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 11063 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All
 

Page created in 0.111 seconds with 21 queries.