Print

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

[eHalcyon]

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.

TR-BoM locks in the BoM choice, even if BoM gets trashed in the process.  TR-BoM(Feast) is the same as TR-Feast.

Procession-BoM similarly locks in the BoM choice, but when the card is trashed by Procession you will gain a card costing $6, based on BoM's price, rather than the price of whatever BoM was acting as.  (Is that how it works for anything BoM mimics?  I think the specific example being thrown around is Fortress.)

[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.

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.

Yeah, but then there are two good targets and you'll probably want to buy regular Villages too.  Smithy is less likely to pile so it would make sense to buy extra Villages and use BoM as Smithy, Village when it needs to be.

[Jeebus]

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.)

Interesting point.

To make any sense of how BoM works, as I've said before, I interpreted it as a before-play ability. (You can see my reasoning in my long almost-first post a couple of pages ago) Two things happen immidiately before play if you try to play BoM: You choose a card to play it as, and it sets up an effect that when triggered will change the card back to BoM.

Okay, so you try to play BoM while it's in the trash. The two things happen, then you play it as Feast for instance (could be anything). But when does the set-up effect happen? Doesn't it actually happen before you even get to playing it, so that it never becomes Feast? Remember, the effect was set up before play, and will trigger the instant the card is not in play. If that is the case, then you never get to play it as Feast. It will still be played, but as a straight BoM, which does nothing (same as playing BoM with no card cheaper than it in supply). I think this is the correct way of looking at it.

[AJD]

Okay, so you try to play BoM while it's in the trash. The two things happen, then you play it as Feast for instance (could be anything). But when does the set-up effect happen? Doesn't it actually happen before you even get to playing it, so that it never becomes Feast? Remember, the effect was set up before play, and will trigger the instant the card is not in play. If that is the case, then you never get to play it as Feast. It will still be played, but as a straight BoM, which does nothing (same as playing BoM with no card cheaper than it in supply). I think this is the correct way of looking at it.

My point is that the card doesn't have to "be" Feast for it to be played "as" Feast. The "play... as" and "until it leaves play" clauses are two in-principle independent effects.

[Donald X.]

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.

Well the special ruling just makes it work like I think most people will think it does and like the rulebook says it does - Throne locks in on what you picked first. The problem with special rulings is that no-one sees them, and this one isn't so bad there; you have to have worked out that there's an issue here at all to need this ruling, and if you go by the rulebook then you'll be playing correctly, you just won't know the reasoning.

Again the current ruling is, you Feast twice somehow. It doesn't affect anything but Thrones on BoM as a one-shot.

[SwitchedFromStarcraft]

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.

Well the special ruling just makes it work like I think most people will think it does and like the rulebook says it does - Throne locks in on what you picked first. The problem with special rulings is that no-one sees them, and this one isn't so bad there; you have to have worked out that there's an issue here at all to need this ruling, and if you go by the rulebook then you'll be playing correctly, you just won't know the reasoning.

Again the current ruling is, you Feast twice somehow. It doesn't affect anything but Thrones on BoM as a one-shot.

So if you TR on BoM as mining village, you would gain 4 coin if you selected the "trash this card for 2 coin" option both times.  Is that correct?

[ftl]

um... no?

It'll work the same way as TR->Mining village, so you can't get the +$2 both times, just once.

[SwitchedFromStarcraft]

Isn't mining village a "one-shot" if you select the "trash this card" option?  Donald says this ruling "doesn't affect anything but Thrones on BoM as a one-shot."

 Did I misunderstand something?

[ftl]

And the resolution is the same as it always was for TR->Mining Village. Mining Village has an "if you do" clause, you only get the +$2 if you trash it. If you've trashed it once, you can't trash it a second time, it's already trashed.  Feast has no such clause, you gain a card regardless of whether you trashed the Feast or not.

TR->(BOM as Feast) works the same way as TR->Feast .
TR->(BOM as Mining Village) works the same way as TR->Mining Village .

[Donald X.]

And the resolution is the same as it always was for TR->Mining Village. Mining Village has an "if you do" clause, you only get the +$2 if you trash it. If you've trashed it once, you can't trash it a second time, it's already trashed.  Feast has no such clause, you gain a card regardless of whether you trashed the Feast or not.

TR->(BOM as Feast) works the same way as TR->Feast .
TR->(BOM as Mining Village) works the same way as TR->Mining Village .

Quoting correct post.

[SwitchedFromStarcraft]

Thank you both.

[Jeebus]

Okay, so you try to play BoM while it's in the trash. The two things happen, then you play it as Feast for instance (could be anything). But when does the set-up effect happen? Doesn't it actually happen before you even get to playing it, so that it never becomes Feast? Remember, the effect was set up before play, and will trigger the instant the card is not in play. If that is the case, then you never get to play it as Feast. It will still be played, but as a straight BoM, which does nothing (same as playing BoM with no card cheaper than it in supply). I think this is the correct way of looking at it.

My point is that the card doesn't have to "be" Feast for it to be played "as" Feast. The "play... as" and "until it leaves play" clauses are two in-principle independent effects.

I see. Well, now we're getting into exactly what Band of Misfits does again. Partially you have to think about the intention of the card to understand how it works. That is partially what I did to figure out that it had to trigger before-play and then set up an effect to happen when it's no longer in play.

So does the first effect actually mean that it's played as a Feast without necessarily being a Feast? The second effect then would actually do two things: It makes the BoM a Feast and it sets up the effect to turn it back to a BoM. Remember also that the first effect makes you play it "as if it were" the chosen Action card. It's not just the card text that's followed: the whole card is copied, including name, types and cost. (If you were to play the Feast as an Attack card it would trigger an Urchin in play for instance.) So it seems pretty clear to me that the part in the second instruction that says that BoM "is that card" clarifies how the first instruction works, i.e. playing the BoM-as-Feast means it is a Feast. Although the second instruction does set up an effect, I don't think the two instructions are wholly independent of each other.
[EDIT: Donald has actually said the same thing, in this thread! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4083.msg87477#msg87477]

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

Actually I think this might be the most complex card interaction I've seen so far in Dominion.

I do agree with you that it's in the spirit of the card that it lets you BoM-Feast twice with TR, and it's probably the intuitive interpretation for most people. However that you get a $6 Action with Procession-BoM is not so apparently intuitive for everybody, but in any case it's covered in the FAQ.

Anyway, it was important to me that it wasn't only intuitive, but that it was according to known rules about Dominion, not least of all because I maintain a FAQ on BGG where I try to include all known rulings.

So if you TR on BoM as mining village, you would gain 4 coin if you selected the "trash this card for 2 coin" option both times.  Is that correct?

No, the point of the current ruling is that Throning a BoM-as-Feast or BoM-as-Mining Village, is the same as Throning a Feast or Mining Village.
[EDIT: Okay, this was answered.]

[Kirian]

I think this entire thread needs to be made more complicated by replacing all talk of Throne Room with Band of Misfits as Throne Room.

OK, so I play BoM as a Procession, then BoM as a Throne Room, then BoM as a Feast.  Go!

[ftl]

You get to gain 2 cards costing up to 5 and you trash the BOM-as-feast after gaining the first one. Then you get to pick another card to play twice. Then you trash the BOM-as-TR and gain a card costing 6.

Is that right?

[billyswong]

Following the discussion onward after my first post here, I found the intuition of some of us is so radically different than another some of us. It all boils down to what "play a card twice" means. To some of us (including myself) it is talking about a physical card; to some others it is talking about the text of a card. To some of us (including myself) the feasibility of TR-Feast is reasoned by trashed-card-is-still-a-card; to some others it is reasoned by I-remember-the-card.

Could I call the split of us "matter group" and "memory group"?

[Schneau]

Following the discussion onward after my first post here, I found the intuition of some of us is so radically different than another some of us. It all boils down to what "play a card twice" means. To some of us (including myself) it is talking about a physical card; to some others it is talking about the text of a card. To some of us (including myself) the feasibility of TR-Feast is reasoned by trashed-card-is-still-a-card; to some others it is reasoned by I-remember-the-card.

Could I call the split of us "matter group" and "memory group"?

Dominion metaphysics.

[werothegreat]

The Throne Room doesn't look into the trash to make sure Feast is still a Feast.

[DrFlux]

I find it amusing that Donald really answered all the rules questions on page 1, and yet somehow there were 16 pages of dialog on this thread.

[AJD]

The Throne Room doesn't look into the trash to make sure Feast is still a Feast.

How can you tell?

[michaeljb]

The Throne Room doesn't look into the trash to make sure Feast is still a Feast.

How can you tell?

The Throne Room doesn't know that's where the Feast should be; the Throne Room just moved the Feast to in play, and so would expect to find it there.

[Jeebus]

You get to gain 2 cards costing up to 5 and you trash the BOM-as-feast after gaining the first one. Then you get to pick another card to play twice. Then you trash the BOM-as-TR and gain a card costing 6.

Is that right?

Seems right to me. The only difference from straight Procession:TR:Feast is that you gain a $6 card because of how Procession on BoM works (which is in the FAQ).

The Throne Room doesn't look into the trash to make sure Feast is still a Feast.

How can you tell?

The Throne Room doesn't know that's where the Feast should be; the Throne Room just moved the Feast to in play, and so would expect to find it there.

This seems to be the common misunderstanding of the lose-track rule again. Feast not being where TR expects it to be just prevents it from moving it, nothing else. I think that maybe the term "losing track" is causing the confusion. What's really happening is that TR is telling you to move it from one specific place to another specific place. You can't since it's not in the first specific place. Then TR is telling you to follow the instructions on the card. Since you know where the card is and can see the instructions, you can.

Following the discussion onward after my first post here, I found the intuition of some of us is so radically different than another some of us. It all boils down to what "play a card twice" means. To some of us (including myself) it is talking about a physical card; to some others it is talking about the text of a card. To some of us (including myself) the feasibility of TR-Feast is reasoned by trashed-card-is-still-a-card; to some others it is reasoned by I-remember-the-card.

Could I call the split of us "matter group" and "memory group"?

I think that could be right. Then I would be part of "matter group".
What almost seems to contradict that is that BoM as Feast works at all, since by the time you get to "gain a card costing up to $5" it's not a Feast anymore! Still it's clear that once you play the card, you have to follow all the instructions. But I do think that "this", "it", "the card" etc. always refer to a physical card in Dominion. For instance, it's the reason a wording like "while this is in play" makes any sense.

[Qvist]

Just found this on BGG. Great!