Print

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

[Asper]

A few days ago, we played Dominion (surprise!) and somebody played Thief, revealing a Spoils. We then played with translated cards, and as always this went wrong. Now that i see the english original, am i right if i assume that Thief can trash Spoils, but never actually get them (even though they are in the trash where very few cards can gain from, anyhow)?

EDIT: I believe Thief cannot gain Spoils, as it says in the instructions i own (translated in german), that only Bandit Camp, Marauder and Pillage can gain Spoils. Also remember the fact that if i reveal another players Spoils with my Jester, i also can not gain Spoils.

[Watno]

Thief is able to gain Spoils from the trash.

[eHalcyon]

Why do you think that Thief cannot gain Spoils?  Thief says to gain a card any or all of the trashed cards, so that is what you do.  If Spoils was trashed, it fits.

[AdamH]

I think the confusion is that usually "gain" implies "gain from the supply" unless stated otherwise, and on Thief the text reads "you may gain any trashed cards".

Perhaps Thief doesn't explicitly say "gain from the trash" like Graverobber does, which could imply that you're supposed to gain it from the supply, and since Spoils is not in the supply, that means "OH NOEZ!! I CANNOT GAIN IT FOR IT IZ NOT IN TEH SUPPLY!!"

...but then again, we're not saying that the Gold your Thief hit visits the trash, THEN the supply, THEN your discard when you choose to gain it, but maybe that's what the card is "trying to say" with the wording?

[Asper]

"OH NOEZ!! I CANNOT GAIN IT FOR IT IZ NOT IN TEH SUPPLY!!"

Those were my exact words... No, really, in my rulebook (translated, too), it clearly says that Spoils can only be gained by Bandit Camp, Marauder or Pillage. Jester can't gain Spoils. Why can Thief?

[dondon151]

Jester gains cards from the supply. Thief gains cards from the trash. You can't gain a Spoils from the supply because there are none in the supply, but you can gain one from the trash if Thief specifies that you can gain that card that you just trashed.

[Asper]

Well, as all of you are so sure about it, i guess it makes sense. The Trash is not the Supply.
It does seem more natural, after all.
Thanks, guys.

[AdamH]

I like the ruling, but this sure looks like an exception to the rule that "gain" without additional qualifiers means "gain from the supply"...

[dondon151]

I like the ruling, but this sure looks like an exception to the rule that "gain" without additional qualifiers means "gain from the supply"...

It's not an exception based on my interpretation. Thief specifically tells you which cards you can gain. Therefore it's not telling you to "gain" something without an additional qualifier.

[Donald X.]

Thief is able to gain Spoils from the trash.

Correct. That bit in the rulebook is trying to make it clear that Workshop etc. can't gain Spoils. Thief specifically gains Treasures it trashes, and Spoils is a Treasure and Thief can trash it. Nothing about Spoils prevents Thief from getting one.

[GendoIkari]

Thief is able to gain Spoils from the trash.

Correct. That bit in the rulebook is trying to make it clear that Workshop etc. can't gain Spoils. Thief specifically gains Treasures it trashes, and Spoils is a Treasure and Thief can trash it. Nothing about Spoils prevents Thief from getting one.

Should Thief say "you may gain any of the trashed cards from the trash"? It does seem to be the only card that gains from somewhere other than the supply without saying "gain from". If you had your Dominion time machine, of course.

[Donald X.]

Should Thief say "you may gain any of the trashed cards from the trash"? It does seem to be the only card that gains from somewhere other than the supply without saying "gain from". If you had your Dominion time machine, of course.

Thief doesn't confuse people, so I'm not so unhappy there. You get better as you go along, so maybe I'd tweak the wording now; I don't really want to consider every card carefully for these things, especially since the wording isn't changing.

[eHalcyon]

Thief is able to gain Spoils from the trash.

Correct. That bit in the rulebook is trying to make it clear that Workshop etc. can't gain Spoils. Thief specifically gains Treasures it trashes, and Spoils is a Treasure and Thief can trash it. Nothing about Spoils prevents Thief from getting one.

Should Thief say "you may gain any of the trashed cards from the trash"? It does seem to be the only card that gains from somewhere other than the supply without saying "gain from". If you had your Dominion time machine, of course.

Thief says you can gain any or all of the trashed cards.  This points directly to the cards that were just trashed.  There's no reason to think that one should gain from the supply, unless it said "gain a copy of".

[Drab Emordnilap]

If Thief trashed actions instead of treasures, could it gain your Fortress from your hand?

I think blue dogs prevent that, upon review.

[ftl]

No, it wouldn't. You'd follow the card in order:

1) ActionThief tells an opponent to trash their fortress
Oh no! A when-trashed effect activates, putting the fortress in their hand
2) ActionThief tells you to gain the trashed fortress
...but it has lost track of fortress since it's not in the trash, so it can't gain it.

It's the lose-track rule.

[cluckyb]

If Thief trashed actions instead of treasures, could it gain your Fortress from your hand?

I think blue dogs prevent that, upon review.

It depends on if the Fortress still counts as a "trashed card" after you move it to your hand. I'd say yes, it is still a card that was trashed. So it is still one of the "trashed cards" and you gain it. It doesn't say "gain the card from the trash" so it can't lose track of it.

[AJD]

It doesn't say "gain the card from the trash" so it can't lose track of it.

This doesn't follow. Lose-track applies whenever a card tries to move a card that isn't where it's expected to be. ActionThief would expect Fortress to be in the trash, it wouldn't be there, so it wouldn't get gained.

[Donald X.]

It doesn't say "gain the card from the trash" so it can't lose track of it.

This doesn't follow. Lose-track applies whenever a card tries to move a card that isn't where it's expected to be. ActionThief would expect Fortress to be in the trash, it wouldn't be there, so it wouldn't get gained.

Answering questions about hypothetical cards is really beyond the scope for me, but yes.

[ftl]

In general, cards don't have to say where they expect something to be.

To bring that discussion back to real cards - Counterfeit. For example, if you play Counterfeit, Counterfeit says to play a treasure twice, then trash it. It doesn't specifically say "trash it from play" - but if you play Counterfeit on Spoils, the Spoils is returned to the Spoils pile, and so it can't be trashed because Counterfeit loses track of it.

[AJD]

It doesn't say "gain the card from the trash" so it can't lose track of it.

This doesn't follow. Lose-track applies whenever a card tries to move a card that isn't where it's expected to be. ActionThief would expect Fortress to be in the trash, it wouldn't be there, so it wouldn't get gained.

Answering questions about hypothetical cards is really beyond the scope for me, but yes.

Does Bandit count as a hypothetical card? 

[ftl]

What's Bandit?

[AJD]

What's Bandit?

The card that was revised to make Rogue.

[Donald X.]

Does Bandit count as a hypothetical card? 

Yes. The intention is that the rules handle anything you might want to do on a Dominion card. But the rules only have to handle everything that I actually do, and it's bad to have rules you aren't using, so that's all they really cover; they do not actually handle everything I have tried.

This hypothetical card is covered by the rules but it's still not a great direction for rules discussions. The rules do not have to handle Bandit.

[Awaclus]

I actually thought the Thief gained copies of the trashed cards from the supply before I played on Isotropic and saw that I had been playing it incorrectly.

[cluckyb]

It doesn't say "gain the card from the trash" so it can't lose track of it.

This doesn't follow. Lose-track applies whenever a card tries to move a card that isn't where it's expected to be. ActionThief would expect Fortress to be in the trash, it wouldn't be there, so it wouldn't get gained.

why does ActionThief expect Fortress to be in the trash? All it knows is the card was Trashed. Its not like with Madman where the "return" implies you can't do it a second time.

[GendoIkari]

It doesn't say "gain the card from the trash" so it can't lose track of it.

This doesn't follow. Lose-track applies whenever a card tries to move a card that isn't where it's expected to be. ActionThief would expect Fortress to be in the trash, it wouldn't be there, so it wouldn't get gained.

why does ActionThief expect Fortress to be in the trash? All it knows is the card was Trashed. Its not like with Madman where the "return" implies you can't do it a second time.

"Trash X" is a synonym for "move X to the trash pile." So for any card that's been trashed, every card should expect it to be in the trash. I'm not sure what you mean by comparing it to Madman, but trashing a card does indeed imply that you can't do it a second time; just look at Throne Room-Treasure Map. You cannot activate it twice because you only get the gold "if you do trash 2 treasure maps" and the second time you play it (after it's been trashed), it doesn't get trashed again.

[AJD]

It doesn't say "gain the card from the trash" so it can't lose track of it.

This doesn't follow. Lose-track applies whenever a card tries to move a card that isn't where it's expected to be. ActionThief would expect Fortress to be in the trash, it wouldn't be there, so it wouldn't get gained.

why does ActionThief expect Fortress to be in the trash? All it knows is the card was Trashed.

 

...Because if you put a card in the trash, that's where you expect it to be?

[Asper]

It doesn't say "gain the card from the trash" so it can't lose track of it.

This doesn't follow. Lose-track applies whenever a card tries to move a card that isn't where it's expected to be. ActionThief would expect Fortress to be in the trash, it wouldn't be there, so it wouldn't get gained.

why does ActionThief expect Fortress to be in the trash? All it knows is the card was Trashed.

 

...Because if you put a card in the trash, that's where you expect it to be?

That's all totally different stuff than my original question, but well...
I second this. If you discard or gain a card, it is supposed to be in your discard pile. That's why you can shuffle Inn back in your deck. So if you trash a card, you expect it to be in the trash.

[cluckyb]

It doesn't say "gain the card from the trash" so it can't lose track of it.

This doesn't follow. Lose-track applies whenever a card tries to move a card that isn't where it's expected to be. ActionThief would expect Fortress to be in the trash, it wouldn't be there, so it wouldn't get gained.

why does ActionThief expect Fortress to be in the trash? All it knows is the card was Trashed.

 

...Because if you put a card in the trash, that's where you expect it to be?

That's all totally different stuff than my original question, but well...
I second this. If you discard or gain a card, it is supposed to be in your discard pile. That's why you can shuffle Inn back in your deck. So if you trash a card, you expect it to be in the trash.

Hrm. So it turns out on Iso you can't buy an Inn, trigger the shuffle, then use the Royal Seal to fish the Inn out of the deck or discard pile and topdeck it. Which seems a little weird. There is still no assumption the gained card is going to the discard pile (I mean, you can trash a NC with a WT, right?)

But then, I guess you can't reveal a WT, trash a Rats, draw a card, reveal another WT, move the gained card from the Trash to the top of the Deck, reveal WT again, Trash the card again etc... so there is the implication that WT can only move the gained card from the mythical 'the card you are in the process of gaining' spot. Once it actually moves, (i.e. becomes trashed, goes to your discard pile, Inn gets reshuffled, NC topdecks...) WT and Royal Seal loses track and can't move it again, right? So if buying cards also has this hidden location assumption, I guess Thief can too as there aren't any cases that move a card from location A to B or location C to B without clearly specifying "A or C" (like Hermit does).

[SirPeebles]

It doesn't say "gain the card from the trash" so it can't lose track of it.

This doesn't follow. Lose-track applies whenever a card tries to move a card that isn't where it's expected to be. ActionThief would expect Fortress to be in the trash, it wouldn't be there, so it wouldn't get gained.

why does ActionThief expect Fortress to be in the trash? All it knows is the card was Trashed.

 

...Because if you put a card in the trash, that's where you expect it to be?

That's all totally different stuff than my original question, but well...
I second this. If you discard or gain a card, it is supposed to be in your discard pile. That's why you can shuffle Inn back in your deck. So if you trash a card, you expect it to be in the trash.

Hrm. So it turns out on Iso you can't buy an Inn, trigger the shuffle, then use the Royal Seal to fish the Inn out of the deck or discard pile and topdeck it. Which seems a little weird. There is still no assumption the gained card is going to the discard pile (I mean, you can trash a NC with a WT, right?)

But then, I guess you can't reveal a WT, trash a Rats, draw a card, reveal another WT, move the gained card from the Trash to the top of the Deck, reveal WT again, Trash the card again etc... so there is the implication that WT can only move the gained card from the mythical 'the card you are in the process of gaining' spot. Once it actually moves, (i.e. becomes trashed, goes to your discard pile, Inn gets reshuffled, NC topdecks...) WT and Royal Seal loses track and can't move it again, right? So if buying cards also has this hidden location assumption, I guess Thief can too as there aren't any cases that move a card from location A to B or location C to B without clearly specifying "A or C" (like Hermit does).

No, Royal Seal cannot fish the Inn out of your deck.  Once Inn moves itself, Royal Seal loses track of it. Even if it ends up back where it was.

And Watchtower expects to find a card where ever it is gained too.  Nomad Camp is gained to the top of your deck.  Explorer gains a Gold to your hand.

[ftl]

Hrm. So it turns out on Iso you can't buy an Inn, trigger the shuffle, then use the Royal Seal to fish the Inn out of the deck or discard pile and topdeck it. Which seems a little weird.

Because it's a physical game with physical cards. That's the most obvious case for the lose track rule - once you've shuffled Inn into your deck, you can't top-deck it, because how would you know where in the deck it is to pull the card out and put it on top? You've literally lost track of it.

[florrat]

But if you do not shuffle the Inn into your deck, the royal seal can topdeck the Inn, right? Because it's still on the top of your discard pile.

[cluckyb]

But if you do not shuffle the Inn into your deck, the royal seal can topdeck the Inn, right? Because it's still on the top of your discard pile.

Wait on Iso, yes. I thought I tried that before and it didn't work. Is that a bug?
Like, if I buy a Nomad camp, I can use my Royal Seal to move the nomad camp to the top of my deck. But I can't then reveal a watchtower to trash it. I also can't reveal a watchtower, trash it, and then use Royal Seal to move it to the top of my deck.

Are discards different because they are face up? Or is it just that the Inn never moved more than once? Or should you not be able to top deck Inn after shuffling your actions, even if you didn't pick the Inn.

[GendoIkari]

But if you do not shuffle the Inn into your deck, the royal seal can topdeck the Inn, right? Because it's still on the top of your discard pile.

No, because the act of fishing cards out of your discard pile causes the Inn to "move" I believe. Your discard can legally be rearranged at that time.

I think it's the same even if you choose to shuffle no cards in. And if you did royal seal's trigger before Inn's, you would put Inn on top of your deck, but then you are forced to shuffle your draw deck, even if you didn't take cards from your discard.

[SirPeebles]

But if you do not shuffle the Inn into your deck, the royal seal can topdeck the Inn, right? Because it's still on the top of your discard pile.

No, because the act of fishing cards out of your discard pile causes the Inn to "move" I believe. Your discard can legally be rearranged at that time.

I think it's the same even if you choose to shuffle no cards in. And if you did royal seal's trigger before Inn's, you would put Inn on top of your deck, but then you are forced to shuffle your draw deck, even if you didn't take cards from your discard.

Ugh, can you imagine trying to explain in a casual IRL game that you arent allowed to just topdeck an Inn even when not shuffling Actions into your deck?

[GendoIkari]

But if you do not shuffle the Inn into your deck, the royal seal can topdeck the Inn, right? Because it's still on the top of your discard pile.

No, because the act of fishing cards out of your discard pile causes the Inn to "move" I believe. Your discard can legally be rearranged at that time.

I think it's the same even if you choose to shuffle no cards in. And if you did royal seal's trigger before Inn's, you would put Inn on top of your deck, but then you are forced to shuffle your draw deck, even if you didn't take cards from your discard.

Ugh, can you imagine trying to explain in a casual IRL game that you arent allowed to just topdeck an Inn even when not shuffling Actions into your deck?

I don't even think I can explain it to myself! While I'm about 90% sure that that's correct (has Donald specifically said it somewhere already?), the logic behind it requires a lot of thinking about for me.... I guess it's because Inn's ability is NOT optional, so you HAVE to "look through your discard pile." And the very act of looking through your discard pile causes Inn to "move" enough that Royal Seal loses track, because "looking through" can cause the order of things to change and such.

[Donald X.]

But if you do not shuffle the Inn into your deck, the royal seal can topdeck the Inn, right? Because it's still on the top of your discard pile.

No, because the act of fishing cards out of your discard pile causes the Inn to "move" I believe. Your discard can legally be rearranged at that time.

I think it's the same even if you choose to shuffle no cards in. And if you did royal seal's trigger before Inn's, you would put Inn on top of your deck, but then you are forced to shuffle your draw deck, even if you didn't take cards from your discard.

Ugh, can you imagine trying to explain in a casual IRL game that you arent allowed to just topdeck an Inn even when not shuffling Actions into your deck?

Inn / Royal Seal:

They trigger at the same time. Do them in either order.

Inn first: Shuffle any number of action cards from discard into deck. Let's say you don't include Inn. Then you want to put Inn on top of your deck with Royal Seal. Royal Seal will "lose track" of Inn if it gets covered up in the discard pile. That may or may not have happened; if it didn't happen, you can move it. The rulebook doesn't specify that having fun with your discard pile makes you lose track of Inn; only that covering it up does (or the other situations in which you lose track).

Royal Seal first: Put Inn on top of your deck. Then shuffle any number of action cards from discard to deck. Even if you pick zero, you still shuffle, so Inn won't stay on top.

Isotropic / Goko may not handle this correctly.

[SirPeebles]

I understand that it's tricky to make interesting card effects without causing a few rules issues, but the lose track rule certainly reminds me (as a mathematician) of Euclid's parallel postulate or set theory's axiom of choice.  It feels out of place in its inelegance.  I understand that sometimes you literally lose track of a card, so some catch all is needed, but this strikes me as precisely one of those cases.  Unless Inn tells you not to change the order of your discard deck, how can one be certain, after thumbing through for Actions, that the Inn placed on top is really the Inn someone just gained, and that it wasn't mixed up with a different Inn from their discard pile?

[Donald X.]

I understand that it's tricky to make interesting card effects without causing a few rules issues, but the lose track rule certainly reminds me (as a mathematician) of Euclid's parallel postulate or set theory's axiom of choice.  It feels out of place in its inelegance.  I understand that sometimes you literally lose track of a card, so some catch all is needed, but this strikes me as precisely one of those cases.  Unless Inn tells you not to change the order of your discard deck, how can one be certain, after thumbing through for Actions, that the Inn placed on top is really the Inn someone just gained, and that it wasn't mixed up with a different Inn from their discard pile?

The lose track rule is absolutely essential in games that get past a certain point in complexity. So I would compare Godel's Incompleteness Theorem instead. It's a weird thing and best not to have it. Dominion could have dropped several cards in order to not have it; if we list them out people will tend to say "oh I don't want to lose that one," but of course they don't miss what they haven't seen. But uh that's all in the past, the rule has been needed as of Mining Village.

I try to cover everything in the rulebook, and then in rulings I try to stick to the rulebook. The rulebook refers to covering up the card but not to otherwise looking through or extracting cards from the discard pile. So that's my ruling. How can you be sure? Man, you can be sure if you want to be. You know you've got Royal Seal coming up and everything.

[GendoIkari]

But if you do not shuffle the Inn into your deck, the royal seal can topdeck the Inn, right? Because it's still on the top of your discard pile.

No, because the act of fishing cards out of your discard pile causes the Inn to "move" I believe. Your discard can legally be rearranged at that time.

I think it's the same even if you choose to shuffle no cards in. And if you did royal seal's trigger before Inn's, you would put Inn on top of your deck, but then you are forced to shuffle your draw deck, even if you didn't take cards from your discard.

Ugh, can you imagine trying to explain in a casual IRL game that you arent allowed to just topdeck an Inn even when not shuffling Actions into your deck?

Inn / Royal Seal:

They trigger at the same time. Do them in either order.

Inn first: Shuffle any number of action cards from discard into deck. Let's say you don't include Inn. Then you want to put Inn on top of your deck with Royal Seal. Royal Seal will "lose track" of Inn if it gets covered up in the discard pile. That may or may not have happened; if it didn't happen, you can move it. The rulebook doesn't specify that having fun with your discard pile makes you lose track of Inn; only that covering it up does (or the other situations in which you lose track).

Royal Seal first: Put Inn on top of your deck. Then shuffle any number of action cards from discard to deck. Even if you pick zero, you still shuffle, so Inn won't stay on top.

Isotropic / Goko may not handle this correctly.

Wow, I was wrong! Thanks for the clarification. So you CAN topdeck Inn if you have Royal Seal in play. I would assume that any electronic implementation should never cause Inn to be covered up while digging through your discard pile, and therefore let you topdeck it. My only problem here is that it creates a different situation for real life play vs online play... in real life, while digging through your discard pile, you might cover up Inn, therefore disallowing the topdecking, but online that's not possible.

[DStu]

I understand that it's tricky to make interesting card effects without causing a few rules issues, but the lose track rule certainly reminds me (as a mathematician) of Euclid's parallel postulate or set theory's axiom of choice.  It feels out of place in its inelegance.  I understand that sometimes you literally lose track of a card, so some catch all is needed, but this strikes me as precisely one of those cases.  Unless Inn tells you not to change the order of your discard deck, how can one be certain, after thumbing through for Actions, that the Inn placed on top is really the Inn someone just gained, and that it wasn't mixed up with a different Inn from their discard pile?

The lose track rule is absolutely essential in games that get past a certain point in complexity. So I would compare Godel's Incompleteness Theorem instead.

But the Theorem follows from the other rules of the "game", while lose track is independent of it.  Of course you could say that the need for a strange ruling is comparable to Gödel.  But than again it's more like a strange axiom like the Axiom of choice.  And anyway, the game is finite, so Gödel does not apply (I guess).

/scnr

[Donald X.]

Wow, I was wrong! Thanks for the clarification. So you CAN topdeck Inn if you have Royal Seal in play. I would assume that any electronic implementation should never cause Inn to be covered up while digging through your discard pile, and therefore let you topdeck it. My only problem here is that it creates a different situation for real life play vs online play... in real life, while digging through your discard pile, you might cover up Inn, therefore disallowing the topdecking, but online that's not possible.

IRL it will never be a problem, because you will say "oh I wanted to put my Inn on top," and then you will do it.

[Donald X.]

But the Theorem follows from the other rules of the "game", while lose track is independent of it.  Of course you could say that the need for a strange ruling is comparable to Gödel.  But than again it's more like a strange axiom like the Axiom of choice.  And anyway, the game is finite, so Gödel does not apply (I guess).

The comparison to Godel is, specifically, the notion that systems beyond a certain degree of complexity require a certain something. For games, at some point you will have this issue. It only applies to games where you can actually lose track of something, and most games don't get that complex, but it's still not really specific to Dominion. I had the rule before I had Dominion.

[GendoIkari]

Inn first: Shuffle any number of action cards from discard into deck. Let's say you don't include Inn. Then you want to put Inn on top of your deck with Royal Seal. Royal Seal will "lose track" of Inn if it gets covered up in the discard pile. That may or may not have happened; if it didn't happen, you can move it. The rulebook doesn't specify that having fun with your discard pile makes you lose track of Inn; only that covering it up does (or the other situations in which you lose track).

Isotropic / Goko may not handle this correctly.

Thinking more about this, I think you can make a good argument that you are NOT allowed to reorder your discard pile when you gain Inn. Simply because neither Inn, nor anything else in the rules, says that you are allowed to. Inn says to "look through your discard pile" and to "reveal any number of Action cards from it." Nothing about "reordering." And it's been clarified pretty strongly by you before that if the rules don't say you are allowed to do something related to the game, then you aren't allowed to do it (I.E. note-taking).

It seems to me that no card in the discard pile actually moves at all until the moment that you "shuffle them into your deck", because you've also clarified that "revealing" a card does not cause it to move (a revealed Secret Chamber is still in your hand). I think that because of this, Royal Seal cannot lose track of Inn during the "looking through your discard pile" process.

[Donald X.]

Hinterlands rulebook.

Inn: When you play this, you draw 2 cards, get +2 Actions, then discard 2 cards. The cards you discard can be ones that were in your hand and/or ones you just drew. You discard cards if able, even if you were unable to draw 2 cards. When you gain this, you look through your discard pile (something normally not allowed), and shuffle any number of Action cards from it into your deck (leaving the rest of your discard pile in your discard pile). You do not have to shuffle any Action cards into your deck. You can shuffle the Inn you just gained into your deck; it is an Action card in your discard pile. Cards with two types, one of which is Action, are Action cards. You must reveal the Action cards that you choose to shuffle into your deck. It does not matter what order you leave your discard pile in afterwards. This ability functions if you gain Inn due to buying it, or gain Inn some other way.

[GendoIkari]

Hinterlands rulebook.

Inn: When you play this, you draw 2 cards, get +2 Actions, then discard 2 cards. The cards you discard can be ones that were in your hand and/or ones you just drew. You discard cards if able, even if you were unable to draw 2 cards. When you gain this, you look through your discard pile (something normally not allowed), and shuffle any number of Action cards from it into your deck (leaving the rest of your discard pile in your discard pile). You do not have to shuffle any Action cards into your deck. You can shuffle the Inn you just gained into your deck; it is an Action card in your discard pile. Cards with two types, one of which is Action, are Action cards. You must reveal the Action cards that you choose to shuffle into your deck. It does not matter what order you leave your discard pile in afterwards. This ability functions if you gain Inn due to buying it, or gain Inn some other way.

Well I could attempt to argue that you've said in the past that the card FAQ does not constitute official rules, and that rulings should not be based off of them, but rather only on what the actual card says.

But I won't, because really the only thing that matters from this discussion is that yes, you can in fact top-deck Inn if Royal Seal is in play.

[cluckyb]

Inn / Royal Seal:

They trigger at the same time. Do them in either order.

Inn first: Shuffle any number of action cards from discard into deck. Let's say you don't include Inn. Then you want to put Inn on top of your deck with Royal Seal. Royal Seal will "lose track" of Inn if it gets covered up in the discard pile. That may or may not have happened; if it didn't happen, you can move it. The rulebook doesn't specify that having fun with your discard pile makes you lose track of Inn; only that covering it up does (or the other situations in which you lose track).

Royal Seal first: Put Inn on top of your deck. Then shuffle any number of action cards from discard to deck. Even if you pick zero, you still shuffle, so Inn won't stay on top.

Isotropic / Goko may not handle this correctly.

So the order of the discard pile matters? I was under the assumption that it didn't matter at all and could be rearranged when I "look through the discard pile'. But I look through the discard pile, pull one Inn out to shuffle it back in, put a second on the bottom and a third on the top, how do I know that the Inn on the top of the discard pile is the one that I just gained? Or does the watchtower 'regain track' of the Inn and doesn't actually care that it isn't the same Inn as before?

[GendoIkari]

Inn / Royal Seal:

They trigger at the same time. Do them in either order.

Inn first: Shuffle any number of action cards from discard into deck. Let's say you don't include Inn. Then you want to put Inn on top of your deck with Royal Seal. Royal Seal will "lose track" of Inn if it gets covered up in the discard pile. That may or may not have happened; if it didn't happen, you can move it. The rulebook doesn't specify that having fun with your discard pile makes you lose track of Inn; only that covering it up does (or the other situations in which you lose track).

Royal Seal first: Put Inn on top of your deck. Then shuffle any number of action cards from discard to deck. Even if you pick zero, you still shuffle, so Inn won't stay on top.

Isotropic / Goko may not handle this correctly.

So the order of the discard pile matters? I was under the assumption that it didn't matter at all and could be rearranged when I "look through the discard pile'. But I look through the discard pile, pull one Inn out to shuffle it back in, put a second on the bottom and a third on the top, how do I know that the Inn on the top of the discard pile is the one that I just gained? Or does the watchtower 'regain track' of the Inn and doesn't actually care that it isn't the same Inn as before?

See the next few posts; I think he cleared this up. Watchtower/Royal Seal doesn't "regain track" of the Inn, it will never lose track unless you specifically rearrange your discard pile in such a way that you cover the Inn up. You don't just notice that Inn was on top of the pile when you started, and Inn is still on top when you finished... rather you always have your eye on that specific Inn that's on top of the pile, and if it is always visible, because it's always on top, then no track-losing takes place.

[cluckyb]

Inn / Royal Seal:

They trigger at the same time. Do them in either order.

Inn first: Shuffle any number of action cards from discard into deck. Let's say you don't include Inn. Then you want to put Inn on top of your deck with Royal Seal. Royal Seal will "lose track" of Inn if it gets covered up in the discard pile. That may or may not have happened; if it didn't happen, you can move it. The rulebook doesn't specify that having fun with your discard pile makes you lose track of Inn; only that covering it up does (or the other situations in which you lose track).

Royal Seal first: Put Inn on top of your deck. Then shuffle any number of action cards from discard to deck. Even if you pick zero, you still shuffle, so Inn won't stay on top.

Isotropic / Goko may not handle this correctly.

So the order of the discard pile matters? I was under the assumption that it didn't matter at all and could be rearranged when I "look through the discard pile'. But I look through the discard pile, pull one Inn out to shuffle it back in, put a second on the bottom and a third on the top, how do I know that the Inn on the top of the discard pile is the one that I just gained? Or does the watchtower 'regain track' of the Inn and doesn't actually care that it isn't the same Inn as before?

See the next few posts; I think he cleared this up. Watchtower/Royal Seal doesn't "regain track" of the Inn, it will never lose track unless you specifically rearrange your discard pile in such a way that you cover the Inn up. You don't just notice that Inn was on top of the pile when you started, and Inn is still on top when you finished... rather you always have your eye on that specific Inn that's on top of the pile, and if it is always visible, because it's always on top, then no track-losing takes place.

And there is just player trust (like with Throne Room) that I didn't use slight of hand to switch the Inn with another one in the deck?

It just strikes me as weird that two successive snapshots of the game can look exactly the same to an outsider, but the legal moves are different because in one case the top card was covered for a bit and then undone, and in the other case it wasn't. I don't get why always being visible helps with losing track - if I put any random card on the top of my deck via WT, I and everyone else knows exactly what that card is. (especially if its a stash). But WT has still lost track of the card.

But hey at least now we have an official ruling (even if I personally still don't fully understand the reasoning)

[Drab Emordnilap]

It just strikes me as weird that two successive snapshots of the game can look exactly the same to an outsider, but the legal moves are different because in one case the top card was covered for a bit and then undone, and in the other case it wasn't.

Sounds like your snapshots are too far apart. You should have a snapshot of the Inn on top, then something else on top, than an Inn on top.

[SirPeebles]

I don't get why always being visible helps with losing track

I think that the lose-track purposefully oversteps a bit; it's intended as a catch all.  Unless Donald X. kept card effects sufficiently simple, it's nearly impossible to avoid unintended rules gaps.  Hell, that's practically what we do here on this forum.  So the lose track rule basically says, hey, here are a few scenarios that could at least potentially lead us down a frightening rabbit hole, so I'm just going to cut off the funny business right now.  You're not generally allowed to look through your discard pile aside from the top card -- for instance, to move a card which has been covered up in the meantime -- so to stop any crazy unintended stuff, let's just say that if a card is even momentarily not on top, then it becomes off limits to moving.  And the rule even applies to card where, physically speaking, we have clearly and unambiguously regain real life track of the card, because hell, who wants to try to word the rulebook to allow for such exceptions?

[GendoIkari]

It just strikes me as weird that two successive snapshots of the game can look exactly the same to an outsider, but the legal moves are different because in one case the top card was covered for a bit and then undone, and in the other case it wasn't.

Sounds like your snapshots are too far apart. You should have a snapshot of the Inn on top, then something else on top, than an Inn on top.

Exactly. It seems that people are thinking that the only 2 times you ever look at the discard pile is right after you gain Inn, and right before you try to top-deck Inn. There's all that time in between where other things happen, and those things matter.

It's the same with the Border Village / Royal Seal question from here. Sure there were 2 separate times that the Border Village was seen on top, but loose track kicked in in between those 2 times because there was also a time that it wasn't on top.

In terms of using slight-of-hand to replace one Inn with another.... you CAN legally top-deck the Inn anyway, so I don't see a concern of someone illegally doing something that they could just as easily choose to legally do. I think the whole discussion of "is it the same Inn that's still on top of your discard" is moot, because if a person wants to top-deck the Inn, they can.

[AJD]

You're not generally allowed to look through your discard pile aside from the top card -- for instance, to move a card which has been covered up in the meantime -- so to stop any crazy unintended stuff, let's just say that if a card is even momentarily not on top, then it becomes off limits to moving.

I still don't understand why Tunnel doesn't lose track of itself.

I mean, I guess you activate Tunnel by revealing it, and the lose-track rule only refers to moving cards, and revealing a card doesn't move it, so if a Tunnel is lost-track-of that doesn't stop it from being revealed.

So I guess what's actually going on is that Tunnel implicitly licenses you to look through (some of) your discard pile, so you can find the Tunnel you just discarded and reveal it. This isn't unprecedented; Philosopher's Stone also implicitly licenses you to look through your discard pile, as verified by the FAQ.

But I think this is an interesting case where following the order-of-operations rules explicitly and to the letter makes it easier to cheat than doing what normal people would actually do.

[SirPeebles]

You're not generally allowed to look through your discard pile aside from the top card -- for instance, to move a card which has been covered up in the meantime -- so to stop any crazy unintended stuff, let's just say that if a card is even momentarily not on top, then it becomes off limits to moving.

I still don't understand why Tunnel doesn't lose track of itself.

I mean, I guess you activate Tunnel by revealing it, and the lose-track rule only refers to moving cards, and revealing a card doesn't move it, so if a Tunnel is lost-track-of that doesn't stop it from being revealed.

So I guess what's actually going on is that Tunnel implicitly licenses you to look through (some of) your discard pile, so you can find the Tunnel you just discarded and reveal it. This isn't unprecedented; Philosopher's Stone also implicitly licenses you to look through your discard pile, as verified by the FAQ.

But I think this is an interesting case where following the order-of-operations rules explicitly and to the letter makes it easier to cheat than doing what normal people would actually do.

Tunnel is triggered when you discard it.  You discard cards one at a time.

[AJD]

You discard cards one at a time.

Not true.

[GendoIkari]

You discard cards one at a time.

Not true.

You're right, you do discard simultaneously. But there's 2 big reason why Tunnel doesn't lose track. First of all, lose track ONLY applies to the ability to move a card somewhere else. If you need to look at a card to figure out the cost, or types, or anything like that, lose track simply doesn't apply there. It only matters if you are attempting to move the card.

Second of all, I'm pretty sure no card can lose track of itself... it only applies when card A tries to move card B after something else (either card B or C) has moved it.

[AJD]

But there's 2 big reason why Tunnel doesn't lose track. First of all, lose track ONLY applies to the ability to move a card somewhere else. If you need to look at a card to figure out the cost, or types, or anything like that, lose track simply doesn't apply there. It only matters if you are attempting to move the card.

Yeah, I agree. But note that this can put you in the odd situation of having to reveal a card that you may have actually lost track of (because it's been covered up in the discard pile).

Second of all, I'm pretty sure no card can lose track of itself... it only applies when card A tries to move card B after something else (either card B or C) has moved it.

That's not right. Hermit loses track of itself when top-decked with Scheme, for instance.

[cluckyb]

So there is just no way to top deck two Inns (so that both are the top), even with Haggler/BV/Highway'd Talisman magic, right?

Whole thing would be less confusing if the cards gained never even went to the discard pile to begin with (but instead went to purgatory with an arrow pointing where they were supposed to go, and while WT and other such cards can change the arrow, they can't move them once them leave purgatory. But I guess that would make the wording on the Inn harder). Overall it still mostly makes sense, it just feels a little weird that the order of the discard pile matters and the legality of the move depends purely on the physical actions of "does this card always remain on top while you're looking through the discard pile"

[ftl]

Yeah, I agree. But note that this can put you in the odd situation of having to reveal a card that you may have actually lost track of (because it's been covered up in the discard pile).

How could that happen? You reveal Tunnel when you discard it; presumably, that means you are holding it and putting it in your discard pile, and as you do that you reveal it.

[enfynet]

Yeah, I agree. But note that this can put you in the odd situation of having to reveal a card that you may have actually lost track of (because it's been covered up in the discard pile).

How could that happen? You reveal Tunnel when you discard it; presumably, that means you are holding it and putting it in your discard pile, and as you do that you reveal it.

2 VP
----------
When you discard this other than during a Clean-up phase, you may reveal it. If you do, gain a Gold.

2 VP
----------
When you discard this other than during a Clean-up phase, you may gain a Gold.

How are these different?

[Asper]

Yeah, I agree. But note that this can put you in the odd situation of having to reveal a card that you may have actually lost track of (because it's been covered up in the discard pile).

How could that happen? You reveal Tunnel when you discard it; presumably, that means you are holding it and putting it in your discard pile, and as you do that you reveal it.

2 VP
----------
When you discard this other than during a Clean-up phase, you may reveal it. If you do, gain a Gold.

2 VP
----------
When you discard this other than during a Clean-up phase, you may gain a Gold.

How are these different?

Second one leaves you no choice, but that's all.

[enfynet]

It still leaves you a choice, it says "[...] you may gain a Gold."

[GendoIkari]

Yeah, I agree. But note that this can put you in the odd situation of having to reveal a card that you may have actually lost track of (because it's been covered up in the discard pile).

How could that happen? You reveal Tunnel when you discard it; presumably, that means you are holding it and putting it in your discard pile, and as you do that you reveal it.

2 VP
----------
When you discard this other than during a Clean-up phase, you may reveal it. If you do, gain a Gold.

2 VP
----------
When you discard this other than during a Clean-up phase, you may gain a Gold.

How are these different?

The difference is that cards that are discarded are hidden to the other players. Without the "reveal" part, there would be no way for all the other players to know that you discarded a Tunnel.

[enfynet]

Yeah, I agree. But note that this can put you in the odd situation of having to reveal a card that you may have actually lost track of (because it's been covered up in the discard pile).

How could that happen? You reveal Tunnel when you discard it; presumably, that means you are holding it and putting it in your discard pile, and as you do that you reveal it.

2 VP
----------
When you discard this other than during a Clean-up phase, you may reveal it. If you do, gain a Gold.

2 VP
----------
When you discard this other than during a Clean-up phase, you may gain a Gold.

How are these different?

The difference is that cards that are discarded are hidden to the other players. Without the "reveal" part, there would be no way for all the other players to know that you discarded a Tunnel.

Which is exactly my point. You aren't losing track of something that you are revealing because you are doing it to show other players that you are discarding it. Otherwise you play Militia and I discard Tunnel and Copper at the same time, putting Copper on top of my discard, then picking up a Gold because, well I discarded a Tunnel.

[Donald X.]

The difference is that cards that are discarded are hidden to the other players. Without the "reveal" part, there would be no way for all the other players to know that you discarded a Tunnel.

Correct.

"Lose track" has zero interaction with Tunnel. Tunnel doesn't try to move anything (well it moves a Gold from the supply, but not a particular one).

I agree that it's weird that you can reveal Tunnel from your discard pile. It says on the card that you can though. In practice obv. everyone shows the Tunnel as they discard it. "As you discard this" feels like it would be more confusing.

[AJD]

Yeah, I agree. But note that this can put you in the odd situation of having to reveal a card that you may have actually lost track of (because it's been covered up in the discard pile).

How could that happen? You reveal Tunnel when you discard it; presumably, that means you are holding it and putting it in your discard pile, and as you do that you reveal it.

So, that's what a normal person would do. I play Cellar, I discard four cards, and then while they're on their way to the discard pile, I show you that two of them are Tunnels and I take my two Golds and put them in the discard pile too.

But if you follow all the rules about when things happen, here's how this works:

1. I play a Cellar and discard 4 cards. You don't see what any of them are until after they're in the discard pile, and then you only see the one on top. Say it's an Estate.
2. Now that I've discarded them, I have the right to reveal the Tunnels I discarded. They both trigger simultaneously, so I choose the order to resolve them.
3. I resolve the first Tunnel—i.e., I reveal it, which means I have to root around among the top four cards in my discard pile to find where it is, and I pull it out and show it to you and put it back.
4. I gain a Gold. It goes on top of my discard pile.
5. I resolve the second Tunnel—so I hunt through the top five cards in my discard pile to find it, show it to you, and put it back.
6. I gain another Gold. It goes on top of my discard pile.
7. If I'm not cheating, I don't claim to have discarded a third Tunnel, look through my discard pile again, and pull out one of the ones I've already revealed. But if I am cheating, you don't really have any way to tell.

So following the rules exactly makes it easier to cheat, somehow.

[AJD]

The difference is that cards that are discarded are hidden to the other players. Without the "reveal" part, there would be no way for all the other players to know that you discarded a Tunnel.

"Lose track" has zero interaction with Tunnel. Tunnel doesn't try to move anything (well it moves a Gold from the supply, but not a particular one).

I agree that it's weird that you can reveal Tunnel from your discard pile. It says on the card that you can though. In practice obv. everyone shows the Tunnel as they discard it. "As you discard this" feels like it would be more confusing.

I agree with all of these points—it's weird, "as you discard" would be more confusing as card text, and in practice "as you discard" is what people do anyway and it's all good.

I think it's just kind of amusing that this is a case where the lose-track rule doesn't apply even if you literally lose track of the card.

Maybe the best way to understand Tunnel is that "as you discard" is what it actually does, even though it says "when you discard"—just like Nomad Camp says "when you gain", even though the actual effect is more like "when you would gain".

[dondon151]

Losing track has nothing to do with revealing. You can reveal a card from anywhere as long as you have been instructed to do so.

[SirPeebles]

No one is arguing that Lose Track with capital letters impacts revealing.  But real life, literal, lower-case losing track is absolutely relevant to revealing.  That's the point.

[ftl]

But in real life, lower case lose track you don't actually lose track of whatever you're revealing, because in real life, literal "when you discard" works exactly like "as you discard".

[SirPeebles]

Yeah, it's not so bad with Tunnel, since everyone knows what is clearly intended.

Imagine a hypothetical card as follows

Prospector
$3 Action-Reaction

(...)
---
When you shuffle this into your deck, you may reveal it.  If you do, then reveal the top card of your deck.  If the revealed card is a Treasure, gain a Gold.  If the revealed card is a Curse, trash this Prospector.

For this card, you clearly need to shuffle before checking the top card.  But if the top card is indeed a Curse, how do you find the Prospector from inside your deck?

[GendoIkari]

Yeah, it's not so bad with Tunnel, since everyone knows what is clearly intended.

Imagine a hypothetical card as follows

Prospector
$3 Action-Reaction

(...)
---
When you shuffle this into your deck, you may reveal it.  If you do, then reveal the top card of your deck.  If the revealed card is a Treasure, gain a Gold.  If the revealed card is a Curse, trash this Prospector.

For this card, you clearly need to shuffle before checking the top card.  But if the top card is indeed a Curse, how do you find the Prospector from inside your deck?

I think you basically just can't ever do that card. You can do "when you would shuffle this into your deck, reveal it" instead, but then you would need complex wording if you really wanted to reveal the top card of your deck AFTER the shuffle.

[SirPeebles]

Come to think of it, why can you reveal a Moat multiple times when an opponents plays an Attack card, but you can't reveal a Tunnel multiple times when you discard it?   I mean, it's again clear that it would be a bad idea to allow this, but this seems to be the only Reaction card to date that would have a practical effect being revealed endlessly without having some sort of clause preventing it from being revealed multiple times.

[SirPeebles]

Yeah, it's not so bad with Tunnel, since everyone knows what is clearly intended.

Imagine a hypothetical card as follows

Prospector
$3 Action-Reaction

(...)
---
When you shuffle this into your deck, you may reveal it.  If you do, then reveal the top card of your deck.  If the revealed card is a Treasure, gain a Gold.  If the revealed card is a Curse, trash this Prospector.

For this card, you clearly need to shuffle before checking the top card.  But if the top card is indeed a Curse, how do you find the Prospector from inside your deck?

I think you basically just can't ever do that card. You can do "when you would shuffle this into your deck, reveal it" instead, but then you would need complex wording if you really wanted to reveal the top card of your deck AFTER the shuffle.

Oh no, maybe I just spoiled the Goko exclusive promo 

[eHalcyon]

Come to think of it, why can you reveal a Moat multiple times when an opponents plays an Attack card, but you can't reveal a Tunnel multiple times when you discard it?   I mean, it's again clear that it would be a bad idea to allow this, but this seems to be the only Reaction card to date that would have a practical effect being revealed endlessly without having some sort of clause preventing it from being revealed multiple times.

You may reveal Moat multiple times from your hand because there is no way to verify that you aren't revealing multiple different Moats from your hand, short of revealing your hand to the opponent.  It's idempotent, so revealing multiples doesn't matter anyway.

Tunnel says that you may reveal it when you discard it.  You only discard it once, so you only have one chance at revealing it.

Now, maybe you want to go through that whole thing -- I discard a bunch of cards, now I go back and dig out one Tunnel, reveal, gain a Gold, and I go back and dig out a second Tunnel... except maybe I cheat and reveal the first one again... OK, so verification can be difficult with Tunnel since a bunch might be discarded at once.

But practically and intuitively, you just reveal them AS you discard, revealing multiples if you have multiples.  It is natural that you can't reveal the same one twice since you only discard it once.

[GendoIkari]

Come to think of it, why can you reveal a Moat multiple times when an opponents plays an Attack card, but you can't reveal a Tunnel multiple times when you discard it?   I mean, it's again clear that it would be a bad idea to allow this, but this seems to be the only Reaction card to date that would have a practical effect being revealed endlessly without having some sort of clause preventing it from being revealed multiple times.

You may reveal Moat multiple times from your hand because there is no way to verify that you aren't revealing multiple different Moats from your hand, short of revealing your hand to the opponent.  It's idempotent, so revealing multiples doesn't matter anyway.

Tunnel says that you may reveal it when you discard it.  You only discard it once, so you only have one chance at revealing it.

Now, maybe you want to go through that whole thing -- I discard a bunch of cards, now I go back and dig out one Tunnel, reveal, gain a Gold, and I go back and dig out a second Tunnel... except maybe I cheat and reveal the first one again... OK, so verification can be difficult with Tunnel since a bunch might be discarded at once.

But practically and intuitively, you just reveal them AS you discard, revealing multiples if you have multiples.  It is natural that you can't reveal the same one twice since you only discard it once.

Donald clarified this somewhere else... I'm pretty sure he basically said that one of them (revealing from hand or revealing from the discard) was an exception to the general "revealing" rule.

[AJD]

But in real life, lower case lose track you don't actually lose track of whatever you're revealing, because in real life, literal "when you discard" works exactly like "as you discard".

Yeah, so this is why I'm thinking that 'as you discard' should really be the best way to interpret and make consistent the rules on the card. The literal interpretation of "when you discard" is kind of absurd (for reasons discussed) and nobody would ever play that way; 'as you discard' makes its behavior a lot simpler.

[SirPeebles]

By the way, where do the rules state that cards are discarded simultaneously?  Because honestly, that's the part that I feel is awkward.  You gain cards one at a time.  You draw cards one at a time.  You buy cards one at a time.  You play cards, including treasures, one at a time.  You even clean up cards one at a time.  If you discarded one at a time then this wouldn't be an issue, and it would essentially never slow down an IRL game.

[eHalcyon]

By the way, where do the rules state that cards are discarded simultaneously?  Because honestly, that's the part that I feel is awkward.  You gain cards one at a time.  You draw cards one at a time.  You buy cards one at a time.  You play cards, including treasures, one at a time.  You even clean up cards one at a time.  If you discarded one at a time then this wouldn't be an issue, and it would essentially never slow down an IRL game.

I draw cards all at once.  IIRC, when you clean up, you are supposed to clean up all at once as well.

[SirPeebles]

I draw cards all at once.  IIRC, when you clean up, you are supposed to clean up all at once as well.

From the Alchemy Rules:

When a player discards cards from play, he may discard them in any order. This normally
does not matter, but is important for Alchemist and Herbalist.

As for drawing all at once, I guess I think about how you if you play a Smithy with only two cards in your draw pile, you draw them first and then reshuffle your discard.  You don't say, I need to draw 3 cards, but I don't have 3 cards, so I need to reshuffle now.

[AJD]

I draw cards all at once.

As for drawing all at once, I guess I think about how you if you play a Smithy with only two cards in your draw pile, you draw them first and then reshuffle your discard.

Moreover, this is important for Stash—in this example, you get to see what the first two cards you've drawn are before you decide whether or not you want to top-deck your Stash and draw it next.

[SirPeebles]

Moreover, this is important for Stash—in this example, you get to see what the first two cards you've drawn are before you decide whether or not you want to top-deck your Stash and draw it next.

I'd never thought of that!

[AJD]

By the way, where do the rules state that cards are discarded simultaneously?  Because honestly, that's the part that I feel is awkward.

I don't know if this is specifically in the rules or if it's just something Donald told us at some point, but I think it follows as a theorem from the rules "When discarding several cards at once, the player need not show all cards he is discarding to his opponents" and "The top card of a player’s Discard pile is always visible."

[eHalcyon]

I draw cards all at once.  IIRC, when you clean up, you are supposed to clean up all at once as well.

From the Alchemy Rules:

When a player discards cards from play, he may discard them in any order. This normally
does not matter, but is important for Alchemist and Herbalist.

As for drawing all at once, I guess I think about how you if you play a Smithy with only two cards in your draw pile, you draw them first and then reshuffle your discard.  You don't say, I need to draw 3 cards, but I don't have 3 cards, so I need to reshuffle now.

Fair point.  But in general practice, you clean up all at once and you draw all at once.  Order of cleanup only matters for a handful of cards, and once you deal with those few cards, you just sweep the rest into the discard.  The drawing thing only comes up with reshuffling.  Even in the reshuffling case though, I would think of it as drawing all at once.  I wouldn't draw my two cards, put them in my hand and think about them, and then reshuffle and draw card 3.  I would draw the two, set them aside, reshuffle, draw the the third and put all three into my hand at once.

Interesting how different people think of these standard mechanics differently.

PPE: OK, Stash makes it matter.

[Jeebus]

Wow, I was wrong! Thanks for the clarification. So you CAN topdeck Inn if you have Royal Seal in play.

Man, the FAQ I link to in my sig has covered that case for months.

[florrat]

By the way, where do the rules state that cards are discarded simultaneously?  Because honestly, that's the part that I feel is awkward.  You gain cards one at a time.  You draw cards one at a time.  You buy cards one at a time.  You play cards, including treasures, one at a time.  You even clean up cards one at a time.  If you discarded one at a time then this wouldn't be an issue, and it would essentially never slow down an IRL game.

Well, it's not stated specifically in the game rules as far as I know, but it follows from the description of the clean-up phase: if you would discard cards one by one the other players would be able to see all cards left in your hand (since each card you discard will be the top card of your discard pile for a moment), but the game rules do state that this is not the case.
So I guess it is a consequence of the rules.

[florrat]

Man, the FAQ I link to in my sig has covered that case for months.

Well, even if it was added yesterday, it would have been covered for months (February and March), so it's not that surprising