Print

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

[Jeebus]

   

Back during the previews I found on Discord that Donald tentatively ruled that with Sorcerer, if you're deck is empty, you don't gain a Curse. I wonder if this has been reversed? I'm not so sure it's right.

The card text "if wrong" must mean "if it's not the named card".

Giant says (simplified): "if it costs from $3 to $6, trash it; otherwise gain a Curse". If your deck is empty, you gain a Curse (per the current ruling).

What if we turn it around: "if it doesn't cost from $3 to $6, gain a Curse; otherwise trash it". It should work the same, you gain a Curse. Meaning, if there is no card, the card doesn't cost from $3 to $6.

Another interpretation would be, when there is no card, it's always "otherwise": "it" neither does nor doesn't cost anything. The problem with this is that then "otherwise" is not true either, since it directly refers to whether the card costs from $3 to $6. So under this interpretation, Giant would not do anything when your deck is empty.

Following the first interpretation:

Sorceress says: "if it's the named card, each other player gains a Curse". If there is no card, it can't be the named card, so no Curses.

Sorcerer says: "if it's not the named card, gain a Curse". If there is no card, it can't be the named card, so you gain a Curse.

[Jack Rudd]

My interpretation:

"If wrong" on Sorceror means "the card on top of your deck is a card that is not the named card".

"Otherwise" on Giant means "it is not true that the card on top of your deck costs $3-$6".

[Jeebus]

My interpretation:

"If wrong" on Sorceror means "the card on top of your deck is a card that is not the named card".

"Otherwise" on Giant means "it is not true that the card on top of your deck costs $3-$6".

For Sorcerer, that's really putting more into it than the card supports. You're adding a clause that there has to be a card on top of your deck. "If wrong" means "if you named the wrong card"; that much is clear.

A) "if you named the wrong card, gain a Curse; if you didn't, don't gain a Curse"
or
B) "if you named the right card, don't gain a Curse; if you didn't, gain a Curse"

With no card, we could interpret both of these as failing, but then both clauses should be failing, so neither A nor B would give you a Curse. But then Giant should also fail and not give you a Curse.

[GendoIkari]

Coming from a database background, if value is NULL, then both "value == 1" and "value != 1" are both false. Value is neither 1 nor is it not 1.

To me Sorcerer reads the same way. When there is no card on top of your deck, your guess was neither wrong nor was it not wrong. So you don't gain a Curse.

I think this is consistent with the ruling on Giant, and disagree with your interpretation of "otherwise" on Giant. Otherwise simply means "if the previous condition was not met". Same as "else" in programming. When looking at "otherwise", you don't check your condition again; you don't check to see if it cost from to again. You just care about whether the previous check was true or not.

Which means that if Giant turned the wording around like you suggest, then yes, the "otherwise" would still happen.

[Jeebus]

Coming from a database background, if value is NULL, then both "value == 1" and "value != 1" are both false. Value is neither 1 nor is it not 1.

To me Sorcerer reads the same way. When there is no card on top of your deck, your guess was neither wrong nor was it not wrong. So you don't gain a Curse.

I think this is consistent with the ruling on Giant, and disagree with your interpretation of "otherwise" on Giant. Otherwise simply means "if the previous condition was not met". Same as "else" in programming. When looking at "otherwise", you don't check your condition again; you don't check to see if it cost from to again. You just care about whether the previous check was true or not.

Which means that if Giant turned the wording around like you suggest, then yes, the "otherwise" would still happen.

Then these two would produce different results, which I think is weird:

A) "if you named the wrong card, gain a Curse; otherwise, don't gain a Curse"
or
B) "if you named the right card, don't gain a Curse; otherwise, gain a Curse"

[Jeebus]

Also, the point with "otherwise" isn't that you check the condition again, it's that it is only executed if the condition was untrue. Since it was neither true nor untrue, the sentence as a whole fails, including the "otherwise" clause. This is similar to "gain a card costing $2 more than the trashed card" when there is no trashed card.
That is to say: I agree that you care about whether the previous check was true or not, but NULL is neither true nor untrue.

[GendoIkari]

Coming from a database background, if value is NULL, then both "value == 1" and "value != 1" are both false. Value is neither 1 nor is it not 1.

To me Sorcerer reads the same way. When there is no card on top of your deck, your guess was neither wrong nor was it not wrong. So you don't gain a Curse.

I think this is consistent with the ruling on Giant, and disagree with your interpretation of "otherwise" on Giant. Otherwise simply means "if the previous condition was not met". Same as "else" in programming. When looking at "otherwise", you don't check your condition again; you don't check to see if it cost from to again. You just care about whether the previous check was true or not.

Which means that if Giant turned the wording around like you suggest, then yes, the "otherwise" would still happen.

Then these two would produce different results, which I think is weird:

A) "if you named the wrong card, gain a Curse; otherwise, don't gain a Curse"
or
B) "if you named the right card, don't gain a Curse; otherwise, gain a Curse"

I can see why it would seem weird, but it seems right to me. In both cases you should execute the "otherwise" because what it is checking for fails. It only seems weird if you think of right vs wrong as a binary choice; the only options. But once you allow for a third option, that you guess was neither right nor wrong, it makes more sense. And that's exactly what happens when your deck was empty, your guess is neither right nor wrong.

[GendoIkari]

Also, the point with "otherwise" isn't that you check the condition again, it's that it is only executed if the condition was untrue. Since it was neither true nor untrue, the sentence as a whole fails, including the "otherwise" clause. This is similar to "gain a card costing $2 more than the trashed card" when there is no trashed card.
That is to say: I agree that you care about whether if the previous check was true or not, but NULL is neither true nor untrue.

No, the condition was still false, but not because its opposite was true. I missed clarifying this previously, but there's a difference between:

if(value != 1)
and
if(!(value == 1))

^The above 2 ifs would usually be the same, but not in the case where value is null. In that case, both value == 1 and value != 1 are false, so the second statement would be true (a double negative).

In the case of Sorcerer with an empty deck, you have:

If guess is wrong (returns false)
If guess is right (returns false)
If guess is not wrong (returns false)
If not guess is wrong (returns true)

"Otherwise" means the last one. In the case of Giant, "otherwise" is not "if it doesn't cost from to ". Otherwise is instead "if it wasn't true that it does cost from to ".

[Jeebus]

That all checks out for computer language, but not for human language. "If not your guess is wrong" doesn't exist in human language, or if it does, it means the same as "if your guess is not wrong". Or to put it another way:

"If your dog is dead, you must feel sad. Otherwise you must feel happy."
If you have no dog, neither applies. You're neither sad nor happy as per this statement.

If the conditional contains a premise that is untrue ("you have a dog" or "you are looking at a card"), then you can't evaluate it, and you can't evauluate what would "otherwise" apply either. If you think about how human language works, I would think this is pretty obvious actually.

[GendoIkari]

While you’re correct that my analysis was focused all on how computer language works, I do think that in regular English, “otherwise” can be correctly read as “if the previous thing was not true”. And that “your guess was not wrong” doesn’t mean the same thing as “your guess was right”.  Donald’s ruling for both Sorcerer and Giant seem consistent that in both cases, if you didn’t do the “if X” thing then you instead do the “otherwise” thing.

Obviously context matters a lot with English, and I think your interpretation can also work. But the interpretation that says that you always will do either the “if” or the “otherwise” is both common and valid as well.

To change up your dog example a little, how about “if you killed your wife, you are going to jail. Otherwise, you aren’t”. Surely someone who is single will not go to jail for killing their wife, right? You don’t say that they neither go to jail nor not go to jail.. the “otherwise” applies to them just as much as it would to a married person who didn’t kill their wife.

Or “if the cheapest action costs $3 or less, I’m buying it. Otherwise I’m buying a Silver.” Then I see the Kingdom and there are no actions at all in it. I’m still buying a Silver even though there is no “cheapest action” to find out the cost of.

[dz]

I don't feel any desire in participating in this conversation, but I will mention that anyone arguing that Sorcerer should match Gladiator, has conveniently forgotten that Bounty Hunter doesn't match either of them.

I have no idea why Giant is in the conversation. Sorcerer doesn't have an "otherwise," that sure seems important. Different card wordings mean that different cards work differently. And no I'm not saying "we don't need consistent rulings;" I'm saying, you should only apply the rulings from one card to another card, if they have similar wordings. (What does Barbarian do to an empty deck? Well Giant has a similar wording  and the ruling is you follow the "otherwise", so Barbarian means you should also follow the "otherwise", hooray.) Applying them to much different wordings is a pointless exercise.

I am not sympathetic to any complaints about Sorcerer's wording. Complain about how pathetic it is instead. Sorcerer is easily the weakest Wizard (considering that the other 3 are pretty good, this doesn't mean much, but still), and it's in the running for weakest card in the expansion.

[Jeebus]

And that “your guess was not wrong” doesn’t mean the same thing as “your guess was right”.

I really think that it does.

Obviously context matters a lot with English

Agreed. Which makes this tricky.

To change up your dog example a little, how about “if you killed your wife, you are going to jail. Otherwise, you aren’t”. Surely someone who is single will not go to jail for killing their wife, right? You don’t say that they neither go to jail nor not go to jail.. the “otherwise” applies to them just as much as it would to a married person who didn’t kill their wife.

In your example, "not going to jail" means not doing anything, which just happens to be the same as not following any of the options. If you don't comply with the premise, you don't follow either of the options. Not following an option doesn't mean to do the opposite of it, it means to do nothing. Not following "don't go to jail" doesn't mean "go to jail". It's like not even reading the instruction.

"if you killed your wife, you are going to jail. Otherwise, you aren’t going to jail"
If you're married (and not a killer), you need to check what it says after "otherwise". If you're unmarried, you don't need to.

Or “if the cheapest action costs $3 or less, I’m buying it. Otherwise I’m buying a Silver.” Then I see the Kingdom and there are no actions at all in it. I’m still buying a Silver even though there is no “cheapest action” to find out the cost of.

I don't think that's necessarily true actually. To me, this is exactly like Giant.

[Jeebus]

I don't feel any desire in participating in this conversation, but I will mention that anyone arguing that Sorcerer should match Gladiator, has conveniently forgotten that Bounty Hunter doesn't match either of them.

I don't undestand why any of those two cards are relevant?

I have no idea why Giant is in the conversation. Sorcerer doesn't have an "otherwise," that sure seems important.

Because if we turn Giant around (as in my first post), it gets a negative conditional, like Sorcerer. Of course, if we then disagree about what turned-around Giant would actually do (like me and Gendo), we're not necessarily getting anywhere anyway.

[Jeebus]

So I'm thinking that the only interpretation that makes complete sense, is that the whole sentence fails when the premise is wrong. Then all of these would mean that you do nothing with an empty deck, which is satisfying since they mean the same thing:
A) "if you named the wrong card, gain a Curse; otherwise, don't gain a Curse"
B) "if you named the right card, don't gain a Curse; otherwise, gain a Curse"
C) "if it's not the named card, gain a Curse".

It would also mean that Giant doesn't do anything when your deck is empty.

But since we have the ruling that Giant does do something, how does it make sense? My interpretation was: if there is no card, the card doesn't have a cost or name. This means that "if the card is" = false, and "if the card isn't" = true. Then Giant would mean the same also when we turn the wording around. It would mean that you gain a Curse from B and C, but I'm not sure about A.

I'm not sure how much that interpretation actually makes sense any more. I mean, it follows a consistent rule, but the basis for the rule is maybe just made up. I also think the same about Gendo's interpretation. But since we have the ruling on Giant, we have to have some kind of consistent rule. I guess it could be any of them.

[dz]

I have no idea why Giant is in the conversation. Sorcerer doesn't have an "otherwise," that sure seems important.

Because if we turn Giant around (as in my first post), it gets a negative conditional, like Sorcerer. Of course, if we then disagree about what turned-around Giant would actually do (like me and Gendo), we're not necessarily getting anywhere anyway.

I'm not seeing why turning Giant around has any hope of doing anything useful. The solution to awful hypothetical wordings is to fix the wording, not analyze them.

I don't feel any desire in participating in this conversation, but I will mention that anyone arguing that Sorcerer should match Gladiator, has conveniently forgotten that Bounty Hunter doesn't match either of them.

I don't understand why any of those two cards are relevant?

-If you reveal nothing with Gladiator, you get +$1.
-If you trash nothing with Remodel, you don't gain a card.
-If you exile nothing with Bounty Hunter, you don't get +$3.
-If you reveal nothing with Sorceress, you won't give out a Curse.
-If another player reveals nothing with Sorcerer, what happens?

Notice that Gladiator is the oddball. What's the difference? The other player revealing a copy is optional. It's just that they can't reveal a copy of "nothing," so they automatically fail the minigame.

Meanwhile Remodel, Sorceress and Bounty Hunter are mandatory (you can't decline to trash/exile, and you can't decline to play the guessing game), and if those cards fail to find a card they fail to do anything. Sorcerer is mandatory (they can't decline to reveal a card), which seems to match with Bounty Hunter and Sorceress instead of Gladiator.

If you really wanted to apply this to Giant, then sure you could argue that Remodel/Gladiator/Bounty Hunter/Sorceress/Sorcerer also say "otherwise, do nothing" (and they're not written on the card to avoid confusing regular humans). If those cards fail to find a card, you do the "otherwise" instead, which usually is "do nothing," but if it's Giant, then you give out a Curse.

[GendoIkari]

And that “your guess was not wrong” doesn’t mean the same thing as “your guess was right”.

I really think that it does.

Just to clarify this part... are you saying that every guess must be either "right" or "wrong", with no room for a guess being neither? if a card says "Guess the top card of your deck. Reveal the top card of your deck. If your guess was wrong, do X. If your guess was right, do Y" then you will always do either X or Y? Even if your deck is empty? Which one do you do when you have an empty deck? Was your guess wrong?

[Donald X.]

Back during the previews I found on Discord that Donald tentatively ruled that with Sorcerer, if you're deck is empty, you don't gain a Curse. I wonder if this has been reversed? I'm not so sure it's right.

I don't remember that discussion, or if anyone made some great points during it. My initial reading today of Sorcerer is, that "wrong" means "not right" and if there's no card you are not right and so gain a Curse.

[GendoIkari]

Back during the previews I found on Discord that Donald tentatively ruled that with Sorcerer, if you're deck is empty, you don't gain a Curse. I wonder if this has been reversed? I'm not so sure it's right.

I don't remember that discussion, or if anyone made some great points during it. My initial reading today of Sorcerer is, that "wrong" means "not right" and if there's no card you are not right and so gain a Curse.

I forget, what are the rules for "name a card" again? I believe you can name basically anything, it doesn't have to be a real Dominion card, right? If that's correct, I feel like this ruling could cause rules-lawyering arguments around the table if someone names "no card" or something like that.

Come to think of it, Sorcerer is super unclear about what being "wrong" means at all. It just tells you to name a card, it never even says to name the top card of your deck, or that the card you are naming is meant as a guess for the top of your deck. Wishing Well is far more specific, asking "if you named it". Any reason Sorcerer doesn't use the same wording; "if they didn't name it"?

[Jeebus]

Back during the previews I found on Discord that Donald tentatively ruled that with Sorcerer, if you're deck is empty, you don't gain a Curse. I wonder if this has been reversed? I'm not so sure it's right.

I don't remember that discussion, or if anyone made some great points during it. My initial reading today of Sorcerer is, that "wrong" means "not right" and if there's no card you are not right and so gain a Curse.

Yeah, that's what I was saying in my first post too. But as Dz made me realize, it seems to contradict the ruling on Bounty Hunter. If there's no card you don't have a copy in Exile, so by the same token, shouldn't you get +$3?

[Jeebus]

I have no idea why Giant is in the conversation. Sorcerer doesn't have an "otherwise," that sure seems important.

Because if we turn Giant around (as in my first post), it gets a negative conditional, like Sorcerer. Of course, if we then disagree about what turned-around Giant would actually do (like me and Gendo), we're not necessarily getting anywhere anyway.

I'm not seeing why turning Giant around has any hope of doing anything useful. The solution to awful hypothetical wordings is to fix the wording, not analyze them.

I don't feel any desire in participating in this conversation, but I will mention that anyone arguing that Sorcerer should match Gladiator, has conveniently forgotten that Bounty Hunter doesn't match either of them.

I don't understand why any of those two cards are relevant?

-If you reveal nothing with Gladiator, you get +$1.
-If you trash nothing with Remodel, you don't gain a card.
-If you exile nothing with Bounty Hunter, you don't get +$3.
-If you reveal nothing with Sorceress, you won't give out a Curse.
-If another player reveals nothing with Sorcerer, what happens?

Notice that Gladiator is the oddball. What's the difference? The other player revealing a copy is optional. It's just that they can't reveal a copy of "nothing," so they automatically fail the minigame.

Meanwhile Remodel, Sorceress and Bounty Hunter are mandatory (you can't decline to trash/exile, and you can't decline to play the guessing game), and if those cards fail to find a card they fail to do anything. Sorcerer is mandatory (they can't decline to reveal a card), which seems to match with Bounty Hunter and Sorceress instead of Gladiator.

If you really wanted to apply this to Giant, then sure you could argue that Remodel/Gladiator/Bounty Hunter/Sorceress/Sorcerer also say "otherwise, do nothing" (and they're not written on the card to avoid confusing regular humans). If those cards fail to find a card, you do the "otherwise" instead, which usually is "do nothing," but if it's Giant, then you give out a Curse.

No, the reason Gladiaor is different is not because it's optional. Notice that if we remove "may", it works exactly the same. The reason is that it's a different kind of conditional. The conditional on Gladiator ("If you don't reveal a card") doesn't have a premise that can be untrue. On Sorcerer, Giant and Bounty Hunter, the conditional assumes that there is a card, but that premise might be false, and in that case we can't evaluate the conditional. There is no assumption on Gladiator; we can always evaluete whether you revealed a card or not. If you have no cards in you're hand, it's just "you didn't reveal one", a clearly false conditional. So Gladiator is irrelevant.

Good call on Bounty Hunter though. It has a negative conditional, and so does seem to match Sorcerer, at least if we interpret Sorcerer as "if it's not the named card", or "if you didn't guess right".

Remodel doesn't even have a conditional, so is not directly comparable. But of course it does have a premise in the instruction: that there is a (trashed) card. So it tells us (as I pointed out earlier) that when the premise fails, the instruction fails. That's why it's really seeming to me like the most consistent interpretation is that the whole instruction fails on Giant, Sorcerer and Bounty Hunter when there is no card. Nothing happens.

[Jeebus]

And that “your guess was not wrong” doesn’t mean the same thing as “your guess was right”.

I really think that it does.

Just to clarify this part... are you saying that every guess must be either "right" or "wrong", with no room for a guess being neither? if a card says "Guess the top card of your deck. Reveal the top card of your deck. If your guess was wrong, do X. If your guess was right, do Y" then you will always do either X or Y? Even if your deck is empty? Which one do you do when you have an empty deck? Was your guess wrong?

No, I didn't mean that that every guess must be either right or wrong. If there is no card, there is no guess actually. Sure, you can name a card, but it's not a guess. It's like asking: if there is no card, was the card "the named card", "not the named card" or "neither"? That question has no answer, because there is no card. We can't even say that "the card was neither".

I just meant what I said before: "If not your guess is wrong" doesn't exist in human language, or if it does, it means the same as "if your guess is not wrong".
This means that "if your guess was wrong / otherwise" means "if your guess was wrong / if you're guess was right".
So if there is no guess (no card), you can't evaluate either of the two conditionals.

[GendoIkari]

And that “your guess was not wrong” doesn’t mean the same thing as “your guess was right”.

I really think that it does.

Just to clarify this part... are you saying that every guess must be either "right" or "wrong", with no room for a guess being neither? if a card says "Guess the top card of your deck. Reveal the top card of your deck. If your guess was wrong, do X. If your guess was right, do Y" then you will always do either X or Y? Even if your deck is empty? Which one do you do when you have an empty deck? Was your guess wrong?

No, I didn't mean that that every guess must be either right or wrong. If there is no card, there is no guess actually. Sure, you can name a card, but it's not a guess. It's like asking: if there is no card, was the card "the named card", "not the named card" or "neither"? That question has no answer, because there is no card. We can't even say that "the card was neither".

I just meant what I said before: "If not your guess is wrong" doesn't exist in human language, or if it does, it means the same as "if your guess is not wrong".
This means that "if your guess was wrong / otherwise" means "if your guess was wrong / if you're guess was right".
So if there is no guess (no card), you can't evaluate either of the two conditionals.

Doesn’t this contradict what Donald just said; and you agreeing with him? He said that wrong means “not right”, so if there is no card on top of your deck then your guess was wrong.

[Jeebus]

Doesn’t this contradict what Donald just said; and you agreeing with him? He said that wrong means “not right”, so if there is no card on top of your deck then your guess was wrong.

This thread has gotten complicated. There are several ways of looking at this. In my first post I was saying more or less what Donald said now; I called it my first interpretation - (1). I said that another interpretation could be that the conditional is neither true nor false, so then we do the "otherwise" option; this is what you have been arguing - (2). But I said that the problem with that is, if the conditional is neither true nor false, then "otherwise" fails too - (3).

Then later I wrote that I think that (3) is the only one that really makes sense. But we can't have (3), since it would contradict how Giant is supposed to work. So then it could either be (1) or (2), none of which I think makes total sense. But in my last reply to you, I was still talking about how (3) should be right.

Donald has now supported (1), which is in line with Giant, but doesn't seem to be in line with Bounty Hunter.

So, if I'm not mistaken...
(1): Giant gives Curse (as ruling), Bounty Hunter gives +$3 (NOT as ruling), Sorcerer gives Curse (as ruling)
(2): Giant gives Curse (as ruling), Bounty Hunter gives nothing (as ruling), Sorcerer gives nothing (NOT as ruling)
(3): Giant gives nothing (NOT as ruling), Bounty Hunter gives nothing (as ruling), Sorcerer gives nothing (NOT as ruling)

Your interpretation (2) was actually in line with all three cards given Donald's first Sorcerer ruling from Discord (which you were arguing for). So I'll give you that!

[GendoIkari]

Doesn’t this contradict what Donald just said; and you agreeing with him? He said that wrong means “not right”, so if there is no card on top of your deck then your guess was wrong.

This thread has gotten complicated. There are several ways of looking at this. In my first post I was saying more or less what Donald said now; I called it my first interpretation - (1). I said that another interpretation could be that the conditional is neither true nor false, so then we do the "otherwise" option; this is what you have been arguing - (2). But I said that the problem with that is, if the conditional is neither true nor false, then "otherwise" fails too - (3).

Then later I wrote that I think that (3) is the only one that really makes sense. But we can't have (3), since it would contradict how Giant is supposed to work. So then it could either be (1) or (2), none of which I think makes total sense. But in my last reply to you, I was still talking about how (3) should be right.

Donald has now supported (1), which is in line with Giant, but doesn't seem to be in line with Bounty Hunter.

So, if I'm not mistaken...
(1): Giant gives Curse (as ruling), Bounty Hunter gives +$3 (NOT as ruling), Sorcerer gives Curse (as ruling)
(2): Giant gives Curse (as ruling), Bounty Hunter gives nothing (as ruling), Sorcerer gives nothing (NOT as ruling)
(3): Giant gives nothing (NOT as ruling), Bounty Hunter gives nothing (as ruling), Sorcerer gives nothing (NOT as ruling)

Your interpretation (2) was actually in line with all three cards given Donald's first Sorcerer ruling from Discord (which you were arguing for). So I'll give you that!

Thanks for all the clarification! I think 2 might work with the Sorcerer discrepancy being explained by the fact that Sorcerer uses weird wording. It doesn't say "if it was not the named card", like Sorceress or "if you didn't name it" like Wishing Well. It says "if wrong". Now, I grant that the best interpretation of "if wrong" would be either of those 2 options I just mentioned. But if instead we interpret "wrong" to simply mean "failed to name a card and then reveal a card with that name from the top of your deck", then Donald's current Sorceress ruling still works with interpretation 2. Sorceress gives a Curse because you didn't reveal a card with a matching name.

Since Donald already "ruled" that "wrong" means "not right", we can reverse that, and say that "right" means "you named a card and then revealed a card with that name from the top of your deck". You can kind of look at it similar to a card that says "reveal the top card of your deck. If you did, +". If your deck is empty, you don't get your because you failed to reveal a card.

This is a slightly modified version of my original argument for interpretation #2, because before I was saying that you are neither right nor wrong, that like you just said you never even really made a guess. But instead we're saying that you're always wrong if you did not both 1) name a card and 2) reveal that card.

[Donald X.]

Back during the previews I found on Discord that Donald tentatively ruled that with Sorcerer, if you're deck is empty, you don't gain a Curse. I wonder if this has been reversed? I'm not so sure it's right.

I don't remember that discussion, or if anyone made some great points during it. My initial reading today of Sorcerer is, that "wrong" means "not right" and if there's no card you are not right and so gain a Curse.

Yeah, that's what I was saying in my first post too. But as Dz made me realize, it seems to contradict the ruling on Bounty Hunter. If there's no card you don't have a copy in Exile, so by the same token, shouldn't you get +$3?

I see. The key thing about Bounty Hunter is it refers to an "it" which, if there was no card, doesn't exist. "If you didn't have a copy of it in Exile, +$3." We can't check if undefined is in Exile. Is the reasoning. And I mean, while I don't so much care how this goes in terms of power level (as usual the most important thing is making the card clear and understandable for normal use cases, not this exotic one), the idea is, you put something into Exile that wasn't there before, which requires actually putting something into Exile.

Man let's look at them all like that briefly. Intentions get you nowhere in terms of "what does this rules text do" but it's sure interesting for "how should this be phrased."
- Bounty Hunter is about exiling a new card. You have to exile a card to do that.
- Sorceress is about naming your top card. You need a top card to do that.
- Sorcerer is about the same thing; you haven't proven yourself by naming that card if there was no card. OTOH you haven't failed if we couldn't test you. It really comes down to wording.
- Giant is supposed to give you a Curse if it didn't trash something.

The ideal rulings with no card are: Bounty Hunter does not give +$3; Sorceress fails to Curse, Sorcerer dunno; Giant Curses.

Sorceress says "if it's the named card"; Sorcerer hides the "it" (not intentionally or anything) with "if wrong."

"Each other player names a card, then reveals the top card of their deck. If wrong, they gain a Curse."
"Each other player names a card, then reveals the top card of their deck. If it's not the named card, they gain a Curse."

Giant says "If it's face up, +$5, and each other player reveals the top card of his deck, trashes it if it costs from $3 to $6, and otherwise discards it and gains a Curse." Man, "his"? Ah, a mistake in the wiki, it doesn't have the current text in the corner there.

Bounty Hunter's "undefined" thing here produces: Bounty Hunter does not give +$3; Sorceress fails to Curse; Sorcerer does not Curse; Giant does not Curse. That's not so bad.

The wordings the cards would get if I valued "having the card text make these rulings clear" more than everything else I actually value more, would be:
- "If you Exiled a card you didn't have a copy of in Exile, +$3.
- "If you revealed the named card, each other player gains a Curse."
- Either "If they didn't reveal the named card, they gain a Curse" or "If they revealed a card they didn't name, they gain a Curse."
- "...from $3 to $6, and otherwise discards it. If they didn't trash a card, they gain a Curse."

Those wordings are not actually so bad, except Giant's. It's not like I have to be attached to Giant Cursing in the ubiquitous no-card case though. "...from $3 to $6. If it doesn't, they discard it and gain a Curse." No, that returns you to Bounty Hunter territory. Plus Giant is tiny text already.  "...from $3 to $6, and otherwise discards it. If they discarded it, they gain a Curse." I mean that's not great.

Time does not permit working more on this today.

[Jeebus]

The wordings the cards would get if I valued "having the card text make these rulings clear" more than everything else I actually value more, would be:
- "If you Exiled a card you didn't have a copy of in Exile, +$3.
- "If you revealed the named card, each other player gains a Curse."
- Either "If they didn't reveal the named card, they gain a Curse" or "If they revealed a card they didn't name, they gain a Curse."
- "...from $3 to $6, and otherwise discards it. If they didn't trash a card, they gain a Curse."

Those wordings are not actually so bad, except Giant's. It's not like I have to be attached to Giant Cursing in the ubiquitous no-card case though. "...from $3 to $6. If it doesn't, they discard it and gain a Curse." No, that returns you to Bounty Hunter territory. Plus Giant is tiny text already.  "...from $3 to $6, and otherwise discards it. If they discarded it, they gain a Curse." I mean that's not great.

Time does not permit working more on this today.

I'm not sure if you're considering actually changing the cards. I guess it's not necessary and it seems like there would be problems with space. (But it would be nice if Sorcerer actually expressed a connection between the named card and the revealed card. As Gendo mentioned, it's the only "name a card" card that doesn't actually say why you're naming a card.)

Although ideally all wordings would be technically accurate, as you've said many times it's not always even desirable. On these cards it would perhaps be nice, but I think it's also fine to say that certain wordings have a slightly different intention behind them which is only relevant in corner cases. With your ideal clear wordings:

Bounty Hunter:
(Exile a card...) If you didn't have a copy of it in Exile --> If you Exiled a card you didn't have a copy of in Exile
Giant:
(trashes it if...) and otherwise discards it and gains a Curse --> If they didn't trash a card, they gain a Curse
Sorceress:
(Reveal the top card...) If it's the named card --> If you revealed the named card
Sorcerer:
(reveals the top card...) If wrong --> If they didn't reveal the named card

I think that's the best Sorcerer wording, since it follows Sorceress's wording.
Saying that this is the intention of the cards would produce the ideal rulings (and Sorcerer would Curse).

Bounty Hunter's "undefined" thing here produces: Bounty Hunter does not give +$3; Sorceress fails to Curse; Sorcerer does not Curse; Giant does not Curse. That's not so bad.

I believe this is the most technically accurate result of the current wordings. Whether it seems natural for casual players I don't know. Ideally all the card notes in the rules would say exactly what happens with an empty deck. And the newest Adventures rulebook actually specifies that Giant Curses with an empty deck.

[Gubump]

Bounty Hunter's "undefined" thing here produces: Bounty Hunter does not give +$3; Sorceress fails to Curse; Sorcerer does not Curse; Giant does not Curse. That's not so bad.

I have to beg to differ with this part. "Otherwise" is essentially shorthand for "if that if-statement was not true." In Giant, that if-statement was evaluated to be undefined, which is in fact not true, thus Giant curses.

[Jeebus]

Bounty Hunter's "undefined" thing here produces: Bounty Hunter does not give +$3; Sorceress fails to Curse; Sorcerer does not Curse; Giant does not Curse. That's not so bad.

I have to beg to differ with this part. "Otherwise" is essentially shorthand for "if that if-statement was not true." In Giant, that if-statement was evaluated to be undefined, which is in fact not true, thus Giant curses.

"Undefined" is not "false". But we had exactly this discussion in the thread already, so I refer you to that.

[AJD]

Bounty Hunter's "undefined" thing here produces: Bounty Hunter does not give +$3; Sorceress fails to Curse; Sorcerer does not Curse; Giant does not Curse. That's not so bad.

I have to beg to differ with this part. "Otherwise" is essentially shorthand for "if that if-statement was not true." In Giant, that if-statement was evaluated to be undefined, which is in fact not true, thus Giant curses.

"Undefined" is not "false". But we had exactly this discussion in the thread already, so I refer you to that.

Gubump didn't say "undefined" is "false"; he said it isn't "true".

[Jeebus]

Gubump didn't say "undefined" is "false"; he said it isn't "true".

True. Then he's saying the exact same thing as Gendo has been saying.

[Jeebus]

Just to add that Barbarian is exactly like Giant. But unlike for Giant, the rulebook doesn't say what happens with an empty deck.

[Jeebus]

I see that the Temple Gates client has implemented these cards as follows:

Giant: if there's no card, you don't gain a curse.
Barbarian: if there's no card, you don't gain a curse.
Sorcerer: if there's no card, you don't gain a curse.
Sorceress: if there's no card, the other players don't gain a curse.
Bounty Hunter: if there's no card, you don't get +$3.

They all follow what I thought made the most sense in this thread.

But, the first three (Giant, Barbarian, Sorcerer) don't follow the last rulings that I'm aware of. Are they wrong in the client, or have you made new rulings, Donald X.?

[Donald X.]

I see that the Temple Gates client has implemented these cards as follows:

Giant: if there's no card, you don't gain a curse.
Barbarian: if there's no card, you don't gain a curse.
Sorcerer: if there's no card, you don't gain a curse.
Sorceress: if there's no card, the other players don't gain a curse.
Bounty Hunter: if there's no card, you don't get +$3.

They all follow what I thought made the most sense in this thread.

But, the first three (Giant, Barbarian, Sorcerer) don't follow the last rulings that I'm aware of. Are they wrong in the client, or have you made new rulings, Donald X.?

Going from the wiki texts. Telling you my rulings for today, rather than e.g. what some particular software does or what my rulings would be with hypothetical wordings. And I haven't checked where this conflicts with the wiki or other posts.

If there's no card to do the thing with:

* Giant: Turn your Journey token over (it starts face up). Then if it's face down, +$1. If it's face up, +$5, and each other player reveals the top card of their deck, trashes it if it costs from $3 to $6, and otherwise discards it and gains a Curse.

They gain a Curse.

* Bounty Hunter: +1 Action. Exile a card from your hand. If you didn't have a copy of it in Exile, +$3.

You don't get the +$3.

* Barbarian: +$2. Each other player trashes the top card of their deck. If it costs $3 or more they gain a cheaper card sharing a type with it; otherwise they gain a Curse.

They gain a Curse. For this and Giant, it's all about how you think "otherwise" is interpreted.

* Sorcerer: +1 Card. +1 Action. Each other player names a card, then reveals the top card of their deck. If wrong, they gain a Curse.

No Curse. With a more written-out-for-clarity "if wrong" it would just match Bounty Hunter.

* Sorceress: +1 Action. Name a card. Reveal the top card of your deck and put it into your hand. If it's the named card, each other player gains a Curse.

No Curse.

[Jeebus]

Thanks.

So it sounds like you're going with "the card is undefined so nothing happens". (Otherwise Bounty Hunter and Sorcerer would do something.)

But to me, that should actually make Giant and Barbarian do nothing too, as you were reasoning in a previous post in this thread. That's because for human players (as opposed to computers), "otherwise" means "if it doesn't cost $x". Which is like Bounty Hunter.

[AJD]

I don't think I agree with you about what the most natural reading of "otherwise" in a presupposition-failure state is.

[AJD]

(But the whole thing about presupposition failures is that they make sentences hard to interpret.)

[Jeebus]

I don't know what that is.

But the point is that for humans reading cards, these two things mean the same:
"if it costs from $3 to $6, trash it; otherwise gain a Curse"
"if it doesn't cost from $3 to $6, gain a Curse; otherwise trash it"

Or to put it another way, "if not its cost is $x" means "if its cost is not $x" in human language. (We've been through all this.)

[Jack Rudd]

Well, there are two different potential translations there: "if its cost is not $x", and "if it's not true that its cost is $x" which mean the same thing whenever the item's cost is well-defined, but which evaluate differently if it isn't.

[Jeebus]

Well, there are two different potential translations there: "if its cost is not $x", and "if it's not true that its cost is $x" which mean the same thing whenever the item's cost is well-defined, but which evaluate differently if it isn't.

That's exactly what I was referring to. When this argument was made earlier in this thread, the phrasing "if not its cost is $x" was used. You're using "if it's not true that its cost is $x", but it's the same argument. In human language, it still means the same as "if its cost is not $x".

I can demonstrate it like this: If we can't know if "its cost is not $x," then we can't know if "its cost is $x," and we can't know if "it's not true that its cost is $x."

[Donald X.]

Again a key issue for me is, to not make wordings worse in almost every case ever, just to have them be better in obscure edge cases. Aside from that, when each set gets reprinted I'll probably get a chance to tweak wordings to try to fix these things. Or to just mention the rulings in the FAQs.

Again it's not that I care which way it goes, whether you get the Curse or not in the obscure case; I just want a good wording for the card for almost every case ever, and then after that to have it be clear what happens in the obscure cases. It isn't clear and well you never see the mistakes I caught.

[Jack Rudd]

Well, there are two different potential translations there: "if its cost is not $x", and "if it's not true that its cost is $x" which mean the same thing whenever the item's cost is well-defined, but which evaluate differently if it isn't.

That's exactly what I was referring to. When this argument was made earlier in this thread, the phrasing "if not its cost is $x" was used. You're using "if it's not true that its cost is $x", but it's the same argument. In human language, it still means the same as "if its cost is not $x".

"It's not true that the king of France is bald" does not mean the same as "the king of France is not bald".

[Jeebus]

"It's not true that the king of France is bald" does not mean the same as "the king of France is not bald".

Uhm... That's a very strange claim. So "it's false that the king of France is bald" does not mean "the king of France is not bald"? Or are "false" and "not true" different? What about "untrue"?

[Awaclus]

"It's not true that the king of France is bald" does not mean the same as "the king of France is not bald".

Uhm... That's a very strange claim. So "it's false that the king of France is bald" does not mean "the king of France is not bald"? Or are "false" and "not true" different? What about "untrue"?

"The king of France is bald" and "the king of France is not bald" are both false because France is a republic.

[AJD]

This is what a presupposition failure is.

A presupposition is information that is assumed to be already shared between the speaker and listener of a sentence in order for the sentence to be appropriate to use. If the presupposed information is not shared, the sentence is infelicitous—i.e., inappropriate in that context. If the presupposed proposition is false, the sentence becomes hard to interpret and its truth value is not necessarily well-defined.

Compare:
(1) "The Mona Lisa was stolen by Carmen Sandiego."
(2) "The one who stole the Mona Lisa was Carmen Sandiego."

These two sentences are true under the same circumstances, but (2) carries a presupposition ('The Mona Lisa was stolen') that (1) doesn't. We can tell the difference by imagining a situation where the information that the Mona Lisa was stolen is not shared by both the speaker and the listener. If (1) is used in that scenario, the information is communicated smoothly; but if (2) is used in that scenario it's perceived as infelicitous:

(1a)
 "The Mona Lisa was stolen by Carmen Sandiego."
"Oh wow, that sucks, I hope they catch her."

(2a)
 "The one who stole the Mona Lisa was Carmen Sandiego."
"Wait, what? Was I supposed to know about this already?"

And in the scenario where the presupposition is false, the truth value of the sentence bearing the presupposition becomes harder to evaluate. If the Mona Lisa was not actually stolen, then The Mona Lisa was stolen by Carmen Sandiego is simply a false sentence. But if the Mona Lisa was not stolen, then The one who stole the Mona Lisa was Carmen Sandiego is certainly not true, but it's hard to say that it's false, either—it's hard to evaluate.

One thing about presuppositions is that they do not go away when a sentence is negated. Sentence (3) is the negation of sentence (2):

(3) "The one who stole the Mona Lisa was not Carmen Sandiego."

...but (3) shares with (2) the presupposition that the Mona Lisa was stolen by somebody.

[Jeebus]

That is all clear, and it's what I have been talking about from the OP in this thread.

And in the scenario where the presupposition is false, the truth value of the sentence bearing the presupposition becomes harder to evaluate. If the Mona Lisa was not actually stolen, then The Mona Lisa was stolen by Carmen Sandiego is simply a false sentence. But if the Mona Lisa was not stolen, then The one who stole the Mona Lisa was Carmen Sandiego is certainly not true, but it's hard to say that it's false, either—it's hard to evaluate.

Exactly. And I would say that it's not only hard but impossible to evaluate. This goes against what the people who oddly liked your post have been saying. They're saying that, if the Mona Lisa was not stolen, "The one who stole the Mona Lisa was Carmen Sandiego" is false.
And now I see that you agreed with Jack Rudd's post, which means you're contradicting your own post...?

I read about Russell's analysis of the King of France statement. It's just one theory, and one I don't agree with - especially in normal language.
Exactly as AJD illustrated:
"The king of France is bald."
"What? I don't think there's a king of France?"

It seems that Russell makes a weak argument, based on the WP article, since he analyzes the statement "the present King of France is bald" by making three statements, the first of which says that there is a King of France, and then concludes that the original statement must be false because there is no King of France. Essentially he's simply stating that the statement must be false because it has a false supposition.

EDIT: Yes, Russell is asserting that the statement "the present King of France is bald" contains an unspoken, hidden statement "there is presently a King of France".

EDIT2: And indeed, the theory of presuppositions is by Frege and is in opposition to Russell's theory. According to Frege, statements with false presuppositions fail to have a truth value. They're neither true nor false.

[Jeebus]

"It's not true that the king of France is bald" does not mean the same as "the king of France is not bald".

Uhm... That's a very strange claim. So "it's false that the king of France is bald" does not mean "the king of France is not bald"? Or are "false" and "not true" different? What about "untrue"?

"The king of France is bald" and "the king of France is not bald" are both false because France is a republic.

You're failing to consider that we're talking about human language. In English, if someone claims "You are short", the answers "Not true" and "I'm not" are equivalent. Meaning that "It's not true that I'm short" and "I'm not short" are equivalent.

[Awaclus]

You're failing to consider that we're talking about human language. In English, if someone claims "You are short", the answers "Not true" and "I'm not" are equivalent. Meaning that "It's not true that I'm short" and "I'm not short" are equivalent.

That's because you actually exist. "I'm either average or tall" would also be equivalent with both of those. If someone claims "God plays dice with the universe", the answers "Not true" and "God does not do that" are not equivalent, because the latter statement agrees that there is a God (at least in a metaphorical sense) and only disagrees about said God's modus operandi, while the former is what you would say if you don't agree there is a God at all.

[Jeebus]

You're failing to consider that we're talking about human language. In English, if someone claims "You are short", the answers "Not true" and "I'm not" are equivalent. Meaning that "It's not true that I'm short" and "I'm not short" are equivalent.

That's because you actually exist. "I'm either average or tall" would also be equivalent with both of those. If someone claims "God plays dice with the universe", the answers "Not true" and "God does not do that" are not equivalent, because the latter statement agrees that there is a God (at least in a metaphorical sense) and only disagrees about said God's modus operandi, while the former is what you would say if you don't agree there is a God at all.

I'm saying that "not true" and "God doesn't do that" are equivalent in normal language. The proper answer if you don't agree there's a God is rejecting the premise of the claim: "There is no God" or "I don't believe in God".
"The king is bald." -- "Not true." -- means you disagree that the king is bald.
"The king is bald." -- "There is no king." -- means you disagree with the premise.

[Awaclus]

You're failing to consider that we're talking about human language. In English, if someone claims "You are short", the answers "Not true" and "I'm not" are equivalent. Meaning that "It's not true that I'm short" and "I'm not short" are equivalent.

That's because you actually exist. "I'm either average or tall" would also be equivalent with both of those. If someone claims "God plays dice with the universe", the answers "Not true" and "God does not do that" are not equivalent, because the latter statement agrees that there is a God (at least in a metaphorical sense) and only disagrees about said God's modus operandi, while the former is what you would say if you don't agree there is a God at all.

I'm saying that "not true" and "God doesn't do that" are equivalent in normal language. The proper answer if you don't agree there's a God is rejecting the premise of the claim: "There is no God" or "I don't believe in God".
"The king is bald." -- "Not true." -- means you disagree that the king is bald.
"The king is bald." -- "There is no king." -- means you disagree with the premise.

I don't think they are equivalent, and I gathered some data by polling people on the Bayesian Conspiracy discord (over there because it's normal to poll people about random questions there). Almost half of the respondents agreed with your position that "The king is bald." -- "Not true." is not a normal usage of human language if you believe there is no king, but a slim majority agreed with me that it is normal. There was unanimous agreement that "The king is bald." -- "The king is not bald." is not a normal usage of human language if you believe there is no king though, so the average person seems to think there is a difference. Finally, with the exception of one person who disagreed that the thought experiment made sense, there was unanimous agreement that in a made up board game context, they would expect the rules to work equivalently to Barbarian handing out a curse and Sorcerer not handing it out.

[Jeebus]

I don't think they are equivalent, and I gathered some data by polling people on the Bayesian Conspiracy discord (over there because it's normal to poll people about random questions there). Almost half of the respondents agreed with your position that "The king is bald." -- "Not true." is not a normal usage of human language if you believe there is no king, but a slim majority agreed with me that it is normal. There was unanimous agreement that "The king is bald." -- "The king is not bald." is not a normal usage of human language if you believe there is no king though, so the average person seems to think there is a difference. Finally, with the exception of one person who disagreed that the thought experiment made sense, there was unanimous agreement that in a made up board game context, they would expect the rules to work equivalently to Barbarian handing out a curse and Sorcerer not handing it out.

You're saying that the average person thinks there's a difference between "It's not true that the king is bald" and "the king is not bald," but I don't think that's what your second poll shows. It shows that the half (9 out of 16) who think "not true" is a normal response, mostly (the second poll only got 13 responses) think there's a difference. But the other half doesn't. This is to be expected; the second poll didn't really show us anything that the first didn't.

This is a small sample size, and not composed of average people.

This is probably related to something I've observed many times (and I've done myself). People start analyzing some normal expression or construction in the language and come to the conclusion that it must be wrong based on etymology or logic (for example the notorious "irregardless", or "shameful" vs. "shameless"). When the question is posed like in this poll, people will start analyzing whether it's logically correct to say that the claim is not true, and just like in this thread, some will conclude that it should be, and therefore they respond "yes". Also! You're using a well-known example, so people who have read the Russell argument will bring that in.

But I admit that many players would probably intuitively think that Giant and Barbarian do curse. My point was that those cards should be logically consistent with the others, and "otherwise" should mean "if it doesn't have that cost". I do think that if you asked people to spell out what "otherwise" means (without mentioning an empty deck) that's what almost everybody would say. That's what the natural interpretation is in normal language. But when there's no card, some disconnect occurs where people make an assumption that "otherwise" probably also encompasses that situation. It's not that they think that "the card costs $x" is false (even in your poll half don't think that) - they just think "otherwise" covers all situations where they can't say yes. I would also assume that pretty much all the same people, at least if they didn't know the rules of Dominion, would think that Barbarian would curse a player who trashed an Estate. "Otherwise" just intuitively covers every "other" case.

In that sense I guess this ruling is as good as any.

[dane-m]

But the point is that for humans reading cards, these two things mean the same:
"if it costs from $3 to $6, trash it; otherwise gain a Curse"
"if it doesn't cost from $3 to $6, gain a Curse; otherwise trash it"

My thought process when dealing with the first instance in the absence of a card is something like "There wasn't a card, so it isn't true that it costs from $3 to $6, so a Curse has to be gained."

My thought process when dealing with the second instance in the absence of a card is something like "There wasn't a card so it didn't cost from $3 to $6, so a Curse has to be gained."

For both phrasings my thought process in the absence of a card results in a Curse being gained.  Isn't your argument based on the premise that they should give different results?

[Jeebus]

But the point is that for humans reading cards, these two things mean the same:
"if it costs from $3 to $6, trash it; otherwise gain a Curse"
"if it doesn't cost from $3 to $6, gain a Curse; otherwise trash it"

My thought process when dealing with the first instance in the absence of a card is something like "There wasn't a card, so it isn't true that it costs from $3 to $6, so a Curse has to be gained."

My thought process when dealing with the second instance in the absence of a card is something like "There wasn't a card so it didn't cost from $3 to $6, so a Curse has to be gained."

For both phrasings my thought process in the absence of a card results in a Curse being gained.  Isn't your argument based on the premise that they should give different results?

I'm saying that they should give the same result; but based on the argument that the others were making in this thread - that "it costs from $3 to $6" and "it doesn't cost from $3 to $6" are both false - they give different results, because in both cases the "otherwise" clause would be the result.

[dane-m]

But the point is that for humans reading cards, these two things mean the same:
"if it costs from $3 to $6, trash it; otherwise gain a Curse"
"if it doesn't cost from $3 to $6, gain a Curse; otherwise trash it"

My thought process when dealing with the first instance in the absence of a card is something like "There wasn't a card, so it isn't true that it costs from $3 to $6, so a Curse has to be gained."

My thought process when dealing with the second instance in the absence of a card is something like "There wasn't a card so it didn't cost from $3 to $6, so a Curse has to be gained."

For both phrasings my thought process in the absence of a card results in a Curse being gained.  Isn't your argument based on the premise that they should give different results?

I'm saying that they should give the same result; but based on the argument that the others were making in this thread - that "it costs from $3 to $6" and "it doesn't cost from $3 to $6" are both false - they give different results, because in both cases the "otherwise" clause would be the result.

OK, so you and I seem to agree that the natural interpretation of Giant is to curse when there is no card.  That's good, given that it coincides with Donald X's intepretation.  The same is true for Barbarian.  That leaves Bounty Hunter, Sorcerer and Sorceress.

Going from the wiki texts. Telling you my rulings for today, rather than e.g. what some particular software does or what my rulings would be with hypothetical wordings. And I haven't checked where this conflicts with the wiki or other posts.

If there's no card to do the thing with:

* Bounty Hunter: +1 Action. Exile a card from your hand. If you didn't have a copy of it in Exile, +$3.

You don't get the +$3.

Here my thought process seems to give the wrong answer, which is not to say that I think it should be giving +$3, merely that my thought process ("There wasn't a card so there couldn't have been a copy of in Exile, so +$3.") doesn't give the intended result.  Perhaps it's a pity that it's not phrased "+1 Action. Exile a card from your hand. If it is the first instance of it in Exile, +$3."

* Sorcerer: +1 Card. +1 Action. Each other player names a card, then reveals the top card of their deck. If wrong, they gain a Curse.

No Curse. With a more written-out-for-clarity "if wrong" it would just match Bounty Hunter.

Which suggests that my thought process would go astray here too.

* Sorceress: +1 Action. Name a card. Reveal the top card of your deck and put it into your hand. If it's the named card, each other player gains a Curse.

No Curse.

But as far as I can see this works just like Giant and Barbarian: there isn't a revealed card, so it can't be the named, so the unwritten otherwise, i.e. nothing, occurs.

[Awaclus]

* Sorcerer: +1 Card. +1 Action. Each other player names a card, then reveals the top card of their deck. If wrong, they gain a Curse.

No Curse. With a more written-out-for-clarity "if wrong" it would just match Bounty Hunter.

Which suggests that my thought process would go astray here too.

* Sorceress: +1 Action. Name a card. Reveal the top card of your deck and put it into your hand. If it's the named card, each other player gains a Curse.

No Curse.

But as far as I can see this works just like Giant and Barbarian: there isn't a revealed card, so it can't be the named, so the unwritten otherwise, i.e. nothing, occurs.

Doesn't the actual ruling follow from that same thought process in both cases? There isn't a revealed card, so it can't be the named, and it also can't be wrong.

[Jeebus]

OK, so you and I seem to agree that the natural interpretation of Giant is to curse when there is no card.  That's good, given that it coincides with Donald X's intepretation.  The same is true for Barbarian.  That leaves Bounty Hunter, Sorcerer and Sorceress.

No, I think Giant and Barbarian should do nothing. (I agree with the ruling on the other three.) I don't really have time to engange in this thread now, but I explained it earlier in the thread.

[dane-m]

* Sorcerer: +1 Card. +1 Action. Each other player names a card, then reveals the top card of their deck. If wrong, they gain a Curse.

No Curse. With a more written-out-for-clarity "if wrong" it would just match Bounty Hunter.

Which suggests that my thought process would go astray here too.

* Sorceress: +1 Action. Name a card. Reveal the top card of your deck and put it into your hand. If it's the named card, each other player gains a Curse.

No Curse.

But as far as I can see this works just like Giant and Barbarian: there isn't a revealed card, so it can't be the named, so the unwritten otherwise, i.e. nothing, occurs.

Doesn't the actual ruling follow from that same thought process in both cases? There isn't a revealed card, so it can't be the named, and it also can't be wrong.

For Sorcerer it depends on what "if wrong" is taken to mean (as Donald X has previously commented), i.e. how it is expanded:

"Each other player names a card, then reveals the top card of their deck. If it isn't the named card, they gain a Curse." would give out a Curse: there isn't a card so it wasn't the named card, so a Curse has to be gained (cf the way my thought process works for "if it doesn't cost from $3 to $6, gain a Curse; otherwise trash it").

"Each other player names a card, then reveals the top card of their deck. If it is something other than the named card, they gain a Curse." wouldn't give out a Curse: there isn't a card so it isn't something other than the named card, so a Curse has to be gained (cf the way my thought process works for "if it costs from $3 to $6, trash it; otherwise gain a Curse").