Print

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

[clb]

If you expect a lack of choices in Dark Ages then you are in for a surprise.

I just wanted to cut this out and shout with joy.

That is all.

I guess we owe GigaKnight a thank you for this extended conversation with Donald (and Donald a thank you for continuing it) so that we another tantalizing bit of information about Dark Ages.

[Davio]

I don't like unnecessary 'you may's.

Do Spice Merchant and Stables have "you may" because otherwise they would need a clause like ".. or reveal your hand with no treasure"?
I guess this is only useful when someone Golems into one and doesn't want to trash or discard his Gold.

[WanderingWinder]

I don't like unnecessary 'you may's.

Do Spice Merchant and Stables have "you may" because otherwise they would need a clause like ".. or reveal your hand with no treasure"?
I guess this is only useful when someone Golems into one and doesn't want to trash or discard his Gold.

Or for some weird situations with conspirator/peddler where you want to play the thing but don't want to discard/trash.

[Donald X.]

I want to apologize for my misrepresentation of you here.  I realize how it sounds now that I read it again and it's ridiculous to say you don't like choices.  Part of my poor communication, I suppose.  Maybe it's more accurate to say I think you're too quick to judge choices as useless or dismiss the value and potential satisfaction in exploiting low-frequency cases.

Well maybe this is just a problem of perspective. From my perspective I have put many many hours into issues like, exactly when should cards say "you may." From your perspective there are just a few posts in a thread and for all you know I spend all of my time practicing square dance calls.

For me a good source of "satisfaction in exploiting low-frequency cases" is say Counting House. Dominion can't afford to have very many narrow cards, but it's good to have a few, because some people really like winning with a card that's normally weak, and you can only do that if some cards are normally weak. But as far as card interactions go, you can get this particular fun out of an unusual interaction without having an unused option. Like, a 5-card King's Court / Expand deck is an exotic thing you can discover, and I didn't have to stick in a choice people don't pick to get it.

[rinkworks]

From your perspective there are just a few posts in a thread and for all you know I spend all of my time practicing square dance calls.

No?  Well now I'm disappointed.  I mean, I had no reason to think so.   But I had no reason not to, either!

[timchen]

I guess we owe GigaKnight a thank you for this extended conversation with Donald (and Donald a thank you for continuing it) so that we another tantalizing bit of information about Dark Ages.

This let me go all the way back and scan for new things... What a disappointment when the only thing is the quoted sentence.

To make up for my time, let me share my opinion on the "you may" issue.

I am sorry GigaKnight, while you seem like a nice person, your assertion is a little bit far-fetched.
Think this way: if "you may" is default as you suggested, for every card you play you will have the option whether to have the effect. But, if you don't want the effect, in most cases you will just choose not to play the card!

From the basic game mechanics perspective the "you may" is very awkward, as choosing whether to play the card or not is already sufficient. Another layer of choice over-complicates the rules in an unnecessary way. In fact, all the "you may" existed in the game are for situations uncheckable by opponents I think.

So the problem we have is actually just for part of the effect of the card. The problem then varies case by case. In the case of inn, I do agree that when you don't bring any cards into your pile it seems reasonable to expect not to shuffle. But as we said "you may" should not be a default option; does adding "you may" here provides enough benefit for its existence? I don't think so.

On the other point of "reminding other people's mistake only at your own disadvantage", I have a different opinion. I think the rule is only maintained by the players (very much like in a tennis game if both players call a ball out the judge has no say on it). I don't think you have to feel shameful to get some advantages by not pointing things out.  Or if you feel shameful then just point it out and don't complain about it.

[GigaKnight]

Hey timchen, no problem about the "you may" issue.  I just have a different perspective, is all (and admittedly-limited experience).

I did want to address the rules / mistakes issues.  For one, I like to play by the rules because that's what the game *is*.  In soccer, for example, I despise things like shirt pulling; it's cheating, even if it's accepted by high-level players.  In Dominion (or any game), selectively enforcing the rules is also cheating.  I see few things as truly black and white but this one seems clear to me.  If you have a set of rules and you are not playing by them, you're playing a different game.

Regardless of how I personally feel in situations where I can cheat, I want it to be detectable; I want the rules to be enforceable.  One of my issues with requiring players to, e.g., gain a card with Haggler is that if they forget and their opponent remembers but chooses to keep silent, the opponent can simply claim he forgot.  The rule is not enforceable.  With "may", a forgotten ability is no more than a potential play mistake and an opportunity for learning and improving.

Beyond that, once the rules are irreversibly broken, the game state is corrupted.  If the player who claims he forgot loses the game, he can also claim the game would have been different in the first player had played by the rules.  Therefore, the game result is invalid and a new match must be played.  Then you have to bring in the judges to decide when this was avoidable by placing the responsibility for even making the decision on the active player.

This is all kind of far-fetched potential-tourney-level stuff, I realize.  But I care about stuff like that.  No, Dominion doesn't "need" it, but I would prefer if it was there.  My two cents.

And, P.S. this issue is avoided if all games are played electronically (where the rules are easily enforced), which I'm also totally fine with.

[DStu]

Regardless of how I personally feel in situations where I can cheat, I want it to be detectable; I want the rules to be enforceable.  One of my issues with requiring players to, e.g., gain a card with Haggler is that if they forget and their opponent remembers but chooses to keep silent, the opponent can simply claim he forgot.  The rule is not enforceable.  With "may", a forgotten ability is no more than a potential play mistake and an opportunity for learning and improving.

So I don't get this. First, of course the rule is enforceable, you see the Haggler. The argument that they can claim they forgot, you can apply this to every rule:

So new rulesset here:
At the action phase, you may play 1 action. Or more, because hey, you might claim you have forgotten to count how many actions you already played. When you play a action, you may follow all the text on the card. Or maybe you mix the order up, because you may have forgotten this rule. Or you only do half of them, hey, forgotten. Maybe you also already play a treasure, because who knows if I remember correctly that this was not allowed. I actually think I'm the ruletext, so I should know, but maybe my memory is wrong, so better play this treasure if you like.
So, now we get to the buyphase. Just play any treasures left in your hand, and maybe also actions. And Victorycards, just try what happens if you play them, I don't remember exactly. Good, so count all the money you get from these treasures and victory cards, and buy a card costing up to that much. Or maybe a little more. Ah, just take as many cards as you like, and put them to the discard. Or somewhere else.
Cleanup, there we are... Take all the cards left in your hand, and from your play area, and maybe some more from somewhere else. Now draw 5 cards from your deck. Or some less. Or some more. With draw I mean to your hand. But maybe also put them somewhere else. If your draw deck is empty, and you have to want to draw some more cards  (or maybe also at some other point), you shuffle it. If you don't remember what shuffling means, just invent you own definition, or ask oeste at BGG to remind you what it means. I can not enforce the correct shuffling anyway, so I better leave it to you what to do.

[GigaKnight]

Regardless of how I personally feel in situations where I can cheat, I want it to be detectable; I want the rules to be enforceable.  One of my issues with requiring players to, e.g., gain a card with Haggler is that if they forget and their opponent remembers but chooses to keep silent, the opponent can simply claim he forgot.  The rule is not enforceable.  With "may", a forgotten ability is no more than a potential play mistake and an opportunity for learning and improving.

So I don't get this. First, of course the rule is enforceable, you see the Haggler. The argument that they can claim they forgot, you can apply this to every rule:

So new rulesset here:
At the action phase, you may play 1 action. Or more, because hey, you might claim you have forgotten to count how many actions you already played. When you play a action, you may follow all the text on the card. Or maybe you mix the order up, because you may have forgotten this rule. Or you only do half of them, hey, forgotten. Maybe you also already play a treasure, because who knows if I remember correctly that this was not allowed. I actually think I'm the ruletext, so I should know, but maybe my memory is wrong, so better play this treasure if you like.
So, now we get to the buyphase. Just play any treasures left in your hand, and maybe also actions. And Victorycards, just try what happens if you play them, I don't remember exactly. Good, so count all the money you get from these treasures and victory cards, and buy a card costing up to that much. Or maybe a little more. Ah, just take as many cards as you like, and put them to the discard. Or somewhere else.
Cleanup, there we are... Take all the cards left in your hand, and from your play area, and maybe some more from somewhere else. Now draw 5 cards from your deck. Or some less. Or some more. With draw I mean to your hand. But maybe also put them somewhere else. If your draw deck is empty, and you have to want to draw some more cards  (or maybe also at some other point), you shuffle it. If you don't remember what shuffling means, just invent you own definition, or ask oeste at BGG to remind you what it means. I can not enforce the correct shuffling anyway, so I better leave it to you what to do.

*sigh*  The difference is that all these things you're mocking me with are done on every. turn.  They aren't forgotten anymore than what an action is or what a buy is.  Triggered effects are forgotten all the time, especially as more get added.  "May" downgrades them from rules violations to play mistakes.

You're acting like I want to stick may before every thing in the game.  I said I don't want it to be ubiquitous; I want it to be the default.  Specifically, I want it to be the default for triggered effects.  I also said I think there are lots of cases where not having "may" makes sense.  I'll make that stronger by saying there are lots of cases where omitting "may" creates a vastly-improved experience.  As an obvious example, there's currently no downside to having extra actions, $, or buys, and I personally believe it would be bad design to create cards that disincentivize those.

I'm annoyed that you take my opinion, stretch it to the extreme case, and then mock it.  There's a continuum of choices and just because I want Dominion to be shifted in the continuum doesn't mean I want it all the way to that end.

[DStu]

I just don't see how it's not enforcable (and got carried away a bit...)

The Haggler is on the table, everybody sees it, everybody knows that you have to gain a card, so if you all forget, it's maybe not enforced, but it's nevertheless enforceable.
Throne Room is not enforcable, Moneylender is not, but Haggler is.

If you take such an absolute stand on the rules as in the previous post, I would find it more reasonable to just take care instead of saying "There may be no rules where I may forget parts of it, because I absolutely want to stick to the rules."

[GigaKnight]

I just don't see how it's not enforcable (and got carried away a bit...)

Ah, that's fair.  Let me rephrase.  In my view, a player who intentionally allows a rules violation has violated the rules himself.  Allowing somebody to not take a required benefit is cheating, just as if I sneak an extra card in my draw phase and don't tell anybody.  In both cases, 1 person has violated the rules, 1 person is aware of it, and 1 person does not report it.  They don't have to be the same person for it to be cheating.

I want to disincentivize rules violations.  With triggered effects, making them optional is how you'd do that.  I have no incentive to enforce that my opponent takes a triggered benefit; in this scenario, my cheating would be undetectable.  That's what I really mean by unenforceable.  Poor phrasing on my part, sorry.

That said, I've said several times in this thread that I wouldn't make all triggered effects say "may".  I'm actually fine with where Haggler is as a card, but it's a good example of the issues created by required triggered effects.  This comes back to my main point that I would start with cards saying "may" and remove it iff the gameplay benefit is great enough.  In the spectrum of approaches to "may", this on the other end from Donald's.

If you take such an absolute stand on the rules as in the previous post, I would find it more reasonable to just take care instead of saying "There may be no rules where I may forget parts of it, because I absolutely want to stick to the rules."

That quote is more extreme than my position (again, you go to the extreme).  There are several different things that, in conjunction, make me think "you may" should be the default.  They're kind of distributed throughout the many posts of this thread, though.  If you're really interested, I can consolidate them into a single long post.  Just having this discussion has helped me solidify my view on this so that I think I can write a well-reasoned essay on it.  Not that I think it would necessarily convince everybody; Donald also has a well-reasoned position that simply optimizes for different things than I would optimize for.

[rinkworks]

I want to disincentivize rules violations.

I see what you're saying, but it makes more sense not to play with people who would be tempted.  I mean, that would be better anyway, but with your Haggler example the card would be quite different and less interesting if it wouldn't make you pick up an unwanted Copper or terminal $2 now sometimes.  Inn has less at stake, I grant you, but I'll take greater strategic interest over cheaterproofness any day.

[GigaKnight]

I want to disincentivize rules violations.

I see what you're saying, but it makes more sense not to play with people who would be tempted.  I mean, that would be better anyway, but with your Haggler example the card would be quite different and less interesting if it wouldn't make you pick up an unwanted Copper or terminal $2 now sometimes.  Inn has less at stake, I grant you, but I'll take greater strategic interest over cheaterproofness any day.

A few things, rinkworks:
 1) I'm not sure you read my posts because, for I think the fourth time, I agree that Haggler is fine as-is.  It creates more interesting decisions without the "may".  But honestly, I doubt it would be particularly overpowered without it, either.

 2) I find the "don't play with cheaters" response lacking.  The effort should be to minimize cheating opportunities, but I get that it's not realistic to expect to eliminate them entirely.  A default of "you may" tends towards minimizing those opportunities (and has a string of other impacts that I see as benefits, which you can read about in my other posts).  But if the card is significantly more interesting without the may, by all means, take it out.

[timchen]

Hi Gigaknight, I didn't reply in the first place because I didn't understand your post. Dstu's replies helped me on that.

So basically you have this virtue that "you don't want to create an incentive for players to violate the rules."

Ok, so for a single player this doesn't matter, as the incentive must exist otherwise the game will be boring. The only thing can be done is to make the violation checkable for all other players.

Now the same thing applies to a part of the players as well. Well, not exactly, the incentive is not as necessary to exist, but nevertheless as long as it is detectable for other players not in that part it is fine.

Now here's the case you are talking about: an incentive to violate the rule for all players. (This is what you mean by creating a undetectable situation.) One conceptual problem is that in a game there is hardly anything which is beneficial to all players since if win matters any game is a zero-sum game. So basically there shouldn't be a situation when all players collude to violate the rules.

So the situation is (finally!) narrowed down to the case that some players are violating the rules at their own cost. Others may allow that. Frankly speaking I don't see where the problem is. You know, if it is allowed by the rules it's called a bad play. So do you think one should remind others when they commit a bad play? IMHO yes. So I don't see the need to make the rule violation as a bad play since I would tell them anyway. Or on the contrary, if I am playing money or in some fierce competition, then ok, I may decide to keep silent and rip the benefit. Why does it bother you when someone violates the rules at their own cost? I mean, rule-allowed bad plays can be much worse than that. And dominion is not bible. I don't see anything wrong when players mutually agreed to play some variant.

[PSGarak]

Gigaknight's example with cheating around Haggler is pretty subtle, and I'm not sure that we're all on the same page about it. Here's my understanding:

Player A plays Haggler, and forgets to use the triggered ability. This is a real, honest-to-god mistake. More importantly, this rules violation is clearly verifiable: there is a Haggler, there is no card gain. Everyone observing can call out Player A, or find out by reading the logs.

Player B observes player A's mistake. Player B now has an opportunity to call out Player A on his mistake. By not doing so, he is cheating (according to Gigaknight's idea of cheating). Furthermore, this cheating is not falsifiable. Unlike Player A's play mistake, there is no way for anyone other than Player B to know whether Player B is making an honest mistake or intentionally withholding information. Gigaknight's point is that it's bad game design to place a player in a position where they can break the rules for their benefit, and guaranteed get away with it.

Changing the subject: I don't sympathize with the argument "don't play with cheaters," because that's not an option for competitive play.

[GigaKnight]

Gigaknight's example with cheating around Haggler is pretty subtle, and I'm not sure that we're all on the same page about it. Here's my understanding:

Player A plays Haggler, and forgets to use the triggered ability. This is a real, honest-to-god mistake. More importantly, this rules violation is clearly verifiable: there is a Haggler, there is no card gain. Everyone observing can call out Player A, or find out by reading the logs.

Player B observes player A's mistake. Player B now has an opportunity to call out Player A on his mistake. By not doing so, he is cheating (according to Gigaknight's idea of cheating). Furthermore, this cheating is not falsifiable. Unlike Player A's play mistake, there is no way for anyone other than Player B to know whether Player B is making an honest mistake or intentionally withholding information. Gigaknight's point is that it's bad game design to place a player in a position where they can break the rules for their benefit, and guaranteed get away with it.

Changing the subject: I don't sympathize with the argument "don't play with cheaters," because that's not an option for competitive play.

Bingo!  Thanks for stating that so clearly.

EDIT: I should also state that I do recognize the subtlety and rarity of this situation.  I believe these situations should be avoided, but not at all costs.  That's why I keep saying I'm OK with Haggler as-is; required gain there creates an interesting trade-off that I think overrides the small chance of abuse.  But, all other things being equal, I'd rather put "you may" on a card to avoid things like this.  And, to repeat myself again, I think there are other positive impacts of making triggered effects optional.  It doesn't all hinge on the potential for abuse, IMO.

[GendoIkari]

GigaKnight, what are your thoughts on Soul's Attendant vs Soul Warden? This seems like such a perfect example.

I think the problem you describe is much more prevalent in Magic than in Dominion, simply because in Magic you have a lot more cards out on the field usually, and a lot more triggered effects that could happen. Just this week, someone in my playgroup had a Soul's Attendant out, and didn't gain life when an opponent played a creature (5-player game). By the time it was realized, it was too late, and he couldn't get the life. Had it been a Soul Warden instead, he would have.

Although, this issue arises because of the casual and fast nature of the way people play. The fact is, his Soul's Attendant DID trigger, and it's ability DID go on the stack. That still happens ever though it's "may." Once the ability resolves, at that point he can choose to do it or not. But because we were playing fast and loose, no one ever stopped to say "ok, a creature was just played, now what does the stack look like?" In the same way, in a casual setting, players may play a card or ability, and then another card or ability, without stopping and "passing priority" to the other players.

I guess what I'm saying is in that example, I feel like in a way the group made an illegal play just like we would have if it had been a Soul Warden instead. Because we never actually put the triggered ability on the stack. The guy didn't wait until it resolved and then chose not to gain life. Rather, it never went on the stack, and never resolved, because he forgot to put it on the stack.

[zahlman]

Player B observes player A's mistake. Player B now has an opportunity to call out Player A on his mistake. By not doing so, he is cheating (according to Gigaknight's idea of cheating).

This is certainly unethical, but I don't think the communities for most board/card games would label it outright cheating. Just speculating, though. I imagine that in some games, it's hard to draw a line with that kind of ethical obligation, anyway (between reminding a player of their legal options, and actually giving them strategic advice).

[GendoIkari]

Player B observes player A's mistake. Player B now has an opportunity to call out Player A on his mistake. By not doing so, he is cheating (according to Gigaknight's idea of cheating).

This is certainly unethical, but I don't think the communities for most board/card games would label it outright cheating. Just speculating, though. I imagine that in some games, it's hard to draw a line with that kind of ethical obligation, anyway (between reminding a player of their legal options, and actually giving them strategic advice).

There's an interesting discussion on something similar to this over at bgg: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/15032/quotforgettingquot-the-colonist-ship.

[GigaKnight]

GigaKnight, what are your thoughts on Soul's Attendant vs Soul Warden? This seems like such a perfect example.

I think the problem you describe is much more prevalent in Magic than in Dominion, simply because in Magic you have a lot more cards out on the field usually, and a lot more triggered effects that could happen. Just this week, someone in my playgroup had a Soul's Attendant out, and didn't gain life when an opponent played a creature (5-player game). By the time it was realized, it was too late, and he couldn't get the life. Had it been a Soul Warden instead, he would have.

Although, this issue arises because of the casual and fast nature of the way people play. The fact is, his Soul's Attendant DID trigger, and it's ability DID go on the stack. That still happens ever though it's "may." Once the ability resolves, at that point he can choose to do it or not. But because we were playing fast and loose, no one ever stopped to say "ok, a creature was just played, now what does the stack look like?" In the same way, in a casual setting, players may play a card or ability, and then another card or ability, without stopping and "passing priority" to the other players.

I guess what I'm saying is in that example, I feel like in a way the group made an illegal play just like we would have if it had been a Soul Warden instead. Because we never actually put the triggered ability on the stack. The guy didn't wait until it resolved and then chose not to gain life. Rather, it never went on the stack, and never resolved, because he forgot to put it on the stack.

Yeah, those cards are a good example; I would go with may.

You raise a very interesting point about the stack in Magic, though.  So you're saying you think you'd be required to put the decision itself on the stack with Soul's Attendant?  I'm very curious to know what a rules judge would say here.  I've never heard of a decision going on the stack, but I haven't played since well before they removed "damage on the stack".

But the fact that they removed "damage on the stack" makes it clear to me that not everything goes on the stack.  Is there a clear ruling about what does / doesn't go on the stack?  As I think about this more, I'd be surprised if decisions go on the stack.  It seems like the stack is place for game events, not meta-events like decisions.  So this is what I'd expect: the creature coming into play goes on the stack.  When it resolves, if the player opts to gain a life, the life gain goes on the stack.  But I could be wrong.

I don't think the issue would really apply to Dominion since it doesn't have an explicit stack.  I think of "you may" as "when X happens, you are allowed to do Y".  Just as, when I stand up right now, I'm allowed to walk to the bathroom.  I'm also allowed to walk outside.  If I don't even think about any of these things, I just don't do them.

Player B observes player A's mistake. Player B now has an opportunity to call out Player A on his mistake. By not doing so, he is cheating (according to Gigaknight's idea of cheating).

This is certainly unethical, but I don't think the communities for most board/card games would label it outright cheating. Just speculating, though. I imagine that in some games, it's hard to draw a line with that kind of ethical obligation, anyway (between reminding a player of their legal options, and actually giving them strategic advice).

There's an interesting discussion on something similar to this over at bgg: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/15032/quotforgettingquot-the-colonist-ship.

The BGG thread mentions that Puerto Rico has an explicit rule about what happens when a specific required step is forgotten.  That's a very interesting idea to me.  Donald could also add a ruling about that to Dominion, I suppose.  My guess is that it would be functionally equivalent to "you may" in most cases; the thing just doesn't happen.  That would make intentionally "forgetting" a legal loophole instead of rules violation:  ethically dubious but not forbidden.  I'm not sure if I like that or not.

Actually, Donald, if you're still reading this, can you make a ruling about that?  E.g. what if somebody plays a Haggler, buys a card, and forgets to gain another one?  What if the mistake is caught early enough to reset game state?  What if it's caught too late for that?

And would that ruling apply to all triggered abilities?

EDIT: Clarifications

[zahlman]

Donald could also add a ruling about that to Dominion, I suppose.  My guess is that it would be functionally equivalent to "you may" in most cases; the thing just doesn't happen.  That would make intentionally "forgetting" a legal loophole instead of rules violation:  ethically dubious but not forbidden.  I'm not sure if I like that or not.

Actually, Donald, if you're still reading this, can you make a ruling about that?  E.g. what if somebody plays a Haggler, buys a card, and forgets to gain another one?

Personally, I'm against having a game designer make a ruling on this sort of thing at all. My position is: it is not part of the purpose of the rules of a game to (a) tell you how to follow the rules of the game; or (b) tell you what happens if someone fails to follow the rules of the game (whether or not deliberately, and whether or not intent can be demonstrated). That's on a meta-level, and it's why tournaments for games have their own rulebooks that go beyond the rules of the game itself. The overwhelming majority of players don't need it because they aren't competitive enough to (a) consider trying to exploit a loophole like that; (b) care about the results of doing so.

[GigaKnight]

Donald could also add a ruling about that to Dominion, I suppose.  My guess is that it would be functionally equivalent to "you may" in most cases; the thing just doesn't happen.  That would make intentionally "forgetting" a legal loophole instead of rules violation:  ethically dubious but not forbidden.  I'm not sure if I like that or not.

Actually, Donald, if you're still reading this, can you make a ruling about that?  E.g. what if somebody plays a Haggler, buys a card, and forgets to gain another one?

Personally, I'm against having a game designer make a ruling on this sort of thing at all. My position is: it is not part of the purpose of the rules of a game to (a) tell you how to follow the rules of the game; or (b) tell you what happens if someone fails to follow the rules of the game (whether or not deliberately, and whether or not intent can be demonstrated). That's on a meta-level, and it's why tournaments for games have their own rulebooks that go beyond the rules of the game itself. The overwhelming majority of players don't need it because they aren't competitive enough to (a) consider trying to exploit a loophole like that; (b) care about the results of doing so.

Ok, but what about the players who do care?  The players who don't care can ignore the ruling; the players who do can follow it.  And tournaments frequently alter rules according to what works for them.  A ruling from the creator of the game is just an informed opinion and, again, tournaments that care can follow it and tournaments that don't can ignore it.

Example: In another thread, after trying to say that writing down points is just a variant, Donald eventually got frustrated and said that writing down point totals is cheating.  I'm not sure if he really meant that, but many people (and the current ongoing tournament) play with a point counter anyway.  And I'm sure he's fine with that, just as he's fine with just about any variant people want to put together.  I'd like to know his opinion in this issue, if he cares to give it.

[Donald X.]

Actually, Donald, if you're still reading this, can you make a ruling about that?  E.g. what if somebody plays a Haggler, buys a card, and forgets to gain another one?  What if the mistake is caught early enough to reset game state?  What if it's caught too late for that?

What happens then is, there's an awful thread in which someone gives me bad advice.

When the players all agree to a variant, that's a variant, it's not cheating.

[GigaKnight]

Actually, Donald, if you're still reading this, can you make a ruling about that?  E.g. what if somebody plays a Haggler, buys a card, and forgets to gain another one?  What if the mistake is caught early enough to reset game state?  What if it's caught too late for that?

What happens then is, there's an awful thread in which someone gives me bad advice.

When the players all agree to a variant, that's a variant, it's not cheating.

Dude, ignore my advice.  You don't care about who I am or what I think, right?  So there's no need to get wrapped up in it, especially if you're going to be mean about it.

I wasn't asking about variants.  I was asking what happens when a rule is violated.  If your response is just "figure it out", that's fine. Unsatisfying, but fine.

[Donald X.]

Dude, ignore my advice.  You don't care about who I am or what I think, right?  So there's no need to get wrapped up in it, especially if you're going to be mean about it.

I wasn't asking about variants.  I was asking what happens when a rule is violated.  If your response is just "figure it out", that's fine. Unsatisfying, but fine.

I don't know what you mean by "wrapped up in it" here, I am not "wrapped up in" anything, as I know those words. In general it would be great if you stopped attributing things to me.

You called for me personally to give you an answer. I do not see why you specifically need me here, and while I am slow to learn these things, it does not seem likely that my answer would do anything for you.