Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]

Author Topic: Talisman + Sir Martin  (Read 11064 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Saposhiente

  • Herbalist
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
  • Respect: +7
    • View Profile
Talisman + Sir Martin
« on: January 04, 2013, 05:08:01 pm »
+1

What happens when you have a Talisman in play and you buy Sir Martin? Do you first gain the copy and then buy whichever knight is below it if you have enough money? Does Talisman not work at all because two different Knights are not "copies" (also meaning that Menagerie and Fairgrounds synergize with knights)? What if you buy a $5 knight with Talisman in play and the next knight revealed is Sir Martin? Does Dame Josephine change any of this?
Also there's a typo in the rulebook for Knights: It says that Sir Martin costs $1 instead of $5.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2013, 05:09:47 pm by Saposhiente »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9141
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #1 on: January 04, 2013, 05:14:42 pm »
+3

The Knights are all differently named, so they do indeed synergize with Menagerie and Fairgrounds, as well as Harvest.

I don't remember hearing a specific ruling on this, but I expect that Talisman would not ever gain you an additional Knight.  Let's simplify the question by playing a Highway first, so that all Knights cost $4 or less.

With Highway and Talisman in play, you buy Sir Martin.  Talisman says that you when you buy a card costing $4 or less, you gain a copy of it.  So now you gain a copy of Sir Martin via Talisman.  Now that that's taken care of, you should gain the copy of Sir Martin that you bought.  But Sir Martin has already been gained and now the top Knight is Dame Natalie!  There is no longer a copy of Sir Martin to gain, so that's the end of it.

(Dame Josephine changes it slightly in that, if Dame Josephine is the card you are trying to buy -with Highway in play- you would gain her through the Buy and not through Talisman.)

A similar thing should happen with Ruins, if you are so inclined to buy Ruins.  If you buy a Ruined Village with Talisman in play, you will only get two Ruins if the next one is also a Ruined Village.  If it is an Abandoned Mine, you only get the first Ruined Village.

I DO recall an official ruling about Ruins with Ambassador that follows this principle as well.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2013, 05:16:05 pm by eHalcyon »
Logged

Drab Emordnilap

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1832
  • Shuffle iT Username: Drab Emordnilap
  • Luther Bell Hendricks V
  • Respect: +1880
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2013, 05:18:24 pm »
+2

What if I buy Sir Martin with Talisman in play and Trader in hand? Can I reveal Trader to gain a silver when I would gain the Sir Martin (from Talisman), and then finish buying and gaining Sir Martin?
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9141
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2013, 05:23:33 pm »
0

What if I buy Sir Martin with Talisman in play and Trader in hand? Can I reveal Trader to gain a silver when I would gain the Sir Martin (from Talisman), and then finish buying and gaining Sir Martin?

Ooh.  I would say yes.  But that's getting crazy enough that I am not confident.
Logged

ednever

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 614
  • Respect: +674
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2013, 06:32:50 pm »
0

What if I buy Sir Martin with Talisman in play and Trader in hand? Can I reveal Trader to gain a silver when I would gain the Sir Martin (from Talisman), and then finish buying and gaining Sir Martin?

Ooh.  I would say yes.  But that's getting crazy enough that I am not confident.

I think that's right. Pretty cool.

Talisman gains you a copy of a card you bought (sir M). Trader gains you a silver instead of the card you would have gained (in this case from the buy)

So:
Buy sir M
Gain a second Sir M
Gain Sir M, replace with Silver
Gain sir M (still available in the stack)

I think that's right. It all depends on the order you activate that cards.
Key is talisman first, then Trader.

Ed
Logged

DG

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4018
  • Respect: +2557
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2013, 07:44:09 pm »
0

I would say that you resolve the on-buy effects first, that would be gaining another Sir Martin for each talisman in play. There are no more Sir Martins in the supply so that has no effect. Once all on-buy effects are resolved you would then resolve the on-gain effects from the trader, replacing your bought Sir Martin with a silver if you so desired.
Logged

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2725
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3608
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2013, 07:56:20 pm »
0

I would say that you resolve the on-buy effects first, that would be gaining another Sir Martin for each talisman in play. There are no more Sir Martins in the supply so that has no effect. Once all on-buy effects are resolved you would then resolve the on-gain effects from the trader, replacing your bought Sir Martin with a silver if you so desired.

No, I'm pretty sure ed has it right. You do resolve the on buy effect of talisman first. It just so happens that effect tells you to gain a card. So you gain that. And then trader resolves whenever a card is gained, so you can turn it into a silver and then proceed to gain the original bought copy of sir martin.
Logged

DG

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4018
  • Respect: +2557
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2013, 08:16:05 pm »
0

 
Quote
You do resolve the on buy effect of talisman first. It just so happens that effect tells you to gain a card. So you gain that.

So you are in effect saying that even though you have bought the original Sir Martin it is still in the supply until it is gained? I have a bad feeling that might open up a cans of worms somewhere.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2013, 08:28:48 pm by DG »
Logged

jonts26

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2725
  • Shuffle iT Username: jonts
  • Respect: +3608
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #8 on: January 04, 2013, 08:20:09 pm »
+1

Except there is a card to gain. You are about to gain sir martin, silver is gained instead. Then you go to gain the original sir martin and, well, there it is. Go get it.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4357
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #9 on: January 04, 2013, 08:56:01 pm »
+1

The question is, after the original Sir Martin is bought, is it still in the supply for talisman to try to gain, or is it in some limbo land where it's not in the supply anymore, but hasn't been gained yet?

Logic tells me it would be in the supply, but my gut says limbo land. And I tend to go with gut here.

Both tell me we want Donald to clarify this zany scenario.

Rabid

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 828
  • Shuffle iT Username: Rabid
  • Respect: +631
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #10 on: January 04, 2013, 09:01:56 pm »
+1

Logged
Twitch
1 Day Cup #1:Ednever

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4917
  • Respect: +20061
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #11 on: January 04, 2013, 09:59:08 pm »
+1

The question is, after the original Sir Martin is bought, is it still in the supply for talisman to try to gain, or is it in some limbo land where it's not in the supply anymore, but hasn't been gained yet?

Logic tells me it would be in the supply, but my gut says limbo land. And I tend to go with gut here.

Both tell me we want Donald to clarify this zany scenario.
For the moment (hopefully a neverending moment) let us say that it is still in the supply.

Buying a card means paying for it. Again think of it in terms of Amazon. You buy a CD. It's still in their warehouse. They'll get around to shipping it to you eventually. When you buy a card you then gain it, but Trader and Possession mess with that. You can buy Sir Martin with Talisman in play and Trader in hand, take a Silver instead, then take Sir Martin (or another Silver).
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4357
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #12 on: January 04, 2013, 10:18:59 pm »
0

The question is, after the original Sir Martin is bought, is it still in the supply for talisman to try to gain, or is it in some limbo land where it's not in the supply anymore, but hasn't been gained yet?

Logic tells me it would be in the supply, but my gut says limbo land. And I tend to go with gut here.

Both tell me we want Donald to clarify this zany scenario.
For the moment (hopefully a neverending moment) let us say that it is still in the supply.

Buying a card means paying for it. Again think of it in terms of Amazon. You buy a CD. It's still in their warehouse. They'll get around to shipping it to you eventually. When you buy a card you then gain it, but Trader and Possession mess with that. You can buy Sir Martin with Talisman in play and Trader in hand, take a Silver instead, then take Sir Martin (or another Silver).

It seems to me that this is equivalent to what would happen if you talisman buy the last card in a stack - say the last talisman, since that will always be around. But why your answer doesn't make sense to my intuition is precisely BECAUSE of the analogy you point out. If I order the last copy of the Star Wars soundtrack that they have in their warehouse, they aren't going to give a second copy out afterwards, even if that has an express rush delivery on it; they set aside that copy for me, because I've bought it, even if they haven't given it to me yet (so I haven't gained it). This is why I imagine a magical set-aside-for-you-because-you-bought-it land, no longer in the supply, even before you gain the card, but which trader and possession can mess with. Of course, your answer does seem totally consistent with the rules of the game, just not with my intuition about things.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4917
  • Respect: +20061
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #13 on: January 04, 2013, 10:57:42 pm »
+5

It seems to me that this is equivalent to what would happen if you talisman buy the last card in a stack - say the last talisman, since that will always be around. But why your answer doesn't make sense to my intuition is precisely BECAUSE of the analogy you point out. If I order the last copy of the Star Wars soundtrack that they have in their warehouse, they aren't going to give a second copy out afterwards, even if that has an express rush delivery on it; they set aside that copy for me, because I've bought it, even if they haven't given it to me yet (so I haven't gained it). This is why I imagine a magical set-aside-for-you-because-you-bought-it land, no longer in the supply, even before you gain the card, but which trader and possession can mess with. Of course, your answer does seem totally consistent with the rules of the game, just not with my intuition about things.
The talisman is *magic*.

The intention was just that Talisman got you an extra copy of whatever. I didn't think through that it actually got you its copy before you got the original, but I have to go by what the cards say, and that's what it says.
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4733
  • Respect: +3323
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #14 on: January 05, 2013, 03:04:46 am »
0

The question is, after the original Sir Martin is bought, is it still in the supply for talisman to try to gain, or is it in some limbo land where it's not in the supply anymore, but hasn't been gained yet?

Logic tells me it would be in the supply, but my gut says limbo land. And I tend to go with gut here.

Both tell me we want Donald to clarify this zany scenario.
For the moment (hopefully a neverending moment) let us say that it is still in the supply.

Buying a card means paying for it. Again think of it in terms of Amazon. You buy a CD. It's still in their warehouse. They'll get around to shipping it to you eventually. When you buy a card you then gain it, but Trader and Possession mess with that. You can buy Sir Martin with Talisman in play and Trader in hand, take a Silver instead, then take Sir Martin (or another Silver).
Okay, I find this very odd.

On buying Sir Martin, Talisman activates and tries to give you a copy, but it doesn't find one. How can you get two Silvers here?

Like WW said: When you buy the last Village and Talisman activates, you don't get an extra non-existing Village which you could turn into a Silver right?

I would expect that Talisman only works on copies that are actually there.
Trader works on "would gain", but it's very odd that you would gain a copy of Sir Martin which doesn't exist. You would gain nothing, so you can't get Silver instead.

Look at Ruins: This ruling would mean that you could always get two Silvers with Trader and Talisman if you buy the top Ruins. But that's so counter intuitive. I mean, the way I would solve it is this:

- You name the top Ruins as the card you want to buy
- Talisman's on-buy event triggers first and you turn over the next Ruins to see what it is
--- If it's the same as the top one, you would gain it and can choose whether to reveal Trader
--- If it's not, it's not a copy and you can't gain it
- You now would gain the top Ruins as that's the one you originally bought
- You can choose whether to reveal Trader to get a Silver instead of the top Ruins
- Whatever you do, make sure that at the end of your turn only the top Ruins is face up

Ambassador has some rules clarifications in the Dark Ages manual on revealing the top Ruins, so I would expect this to work for Talisman as well...
« Last Edit: January 05, 2013, 03:06:30 am by Davio »
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4917
  • Respect: +20061
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #15 on: January 05, 2013, 03:08:50 am »
+1

Okay, I find this very odd.

On buying Sir Martin, Talisman activates and tries to give you a copy, but it doesn't find one. How can you get two Silvers here?
I am just interpreting the cards as written. I can't change them, counterintuitive or not.

Talisman's when-buy triggers *before* you gain the card due to buying it. This causes you to gain a copy of the card, right then. You reveal Trader and gain Silver instead. Now it's time to gain your normal copy of the card due to buying it. You reveal Trader and gain Silver instead.
Logged

shMerker

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 357
  • Respect: +385
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #16 on: January 05, 2013, 03:32:33 am »
0

This is not, by the way, the way it's implemented on Iso, unless I'm missing something different about other cases of single copies such as Black Market. Here's a log where I had Trader, Talisman, and Black Market in play.

Quote
— shMerker's turn 13 —
shMerker plays a Black Market.
... getting +$2.
... drawing a Hunting Party, a Stash, and a Remodel from the Black Market deck.
... playing a Talisman.
... playing a Copper.
... shMerker buys a Remodel.
... ... shMerker reveals a Trader to gain a Silver instead of a Remodel.
... ... shMerker gains a Silver.
... returning a Hunting Party and a Stash to the bottom of the Black Market deck.
(shMerker reshuffles.)
(shMerker draws: 2 Estates, a Black Market, and 2 Coppers.)

Quote
— shMerker's turn 40 —
shMerker plays a Talisman.
shMerker buys a Curse.
... shMerker reveals a Trader to gain a Silver instead of a Curse.
... shMerker gains a Silver.
(shMerker reshuffles.)
(shMerker draws: 2 Estates, a Black Market, a Silver, and a Trader.)

If I'm understanding correctly then both of those purchases should have resulted in gaining a silver and then gaining the card originally purchased (after being prompted to reveal Trader again of course) but instead only the silver was gained.
Logged
"I take no responsibility whatsoever for those who get dizzy and pass out from running around this post."

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4733
  • Respect: +3323
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #17 on: January 05, 2013, 05:10:26 am »
0

Okay, I find this very odd.

On buying Sir Martin, Talisman activates and tries to give you a copy, but it doesn't find one. How can you get two Silvers here?
I am just interpreting the cards as written. I can't change them, counterintuitive or not.

Talisman's when-buy triggers *before* you gain the card due to buying it. This causes you to gain a copy of the card, right then. You reveal Trader and gain Silver instead. Now it's time to gain your normal copy of the card due to buying it. You reveal Trader and gain Silver instead.
I know we can't change what's written on the cards.

But I'm having issues with the word "copy".
I guess it boils down to: Can you still gain a copy of a singleton card?

You're saying you can, I'm saying you can't.
Obviously you're the designer so if you say you can I'm not going to house rule otherwise.

But the problem with saying you can is that you can extrapolate this into supply piles with only one card remaining. You're saying you can reveal Trader before you would gain a card that may or may not exist. Only after you chose to reveal Trader or not you find out: Darn, there's no actual copy of the card! I'm saying that you can only reveal Trader when you would gain an actual physical card.

Look at Trader instead of Talisman then: It says "When you would gain a card". For me this means that there must be an actual card that's hoping to be gained, not just a ghost card.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2013, 05:14:07 am by Davio »
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4917
  • Respect: +20061
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #18 on: January 05, 2013, 05:41:30 am »
+2

But I'm having issues with the word "copy".
I guess it boils down to: Can you still gain a copy of a singleton card?
You can if the singleton is still there when this effect is resolving; you can gain the singleton.

An example: I use Altar to gain Dame Natalie, then draw my deck, and Ambassador Dame Natalie back to the supply. You have Lighthouse in play so Dame Natalie stays in the supply. On your turn you play Smugglers and gain Dame Natalie.

You're saying you can reveal Trader before you would gain a card that may or may not exist.
No. I have said no such thing.

When you choose what to buy, you have to pick a card you can actually buy - it has to be in the supply (if not from Black Market) and you have to be able to afford it.

When it's time to gain the card you bought, you gain it if you can.

Look at Trader instead of Talisman then: It says "When you would gain a card". For me this means that there must be an actual card that's hoping to be gained, not just a ghost card.
There must be an actual card, and in the example we have been talking about there always is.

I buy Sir Martin. I have Talisman in play. It triggers and says gain a copy of that. I can because there's one in the supply. There's one right there. Only I use Trader to instead gain Silver, leaving Sir Martin in the supply.

Now we are finished with the Talisman's effect; it's time to gain Sir Martin due to me buying it. I can; there's one right there. I can also use Trader to instead gain Silver.

If you are not about to gain a card then you may not use Trader. For example, if I play Witch with no Curses left, you cannot use Trader to gain a Silver there.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2013, 05:42:35 am by Donald X. »
Logged

Rabid

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 828
  • Shuffle iT Username: Rabid
  • Respect: +631
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #19 on: January 05, 2013, 06:00:35 am »
0

The ruling makes sense to me.
It looks like we have a bug in Isotropic though.
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201301/05/game-20130105-024323-af26e519.html
Code: [Select]
— Rabid's turn 12 —
Rabid plays a Talisman.
Rabid plays a Copper.
Rabid buys an Embargo.
... Rabid reveals a Trader to gain a Silver instead of an Embargo.
... Rabid gains a Silver.
(Rabid reshuffles.)
Logged
Twitch
1 Day Cup #1:Ednever

Dominionaer

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 111
  • Respect: +26
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #20 on: January 05, 2013, 09:58:56 am »
0

It looks like we have a bug in Isotropic though.
No bug. The bought card is just not mentioned again as gained in the log, but is in your discard. But your log looks curious. it should read
... gaining another Embargo
before you could reveal the Trader for the first time (for the gained-for-Talisman)
« Last Edit: January 05, 2013, 10:04:34 am by Dominionaer »
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4357
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #21 on: January 05, 2013, 10:03:48 am »
0

It looks like we have a bug in Isotropic though.
No bug. The bought card is just not mentioned again as gained in the log, but is in your discard.
No, it's definitely a bug. I just did it, too. Normally, extra gains show up like this:
— Your turn 9 —
You play a Copper.
You play a Talisman.
You play a Talisman.
You buy an Embargo.
... You gain another Embargo.
... You gain another Embargo.
(You reshuffle.)

Here, that isn't the case.
Although, it does normally let you trader the second embargo before the first one, as it should.

http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201301/05/game-20130105-070334-a13a135c.html

Dominionaer

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 111
  • Respect: +26
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #22 on: January 05, 2013, 10:18:16 am »
0

http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201301/05/game-20130105-024323-af26e519.html
I found the source of confusion ( your "bug" ) : You bought the last Embargo! The log seems to be different for this case, but the number of cards is correct!
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4357
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #23 on: January 05, 2013, 10:24:55 am »
+1

http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201301/05/game-20130105-024323-af26e519.html
I found the source of confusion ( your "bug" ) : You bought the last Embargo! The log seems to be different for this case, but the number of cards is correct!
That's the whole point! Read the rest of the thread - you are supposed to be able to gain a silver AND the bought card in this case.

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4733
  • Respect: +3323
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #24 on: January 05, 2013, 10:45:59 am »
0

Donald, as per your explanation this would mean that you can always gain two cards with Trader and Talisman even if the card you are about to buy is the last one in the supply.

Let's assume there is only one Village left.

I have $3 with Talisman in play and I say:
- I will buy that Village
-- Now Talisman's on-buy effect triggers and it wants to gain a Village
-- I can gain a Village, since it's right there in the pile
-- However, I reveal Trader to gain a Silver instead
- Now I am about to gain the actual last Village, which I can since it's still there
- I can choose to reveal Trader to gain a Silver instead

This way, you can "abuse" the last card in the pile to gain 2 Silvers every time you have Trader and Talisman. It probably is an issue for some other cards as well or might be for some upcoming cards, but it's easiest to focus on Trader and Talisman for the time being.

The problem I have with this ruling is that Talisman is trying to gain a copy of a card for which you know in advance that there is only one copy. I read earlier about Talisman that you gain the copy ahead of the original card due to the way that Talisman interferes.

So Talisman will always successfully find a "copy" even though there may only be a singleton and then the original buy bounces because hey, Talisman already took the "copy".

It's just the word "copy" that's causing me headaches, it makes me think that there must be at least two of something, an original and its copy.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

Dominionaer

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 111
  • Respect: +26
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #25 on: January 05, 2013, 11:43:56 am »
0

That's the whole point! Read the rest of the thread - you are supposed to be able to gain a silver AND the bought card in this case.
Beg your pardon - you are right. Did not get the shift from Sir Martin to last copy.

I can only guess, that Dougz implemented Talisman with
Quote from: Prosperity rules
If there are no copies left, you do not gain one.
So 1 copy is reserved for the buy and if there are more, only then Talisman kicks in.

But then also Sir Martin (although if there are more knights available) should not get an additional silver via Talisman + Trader.
Logged

Qvist

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2378
  • Shuffle iT Username: Qvist
  • Respect: +4026
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #26 on: January 05, 2013, 11:44:06 am »
0

BTW, this is a known isotropic bug.
isotropic first calculates what you are able to gain and if you then decide to gain a Silver instead you don't get "a replacement".

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1701.msg27142#msg27142
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1549.msg24948#msg24948
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4357
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #27 on: January 05, 2013, 11:58:57 am »
0

That's the whole point! Read the rest of the thread - you are supposed to be able to gain a silver AND the bought card in this case.
Beg your pardon - you are right. Did not get the shift from Sir Martin to last copy.

I can only guess, that Dougz implemented Talisman with
Quote from: Prosperity rules
If there are no copies left, you do not gain one.
So 1 copy is reserved for the buy and if there are more, only then Talisman kicks in.

But then also Sir Martin (although if there are more knights available) should not get an additional silver via Talisman + Trader.

Alright, NOW I'm confused again - the full quote is (and I've just gone and popped the cellophane on my copy of prosperity that's been sitting in my closet for a bit over a year) "Each time you buy a non-Victory card costing [coin symbol]4[/coin symbol] or less with this in play, you gain another copy of the bought card. If there are no copies left, you do not gain one."
Well, before reading that, I thought that both the limbo-land and Donald's explanation made sense by the printed rules, but that Donald's was more of a null position - i.e. there isn't a rule SAYING that there's a limbo land, so even though there isn't one saying there isn't, null position is to assume there isn't. BUT, this bit in the prosperity rules seems to make Donald's explanation not make sense. Because if there's not a limo land, then it wouldn't need to say 'you gain ANOTHER copy of the bought card', it would just be a copy; more important, the 'If there are no copies left, you do not gain one' seems to be directly contradicting the position espoused here, which is that you do GAIN one, but you don't get the one from buying then. Further, if there's no limbo land, it's impossible for there to be no copies left, because the bought card is always left....
Lightning edit: well, I guess with multiple talismen, you could have no copies left anyway....

Dominionaer

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 111
  • Respect: +26
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #28 on: January 05, 2013, 12:10:38 pm »
0

Could there be a complement to the "lost track" rule? A pile does not know the number of copies in it? Or in case of knights: The pile (or Talisman) does not know, that its a singleton on top?
« Last Edit: January 05, 2013, 12:13:32 pm by Dominionaer »
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9141
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #29 on: January 05, 2013, 02:15:16 pm »
+4

This is not, by the way, the way it's implemented on Iso, unless I'm missing something different about other cases of single copies such as Black Market. Here's a log where I had Trader, Talisman, and Black Market in play.

Quote
— shMerker's turn 13 —
shMerker plays a Black Market.
... getting +$2.
... drawing a Hunting Party, a Stash, and a Remodel from the Black Market deck.
... playing a Talisman.
... playing a Copper.
... shMerker buys a Remodel.
... ... shMerker reveals a Trader to gain a Silver instead of a Remodel.
... ... shMerker gains a Silver.
... returning a Hunting Party and a Stash to the bottom of the Black Market deck.
(shMerker reshuffles.)
(shMerker draws: 2 Estates, a Black Market, and 2 Coppers.)

Quote
— shMerker's turn 40 —
shMerker plays a Talisman.
shMerker buys a Curse.
... shMerker reveals a Trader to gain a Silver instead of a Curse.
... shMerker gains a Silver.
(shMerker reshuffles.)
(shMerker draws: 2 Estates, a Black Market, a Silver, and a Trader.)

If I'm understanding correctly then both of those purchases should have resulted in gaining a silver and then gaining the card originally purchased (after being prompted to reveal Trader again of course) but instead only the silver was gained.

Not sure how to resolve the new point about rules in Prosperity, but I'll comment on this. The Curse example looks bugged as per recent conversation now in dispute, but the Black Market interaction seems fine. You can never gain a copy of something in the BM via Talisman. Talisman looks in the supply. The card isn't in the supply. You can't gain a copy, so you can't replace the copy with Silver. You can replace the card that you actually bought, which comes after Talisman has already failed.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10721
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +11224
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #30 on: January 05, 2013, 08:30:34 pm »
0

It's just the word "copy" that's causing me headaches, it makes me think that there must be at least two of something, an original and its copy.
When you Ambassador for 1, you are returning up a "copy" of the card and your opponent is gaining a "copy" of the card, but what you are returning and what he is gaining is actually the original card. A copy and an original card don't have to be separate cards.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The Twitch channel where I stream DominionThe YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's albums for free

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4917
  • Respect: +20061
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #31 on: January 05, 2013, 08:49:29 pm »
+3

The problem I have with this ruling is that Talisman is trying to gain a copy of a card for which you know in advance that there is only one copy. I read earlier about Talisman that you gain the copy ahead of the original card due to the way that Talisman interferes.
A copy of a card is "a card with that name." It is not, for example, a copy in the M:TG sense. It is a copy in the English sense of, you have 12 copies of Great Hall and 20 copies of Rats.

Talisman gains you a card with the name of the card you bought. If cards were computer programs the game would be unplayable. I am satisfied with Dominion's use of "copy."
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4917
  • Respect: +20061
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #32 on: January 05, 2013, 09:00:43 pm »
+1

Alright, NOW I'm confused again - the full quote is (and I've just gone and popped the cellophane on my copy of prosperity that's been sitting in my closet for a bit over a year) "Each time you buy a non-Victory card costing [coin symbol]4[/coin symbol] or less with this in play, you gain another copy of the bought card. If there are no copies left, you do not gain one."
Well, before reading that, I thought that both the limbo-land and Donald's explanation made sense by the printed rules, but that Donald's was more of a null position - i.e. there isn't a rule SAYING that there's a limbo land, so even though there isn't one saying there isn't, null position is to assume there isn't. BUT, this bit in the prosperity rules seems to make Donald's explanation not make sense. Because if there's not a limo land, then it wouldn't need to say 'you gain ANOTHER copy of the bought card', it would just be a copy; more important, the 'If there are no copies left, you do not gain one' seems to be directly contradicting the position espoused here, which is that you do GAIN one, but you don't get the one from buying then. Further, if there's no limbo land, it's impossible for there to be no copies left, because the bought card is always left....
Lightning edit: well, I guess with multiple talismen, you could have no copies left anyway....
Again, I did not realize that Talisman would resolve prior to the normal gain. It does though, since it's "when-buy."

The FAQ for Talisman does not seem to confuse people in general, and "you gain another copy of the bought card" seems way more helpful than confusing to me. In almost all cases you are actually gaining another copy of the bought card; in almost all cases the two gains are interchangeable, and clarifying the order would just be confusing for nothing. Even though the FAQ could not have mentioned stuff involving the effect resolving before the normal gain, again because I did not realize that at the time, it still might not have mentioned it, because many such things are not in FAQs. It would be confusing for no benefit and I like leaving such stuff out. If I did want to address this combo at least, the place would be in Trader's FAQ.

I do not think I can explain the ruling any better than I have, and I'm happy with the ruling. Talisman does an odd thing which in almost all cases plays like a completely non-odd thing. It can in rare cases be weird with Trader and now we know.
Logged

shMerker

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 357
  • Respect: +385
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #33 on: January 05, 2013, 11:06:10 pm »
0

You can never gain a copy of something in the BM via Talisman. Talisman looks in the supply. The card isn't in the supply. You can't gain a copy, so you can't replace the copy with Silver. You can replace the card that you actually bought, which comes after Talisman has already failed.

Fair point. I hadn't thought about where Talisman would be looking for the card.
Logged
"I take no responsibility whatsoever for those who get dizzy and pass out from running around this post."

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4733
  • Respect: +3323
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #34 on: January 06, 2013, 03:32:32 am »
0

Ok, so the conclusion that you can use Trader and Talisman to always get two Silvers is correct?
I mean, it doesn't matter if Village is the last in its pile or Sir Martin...
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

AJD

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2881
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +3609
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #35 on: January 06, 2013, 09:00:02 am »
0

Ok, so the conclusion that you can use Trader and Talisman to always get two Silvers is correct?

...Unless Estate is the only pile costing $4 or less!
Logged

heron

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 993
  • Shuffle iT Username: heron
  • Respect: +1115
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #36 on: January 06, 2013, 10:20:22 am »
+2

Ok, so the conclusion that you can use Trader and Talisman to always get two Silvers is correct?

...Unless Estate is the only pile costing $4 or less!
...Which never happens unless the silvers are gone anyway!
Logged

Jeebus

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1136
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +858
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #37 on: January 08, 2013, 01:25:26 am »
+1

Re: "copy"
It's like "a copy of X-Men #342". You can buy a copy of X-Men #342 even if there's only one left in the store.

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4733
  • Respect: +3323
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #38 on: January 08, 2013, 02:23:02 am »
+1

Yes, I understand now, the English word is just used in a slightly different way than the Dutch where it really means "duplicate".

A good Dutch translation would be "exemplaar", whose definition translates back to something like "one of multiple equal items".
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

Jeebus

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1136
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +858
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #39 on: January 08, 2013, 03:09:10 am »
0

Yes, I understand now, the English word is just used in a slightly different way than the Dutch where it really means "duplicate".

A good Dutch translation would be "exemplaar", whose definition translates back to something like "one of multiple equal items".

Yeah, we have exactly the same in Norwegian. We would use "eksemplar", which means something other than "kopi", like you say. In this case English only has the one word. Usually English is the richer language, but not in this case. :)

shMerker

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 357
  • Respect: +385
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #40 on: January 08, 2013, 03:38:48 am »
+2

well we have example and exemplar, but those are a little off the mark in this context. As a programmer my mind jumps to "instance" as a more precise word for it, but that's a term that I don't think would look really natural to most people.
Logged
"I take no responsibility whatsoever for those who get dizzy and pass out from running around this post."

zahlman

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 724
  • Respect: +214
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #41 on: January 09, 2013, 02:56:58 am »
0

In this case English only has the one word. Usually English is the richer language, but not in this case. :)

Oh, but English is much richer... in ambiguity :)
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4733
  • Respect: +3323
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #42 on: January 13, 2013, 08:10:23 am »
0

Okay, the last thing I will say.

In the Prosperity rules it says for Talisman:
Quote
Each time you buy a non-Victory card costing or less with this in play, you gain another copy of the bought card.

Since there is no "another copy" of Sir Martin your ruling in this topic seems to contradict the actual rules in the rulebook.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4917
  • Respect: +20061
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #43 on: January 13, 2013, 08:38:14 am »
0

Okay, the last thing I will say.

In the Prosperity rules it says for Talisman:
Quote
Each time you buy a non-Victory card costing or less with this in play, you gain another copy of the bought card.

Since there is no "another copy" of Sir Martin your ruling in this topic seems to contradict the actual rules in the rulebook.
Well, who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4357
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #44 on: January 13, 2013, 09:02:48 am »
0

Okay, the last thing I will say.

In the Prosperity rules it says for Talisman:
Quote
Each time you buy a non-Victory card costing or less with this in play, you gain another copy of the bought card.

Since there is no "another copy" of Sir Martin your ruling in this topic seems to contradict the actual rules in the rulebook.
Well, who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?

My own eyes, and I don't know why that's even a question.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4917
  • Respect: +20061
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #45 on: January 13, 2013, 09:26:38 am »
+2

My own eyes, and I don't know why that's even a question.
That's irrelephant.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4357
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #46 on: January 13, 2013, 11:23:08 am »
0

My own eyes, and I don't know why that's even a question.
That's irrelephant.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make here. By the way, I did not read 'irrelephant' as 'irrelevant' - my immediate reaction was 'what does irrelephant mean?' and I actually went and googled the thing to see if it was some word I didn't know. Apparently there is some slang or meme thing I don't get about something being unrelated to elephants, but again, I don't know how this relates.

Anyway, I am going to lay out my position as clearly as I can in the hopes of having some understanding.

Basically, the rules seem quite clear to me - since you can't gain another copy of the last card (be it Sir Martin, or the last card in any 'normal' pile, or whatever), you can't be 'about to gain' that non-existent other copy, which means you can't trader it into a silver. Seems very straightforward - you can either get one copy of the bought card or (assuming there are enough silvers left) one silver, not two of either, and not one of each, which is what you'd be able to do in the case of multiple cards being left.

Nothing you can say here is going to change that. You can change the rules of course - you are in a unique position to do so - but if we're going to play with the rules as printed, then what matters is what the rules as printed say (which is what I was equating with 'my eyes'), and not what you are saying here ('which is what I was equating with 'you'). Of course, we can always play with some other rule set, as people do all the time - not forced to throne room things, for instance, or with point counters or notes or simulators or what have you. But as you are so fond of saying, these are variants, if that should ever matter, which hey it's just a card game so it doesn't really.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4917
  • Respect: +20061
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #47 on: January 13, 2013, 12:13:13 pm »
+1

Nothing you can say here is going to change that.
Nothing I say will do anything for you, WanderingWinder, I am clear on that.

I have explained everything thoroughly, I will hold off spending more time on it until additional confused people show up.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4357
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #48 on: January 13, 2013, 12:16:44 pm »
0

Nothing you can say here is going to change that.
Nothing I say will do anything for you, WanderingWinder, I am clear on that.
No, dude, lots of stuff you say I find very helpful. My point here is that rulings on the internet can't supersede the actual rules, only possibly clarify them.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4917
  • Respect: +20061
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #49 on: January 13, 2013, 01:27:32 pm »
0

I have explained everything thoroughly, I will hold off spending more time on it until additional confused people show up.
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4733
  • Respect: +3323
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #50 on: January 13, 2013, 02:28:58 pm »
0

Well, I have no problem with a game designer making a ruling on the internet that's different from the one in the rulebook. Only people who bought the physical game might have a problem if they don't know there's a FAQ somewhere on the internet. Then again they might go looking for it if they run into problems.

But the reason I mentioned it was because Donald had said "I am just interpreting the cards as written. I can't change them, counterintuitive or not." I was wondering if the same was true for the actual rules, but the rules are more error prone than the text on the cards and if in doubt the card has right of way so to speak. At least, that's how I understand it.

My only concern is for that small percentage of people which actually end up playing with Trader and Talisman not knowing there was this ruling. At least Donald said he would help them if they show up.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4917
  • Respect: +20061
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #51 on: January 13, 2013, 02:53:58 pm »
+2

But the reason I mentioned it was because Donald had said "I am just interpreting the cards as written. I can't change them, counterintuitive or not." I was wondering if the same was true for the actual rules, but the rules are more error prone than the text on the cards and if in doubt the card has right of way so to speak. At least, that's how I understand it.

My only concern is for that small percentage of people which actually end up playing with Trader and Talisman not knowing there was this ruling. At least Donald said he would help them if they show up.
I have no concern here. It is an obscure situation and if they blow it it's not so bad.

There is no errata or rules change here. I read the card and applied the rules. There is nothing contradictory in the rulebook. It says "another" in the same way that tons of FAQ entries have sentences that explain the basic way a card works in simple English without accounting for uncommon or obscure cases. Find your own examples!

I only have so much time to try to explain things I have already explained. If it's not clear to you now then I do not see what I can say to make it clearer. That itself feels like something I have already said too many times.
Logged

Dree

  • Pawn
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #52 on: January 13, 2013, 10:33:46 pm »
0

In fact its pretty easy, just follow the cards, do not fill in the lines.
But pls play as you like, you are above the law of the game. Just play fair. ;-)

I do wonder however what happens when we take the last card with Talisman.... ?
The card I originally payed for (buy-ed) is gone.  I payed for a card but cannot gain it.... I want a refund!!  Lol-situation.




« Last Edit: January 13, 2013, 10:42:58 pm by Dree »
Logged

Drab Emordnilap

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1832
  • Shuffle iT Username: Drab Emordnilap
  • Luther Bell Hendricks V
  • Respect: +1880
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #53 on: January 13, 2013, 11:00:57 pm »
+4

I do wonder however what happens when we take the last card with Talisman.... ?
The card I originally payed for (buy-ed) is gone.  I payed for a card but cannot gain it.... I want a refund!!  Lol-situation.

All special offers are for a limited turn only and while Supply lasts.
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4733
  • Respect: +3323
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #54 on: January 14, 2013, 02:41:26 am »
0

But the reason I mentioned it was because Donald had said "I am just interpreting the cards as written. I can't change them, counterintuitive or not." I was wondering if the same was true for the actual rules, but the rules are more error prone than the text on the cards and if in doubt the card has right of way so to speak. At least, that's how I understand it.

My only concern is for that small percentage of people which actually end up playing with Trader and Talisman not knowing there was this ruling. At least Donald said he would help them if they show up.
I have no concern here. It is an obscure situation and if they blow it it's not so bad.

There is no errata or rules change here. I read the card and applied the rules. There is nothing contradictory in the rulebook. It says "another" in the same way that tons of FAQ entries have sentences that explain the basic way a card works in simple English without accounting for uncommon or obscure cases. Find your own examples!

I only have so much time to try to explain things I have already explained. If it's not clear to you now then I do not see what I can say to make it clearer. That itself feels like something I have already said too many times.
Well, it's very clear to me, I just wanted to make sure there was no discrepancy between the rulebook and your ruling here and if there was, I wanted to double check that your ruling here would trump it.

Your point about "other FAQ entries" is not entirely valid as I was quoting from the Talisman section. You would think that this section contained solid info, there are many other card entries which mention edge cases specifically. In the Dark Ages rules Talisman is mentioned for the Ruins under "Additional Rules", but it only says that you can only gain another Ruined Market if the next card is a Ruined Market.

The Knights section is silent about Talisman, but it even mentions Black Market, which is a promo card! So saying tons of FAQ entries don't account for edge cases isn't entirely true. They all try to cover the weirdness as much as they can.

You're saying using a word like "another" doesn't mean anything, I'm saying it does.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4917
  • Respect: +20061
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #55 on: January 14, 2013, 04:38:36 am »
+5

You're saying using a word like "another" doesn't mean anything, I'm saying it does.
In most situations, how am I repeating this yet again, you are in fact getting "another" card. Talisman's FAQ says "another" in the same way that Smithy's FAQ says "Draw three cards." The fact that you can't always draw three cards does not require a ruling from me personally.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1136
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +858
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #56 on: January 14, 2013, 05:21:34 am »
+8

There are several FAQ entries that are, as Donald says, generally explaining how the card works, but not 100% correct in covering all edge cases. These have come up many times in forum threads, at least at BGG but probably here too. That's why some people say things like "the FAQs are useless, only trust the cards" - which of course isn't true either, since the FAQs are indispensable for learning how to play new cards, but you get the idea.

Just two quick examples I found, looking through the FAQs for the base game and Alchemy:

Philosopher's Stone: "If you play multiple copies, obviously the number will be the same for all of them."
That's only true if you play multiple copies from your hand. If you play them with Venture, the number could be different for the second Ph. Stone for instance. And the Venture FAQ doesn't mention this either of course.

Moat – "When someone else plays an Attack card, you may reveal the Moat by showing it from your hand to the other players and then returning it to your hand."
"Returning it to your hand" isn't strictly true, as you reveal the Moat from your hand, but the Moat never moved. It stayed in your hand. This can matter for edge cases having to do with lose-track I think (don't feel like looking into it now), but the way it's worded in the FAQ is perhaps the easiest way to explain how it physically works to reveal a card and doesn't cause problems in 99.99% of cases.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7009
  • Respect: +7839
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #57 on: January 14, 2013, 08:55:43 am »
0

There are several FAQ entries that are, as Donald says, generally explaining how the card works, but not 100% correct in covering all edge cases. These have come up many times in forum threads, at least at BGG but probably here too. That's why some people say things like "the FAQs are useless, only trust the cards" - which of course isn't true either, since the FAQs are indispensable for learning how to play new cards, but you get the idea.

Just two quick examples I found, looking through the FAQs for the base game and Alchemy:

Philosopher's Stone: "If you play multiple copies, obviously the number will be the same for all of them."
That's only true if you play multiple copies from your hand. If you play them with Venture, the number could be different for the second Ph. Stone for instance. And the Venture FAQ doesn't mention this either of course.

Moat – "When someone else plays an Attack card, you may reveal the Moat by showing it from your hand to the other players and then returning it to your hand."
"Returning it to your hand" isn't strictly true, as you reveal the Moat from your hand, but the Moat never moved. It stayed in your hand. This can matter for edge cases having to do with lose-track I think (don't feel like looking into it now), but the way it's worded in the FAQ is perhaps the easiest way to explain how it physically works to reveal a card and doesn't cause problems in 99.99% of cases.

All this. The card FAQ is not the card rules. The card rules are printed on the card. The FAQ is a place to go for additional clarification if you aren't clear on how to read the card, or for common interactions. Based only on what is written on the cards themselves (combined with the regular rules about what "would gain" means), you get 2 chances to reveal Trader when you buy the last $4 card in a pile with Talisman in play.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 10:20:18 am by GendoIkari »
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Brando Commando

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 255
  • Respect: +112
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #58 on: January 14, 2013, 11:39:56 am »
0

But the reason I mentioned it was because Donald had said "I am just interpreting the cards as written. I can't change them, counterintuitive or not." I was wondering if the same was true for the actual rules, but the rules are more error prone than the text on the cards and if in doubt the card has right of way so to speak. At least, that's how I understand it.

My only concern is for that small percentage of people which actually end up playing with Trader and Talisman not knowing there was this ruling. At least Donald said he would help them if they show up.
I have no concern here. It is an obscure situation and if they blow it it's not so bad.

There is no errata or rules change here. I read the card and applied the rules. There is nothing contradictory in the rulebook. It says "another" in the same way that tons of FAQ entries have sentences that explain the basic way a card works in simple English without accounting for uncommon or obscure cases. Find your own examples!

I only have so much time to try to explain things I have already explained. If it's not clear to you now then I do not see what I can say to make it clearer. That itself feels like something I have already said too many times.
Well, it's very clear to me, I just wanted to make sure there was no discrepancy between the rulebook and your ruling here and if there was, I wanted to double check that your ruling here would trump it.

Your point about "other FAQ entries" is not entirely valid as I was quoting from the Talisman section. You would think that this section contained solid info, there are many other card entries which mention edge cases specifically. In the Dark Ages rules Talisman is mentioned for the Ruins under "Additional Rules", but it only says that you can only gain another Ruined Market if the next card is a Ruined Market.

The Knights section is silent about Talisman, but it even mentions Black Market, which is a promo card! So saying tons of FAQ entries don't account for edge cases isn't entirely true. They all try to cover the weirdness as much as they can.

You're saying using a word like "another" doesn't mean anything, I'm saying it does.

I'm sympathetic to Davio here, because I think he's been pretty doggedly pursuing reasonable questions and not getting anywhere.

A lot of comments I've seen, some from DXV, seem to imply that

a) the game creator doesn't have any power to create errata to fix the game and/or
b) even if he did, it's not necessary, because the cards explain themselves, and the FAQs only provide "clarification" (is the word I think I've seen).

I think these are both problematic ideas.,

Then again, I don't think we particularly need to solve them. Instead, it would simply make things easier if somebody -- presumably DXV -- would just claim authority to make final decisions about what the cards mean -- essentially adding errata. Otherwise, we have a lot of people claiming equal authority in interpreting what are occasionally (fundamentally) unclear things.

I guess what I'm saying is...I feel you, Davio, I feel you.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4917
  • Respect: +20061
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #59 on: January 14, 2013, 12:37:58 pm »
+3

A lot of comments I've seen, some from DXV, seem to imply that

a) the game creator doesn't have any power to create errata to fix the game and/or
b) even if he did, it's not necessary, because the cards explain themselves, and the FAQs only provide "clarification" (is the word I think I've seen).
Man. Is this really the way you want me to spend the time I have for you guys?

There are two ways I can "create errata." First I can say "hey Jay the FAQ is wrong here." If there is a new edition of the rulebook then it can have those fixes. I have actually done this, for example I recently mentioned the Hermit/Scheme error. Problems came up in the Dark Ages rulebook as soon as it was posted, and Jay put in those fixes immediately. For sure I am not mentioning Talisman, there is nothing I want changed there.

I can also give a ruling to you internet people, who will be the only ones who have it. I only have this power by virtue of you guys deciding to go along with it. I have given those rulings though when needed, for example for Ironworks / Trader. If I couldn't do that, then how did I do it? You think I'm implying that I didn't give that ruling?

The FAQs exist to answer Questions. They are in the rulebooks so that fewer people ask how Throne Room / Feast works and so on. Ideally anything that requires rules not on cards is in the non-FAQ portions of the rulebooks; for example Maquerade's "pass" is explained in the main rulebook there. It is bad if people can't agree on what should happen in some situation, and ideally they turn to the rulebook, this section they never read because who would, and there it is, their answer. When a question actually comes up in real games and it's not there, that's a bummer, I for sure try to answer everything that will come up. If there's a mistake we try to fix it in later rulebooks.

I have already said over and over exactly what is going on with Talisman / Sir Martin, both how it functions and how it came to function that way.
Logged

DStu

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2627
  • Respect: +1485
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #60 on: January 14, 2013, 12:42:31 pm »
0

Man. Is this really the way you want me to spend the time I have for you guys?

http://xkcd.com/386/
Logged

GigaKnight

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
  • Respect: +54
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #61 on: January 29, 2013, 05:47:52 pm »
+2

It seems to me the main issue in this thread is that some people are hung up on their personal, intuitive understandings of the wordings "buy a card" and "copy".  I'm sure Donald chose those words because they concisely cover the 99.999% cases while making the game simple, but they are not particularly technical descriptions of the mechanics, as I understand them.

A more-technical wording of "buy a card" might be "pay the cost of the top card of a non-empty supply pile".  Unqualified, vanilla "gain" would be "move the top card of a non-empty supply pile to your discard pile".  And a "copy of a card" would be "one instance of a card", as shMerker pointed out.

With this in mind, here's the original wording of Talisman:
Quote
While this is in play, when you buy a card costing 4 treasure or less that is not a Victory card, gain a copy of it

And here's my technical translation:
Quote
While this is in play, when you [pay the cost of the top card of a non-empty supply pile] costing 4 treasure or less that is not a Victory card, [move [one instance of the card] from a non-empty supply pile to your discard pile].

Not explicitly conveyed in the "technical" translation is that this does not interrupt your normal gaining of the card you bought (which is what "copy" helps convey).

I think this understanding is consistent with the game's rules/mechanics and, if you follow the steps one-by-one, I believe it clearly leads to the behavior Donald described, because the Talisman-gain happens before your buy-gain.  But let me know if I messed something up.
Logged

bulova

  • Pawn
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
  • Respect: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #62 on: March 06, 2013, 10:42:53 am »
0

Argh Argh Argh.

I actually understand how Talisman works with unique cards and with "the last card"

It's clear to me that Talisman gains the "copy" when the card is bought but before the card is gained from the purchase. And in the case of "unique-card" or "last-card", if another effect deflects the gain, the bought card is still sitting there ready to be gained as the purchase resolves.

But I have to say that for a LONG time, my group was allowing extra gains from a Black Market purchase. This because the text on Talisman doesn't refer to the supply, just to the card being purchased. We felt that the Black Market "dealer" had a line on where these not-in-supply cards came from...and a Black Market stock of 10 or 12 of each (even though we did take the "marker card" out of the Black Market deck once a card was purchased). We only countermanded this when the card was Unique (which was the case for purchasable cards only in Dark Ages.

It takes reading the THIRD SENTENCE of the rulebook description of Talisman before the directive "comes from the Supply" is given. (By the way, in the base game rulebook, not only is "Supply" not specifically defined, but it also randomly appears with the initial letter capitalized, and without.)

However, I still think the combo (and therefore the game, itself) is more fun if we continue to allow the Talisman to copy a purchase from the Black Market.
Logged

crj

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 860
  • Respect: +947
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #63 on: July 03, 2018, 07:43:28 pm »
0

(Here because I saw a link in the Really Bad Card Ideas thread.)

To check I understand correctly one aspect of this, the precise ruling is that when you "buy a card" you name a card in the Supply and then gain a copy(/instance/whatever) of the named card?

Being painfully pedantic, doesn't that strictly speaking break Black Market? You buy a card revealed from the Black Market deck, but then you... um... oops.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7009
  • Respect: +7839
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #64 on: July 03, 2018, 09:40:02 pm »
0

(Here because I saw a link in the Really Bad Card Ideas thread.)

To check I understand correctly one aspect of this, the precise ruling is that when you "buy a card" you name a card in the Supply and then gain a copy(/instance/whatever) of the named card?

Being painfully pedantic, doesn't that strictly speaking break Black Market? You buy a card revealed from the Black Market deck, but then you... um... oops.

Just replace "in the Supply" in your sentence with "that you can buy". So you name a card that you can buy, and then gain a copy of the named card from wherever that card is.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

crj

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 860
  • Respect: +947
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #65 on: July 04, 2018, 02:02:29 pm »
0

Saying that you can buy a card that you can buy is circular. It has to be stated that you buy cards in the Supply, with Black Market then, exceptionally, going out of its way to say you can buy one of the revealed cards.

That part's not the problem. The problem is the bit where, having bought a card from the Black Market, the understanding is that you try to gain a copy of it from the supply. Or maybe the understanding is that when you buy a card you then try to gain a copy of it from the place it was bought from?

Relatedly, if there was ever a "you may buy a card from the Trash" effect and you used it with a Talisman in play, would you expect to gain a copy from the Trash or the Supply?
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7009
  • Respect: +7839
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #66 on: July 04, 2018, 02:14:03 pm »
+1

Saying that you can buy a card that you can buy is circular. It has to be stated that you buy cards in the Supply, with Black Market then, exceptionally, going out of its way to say you can buy one of the revealed cards.

That part's not the problem. The problem is the bit where, having bought a card from the Black Market, the understanding is that you try to gain a copy of it from the supply. Or maybe the understanding is that when you buy a card you then try to gain a copy of it from the place it was bought from?

There is a default "you can buy cards from the supply", as part of the regular rules for the Buy Phase. Black Market simply gives you a different option of a place to buy from.

And for the second part, what I'm saying is that rather than "you try to gain a copy of it from the supply", instead it's "you try to gain a copy of it from wherever it was when you bought it."

Quote
Relatedly, if there was ever a "you may buy a card from the Trash" effect and you used it with a Talisman in play, would you expect to gain a copy from the Trash or the Supply?

Seems clear to me that you would gain a copy from the Supply. At that point, all you are doing is following a normal "gain a copy of it" instruction, no different than Smugglers.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2018, 02:15:41 pm by GendoIkari »
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

crj

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 860
  • Respect: +947
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #67 on: July 04, 2018, 02:59:15 pm »
0

I agree that's sensible and expected.

I'm just not convinced it's the behaviour that actually emerges from the way rules are being expressed here.
Logged

crj

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 860
  • Respect: +947
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #68 on: July 12, 2018, 01:04:25 pm »
+1

Here's a closely-related question that's just occurred to me:

Knight at top of the pile is Dame Anna, next is Dame Josephine. You have Charm in play and buy Dame Anna. By my understanding, Dame Anna is still on top of the pile when Charm triggers, so you can't use that ability to gain Dame Josephine?
Logged

Chris is me

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2528
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +3145
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #69 on: July 12, 2018, 02:03:46 pm »
0

I agree that's sensible and expected.

I'm just not convinced it's the behaviour that actually emerges from the way rules are being expressed here.

I wouldn’t read into this thread too hard. The rules are being expressed here to clarify the specific situation at hand, not entirely unrelated interactions with one of the more confusing rules cards in the game.
Here's a closely-related question that's just occurred to me:

Knight at top of the pile is Dame Anna, next is Dame Josephine. You have Charm in play and buy Dame Anna. By my understanding, Dame Anna is still on top of the pile when Charm triggers, so you can't use that ability to gain Dame Josephine?

That matches my understanding. You can name Dame Anna, but you will just fail to gain the 2nd Dame Anna (the on-buy gain).
« Last Edit: July 12, 2018, 04:01:32 pm by Chris is me »
Logged
Twitch channel: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisisme2791

bug me on discord

they/them

crj

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 860
  • Respect: +947
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #70 on: July 12, 2018, 02:26:49 pm »
0

You can name Dame Anna
Surely not? You're buying Dame Anna, and Dame Anna isn't a differently-named card with the same cost as Dame Anna.
Logged

Chris is me

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2528
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +3145
    • View Profile
Re: Talisman + Sir Martin
« Reply #71 on: July 12, 2018, 04:01:14 pm »
+1

You can name Dame Anna
Surely not? You're buying Dame Anna, and Dame Anna isn't a differently-named card with the same cost as Dame Anna.

Sorry, my brain hiccuped there for a minute. :/
Logged
Twitch channel: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisisme2791

bug me on discord

they/them
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]
 

Page created in 0.194 seconds with 21 queries.