Print

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

[engineer]

I have a purely theoretical question here, because this doesn't come up in any official dominion card.  Imagine you have a card that simply gives -$3, such that you could end up with negative money at the end of the turn.  What happens? 

I would argue that it simply means you can't buy anything, not even a copper.  Other than that, it has no effect.  Would this break anything that I'm not considering?

[Dominionaer]

Since all cards reducing costs until today always claim "not less than 0" and similar on Poor House "to minimum of 0" i would assume there are no negative money. It should be not worse than having no money at all.

[rspeer]

Well, in this hypothetical situation where you can have $-3, then yeah, I think it should be worse than having no money at all. When you buy a card, you have to have at least that much money to spend. If you have $-3, and a copper costs $0, then you don't have $0 to spend. You have less.

Of course, the amount that that breaks people's brains is a great reason never to have a card that allows negative money.

[GendoIkari]

I have a purely theoretical question here, because this doesn't come up in any official dominion card.  Imagine you have a card that simply gives -$3, such that you could end up with negative money at the end of the turn.  What happens? 

I would argue that it simply means you can't buy anything, not even a copper.  Other than that, it has no effect.  Would this break anything that I'm not considering?

In the world of a game; you could certainly make such a rule, but I don't think you would. It would simply make more sense to re-price everything so that your lowest negative is $0 instead; and then change the other rules around that.

Now, in real life, it doesn't work that way, even if it "should." Say you don't have a single penny to spend, and worse, you are $100 in debt. You have $-100 available. And yet, you are still able to take any free items that are out there; even though they cost $0 and you have less than $0.

[Guy Srinivasan]

Interesting... just as -1+i is not less than 0, is -1+P not less than 0? Play Bridge, Play Potion, buy Vineyard, buy Great Hall.

[ftl]

Great hall costs 3, with bridge it costs 2, you wouldn't be able to buy it if you only had 1p...

[Powerman]

Great hall costs 3, with bridge it costs 2, you wouldn't be able to buy it if you only had 1p...

He's saying that the Bridge makes the Vineyard cost -1 + P, and the Great Hall costs 2.  You have $1 plus the negative 1 from the Vineyard, since "-1 + P" is not "less than 0".  Too bad it doesn't work that way

[DStu]

Great hall costs 3, with bridge it costs 2, you wouldn't be able to buy it if you only had 1p...

He's saying that the Bridge makes the Vineyard cost -1 + P, and the Great Hall costs 2.  You have $1 plus the negative 1 from the Vineyard, since "-1 + P" is not "less than 0".  Too bad it doesn't work that way

Who says that it doesn't?

[shMerker]

The Alchemy rules.

Bridge makes cards cost $1 less this turn. This lowers the cost of a card costing $1P to $P. It does nothing to the cost of a card costing just $P.

[rspeer]

Rulebooks? You mean you can read those instead of misplacing them and finding them years later sandwiched between Power Grid expansions?

[shMerker]

We live in the information age.