Print

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

[eHalcyon]

Starting hand: Watchtower, Stonemason, Market Square, Quarry, Gold

Play Stonemason on Gold, gaining Duchy and Quarry and discarding Market Square to gain Gold.  Play Quarry.  Buy Stonemason with $1 total, overpaying by $1 to gain Watchtower and Market Square.  Obviously top-deck everything but the Duchy using Watchtower in hand.

[liopoil]

Nice! That is pretty similar in style to mine. However... you played two treasures

[eHalcyon]

Nice! That is pretty similar in style to mine. However... you played two treasures

I only played one.  But there's no restriction against that anyway.

[liopoil]

Right, only played one. You made the restriction yourself! But I do like that solution quite a bit. I might as well put out my solution:

2 Processions, Watchtower, Workshop, Count. Pr-Pr-Workshop-Count. Gain Procession and workshop with the workshop, gain a duchy, two coppers, and +3 coins from the count. Then trash workshop for Procession, count for nothing, procession for count, topdeck the good cards with watchtower. Finally topdeck a watchtower with your 3 coins, repeat next turn. I don't remember where I got this idea from...

[eHalcyon]

Right, only played one. You made the restriction yourself! But I do like that solution quite a bit. I might as well put out my solution:

2 Processions, Watchtower, Workshop, Count. Pr-Pr-Workshop-Count. Gain Procession and workshop with the workshop, gain a duchy, two coppers, and +3 coins from the count. Then trash workshop for Procession, count for nothing, procession for count, topdeck the good cards with watchtower. Finally topdeck a watchtower with your 3 coins, repeat next turn. I don't remember where I got this idea from...

Oh, well, those restrictions went out the window after you discounted Adventures.

I'm also wondering if a solution could be done with Transmute or Rebuild.

[scott_pilgrim]

I mean, I suppose I could say "shows up in your hand at least once", but I'm having trouble finding a way to read what I said and decide that it excludes cards that are always in my hand.

Do you ever have a scout in hand? If yes, add 4 to the total.
Repeat for every card in the game, then divide by the number of times you answered yes. Alternatively count each instance that a card shows up in your hand, I don't care.

Keeping the average cost of cards used below 4 coins. (This includes only cards that show up in your hand sometimes).

It's like the word "or".  In logic, x or y is true if x is true, y is true, or both x and y are true.  In colloquial speech though, people saying "or" usually mean "xor".

When you say "this includes only cards that show up sometimes", it sounds like you mean that you only count cards if there is a chance they show up and a chance that they don't show up.  Cards that will be in your hand every time are cards that show up always, not just sometimes.  From context I infer that this isn't what you meant, which is why I asked about it to confirm.

I originally read it the way liopoil intended, but now I see it both ways.  You're interpreting it as "this includes cards that show up only sometimes", whereas liopoil meant is as "this includes only cards that (show up sometimes)", as in "this does not include cards that don't (show up sometimes)".

I think colloquially, people still use the logical "or" or the logical "some", depending on the context, which is why that phrase is so weird.  It's like asking someone "Do you have a cat or a dog?"

[eHalcyon]

I mean, I suppose I could say "shows up in your hand at least once", but I'm having trouble finding a way to read what I said and decide that it excludes cards that are always in my hand.

Do you ever have a scout in hand? If yes, add 4 to the total.
Repeat for every card in the game, then divide by the number of times you answered yes. Alternatively count each instance that a card shows up in your hand, I don't care.

Keeping the average cost of cards used below 4 coins. (This includes only cards that show up in your hand sometimes).

It's like the word "or".  In logic, x or y is true if x is true, y is true, or both x and y are true.  In colloquial speech though, people saying "or" usually mean "xor".

When you say "this includes only cards that show up sometimes", it sounds like you mean that you only count cards if there is a chance they show up and a chance that they don't show up.  Cards that will be in your hand every time are cards that show up always, not just sometimes.  From context I infer that this isn't what you meant, which is why I asked about it to confirm.

I originally read it the way liopoil intended, but now I see it both ways.  You're interpreting it as "this includes cards that show up only sometimes", whereas liopoil meant is as "this includes only cards that (show up sometimes)", as in "this does not include cards that don't (show up sometimes)".

I think colloquially, people still use the logical "or" or the logical "some", depending on the context, which is why that phrase is so weird.  It's like asking someone "Do you have a cat or a dog?"

Not quite?  I'm saying that "never", "sometimes" and "always" are three distinct groups in colloquial speech, so "cards that show up sometimes" excludes "cards that show up always".

For what liopoil intended, I think the natural phrasing would be, "this includes cards that only show up sometimes", which would be an addition to the assumed counting of cards that show up always.

[liopoil]

My intention more was to exclude cards that you never draw, such as the duchies.

[scott_pilgrim]

I mean, I suppose I could say "shows up in your hand at least once", but I'm having trouble finding a way to read what I said and decide that it excludes cards that are always in my hand.

Do you ever have a scout in hand? If yes, add 4 to the total.
Repeat for every card in the game, then divide by the number of times you answered yes. Alternatively count each instance that a card shows up in your hand, I don't care.

Keeping the average cost of cards used below 4 coins. (This includes only cards that show up in your hand sometimes).

It's like the word "or".  In logic, x or y is true if x is true, y is true, or both x and y are true.  In colloquial speech though, people saying "or" usually mean "xor".

When you say "this includes only cards that show up sometimes", it sounds like you mean that you only count cards if there is a chance they show up and a chance that they don't show up.  Cards that will be in your hand every time are cards that show up always, not just sometimes.  From context I infer that this isn't what you meant, which is why I asked about it to confirm.

I originally read it the way liopoil intended, but now I see it both ways.  You're interpreting it as "this includes cards that show up only sometimes", whereas liopoil meant is as "this includes only cards that (show up sometimes)", as in "this does not include cards that don't (show up sometimes)".

I think colloquially, people still use the logical "or" or the logical "some", depending on the context, which is why that phrase is so weird.  It's like asking someone "Do you have a cat or a dog?"

Not quite?  I'm saying that "never", "sometimes" and "always" are three distinct groups in colloquial speech, so "cards that show up sometimes" excludes "cards that show up always".

For what liopoil intended, I think the natural phrasing would be, "this includes cards that only show up sometimes", which would be an addition to the assumed counting of cards that show up always.

That would be clear and correct, but not what liopoil wanted to say.  Liopoil wanted to say that it didn't include cards that never show up.  I don't know if there's a simple way to say that clearly, without just using the double negative.  You could say "this includes only cards that show up sometimes or always", but that sounds really awkward, which is why I think it's reasonable to interpret "sometimes" as "sometimes or always" in this case.

[ephesos]

I mean, I suppose I could say "shows up in your hand at least once", but I'm having trouble finding a way to read what I said and decide that it excludes cards that are always in my hand.

Do you ever have a scout in hand? If yes, add 4 to the total.
Repeat for every card in the game, then divide by the number of times you answered yes. Alternatively count each instance that a card shows up in your hand, I don't care.

Keeping the average cost of cards used below 4 coins. (This includes only cards that show up in your hand sometimes).

It's like the word "or".  In logic, x or y is true if x is true, y is true, or both x and y are true.  In colloquial speech though, people saying "or" usually mean "xor".

When you say "this includes only cards that show up sometimes", it sounds like you mean that you only count cards if there is a chance they show up and a chance that they don't show up.  Cards that will be in your hand every time are cards that show up always, not just sometimes.  From context I infer that this isn't what you meant, which is why I asked about it to confirm.

I originally read it the way liopoil intended, but now I see it both ways.  You're interpreting it as "this includes cards that show up only sometimes", whereas liopoil meant is as "this includes only cards that (show up sometimes)", as in "this does not include cards that don't (show up sometimes)".

I think colloquially, people still use the logical "or" or the logical "some", depending on the context, which is why that phrase is so weird.  It's like asking someone "Do you have a cat or a dog?"

Not quite?  I'm saying that "never", "sometimes" and "always" are three distinct groups in colloquial speech, so "cards that show up sometimes" excludes "cards that show up always".

For what liopoil intended, I think the natural phrasing would be, "this includes cards that only show up sometimes", which would be an addition to the assumed counting of cards that show up always.

That would be clear and correct, but not what liopoil wanted to say.  Liopoil wanted to say that it didn't include cards that never show up.  I don't know if there's a simple way to say that clearly, without just using the double negative.  You could say "this includes only cards that show up sometimes or always", but that sounds really awkward, which is why I think it's reasonable to interpret "sometimes" as "sometimes or always" in this case.

Why don't you just say "Count all of the cards that show up in your hand, even if they only show up sometimes"?

I don't even think the "sometimes" is necessary: Was the card in your hand? Count it. Was it never in your hand? Don't. Simple.

I guess not counting what never showed up in your hand is implied, but not doing things you weren't told to is implied by the imperative mood. Like, if I tell you to wash a blue dog, I can't be absolutely sure you won't take it for a walk, since I didn't tell you not to. But I never told you to take it for a walk, or even mentioned walking, so why would you? You wouldn't.

[belugawhale]

New Puzzle: I gain a silver. Why would I reveal Trader other than to annoy my opponent and slow down the game?

[Ghacob]

New Puzzle: I gain a silver. Why would I reveal Trader other than to annoy my opponent and slow down the game?

- Fancard that reacts to reactions
- You would otherwise gain it to another location somehow and you want it in your discard pile? Does that work?
- Somehow this puts you ahead/behind the "queue" of gaining a silver in multiplayer? so as to gain/not gain one? Does That work?
- Trick question: Since you've already stated that you gain a silver, you're now revealing trader a bit later when you would gain another card so as to instead gain a silver

[Awaclus]

- You would otherwise gain it to another location somehow and you want it in your discard pile? Does that work?

This works.

- Somehow this puts you ahead/behind the "queue" of gaining a silver in multiplayer? so as to gain/not gain one? Does That work?

This doesn't.

[belugawhale]

- You would otherwise gain it to another location somehow and you want it in your discard pile? Does that work?

That was what I was thinking about. Something like Bureaucrat.

[ephesos]

New Puzzle: I gain a silver. Why would I reveal Trader other than to annoy my opponent and slow down the game?

You played Ironworks for the Silver and would normally get $1. But you want to play Storyteller this turn, and don't want to trigger a reshuffle. So you decide to try to walk a blue dog instead. But the dog wasn't fed, and something confusing happened with a pink elephant intercepting the food, and you just decided the two of you had better stay home today.

[DLloyd09]

New Puzzle: I gain a silver. Why would I reveal Trader other than to annoy my opponent and slow down the game?

• You gained the silver through Messenger's on-buy effect, but don't want your opponents to also gain silvers?
• You gained the silver via Mine, but don't actually want the card to go to your hand (maybe because you're about to play a Library or Watchtower and you have reason to believe the cards you'll draw will be better on average than silver)?

[werothegreat]

I gained a Transmute without ever causing a Potion to be played, and neither Jester, Masquerade, nor Ambassador were involved. How?

[AHoppy]

possession?

[werothegreat]

possession?

Care to elaborate on that?

Another puzzle: In a solo game, I gain a single Potion, and Counterfeit it on its first play.  How do I have four Golems in my deck?  At the moment I can count 3 different ways, some more convoluted than others.

EDIT: No Squire, either.

[AHoppy]

You used your opponents transmute to gain one of your own. Unless no portion has been played the whole game...

[werothegreat]

You used your opponents transmute to gain one of your own. Unless no portion has been played the whole game...

Exactly.  Notice how I worded "caused a Potion to be played".

[Awaclus]

I gained a Transmute without ever causing a Potion to be played, and neither Jester, Masquerade, nor Ambassador were involved. How?

You Stonemasoned a Familiar that you gained with Squire.

Another puzzle: In a solo game, I gain a single Potion, and Counterfeit it on its first play.  How do I have four Golems in my deck?  At the moment I can count 3 different ways, some more convoluted than others.

You Remodeled 4 Familiars that you gained with Squires into 4 Golems.
You Upgraded 4 Familiars that you gained with Squires into 4 Golems.
You Remade 4 Familiars that you gained with Squires into 4 Golems.

That's 3 different ways.

[werothegreat]

I gained a Transmute without ever causing a Potion to be played, and neither Jester, Masquerade, nor Ambassador were involved. How?

You Stonemasoned a Familiar that you gained with Squire.

Another puzzle: In a solo game, I gain a single Potion, and Counterfeit it on its first play.  How do I have four Golems in my deck?  At the moment I can count 3 different ways, some more convoluted than others.

You Remodeled 4 Familiars that you gained with Squires into 4 Golems.
You Upgraded 4 Familiars that you gained with Squires into 4 Golems.
You Remade 4 Familiars that you gained with Squires into 4 Golems.

That's 3 different ways.

Alright, try 3 *without* Squire.

[liopoil]

You bought two transmutes with the counterfeited potion. Then you played the transmutes for more transmutes, total 4. Then you remodeled them twice --> scrying pool --> golem.

[Awaclus]

I gained a Transmute without ever causing a Potion to be played, and neither Jester, Masquerade, nor Ambassador were involved. How?

You Stonemasoned a Familiar that you gained with Squire.

Another puzzle: In a solo game, I gain a single Potion, and Counterfeit it on its first play.  How do I have four Golems in my deck?  At the moment I can count 3 different ways, some more convoluted than others.

You Remodeled 4 Familiars that you gained with Squires into 4 Golems.
You Upgraded 4 Familiars that you gained with Squires into 4 Golems.
You Remade 4 Familiars that you gained with Squires into 4 Golems.

That's 3 different ways.

Alright, try 3 *without* Squire.

You played a bunch of other Treasures as well and had enough money to overpay $4P for Stonemason twice.
You had enough money to overpay $3P for Stonemason twice, then Upgraded the Familiars into Golems.
You had enough money to overpay $2P for Stonemason twice, then Remade the Scrying Pools into Familiars and the Familiars into Golems.

I could come up with a lot more than just 3 different ways (some more convoluted than others)!