Print

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

[engineer]

But if BoM were to be played as Feast and then not enter play (because of the lose-track principle), then it never leaves play after becoming Feast and therefore never turns back into BoM. (Which is madness.)

Cards aren't played from the trash.  I feel like this is the central confusion of the whole argument.  You guys are acting like cards can be played from the trash, but they can't.  The only reason you get a second card from TR/Feast is that the Feast's instructions linger momentarily in the game state.  Look, you can argue the semantics here forever.  (In fact, you seem to be on your way already!)  But if you simply accept that cards don't get played from the trash, then this whole issue disappears. 

When you "Choose an action card in your hand. Play it twice.", you're just getting caught up on the fact that you choose a BoM but play a Feast.  But that's exactly what happens.  That's how BoM works.  When you play it, it becomes a Feast, and you play the Feast twice.  You don't play the BoM again from the trash. 

I understand your semantic argument.  It is self-consistent, and it would be a viable way to interpret the rules.  But Donald's ruling is also self-consistent, and it's also a perfectly valid way to interpret the language on the cards.  Since he's the game designer, as long as his rules do not contradict themselves, they are the rules of the game.  If you are playing with your friends and you want to play BoM your way, you're free to do so.  But the official rules do make sense.

[Jeebus]

Cards aren't played from the trash.  I feel like this is the central confusion of the whole argument.  You guys are acting like cards can be played from the trash, but they can't.  The only reason you get a second card from TR/Feast is that the Feast's instructions linger momentarily in the game state.  Look, you can argue the semantics here forever.  (In fact, you seem to be on your way already!)  But if you simply accept that cards don't get played from the trash, then this whole issue disappears. 

When you "Choose an action card in your hand. Play it twice.", you're just getting caught up on the fact that you choose a BoM but play a Feast.  But that's exactly what happens.  That's how BoM works.  When you play it, it becomes a Feast, and you play the Feast twice.  You don't play the BoM again from the trash. 

I understand your semantic argument.  It is self-consistent, and it would be a viable way to interpret the rules.  But Donald's ruling is also self-consistent, and it's also a perfectly valid way to interpret the language on the cards.  Since he's the game designer, as long as his rules do not contradict themselves, they are the rules of the game.  If you are playing with your friends and you want to play BoM your way, you're free to do so.  But the official rules do make sense.

It seems like this was more of a reply to me than to AJD.

You are saying that a card which is in the trash can't be played. Where is your justification for that? So are you saying that a card "Choose a card from your hand. Play it. Play it." can't play it the second time if you choose Feast? Because I am saying that that card is functionally equivalent to Throne Room. Now do you see?

You say "When you play it, it becomes a Feast, and you play the Feast twice".
But you're totally ignoring how triggering works in Dominion. You think that you can play a card twice before actually resolving what that card does. You can't. You have to wait until you've resolved it once before you can play it again. It seems even clearer to me now.

[Garth One-eye]

You are saying that a card which is in the trash can't be played. Where is your justification for that? So are you saying that a card "Choose a card from your hand. Play it. Play it." can't play it the second time if you choose Feast? Because I am saying that that card is functionally equivalent to Throne Room. Now do you see?

You say "When you play it, it becomes a Feast, and you play the Feast twice".
But you're totally ignoring how triggering works in Dominion. You think that you can play a card twice before actually resolving what that card does. You can't. You have to wait until you've resolved it once before you can play it again. It seems even clearer to me now.

I would argue that alternate Throne Room ( choose a card. Play it. Play it.) is different from regular Throne Room and wouldn't let you double feast.

[Jeebus]

It seems like a common way of thinking about Throne Room is that the instruction "play it twice" immediately causes it to "load" the card text of the chosen card, and then play that card, moving it to the play area, and then execute the card text twice in a row.

If that was really how it was, then that would mean that BoM doesn't work like it should at all. Think about it. What card text would Throne Room actually load? It's loading it before the card is being played, remember? Yeah, it would be BoM's card text. That would mean that it would execute BoM's card text twice, no matter what. Even if we chose to play BoM-as-Smithy the first time.

No, in order for Throne Room to play Smithy twice (after you chose BoM), it can't load any card text before the card is actually played. Which is what you would expect anyway, anything else is inventing new rules.

I would argue that alternate Throne Room ( choose a card. Play it. Play it.) is different from regular Throne Room and wouldn't let you double feast.

Why? I have explained several times how they are functionally equivalent. Donald has also said that the two effects of playing the card are queued up to happen twice in sequence. No matter how you define the timing here, the end result must be that the two effects (play the card) are resolved one after the other.

[engineer]

You are saying that a card which is in the trash can't be played. Where is your justification for that?

My justification is simply consistency.  That statement, that cards cannot be played from the trash, is consistent with all Dominion rules, including the new ones.  Your idea, while self-consistent, is different from these rules, which are also self-consistent.  If you were the creator of Dominion, you could have printed these same cards and ruled them the way you are putting forth.  But you're not the creator of Dominion, so you don't get that chance, at least not for the official rules.

You say "When you play it, it becomes a Feast, and you play the Feast twice".
But you're totally ignoring how triggering works in Dominion. You think that you can play a card twice before actually resolving what that card does. You can't. You have to wait until you've resolved it once before you can play it again. It seems even clearer to me now.

I'm not ignoring how triggering works in Dominion.  You "load up" a card's instructions into the game state before you play it the first time.  Then you resolve those instructions twice.  That is how it has worked so far, and that is self-consistent and consistent with all Donald's rulings to date.

It seems like a common way of thinking about Throne Room is that the instruction "play it twice" immediately causes it to "load" the card text of the chosen card, and then play that card, moving it to the play area, and then execute the card text twice in a row.

If that was really how it was, then that would mean that BoM doesn't work like it should at all. Think about it. What card text would Throne Room actually load? It's loading it before the card is being played, remember? Yeah, it would be BoM's card text. That would mean that it would execute BoM's card text twice, no matter what. Even if we chose to play BoM-as-Smithy the first time.

No, in order for Throne Room to play Smithy twice (after you chose BoM), it can't load any card text before the card is actually played. Which is what you would expect anyway, anything else is inventing new rules.

Let me ask you this question: What does it mean to play a card? 

According to the rule book, "To play an Action, the player takes an Action card from his hand and lays it face up in his play area.  He announces which card he is playing and follows the instructions written on that card from top to bottom."

Notice that it specifically mentions that playing a card involves taking the card from your hand.  Now, Throne room tells you to "play" a card twice.  By your assertion, if I TR (say) a smithy, the TR must first completely resolve the first playing of the smithy, and then attempt to play it again.  But that immediately fails, because that smithy isn't in my hand anymore -- it's on the table.  So how do I play it again?  Do I just put it back in my hand?  Nobody thinks that's the case.

The only consistent explanation is that I loaded up the smithy instructions when I took it out of my hand, and then I proceeded to evaluate those instructions twice.

As for how this works with BoM: BoM has no instructions.  It has card text, but it has no gameplay instructions.  Indeed, the card text tells you that when you play this card, it assumes the instructions of some other card, and that other card's instructions are loaded up and evaluated.  In the case of TR, those instructions are evaluated twice.

[eHalcyon]

It seems like a common way of thinking about Throne Room is that the instruction "play it twice" immediately causes it to "load" the card text of the chosen card, and then play that card, moving it to the play area, and then execute the card text twice in a row.

If that was really how it was, then that would mean that BoM doesn't work like it should at all. Think about it. What card text would Throne Room actually load? It's loading it before the card is being played, remember? Yeah, it would be BoM's card text. That would mean that it would execute BoM's card text twice, no matter what. Even if we chose to play BoM-as-Smithy the first time.

No, in order for Throne Room to play Smithy twice (after you chose BoM), it can't load any card text before the card is actually played. Which is what you would expect anyway, anything else is inventing new rules.

I would argue that alternate Throne Room ( choose a card. Play it. Play it.) is different from regular Throne Room and wouldn't let you double feast.

Why? I have explained several times how they are functionally equivalent. Donald has also said that the two effects of playing the card are queued up to happen twice in sequence. No matter how you define the timing here, the end result must be that the two effects (play the card) are resolved one after the other.

BoM itself loads up instructions.

So you play TR and choose BoM.

TR tries to load BoM instructions.  As a result, BoM also loads instructions for whatever you want to play it as.  You choose Feast.  Instructions load to BoM which subsequently load to TR.  Feast is played twice.

[Jeebus]

You are saying that a card which is in the trash can't be played. Where is your justification for that?

My justification is simply consistency.  That statement, that cards cannot be played from the trash, is consistent with all Dominion rules, including the new ones.  Your idea, while self-consistent, is different from these rules, which are also self-consistent.  If you were the creator of Dominion, you could have printed these same cards and ruled them the way you are putting forth.  But you're not the creator of Dominion, so you don't get that chance, at least not for the official rules.

Everything I've said is consistent with all Dominion rules. And I've backed it up pretty thoroughly. I don't see that you have done the same. The trash is just a place that a card can be. A card doesn't have to be any special place for it to be played. When TR tells you to play the card the second time it doesn't have to be in your hand. Just look at how Golem works, and you realize you are wrong. It plays a card that isn't in your hand. So does Venture for that matter, it's just a Treasure card. Playing a Treasure is the same as playing an Action, it's taken from your hand and placed in your play area. This is even stated in the Dark Ages rules: "If the card cannot be moved into the play area, the instructions on it are still followed."

You say "When you play it, it becomes a Feast, and you play the Feast twice".
But you're totally ignoring how triggering works in Dominion. You think that you can play a card twice before actually resolving what that card does. You can't. You have to wait until you've resolved it once before you can play it again. It seems even clearer to me now.

I'm not ignoring how triggering works in Dominion.  You "load up" a card's instructions into the game state before you play it the first time.  Then you resolve those instructions twice.  That is how it has worked so far, and that is self-consistent and consistent with all Donald's rulings to date.

"So far" there has been nothing that has cared about exactly how TR times the "loading" and the executing of the instructions of the chosen cards. But there has certainly been many cases of triggering. See what I wrote about Which. See my example of Trader's and Possession's when-would-gain effects. The fact is that the game state doesn't "load" the instructions until the playing of the card is being resolved, not at the time that that effect is triggered. There's just no way around this. Respond to how this is different to the Trader/Possession example if you don't agree.

I'll spell it out for you.

TR triggers two effects. Both are "play the chosen card". Neither of them are resolved yet, meaning we haven't triggered the ability on the actual chosen card yet. You say that at this point we take one of those effects (the first one but I assume you said that because they are the same so it doesn't matter), drill down into that effect's instruction to look at the chosen card that is to be played and load that card's instructions. That way "play the chosen card" becomes "play Feast". (How it becomes Feast without BoM's card text actually being resolved is done by some further trickery, which I adress at the bottom of this post.) I say there is nothing anywhere to suggest that we should do this. This isn't normally how effects are triggered, even when those effects will eventuelly tell us to play a card.

Golem tells us to play two action cards that we have revealed "in either order". The "play the revealed card" instructions are both triggered now but we choose the order to resolve them. According to you that would mean that the instructions (on both cards) are loaded into the game state now, before we get to playing either card. What if one of them was a BoM, and we chose to play that last? That would mean, according to your reasoning, that we would have to choose what to play the BoM as now, before we actually started playing either card. Obviously I don't think that's correct.

Getting back to how this compares to Possession's when-would-gain effect. The effect to "gain the card that he gained instead of him gaining it" is triggered when he gains the Province. It's not resolved yet. What should we do now with that effect? We should load it in the game state, I guess, based in the game conditions right now, so that it will be resolved no matter what happens later. So that even when he didn't end up gaining a Province, the Possessor still gains it, because it was saved in the game state. But in fact this is the opposite of what the rules tell us to do. The only thing in the game state should be that triggered effect, waiting to be resolved, and when it's resolved it's according to the game conditions at that time.

Let me ask you this question: What does it mean to play a card? 

I answered this above.

As for how this works with BoM: BoM has no instructions.  It has card text, but it has no gameplay instructions.

I've already established that BoM works as a before-play ability, which is the same as saying that it functionally reads:
"When you would play this, play this as if it were an Action card in the Supply costing less than it that you choose.
This is that card until it leaves play."
Donald has expressed that he agrees with this. But these are gameplay instructions! You have to play the card to trigger them! The instructions just don't trigger by you having it in your hand, or choosing it because a card (TR) tells you to choose it. They also don't trigger by an effect to play it being triggered. They trigger by an effect to play it being resolved.

In order for the official interpretation to be correct, we have to attach more special meaning to BoM's ability. Maybe a when-chosen ability: "When this card is chosen to be played, choose an Action card in the Supply costing less than it. This is that card until it leaves play." Or just introduce a rule specifically adressing TR/KC/Procession, like amending the statement from the FAQ to say that the other times you play it it's still copying the same card even if it has left play. That would be a rule overriding what the general Dominion rules combined with TR's and BoM's abilities say. I suspect that's what we're gonna have to do.

[AJD]

Golem tells us to play two action cards that we have revealed "in either order". The "play the revealed card" instructions are both triggered now but we choose the order to resolve them. According to you that would mean that the instructions (on both cards) are loaded into the game state now, before we get to playing either card. What if one of them was a BoM, and we chose to play that last? That would mean, according to your reasoning, that we would have to choose what to play the BoM as now, before we actually started playing either card. Obviously I don't think that's correct.

I suspect you're right—Golem into BoM, if you choose to play BoM second you don't choose what card BoM is until after resolving the first action—since the way Donald is ruling on most of these is "resolve BoM the way that would be obvious to resolve it if you didn't actually think about the rules that much"; but I'm confused enough that I'm not totally confident of that.

(Golem into Smithy and BoM; play Smithy first; if you draw your Mountebank then pick something for BoM to be that will give you +action? Or: Golem into Ironworks and BoM; say BoM is Caravan, but play Ironworks first, gaining the last Caravan from the supply?)

[Jeebus]

Sir Martin has pointed out that you can reason that, the second time, you get nothing; BoM is in the trash, not in play, and whatever you pick for it to be, it will instantly stop being it.

The text of BoM isn't "while this is in play"; it's "until this leaves play". So really you might think that, instead of instantly stopping being what you pick, it'll actually stay what you pick forever (or until some wacky Graverobber shenanigans... which is absolute madness).

Whoops, missed this. Yes, if I'm correct that you can pick another card when the BoM is trashed, then the BoM can't actually enter play that time. Hadn't thought of the repercussions from that. As AJD said, ruling that "until this leaves play" never happens is madness, so for sanity's sake we must say that it happens instantly, so you get nothing..!

Not especially intuitive or desirable I think. I'm starting to think that the best thing would be to keep the current ruling, although I don't agree that it follows naturally from existing rules or rulings. But saying that playing TR/KC/Procession on a BoM is a special case seems like a good option.

[werothegreat]

Not sure if you're still arguing about this (tl;dr), but I think the whole point of what happens to a TR'd BoM acting as a Feast is rather moot - you buy/play Feast when you desperately need $5 cards - BoM is a $5 card - why would you trash a perfectly good $5 card... just to get another one?

[dondon151]

Highway into Provinces!

[eHalcyon]

Not sure if you're still arguing about this (tl;dr), but I think the whole point of what happens to a TR'd BoM acting as a Feast is rather moot - you buy/play Feast when you desperately need $5 cards - BoM is a $5 card - why would you trash a perfectly good $5 card... just to get another one?

They're not talking about just BoM-as-feast.  They're talking about TR-BoM-as-feast.  Trash your single BoM to get two BoM.

[AJD]

(Also, if you prefer, we could be talking about BoM-as-Embargo, which is maybe a little more likely.)

[zahlman]

Well you know... I've played games where using Feast to gain Feast (whether or not TR/KCd) repeatedly, to run out the pile and end the game, seemed like a valid strategic idea... so...

[Donald X.]

Whoops, missed this. Yes, if I'm correct that you can pick another card when the BoM is trashed, then the BoM can't actually enter play that time. Hadn't thought of the repercussions from that. As AJD said, ruling that "until this leaves play" never happens is madness, so for sanity's sake we must say that it happens instantly, so you get nothing..!

Not especially intuitive or desirable I think. I'm starting to think that the best thing would be to keep the current ruling, although I don't agree that it follows naturally from existing rules or rulings. But saying that playing TR/KC/Procession on a BoM is a special case seems like a good option.

I am actually coming around to the idea that the combination of your reasoning plus Sir Martin's is the most direct interpretation of the existing rules. And BoM's end-condition must be "once this is no longer in play" rather than "when this goes from being in play to not," so yes, BoM would do nothing the second time.

I don't imagine anyone would possibly play it that way though. No-one will think of that on their own, and it isn't in the rulebook. If it came up irl, I think most people would blindly Feast twice without realizing there was a puzzle to think about, since they're used to how Throne + Feast works. If it came up online I think people would just complain that there was a bug, where was my second Feast, I should have won that game.

So uh I dunno. Let us take it as given that there is a good line of reasoning for BoM giving you nothing the second time in this situation, and perhaps shift the conversation to, is that such a good thing, is it maybe better to special-case this, especially given that the change has no repercussions for any other situations.

[engineer]

Getting back to how this compares to Possession's when-would-gain effect. The effect to "gain the card that he gained instead of him gaining it" is triggered when he gains the Province. It's not resolved yet. What should we do now with that effect? We should load it in the game state, I guess, based in the game conditions right now, so that it will be resolved no matter what happens later. So that even when he didn't end up gaining a Province, the Possessor still gains it, because it was saved in the game state. But in fact this is the opposite of what the rules tell us to do. The only thing in the game state should be that triggered effect, waiting to be resolved, and when it's resolved it's according to the game conditions at that time.

I can tell that you've thought about this much more than I have, but I don't see how your possession/trader example pokes a hole in my model.  I think we are in agreement on how this plays out: You get to choose the order to resolve these effects, since they trigger simultaneously.  That's part of the rules of the game.  The game state is changed by whichever effect you choose to resolve first, and this changes the consequences of the second triggered effect -- in this case, rendering the triggered possession effect moot. 

This doesn't conflict with my model of game-state instruction loading, at least as far as I can see.  Both instructions are loaded up, and both are triggered, and then both act on the changing game state in whatever order you prefer, as spelled out in the rules.  If you play the Trader trigger first, then the Possession only gets you a silver, since your buddy would no longer gain a Province.  I agree that the game state can change between triggering and resolution.  But that doesn't mean that you have to wait to load the instructions up.

I do agree that Golem is a stronger argument against this model, though.  In order to maintain my model and retain the behavior that we agree should happen (i.e. if you play BoM second, you choose what it will be after playing the 1st action), I'd have to admit that the wording on golem "play the action cards in either order" is somehow different than Throne room's "play it twice."  That would mean that the alternate throne room ("Play it.  Play it again") is also different from the real TR, and alternate-TR/Feast would only get you one card, because the Feast is in the trash on the second attempted play.  Even if we allow cards to be played from the trash (such that alternate-TR/Feast gains you two cards again), this model still requires a distinction between the wording of TR and the wording of Golem.

I admit this is a weak position for my model to hold.  I'm not a big fan of differentiating between "play it twice" and "play it.  Play it again". 

As I said before, I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with your logic.  It is self-consistent.  But it does disagree with Donald's TR/BoM[Feast] ruling.  So you either have to make a special exception, or you have to change your logic in a way such that Donald's ruling is consistent with it.  I am attempting to do the latter.  At this point, though, you've got Donald agreeing that a special exception may be the way to go, so perhaps your model will be the better one to use going forward.

[Jeebus]

I can tell that you've thought about this much more than I have, but I don't see how your possession/trader example pokes a hole in my model.

Well, it was an attempt to show both that game state can change between triggering and resolution (which I see you agree on) and that we shouldn't "load" anymore into the game state upon triggering than what the actual triggered effect says. Actually the last part might not have been the clearest argument. But I won't go further into that anyway.

I don't imagine anyone would possibly play it that way though. No-one will think of that on their own, and it isn't in the rulebook. If it came up irl, I think most people would blindly Feast twice without realizing there was a puzzle to think about, since they're used to how Throne + Feast works. If it came up online I think people would just complain that there was a bug, where was my second Feast, I should have won that game.

So uh I dunno. Let us take it as given that there is a good line of reasoning for BoM giving you nothing the second time in this situation, and perhaps shift the conversation to, is that such a good thing, is it maybe better to special-case this, especially given that the change has no repercussions for any other situations.

I think some will think it will work like that, but mostly rules-nerds like me who have been studying how Dominion's timing works. For sure far more will happily double Feast. Actually I take that back, even I didn't realize at first that you'd get nothing the second time, I just thought you'd get to play it as another Action card. :p And so did everyone else in the forums arguing the same thing, I think.

So I for one don't think it's good that you would get nothing the second time.
I'd be for saying this (from the FAQ): If you use Throne Room, King's Court, or Procession to play a Band of Misfits card multiple times, you only pick what to play it as the first time; the other times it is still copying the same card [added:] even if it has left play.

As far as I can see this can arise with the following card combinations: TR/KC/Procession + BoM + any of these cards: Feast, Mining Village, Embargo, Death Cart, Pillage, any of the Knights

[AJD]

Whoops, missed this. Yes, if I'm correct that you can pick another card when the BoM is trashed, then the BoM can't actually enter play that time. Hadn't thought of the repercussions from that. As AJD said, ruling that "until this leaves play" never happens is madness, so for sanity's sake we must say that it happens instantly, so you get nothing..!

Not especially intuitive or desirable I think. I'm starting to think that the best thing would be to keep the current ruling, although I don't agree that it follows naturally from existing rules or rulings. But saying that playing TR/KC/Procession on a BoM is a special case seems like a good option.

I am actually coming around to the idea that the combination of your reasoning plus Sir Martin's is the most direct interpretation of the existing rules. And BoM's end-condition must be "once this is no longer in play" rather than "when this goes from being in play to not," so yes, BoM would do nothing the second time.

I actually don't buy this. If BoM is already in the trash and you're tryint to play it as Feast or something, two things should happen: (a) you play it as Feast, and (b) the card is Feast while in play. The card doesn't enter the play area, so (b) doesn't happen, but I don't see why (a) shouldn't happen—playing it as Feast needn't be dependent on the card actually becoming or remaining Feast for any length of time.

(This is not so different from the BoM-as-Feast situation with no Throne Room. You play BoM as Feast and try to follow this instructions: So you go (1), trash it. At this point the card reverts to a BoM in the trash, but you don't go, What's step 2? I was in the middle of playing a Feast but now there's no Feast anymore so I'll have to stop resolving it! ...Even though the Feast has reverted back to BoM, you stlll finish resolving the effects of Feast. This suggests that the card doesn't have to remain as Feast for Feast's effects to happen, which I think should extend to the case where it starts in the trash.)

[werothegreat]

I play Throne Room.  Okay, that means I have to pick an Action from my hand.

I choose Band of Misfits.  Now, Band of Misfits' clause says "Play this as..." not "When you play this..." so I have to pick something for Band of Misfits to turn into before it hits the ground.  I choose Feast.

Throne Room sees a Feast.  Guess we're playing Feast twice!

"Feast" trashes itself and gains a $5 card (let's say another Band of Misfits).

Second time around, the card that Throne Room was playing has disappeared (from Throne Room's perspective), so it has lost track of it.  However, Throne Room was told to play Feast twice.  So by gum it's going to play Feast again.  There's nothing to trash, but you gain another $5 card (let's say yet another Band of Misfits).

The fact that Feast turns back into Band of Misfits when it hits the trash means nothing.  Throne Room isn't looking at the trash.  Throne Room doesn't care about the trash.  Throne Room cares what the card said WHEN IT WAS THRONE ROOM'D.  And neither Feast nor Band of Misfits have a "If you trash this..." clause, so Throne Room doesn't care.

Therefore, Throne Room-> Band of Misfits (Feast) should trash Band of Misfits and gain you two cards costing up to $5.

[AJD]

Second time around, the card that Throne Room was playing has disappeared (from Throne Room's perspective), so it has lost track of it.  However, Throne Room was told to play Feast twice.  So by gum it's going to play Feast again.

The lose-track principle only applies to moving a card from one location to another, not to knowing what a card's name is or what would happen if you played it.

[Fuu]

Having read the entire thread I don't see why there is such an issue here. I think it would be really sad if some kind of special ruling was deemed necessary, the situation does not seem so complex.

Perhaps you can make a compelling argument that you don't get to BoM-Feast twice, or that when you Procession-BoM you don't get to replace your trashed BoM with a $6 action. However, I really cannot see that it is intuitive to play that way. Firstly, and by my count most importantly, I do not think it is in the spirit of the cards played to deny the second Feast - it seems counterintuitive; if I was playing a game with someone who insisted that I couldn't Feast twice, I'm not sure I'd be having such an enjoyable game with them (the same holds for Procession-BoM: ultimately I trashed and (at least for now) lost ownership of BoM, so I should replace it with a $1 higher cost action). Secondly, while you can argue along those lines, you can argue at least as consistently (to my mind, more so, but each to their own) along the lines of the rules as they are, which seem perfectly self-consistent, in addition to being intuitively what one would expect.

BoM is a really cool concept, and I think it should be played intuitively and not mired in this kind of rules bureaucracy, which can only lessen the enjoyment of playing BoM. You're free to play your own house rule variants if you really take objection to the rules, but please let's not get some kind of special ruling here.

[werothegreat]

On a side note, an interesting way to counter a player going heavy on the Bands of Misfits would be to run out a strategic supply pile - for instance, maybe the only Village on the board.  Then he's stuck with a bunch of dead cards.

[Hockey Mask]

I've heard both sides so much I don't even know which is the correct ruling anymore.  Tell me how to play it and I'll do it that way.

[eHalcyon]

On a side note, an interesting way to counter a player going heavy on the Bands of Misfits would be to run out a strategic supply pile - for instance, maybe the only Village on the board.  Then he's stuck with a bunch of dead cards.

I think BoM is a trap unless there are multiple useful targets.  If running out a single pile screws over the BoM player, that player should have just bought that card instead of BoM.  OTOH, maybe you already managed to scoop the majority of a key card and the otehr player is desperately using BoM to fill the gap.  In that case, your strategy dead on.

[Insomniac]

On a side note, an interesting way to counter a player going heavy on the Bands of Misfits would be to run out a strategic supply pile - for instance, maybe the only Village on the board.  Then he's stuck with a bunch of dead cards.

I think BoM is a trap unless there are multiple useful targets.  If running out a single pile screws over the BoM player, that player should have just bought that card instead of BoM.  OTOH, maybe you already managed to scoop the majority of a key card and the otehr player is desperately using BoM to fill the gap.  In that case, your strategy dead on.

Some boards it is a trap for sure, but on some boards its a superb way to build an engine for example, On a village+smithy board. need a village Boms got your back, need that smithy? Bom has ya covered. already drawn your deck, copy something that gives you cash or buys if available.