Print

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

[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.