Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Elder on original Oracle  (Read 247 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jeebus

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2280
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1532
    • View Profile
Elder on original Oracle
« on: July 14, 2022, 08:05:12 am »
0

I just noticed that original Oracle says "you choose one: either he discards them or he puts them back on top in an order he chooses."
I guess if I play with that card and Elder, it would let me discard Tunnels and then topdeck (and draw) them.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9422
  • Respect: +10428
    • View Profile
Re: Elder on original Oracle
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2022, 10:46:49 am »
0

I just noticed that original Oracle says "you choose one: either he discards them or he puts them back on top in an order he chooses."
I guess if I play with that card and Elder, it would let me discard Tunnels and then topdeck (and draw) them.

Wouldn't stop-moving rule apply here? The "put them back" ability expects the cards to be in the "temporarily revealed from the top of your deck" place, but instead they have moved to the discard pile. Even though the new discard pile rule allows you to pull stuff out of the discard when required; Oracle doesn't know to look in the discard.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Jeebus

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2280
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1532
    • View Profile
Re: Elder on original Oracle
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2022, 10:55:31 am »
+2

I just noticed that original Oracle says "you choose one: either he discards them or he puts them back on top in an order he chooses."
I guess if I play with that card and Elder, it would let me discard Tunnels and then topdeck (and draw) them.

Wouldn't stop-moving rule apply here? The "put them back" ability expects the cards to be in the "temporarily revealed from the top of your deck" place, but instead they have moved to the discard pile. Even though the new discard pile rule allows you to pull stuff out of the discard when required; Oracle doesn't know to look in the discard.

My thinking is that Oracle discarded the cards, so it expects them to be in the discard pile, so it doesn't lose track. Compare to Vassal. (This is why it's important to think of abilities as units. Oracle's play ability consists of all the instructions you do when you play it. Each individual effect or instruction can't lose track; only abilities track cards and can lose track of them.)

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9422
  • Respect: +10428
    • View Profile
Re: Elder on original Oracle
« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2022, 11:03:27 am »
0

I just noticed that original Oracle says "you choose one: either he discards them or he puts them back on top in an order he chooses."
I guess if I play with that card and Elder, it would let me discard Tunnels and then topdeck (and draw) them.

Wouldn't stop-moving rule apply here? The "put them back" ability expects the cards to be in the "temporarily revealed from the top of your deck" place, but instead they have moved to the discard pile. Even though the new discard pile rule allows you to pull stuff out of the discard when required; Oracle doesn't know to look in the discard.

My thinking is that Oracle discarded the cards, so it expects them to be in the discard pile, so it doesn't lose track. Compare to Vassal. (This is why it's important to think of abilities as units. Oracle's play ability consists of all the instructions you do when you play it. Each individual effect or instruction can't lose track; only abilities track cards and can lose track of them.)

Good point, I think you're right. Then it just becomes a question of the awkwardness of going by old card wordings combined with new cards. Was it ever ruled that Cellar should actually be played differently with Way of the Chameleon based on which edition of Cellar you are using? Because I do believe it was ruled that old Nomad Camp never visits your discard pile (despite the wording implying it does), and that old Envoy doesn't cause you to draw (which mattered for your -1 card token).

So it would feel more natural to me to also rule that old Cellar and old Oracle don't interact with things that specifically look for "+cards" or "choose one". But indeed that is a potential problem for people playing IRL who don't look such things up.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6156
  • Respect: +24962
    • View Profile
Re: Elder on original Oracle
« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2022, 02:56:36 pm »
+1

I just noticed that original Oracle says "you choose one: either he discards them or he puts them back on top in an order he chooses."
I guess if I play with that card and Elder, it would let me discard Tunnels and then topdeck (and draw) them.
Yes, that Oracle doesn't lose track of the cards.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2280
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1532
    • View Profile
Re: Elder on original Oracle
« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2022, 02:59:03 pm »
0

There are different levels of "errata" or "card interpretations".

With Nomad Camp, the description in the rulebook did say that it goes to your deck instead of your discard pile, so it was just a matter of the card not being technically accurate. That has always been the case with a number of cards, and has never been considered "errata" as such. Black Market even used to be missing the instruction to play Treasures, but it was stated in the official "rule note" that came with the card.

Envoy did get a kind of errata before being changed in print, but this errata was actually printed in the Adventures rulebook, when it first mattered. Salvager also got this kind of "errata" (or clarification) in the Alchemy rulebook, because it used to say "+$ equal to its cost" without specifying that it was the cost in coins, which didn't matter before Alchemy. Possession got a clear errata in the Empires rulebook (which was later superseded by the actual printed card).

Most of the cards that have been changed, however, don't fall into any of these two categories. The first time the change or "errata" appeared in print, is when the card was printed. Of course, the new version sometimes appeared in online clients before a reprint (and sometimes this version was superseded by a different printed version, making it never appear in print). Anyway, for these cards it's clear that players who play with physical cards can't be expected to play with different versions than they have (which I would expect the majority of them to not even know about*). Donald has admitted as much. So yes, printed old Cellar and old Oracle should work as printed - unless of course the players decide to play them as the new versions.

* Actually this discussion is moot for those players who don't even know about new versions of their cards, because they necessarily have not read about the cards online so there is no reason to consider what they "should" do. This discussion only concerns those players who own old printings and read about the new ones.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2022, 03:06:21 pm by Jeebus »
Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.071 seconds with 22 queries.