Print

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

[Donald X.]

With Nomad Camp, doesn't it move itself as an on-gain effect? Since it reads: "When you gain this, put it on top of your deck." I thought that was the point you were making in your previous post.

No, it never visits the discard pile, it goes straight to the top of your deck.

[AdamH]

"... any cards of his that are trashed are..."

I think it's

The card would be trashed.
The card is trashed and is moved to the trash. (These are the same thing)

"Any cards of his that are trashed" is the same as "each card of his that is trashed" is the same as "when a card of his is trashed". This triggers the same time that Fortress triggers, and the two are resolved in either order.

The reason for my wording is because of on-trash benefits. I'm not sure where they would fit in your model...

"Being trashed" and "moving to the trash" are the same thing. On-trash effects happen after the card is moved to the trash. This includes the on-trash effects of Fortress (move card from trash to hand) and Possession (move card from trash to set-aside-cards-land). There are no known would-trash effects.

I'm still failing to understand how someone can possess me, trash one of my cards, receive the on-trash benefit, but have the card be set aside under this model.

If:   "Being trashed" and "moving to the trash" are the same thing.    [which is a direct quote]; then any card that gives an on-trash benefit MUST be moved to the trash in order to give it (which we established it goes). So when does it move from the trash to the Set-Aside pile? It must be before some other card gets a chance to touch it (like Graverobber, Forager, etc.) and after on-trash benefits occur; but I don't know which entry in "When Cards Do Things" applies here.

Donald's post on this issue quoted the Possession FAQ which said "The trashed cards are actually trashed". My interpretation is that the default rule for trashing involved the card moving to the trash pile at some point, but Possession being in play changed that rule to the card moving to a set-aside pile at that point instead. The wording of the Possession FAQ seems to imply to me that that's what happens.

[SirPeebles]

"... any cards of his that are trashed are..."

I think it's

The card would be trashed.
The card is trashed and is moved to the trash. (These are the same thing)

"Any cards of his that are trashed" is the same as "each card of his that is trashed" is the same as "when a card of his is trashed". This triggers the same time that Fortress triggers, and the two are resolved in either order.

The reason for my wording is because of on-trash benefits. I'm not sure where they would fit in your model...

"Being trashed" and "moving to the trash" are the same thing. On-trash effects happen after the card is moved to the trash. This includes the on-trash effects of Fortress (move card from trash to hand) and Possession (move card from trash to set-aside-cards-land). There are no known would-trash effects.

I'm still failing to understand how someone can possess me, trash one of my cards, receive the on-trash benefit, but have the card be set aside under this model.

If:   "Being trashed" and "moving to the trash" are the same thing.    [which is a direct quote]; then any card that gives an on-trash benefit MUST be moved to the trash in order to give it (which we established it goes). So when does it move from the trash to the Set-Aside pile? It must be before some other card gets a chance to touch it (like Graverobber, Forager, etc.) and after on-trash benefits occur; but I don't know which entry in "When Cards Do Things" applies here.

Donald's post on this issue quoted the Possession FAQ which said "The trashed cards are actually trashed". My interpretation is that the default rule for trashing involved the card moving to the trash pile at some point, but Possession being in play changed that rule to the card moving to a set-aside pile at that point instead. The wording of the Possession FAQ seems to imply to me that that's what happens.

I don't think that "trashing" and "moving to the trash" are the same thing.  I think that the event "card X is trashed" triggers the subsequent event "card X is moved to the trash pile".  It's sort of like how the event "I buy card X" triggers the subsequent event "I gain card X".  In both cases, however, it is possible for either an "on trash"/"on buy" effect to be triggered simultaneously and prevent the subsequent "move to trash"/"gain card" event.  An example for my analogy is when you buy a Noble Brigand, triggering the on-buy effect which allows you to steal treasures, and then reveal a Trader to prevent the gain and to gain a Silver instead.  In this case you bought the Noble Brigand but never gained it.

[SirPeebles]

Another example is the subtle distinction between "discard card X" and "move card X to the discard pile".  The first event triggers the latter event.  However, both Chancellor and Scavenger are able to "move card X to the discard pile" directly, without first triggering "discard card X".  This is of course relevant when card X is tunnel, since then "discard card X" is a trigger for "gain Gold".

[Drab Emordnilap]

I'm still failing to understand how someone can possess me, trash one of my cards, receive the on-trash benefit, but have the card be set aside under this model.

If:   "Being trashed" and "moving to the trash" are the same thing.    [which is a direct quote]; then any card that gives an on-trash benefit MUST be moved to the trash in order to give it (which we established it goes). So when does it move from the trash to the Set-Aside pile? It must be before some other card gets a chance to touch it (like Graverobber, Forager, etc.) and after on-trash benefits occur; but I don't know which entry in "When Cards Do Things" applies here.

Donald's post on this issue quoted the Possession FAQ which said "The trashed cards are actually trashed". My interpretation is that the default rule for trashing involved the card moving to the trash pile at some point, but Possession being in play changed that rule to the card moving to a set-aside pile at that point instead. The wording of the Possession FAQ seems to imply to me that that's what happens.

I Possess you. On your turn, I make you Chapel a Cultist. The Cultist is trashed. The Cultist is in the trash pile. There isn't any time that one of those things is true but not the other.

Now, there are things that care that something was trashed. Cultist wants to +3 cards, and Possession wants to set Cultist aside. They're your effects, so you choose what order to resolve them. Except I'm Possessing you, so I make decisions for you. I can resolve Cultist then Possession, which does +3 cards, then set aside Cultist. Or I can resolve Possession then Cultist, which sets aside Cultist, then +3 cards.

I don't think that "trashing" and "moving to the trash" are the same thing.

This is possibly true, but there isn't any way to move something to the trash without trashing it, like there is to move something to the discard pile without discarding it. If Chancellor said "You may put your deck into the trash pile", then I agree that wouldn't trigger Cultist.

[AJD]

"Being trashed" and "moving to the trash" are the same thing. On-trash effects happen after the card is moved to the trash. This includes the on-trash effects of Fortress (move card from trash to hand) and Possession (move card from trash to set-aside-cards-land). There are no known would-trash effects.

I'm still failing to understand how someone can possess me, trash one of my cards, receive the on-trash benefit, but have the card be set aside under this model.

...By doing exactly what you just said. They trash your Cultist, meaning the Cultist moves to the trash; and then the two on-trash effects both happen (namely +3 cards, the on-trash effect of Cultist, and moving Cultist out of the trash, the on-trash effect of Possession). I'm not sure what the confusing part is here.

[blueblimp]

With Nomad Camp, doesn't it move itself as an on-gain effect? Since it reads: "When you gain this, put it on top of your deck." I thought that was the point you were making in your previous post.

No, it never visits the discard pile, it goes straight to the top of your deck.

Maybe isotropic is a bit off in its implementation then?

Here's what happens on iso when buying a Nomad Camp with Watchtower in hand:

It asks: "gain a Nomad Camp>  put it on your deck     reveal Watchtower".

Selecting "put it on your deck" puts it on your deck, and it is not possible to reveal Watchtower:

You play a Watchtower.
... You draw a Watchtower and a Copper.
You play 4 Coppers.
You buy a Nomad Camp.
... You put it on your deck.
(You reshuffle.)

Selecting "reveal Watchtower" gives the Watchtower reveal options. Either way, nothing special happens after:

You play 4 Coppers.
You buy a Nomad Camp.
... You reveal a Watchtower.
... You trash the Nomad Camp.

You buy a Nomad Camp.
... You reveal a Watchtower.
... You put the Nomad Camp on your deck.

If I understand you correctly, what should happen is when Nomad Camp is gained, it goes directly on to your deck; it's not an effect that you get to choose when to resolve. So isotropic should ask whether you want to reveal Watchtower, and should not give the option of revealing Watchtower before Nomad Camp goes on top of your deck.

[ftl]

You can't reveal Watchtower after the NC is on your deck, because of the lose-track rule.

When you reveal Watchtower, the Nomad Camp is still in the supply pile and hasn't been moved anywhere at all yet.  Works the same way as with a non-nomad-camp gain, I think? If I gain a silver, I can reveal Watchtower to put it on top of my deck or to trash it. Either way, it never visits my discard pile, I think...

[AJD]

You can't reveal Watchtower after the NC is on your deck, because of the lose-track rule. When you reveal Watchtower, the Nomad Camp is still in the supply pile and hasn't been moved anywhere at all yet. 

This isn't correct; Nomad Camp goes directly to your deck, so after it goes to your deck is when you have the option to reveal Watchtower. It's mechanically the same as revealing Watchtower in response to a Sea Hag.

Works the same way as with a non-nomad-camp gain, I think? If I gain a silver, I can reveal Watchtower to put it on top of my deck or to trash it. Either way, it never visits my discard pile, I think...

Nope. The gain goes through, the card lands in the discard pile (usually), and then you reveal Watchtower and move the gained card from your discard pile to the decktop or trash.

[Donald X.]

Maybe isotropic is a bit off in its implementation then?

Yes. There should be no chance to reveal Watchtower prior to actually gaining Nomad Camp; it will already be on your deck when you reveal Watchtower.

[ftl]

oh, ok.

[brokoli]

Each time I see this thread, I read "pRoCession + fortress" 

[Drab Emordnilap]

Each time I see this thread, I read "pRoCession + fortress" 

Probably because of the "Procession + Island" Thread.

Also because Procession + Fortress is awesomsticks.

[brokoli]

Each time I see this thread, I read "pRoCession + fortress" 

Probably because of the "Procession + Island" Thread.

Also because Procession + Fortress is awesomsticks.

Precisely.

[Jeebus]

Sorry to reanimate this thread. I just want to comment on a few things.

I think I see the problem now: I'm confused by the fact that Possession has in effect created a new trigger. ("...any of his cards that are trashed are set aside and returned to his discard pile at end of turn.") Normally, triggers "you control" and that "happen to you" are coming from the cards you yourself play. But I think DXV is saying that these new triggers, created by another player, will still "happen" to the possessed player.

I'm happy with this answer, but I think it still creates a precedent whereby triggers can be applied to other players besides the one who plays them or has them in hand.

I disagree with your original claim that this ruling sets a new precedent. The Possession card creates several triggers: After this turn, the player to your left gets another turn (which you see/control); when he would gain a card, you gain it instead; when he trashes a card, he sets it aside; and the trashed-and-set-aside cards are put into his discard at the end of the turn. This is of course what you are saying in your latest post, quoted above. There is nothing in any rule or ruling that says that triggers can only apply to the player "creating" the triggers. In fact, Embargo does this too, with the Embargo token.

As others have said, the card is actually trashed. "When-trash" effects can only happen when a card is trashed. And they happen after the card is trashed. Possession's effect (setting the card aside) is a when-trash effect. The only thing that isn't entirely clear on the card is whether the trashed card is set aside at the end of the turn or immediately. But first of all, why set it aside at the end of the turn if you're going to return it to the discard straight after that? Logically, it's clear that the point is to set it aside as you go. Second of all, this is explained in the rulebook FAQ anyway.

I don't think that "trashing" and "moving to the trash" are the same thing.  I think that the event "card X is trashed" triggers the subsequent event "card X is moved to the trash pile". It's sort of like how the event "I buy card X" triggers the subsequent event "I gain card X".

"Moving to the trash" doesn't appear anywhere on any cards. It's just a way to explain what happens when you trash a card. It's moved from where it was to trash. So it has nothing to do with the buy/gain thing. If a card did say "move to trash" however, then it would be like "put into discard": it wouldn't trigger when-trash effects (like Drab Emordnilap said).

[Brando Commando]

There is nothing in any rule or ruling that says that triggers can only apply to the player "creating" the triggers. In fact, Embargo does this too, with the Embargo token.

Normally, triggers "you control" and that "happen to you" are coming from the cards you yourself play. But I think DXV is saying that these new triggers, created by another player, will still "happen" to the possessed player.
I'm happy with this answer, but I think it still creates a precedent whereby triggers can be applied to other players besides the one who plays them or has them in hand.

It's true that no rule book told us that triggers only "happen" to somebody setting them, but the question is more, "What order do we play the triggers in"? And so far, we haven't really had a precedent to decide who controls the order when a card you haven't played is creating the trigger for you. Really, I don't think the "rules" apply insofar as I understand it, as I don't think there is anything in the rulebook explaining exactly how triggers work. (I'm not super familiar with Dark Ages, though.)

I hadn't thought of Embargo, and looking through the rules questions, I see that  http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1701.msg28853#msg28853 establishes that Embargo, even though you don't play it, is "something that happens to you" that you control the timing of vs. other triggers. So yes, maybe that's an earlier precedent. (I think Embargo is an odd case in any event, since it seems that playing the Embargo card doesn't create the trigger so much as having it in the setup.) I don't see this as being a well-established principle, however, since it's only been now that it mattered and I can't think of any other cards beside Embargo and Possession that create this issue.

[Jeebus]

Well, the rules talk about "things happening to you", and that can of course both be things that happen right at the moment a card is played (like someone playing a Witch) or things that happen because a card established earlier that it would happen now (which we call triggers).

What order concurrent "things" are resolved in, is established. It's turn order if it's happening to several players. If it's happening to you, you decide.

Really the only question that can be fuzzy, is "Is this thing happening to you or not?" See this thread for more on this: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4535.msg104666#msg104666
I think the definition of when something is actually happening to you isn't explicitly stated in the rules, but it's obvious except in some edge cases (like the Noble Brigand issue talked about in the thread I linked to). As far as setting aside your trashed card because of Possession, that's clearly happening to you.

[GendoIkari]

Ok, related question with Nomad Camp and other things that change where something is gained to. With Watchtower it's a little more clear, because that's a reaction to gaining something. But... what about Armory, Royal Seal, or Develop? Those tell you to gain cards to the top of your deck. If you gain Nomad Camp with one of those, it obviously will be gained to the top of your deck, but was it Nomad Camp's text that made it happen, or the other card's text? Or was it a choice of 2 things trying to happen at once, and you get to choose which one, even though they both have the same outcome?

I ask because of the card being discussed here. What if a new card comes along and says "when you gain this, set it aside" or even "when you gain this, put it on the bottom of your deck"? Where would the card go if it were gained with Develop or Armory?

[Donald X.]

Ok, related question with Nomad Camp and other things that change where something is gained to. With Watchtower it's a little more clear, because that's a reaction to gaining something. But... what about Armory, Royal Seal, or Develop? Those tell you to gain cards to the top of your deck. If you gain Nomad Camp with one of those, it obviously will be gained to the top of your deck, but was it Nomad Camp's text that made it happen, or the other card's text? Or was it a choice of 2 things trying to happen at once, and you get to choose which one, even though they both have the same outcome?

I ask because of the card being discussed here. What if a new card comes along and says "when you gain this, set it aside" or even "when you gain this, put it on the bottom of your deck"? Where would the card go if it were gained with Develop or Armory?

It was not lost on me that the fact that Nomad Camp went the same place that Armory etc. send cards meant I was dodging a rules question. I don't feel like tying myself down to a ruling on imaginary cards, but if I made a card that went somewhere other than your deck top and you gained it with Armory, odds are you would pick where the card went.

[Brando Commando]

Ok, related question with Nomad Camp and other things that change where something is gained to. With Watchtower it's a little more clear, because that's a reaction to gaining something. But... what about Armory, Royal Seal, or Develop? Those tell you to gain cards to the top of your deck. If you gain Nomad Camp with one of those, it obviously will be gained to the top of your deck, but was it Nomad Camp's text that made it happen, or the other card's text? Or was it a choice of 2 things trying to happen at once, and you get to choose which one, even though they both have the same outcome?

I ask because of the card being discussed here. What if a new card comes along and says "when you gain this, set it aside" or even "when you gain this, put it on the bottom of your deck"? Where would the card go if it were gained with Develop or Armory?

It's an interesting question. I'd like to hear other answers, but my take on it is "when" that begins most of the bottom-half instructions creates a trigger that happens immediately before any non-trigger event. I say this partly because it's how we time reactions -- immediately after an attack card is played and before any of that attack cards instructions are executed.

That said, Possession seems to create triggers as well, so may other things are triggers even when not created by bottom-half-"when" instructions.

[GendoIkari]

Ok, related question with Nomad Camp and other things that change where something is gained to. With Watchtower it's a little more clear, because that's a reaction to gaining something. But... what about Armory, Royal Seal, or Develop? Those tell you to gain cards to the top of your deck. If you gain Nomad Camp with one of those, it obviously will be gained to the top of your deck, but was it Nomad Camp's text that made it happen, or the other card's text? Or was it a choice of 2 things trying to happen at once, and you get to choose which one, even though they both have the same outcome?

I ask because of the card being discussed here. What if a new card comes along and says "when you gain this, set it aside" or even "when you gain this, put it on the bottom of your deck"? Where would the card go if it were gained with Develop or Armory?

It was not lost on me that the fact that Nomad Camp went the same place that Armory etc. send cards meant I was dodging a rules question. I don't feel like tying myself down to a ruling on imaginary cards, but if I made a card that went somewhere other than your deck top and you gained it with Armory, odds are you would pick where the card went.

Thanks! I knew you wouldn't want to rule on a theoretical card, but I appreciate that input!

It's like you're here for us.