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 11216 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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: 5103
  • Respect: +20950
    • 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: 5103
  • Respect: +20950
    • 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: 1212
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +896
    • 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: 7298
  • Respect: +8123
    • 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: 5103
  • Respect: +20950
    • 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
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 965
  • Respect: +1054
    • 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: 7298
  • Respect: +8123
    • 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
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 965
  • Respect: +1054
    • 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: 7298
  • Respect: +8123
    • 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
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 965
  • Respect: +1054
    • 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
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 965
  • Respect: +1054
    • 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
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2561
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +3180
    • 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
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 965
  • Respect: +1054
    • 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
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2561
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +3180
    • 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 0.133 seconds with 20 queries.