because then the rules are consistent with Haggler/Innovation, and Hireling at start of turn, as it currently stands. But I still want to respond to what you wrote about Ingix's model.

And next: what's most important, by far, is having simple rules to explain to people that cover the actual common cases they see in games. For example "this is how Livery works" is vastly more important than "this is how Livery plus Innovation works." Any ruling will ignore the result, which I don't care about, and just focus on, what falls out of the best explanation for normal people about the most common situations.

By that metric I can easily rule out Ingix's model. I would feel like a madman trying to explain that to people.

I don't think the model says anything about "this is how Livery works" (without Innovation).

Consider that this model already has support in Dominion. We know that cards trigger wherever they are: Hunting Grounds in the supply trigger when you trash them with Lurker. So a Sheepdog triggering before you draw it is actually how Dominion already works. But more importantly, if you wanted to rule that things that haven't been activated yet don't retroactively work, like with Livery/Innovation, this would be exactly what this model explains. (It would also mean that Haggler, Hireling etc. work differently in these special situations.) In short, if you actually needed to explain why Sheepdog can be played but you don't get a Horse from Livery, basing it on this model would be less complicated than anything else I've seen.

This question always comes back to Moat / Secret Chamber. I think people in general find it weird and confusing that you can trigger Sheepdog and draw a Sheepdog and also play that Sheepdog. But it's a weird confusing thing with a lot of weight behind it in the history of Dominion. There could be separate rules for hidden triggers and non-hidden ones; it seems simpler to have them all work the same, though that may not be true.

Then I would go for separate rules for Reactions.

[Donald X.]

Thanks for your reply. So just to clarify, you're changing the ruling you gave back in April? It's not so clear from the rest of your answer, so that's why I'm double-checking.

Time does not permit going back and looking at old rulings.

I don't think the model says anything about "this is how Livery works" (without Innovation).

I can't further consider Ingix's model at this time. Ingix is super helpful and is improving the game and that particular idea I could immediately reject.

Then I would go for separate rules for Reactions.

I try not to tie myself to bad precedents, but it seems late for that. I'm not sure it would be as simple as that either (what's distinct here is that the triggering card was hidden, not that it was a Reaction). And then, if Reactions work differently, well, that still leaves you playing all of your Sheepdogs. It can't be e.g. you put all the Reactions on the table and then resolve them one at a time (which fixes Sheepdog confusion); that couldn't fit on the card, it would have to be tied into e.g. a card type, and then the card type Reaction couldn't mean that because Reactions aren't all like that, they are different things. So then I'm making a new type to tie these rules to it (or a keyword unexplained in the text), or going to microtext. If it were day one then of course that could be what Reactions were, and they would all work that way.

[GendoIkari]

My one issue with a different rule for reactions is that it’s pretty arbitrary whether or not something is a reaction. Fortress certainly could have been. As I understood it from years ago, the idea was it was a reaction if it triggered from a hidden place. But now we have Patron. I believe the rule is that it’s a reaction if Donald feels like it’s a good idea to help people pay attention to it at abnormal times by giving it a different color. Which, is basically pretty arbitrary. I like that reactions, like attacks, are just a helpful indicator and not something with specific rules attached.

[Jeebus]

Then I would go for separate rules for Reactions.

I try not to tie myself to bad precedents, but it seems late for that. I'm not sure it would be as simple as that either (what's distinct here is that the triggering card was hidden, not that it was a Reaction). And then, if Reactions work differently, well, that still leaves you playing all of your Sheepdogs. It can't be e.g. you put all the Reactions on the table and then resolve them one at a time (which fixes Sheepdog confusion); that couldn't fit on the card, it would have to be tied into e.g. a card type, and then the card type Reaction couldn't mean that because Reactions aren't all like that, they are different things. So then I'm making a new type to tie these rules to it (or a keyword unexplained in the text), or going to microtext. If it were day one then of course that could be what Reactions were, and they would all work that way.

When you mentioned separate rules for hidden triggers and non-hidden ones, I thought you meant keeping Moat / Secret Chamber and Sheepdog as is. Saying that the current "window rule" only applies to Reactions would solve that, I think. Faithful Hound, Patron, Tunnel and Village Green would be the only ones that are not hidden, but I don't think the "window rule" could ever apply to them anyway, since they only trigger on themselves.

That would eliminate all Innovation related scenarios like this. But, since the Reactions Sheepdog, Falconer and Black Cat allow any card to be played on "when-gain" (via Way of the Mouse), you could still in rare cases get Haggler etc. entering play.

My one issue with a different rule for reactions is that it’s pretty arbitrary whether or not something is a reaction. Fortress certainly could have been. As I understood it from years ago, the idea was it was a reaction if it triggered from a hidden place. But now we have Patron. I believe the rule is that it’s a reaction if Donald feels like it’s a good idea to help people pay attention to it at abnormal times by giving it a different color. Which, is basically pretty arbitrary. I like that reactions, like attacks, are just a helpful indicator and not something with specific rules attached.

There are rules for Reactions. You can resolve a Reaction in your hand several times. And the newish rule that the players can keep resolving Reactions as long as someone does something.

[GendoIkari]

There are rules for Reactions. You can resolve a Reaction in your hand several times. And the newish rule that the players can keep resolving Reactions as long as someone does something.

But these rules deal more with hidden knowledge than with the reaction type. The official rule may be pertaining to only reactions, but it also only pertains to reactions in your hand, and it's there because you can't prove whether you have a second Secret Chamber or just the same one twice. With cards that aren't in your hand, like Patron vs Fortress, a rule that made one act differently than the other just because one happens to be a reaction would be putting more weight on the fact that one happens to be a reaction than currently exists. Right now it's a little inconsistent that one is a reaction while the other is not, but it's an irrelevant inconsistency that has no rules implications.

[Jeebus]

The rules we're talking about only concern Reactions. It's easier and better to refer to "Reactions" or "Reactions in your hand" than "cards in your hand that do something based on something else happening" or similar.

And I'm pretty sure that Patron being included if we only say "Reactions" also has no rules implications.

[GendoIkari]

The rules we're talking about only concern Reactions. It's easier and better to refer to "Reactions" or "Reactions in your hand" than "cards in your hand that do something based on something else happening" or similar.

And I'm pretty sure that Patron being included if we only say "Reactions" also has no rules implications.

Sure, I didn't mean to suggest that the current reactions rules should be re-worded to avoid making them reaction-specific. I'm just saying that for a potential new rule that deals with the scope of triggering windows as it related to things like Livery, Priest, Way of the Seal, etc; should probably be related to the fact that those have on-play abilities that don't exist until the card is played. Whereas Sheepdog and Fortress just have things that are always active and available.

In other words, if there's a rule that makes Sheepdog different than Livery, then that exact same rule would and should make Fortress act like Sheepdog as well. So it can't be Sheepdog being a reaction that makes Sheepdog different than Livery.

[Jeebus]

Sure, I didn't mean to suggest that the current reactions rules should be re-worded to avoid making them reaction-specific. I'm just saying that for a potential new rule that deals with the scope of triggering windows as it related to things like Livery, Priest, Way of the Seal, etc; should probably be related to the fact that those have on-play abilities that don't exist until the card is played. Whereas Sheepdog and Fortress just have things that are always active and available.

In other words, if there's a rule that makes Sheepdog different than Livery, then that exact same rule would and should make Fortress act like Sheepdog as well. So it can't be Sheepdog being a reaction that makes Sheepdog different than Livery.

Then I think you misunderstood the part of my post that you responded to. I was just replying to Donald's comment about "separate rules for hidden triggers and non-hidden ones", thinking that he meant keeping the "window" rule for all hidden triggers (meaning all Reactions in your hand) - as it has been since Moat / Secret Chamber - but removing the rule for EVERYTHING non-hidden. So it was not about how to separate Livery from Sheepdog and Fortress. And to be clear, this was not something he said he would do now. It was a side-comment to the main topic.