Print

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

[math]

There was an extensive discussion on this topic on another thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7882.25), but we failed to come to a satisfactory conclusion.  When you play Procession on Band of Misfits and choose Fortress, do you trash it or put it into your hand?

The issue here is that Fortress has an effect that occurs when you trash it, while Band of Misfits has an effect that occurs when it leaves play.  My understanding would say that a card it trashed when it hits the trash pile, at which point it has already left play.  However, this contradicts the FAQ (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Band_of_Misfits), which says you put it into your hand.

Can anyone explain this?

[GendoIkari]

There was an extensive discussion on this topic on another thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7882.25), but we failed to come to a satisfactory conclusion.  When you play Procession on Band of Misfits and choose Fortress, do you trash it or put it into your hand?

The issue here is that Fortress has an effect that occurs when you trash it, while Band of Misfits has an effect that occurs when it leaves play.  My understanding would say that a card it trashed when it hits the trash pile, at which point it has already left play.  However, this contradicts the FAQ (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Band_of_Misfits), which says you put it into your hand.

Can anyone explain this?

That thread specifically quoted the actual rulebook... (Note that the FAQ on the Wiki there is just a quote from the rulebook).

For example, if you use Procession to play Band of Misfits twice and choose Fortress the first time, you will automatically replay it as Fortress, then trash the Band of Misfits, return it to your hand (it is a Fortress when it's trashed, and Fortress has a when-trashed ability that returns it to your hand), and gain an Action card costing exactly $6 ($1 more than Band of Misfits, which has left play and so is no longer copying Fortress).

It goes back into your hand (note that you still trash it... after you trash it, it goes back into your hand. So the answer to your question is "both"). The fact is that you did trash a trash a Fortress. You had a Fortress, and then you trashed it. The fact that it changed into a different card as part of being trashed is irrelevant. You did indeed trash a Fortress, and Fortress does something when it gets trashed. So the Fortress goes back into your hand... it so happens that it's not a Fortress anymore, but that doesn't matter.

It sounds like you are thinking of trashing as a process... as in "pick up a card from in play. Then move it to the trash pile. Now, the card is "trashed." But that's not how it works. There is no time at all between the card leaving play, and the card being in the trash, despite that in real life, you're forced to take actual time to physically do it. Rather, trashing is a one-time, instantaneous act. The card is trashed the very second you say "I'm trashing this card." At that exact moment, it's been trashed, it left play, and it is in the trash pile. All at once.

[qmech]

The card is trashed the very second you say "I'm trashing this card." At that exact moment, it's been trashed, it left play, and it is in the trash pile. All at once.

Dominion: violating relativity since 2008.

[Davio]

Maybe it's possible with quantum physics?

[michaeljb]

When you gain a Nomad Camp, it never actually visits your discard pille like other gains would. It's like Nomad Camp doesn't have an on-gain effect like Border Village, its gaining rule is just different.

So maybe Fortress works that way with trashing. For most cards, trashing means moving that card to the trash pile, and then maybe doing something else (Cultist, Hunting Grounds, etc); but for Fortress, trashing means putting it into your hand.

Fortress doesn't need to visit the trash pile when trashed just like Nomad Camp doesn't need to visit the discard pile when gained.

edit: and the official FAQ for Fortress says "you take it from the trash and put it into your hand." So much for my theory

[math]

Besides, Nomad Camp actually does visit your discard pile for a moment before you put it on your deck.

[AJD]

Besides, Nomad Camp actually does visit your discard pile for a moment before you put it on your deck.

Not so.

[math]

When you gain a card and topdeck it with Watchtower, does it ever visit your discard pile?

[AJD]

When you gain a card and topdeck it with Watchtower, does it ever visit your discard pile?

Yes.

[math]

That is because Watchtower has an on-gain effect, so you gain the card first, and then resolve Watchtower.  Am I correct about this?

[michaeljb]

That is because Watchtower has an on-gain effect, so you gain the card first, and then resolve Watchtower.  Am I correct about this?

Yes, but Nomad Camp is special.

http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Nomad_Camp

When you gain this card, it goes on top of your deck rather that into your discard pile.

[math]

The problem is that this wording (interpreted strictly) conflicts with other on-gain effects.

Armory says "Gain a card, putting it on top of your deck."  This indicates that the card is gained directly to the top of your deck.

Watchtower says, "When you gain a card, you may reveal this to put it on your deck." This indicates that the card is gained to your discard pile, and then you resolve the on-gain effect and put it on top of your deck.

Nomad Camp follows Watchtower's wording, not Armory's.  If I understand this correctly, this would mean that you gain Nomad Camp to your discard pile, then resolve the on-gain effect and put it on your deck.  If it said, "When you gain this card, gain it to the top of your deck", then you would put it directly on your deck.

Basically, when the FAQ and the text on the card contradict, I trust the text on the card.

[WanderingWinder]

Watchtower is different from NC and Armory, which are the same, because it triggers 'when you gain a card', which means that the card must already be gained before you trigger. If it were phrased 'when you would gain', a la trader, then it would never go to the discard.
Incidentally, I believe Goko had that trader thing wrong last I checked.
Also incidentally, one of the FAQ entries on Trader says "When you gain" without the "would" as should be there.

Not incidentally, FAQs are not entirely trustworthy.

[math]

I guess I just don't understand why NC is the same as Armory, because NC's effect triggers when you gain it, which means that the card must already be gained before it triggers.

[Kirian]

If you kill a blue dog, then cast Resurrection on it, you can still walk it. (Fortress)

If you cast Polymorph on a black dog to make it blue, kill the blue dog, then cast Resurrection on it, it will be a black dog again, which you can take for a walk.  (BOM + Fortress)

[math]

I have no idea how any of that applies to the conversation.

[Jeebus]

I guess I just don't understand why NC is the same as Armory, because NC's effect triggers when you gain it, which means that the card must already be gained before it triggers.

Because the card text isn't entirely accurate on NC. http://boardgamegeek.com/article/8163839#8163839

[Jeebus]

The issue here is that Fortress has an effect that occurs when you trash it, while Band of Misfits has an effect that occurs when it leaves play.  My understanding would say that a card it trashed when it hits the trash pile, at which point it has already left play.  However, this contradicts the FAQ (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Band_of_Misfits), which says you put it into your hand.

GendoIkari already did a nice job of explaining it. I also see that you wrote this in the other thread:

The thing is, for me "leave play" happens before Trashing.
Leaving play happens as soon as a card is moved from the play area (I think). At this point the destination may be unknown and the destination may even change. Suppose a card has the reaction "when you would trash a card, put it in your hand" then the card would leave play first, but never actually hit the trash, like Trader's reaction causes the originally gained card to never be in your discard pile.

As GendoIkari said, there is no time in the game when a card has left one place and is on the way to another place. So Trader triggers before you even start moving the card you would have gained.

[Davio]

I guess I just don't understand why NC is the same as Armory, because NC's effect triggers when you gain it, which means that the card must already be gained before it triggers.

Because the card text isn't entirely accurate on NC. http://boardgamegeek.com/article/8163839#8163839

So for instance if you play Mine, the Gold you gained is gained directly to your hand.
Watchtower can react because you gained a card (it doesn't specify the discard pile, that's just the default destination), but this doesn't cause lose-track?

I mean, as your opponent can't look at your hand, you could topdeck or trash another Gold that was already in your hand. This doesn't make any practical sense since you have at least two Golds in your hand which are pretty much interchangeable. We're treading on highly theoretical ground here.

If you topdeck a bunch of cards, let's say you have Royal Seal in play, gain a Cache (resolve Cache first) and 2 Coppers and topdeck them with Royal Seal, so the order on top of your deck is (bottom -> top): Copper, Copper, Cache. At this point the rule is that Watchtower has lost track of cards underneath your top card and can no longer trash the Coppers even though you know exactly where they are.

Should the same logic apply to cards gained to your hand or is there no lose-track for your hand and if so, why not?

[Jeebus]

So for instance if you play Mine, the Gold you gained is gained directly to your hand.
Watchtower can react because you gained a card (it doesn't specify the discard pile, that's just the default destination), but this doesn't cause lose-track?

I mean, as your opponent can't look at your hand, you could topdeck or trash another Gold that was already in your hand. This doesn't make any practical sense since you have at least two Golds in your hand which are pretty much interchangeable. We're treading on highly theoretical ground here.

If you topdeck a bunch of cards, let's say you have Royal Seal in play, gain a Cache (resolve Cache first) and 2 Coppers and topdeck them with Royal Seal, so the order on top of your deck is (bottom -> top): Copper, Copper, Cache. At this point the rule is that Watchtower has lost track of cards underneath your top card and can no longer trash the Coppers even though you know exactly where they are.

Should the same logic apply to cards gained to your hand or is there no lose-track for your hand and if so, why not?

I might not be exactly understanding the basis for your question, but I'll try to answer. There's nothing special about your hand when it comes to lose-track. A card is always gained directly to either your discard, your deck or your hand. Watchtower or Royal Seal triggers when you gain a card, so can now move the gained card. Of course they can't if they lose track of it, which happens either if the card isn't where it was gained to, or if it's been covered by another card. In your Cache example, the Coppers were covered. In your Mine example, the Gold is where it was gained to (in your hand), and it wasn't covered, so no lose-track. A card in your hand can't be covered by another card. As you say, players can't know which Gold it was, but it doesn't matter. It's not the same as the card being covered anyway.

[Davio]

My question was really simple: Why is a card that's covered on your deck or discard pile considered lost track of, but a card in your hand isn't?

It was more a design decision thing than an actual rules question to be honest.

[ftl]

Because when a card gets covered up in your deck or discard pile, you might literally lose track of where it is. When you put a card in your hand you don't lose track of it, because you're looking at it the whole time.

[GendoIkari]

Because when a card gets covered up in your deck or discard pile, you might literally lose track of where it is. When you put a card in your hand you don't lose track of it, because you're looking at it the whole time.

I think that's a fair answer. It's worth noting though that Davio has seemingly brought up another accountability issue I hadn't heard about before, though. You can gain a card (like Curse from Torturer, or Gold from Mine) into hand, THEN reveal a Watchtower from your hand and say you want to top-deck that card. Are you required to reveal the card before you top-deck it in order to prove that you are top-decking the right one?

Of course, this is only a theoretical question; in practice you simply reveal the Watchtower upon "would gain", and then gain it directly to your deck.

[Davio]

Yes, GendoIkari, but theoretical rules questions are the most fun!

Accountability was why I asked it in the first place.
You know which card in your hand is what, but your opponent doesn't (barring Menagerie, etc...).

Revealing Watchtower is done after the card has been gained, that was said by Donald in the thread on BGG that was mentioned. So the card is in your hand, you reveal WT, put a mystery card on top of your deck, there's nothing stopping you. In practice, it should only be one card and you can just show it to your opponent if he asks.

All the rules say is this:

If a gained card is going
somewhere other than to your discard pile, such as a card gained with
Mine (from Dominion), you can still use Watchtower to trash it or put
it on your deck.

So no help there. My point derives from this:
- Your draw pile is an ordered collection, the positions of the cards are important and you can only draw from the top (or Pearl Diver)
- Your discard pile is an ordered collection as well, you can not look through it and once something is covered, it's lost track of
- The trash pile is an unordered collection, you can look through it, the positions of the cards don't matter. There is no losing track of cards that end up in the trash, other than the fact they're not in their original place anymore
- Your hand is I would think it's an unordered collection, meaning you can sort it to your own liking, but for Watchtower it might be important to consider it an ordered collection. So if you gain a card to the edge of your hand and move it to the top of your deck it's still the same card.

[Jeebus]

- Your hand is I would think it's an unordered collection, meaning you can sort it to your own liking, but for Watchtower it might be important to consider it an ordered collection. So if you gain a card to the edge of your hand and move it to the top of your deck it's still the same card.

Your hand can't be an ordered collection. First of all, the rules don't say that you can't change positions of the cards in your hand, so you can, because that's how every card game works. Bohnanza has to specifically tell you that you can't. Second, you're not required to let other players know which cards you choose to discard or put back on your deck, after you've drawn and/or revealed some cards. Let's say you reveal your hand for a Cutpurse attack, and then you discard cards for a Militia attack, and then a player has a Mountebank in hand. You're not required to show whether you're discarding the Curse you revealed, letting the Mountebank player know whether he can hit you.

The answer to this question is that you show it (not saying "reveal" since that has a specific meaning) upon topdecking it with Watchtower. That's the only way to make it accountable. It's kind of like the Tunnel reveal-several-cards-from-discard question. With regards to game state, it has no consequence (so on Goko, the question is meaningless). And with regards to practical play, I guess you can technically be a dick and put it in your hand, shuffle your cards around, and put some card on your deck without showing it. But then, why did you do that, instead of just topdecking it directly or showing the card that you topdeck? The only reason is to dodge accountability.

[ooksoo]

i just tested on goko, it return to your hand.

[Asper]

Personally i don't understand why trashing makes it necessary that a card visits the trash or gaining means putting the card in your discard pile. It seems to be a common agreement, possible even official rule, but i don't like it. It leads to weird situations, especially with some on-gains, because the top card of the discard is still known, but the card below has been lost track of.
Example: Border Village is bought, Nomad Camp gained, i want to topdeck both with Watchtower, but want BV at the top. It doesn't work, and we all know that's not something Donald explicitly wanted - i even think he himself said he would want it to be possible.

Why can't we read those cards like: "Gaining usually means a card is put in your discard. Some cards that trigger on-gain may redirect that movement, so the gained card is put in another place, instead." So "gain" is an event, a moment. All on-gains instantly trigger and are resolved. Only then the actual gain is resolved, which usually means moving the card to your discard - if the card wasn't redirected. Why this ruling? Because it's the same as with attacks. Play attack, on-attack triggers, Moats reaction is resolved, attack is resolved, Moat changed how attack is resolved.

I think it feels much more natural with not only Watchtower and Nomad Camp, but also Fortress and Possession. Possession keeps you from putting cards in the trash, it doesn't make you dig through it directly after putting cards there. I mean, is this how you actually play in real life? I highly doubt it. So Nomad Camp should never see the discard pile (by the way a practice that is described in the official rules), and Fortress should never see the trash (a practice against the official rules).

When i reveal Watchtower, i personally think the concept of "redirecting" the card to your decks top makes much more sense then putting it in the discard and moving it from there. Same with Fortress. I think it "redirects" the movement trashing usually implies and moves itself to your hand.

Dominion is full of "usually this, but some cards will make it that" rules. Why can't gaining and trashing be some of them? I think it's much more natural, and if Donald sees this, i hope he doesn't think i'm nagging, i'm just thinking how some (i believe) unwanted complications with the lose-track rule could be removed.

Edit: Made several edits, but now i think it says what i want to say...

[Jeebus]

"When A happens, do B" in pretty much every game, and in real life, means that you do B after A happens. "When you get home, sit down" does not mean to sit down just before you get home. I think this is a big reason why it works like this in Dominion, because it's what it means in English. The definition of trashing is to move a card to Trash. When-trash effects can only be done when you trash, which means when you move a card to trash. Etc.

The other thing is that what you suggest would mean that cards often are in flux -- on their way to going somewhere instead of being in Supply, in your hand, in your discard pile, in Trash, etc. In Dominion as it is, a card is always in a defined place. I'm pretty sure doing it the other way would create a whole lot more confusion and rules ambiguity than there is now.

Here's a simple example of another problem: Spoils. Spoils returns to Spoils pile on when-play, which according to your suggestion would mean before you actually play it (like Attacks). How can it even give you $3?

[Davio]

When a card specifies it goes to a specific place on-gain or another card specifies a place for a gained card to go (Mine), it doesn't visit the discard first, it goes directly to that place. In your case, the Nomand Camp goes directly to the top of the deck, so BV doesn't cover it in the discard pile.

A card is not always in a "defined place" however. When you look at the top 3 cards with Lookout, they don't go to "Lookout Limbo" as that's not specified in the rules. In practice they are briefly separated from your deck in the way you would expect, but there's no fixed name for that place, not like deck, discard, draw, supply and trash are.

There's also no "revealed card" land, but that's more implicit than Lookout Limbo.

[Asper]

When a card specifies it goes to a specific place on-gain or another card specifies a place for a gained card to go (Mine), it doesn't visit the discard first, it goes directly to that place. In your case, the Nomand Camp goes directly to the top of the deck, so BV doesn't cover it in the discard pile.

I had some research, and obviously you are right about Mine and Nomad Camp... Nomad Camp never visits the discard. Thanks for pointing that mistake out. I guess my idea is not very useful then. Do Watchtower and Royal Seal work the same way, then? Does this work?
1. Buy Border Village
2. Resolve BV's on-gain, gain X
3. Put X on top of my deck with WT/RS
4. Put BV on top of my deck with WT/RS

I think it should work, but does it? I was sure there once was a thread about this, but i can't find it anymore...

[Jeebus]

A card is not always in a "defined place" however. When you look at the top 3 cards with Lookout, they don't go to "Lookout Limbo" as that's not specified in the rules. In practice they are briefly separated from your deck in the way you would expect, but there's no fixed name for that place, not like deck, discard, draw, supply and trash are.

There's also no "revealed card" land, but that's more implicit than Lookout Limbo.

It's true that the location of cards that are being looked at or being revealed (from your deck) is not defined in the rules. (Btw, I don't see the difference between looking at or revealing in this regard, but maybe something more is said about revealing some place?) But that's the case for other things too. Like where the cards that you're drawing are, when you're in the process of drawing several cards. That matters for Stash, and it turns out they're in your hand. So even if it's not in the rules, it's been explained by Donald some place online, so that's how the card is played.

So the rules don't say whether cards being revealed or looked at are still in your deck. This matters for some cards, like Golem. It turns out they are not in your deck. Donald has said we can say that they're "set aside". You can also call it "limbo", it doesn't matter. Every card X that tells you to set aside a card Y, could have called that place anything in theory, because the card X will always tell you when to move the card Y away from that place (and no other card ever will). So the concept here is exactly the same as for Library's "set aside" area for instance.

Anyway, these cards (set aside cards, being looked at cards, being revealed cards) are in their own special place, what matters is where they aren't. My point had more to do with gaining, trashing etc. Let's say I gain a Border Village and from that a Minion. With the suggested rules change, both cards would be "on their way" from Supply, so I could topdeck the Minion and then topdeck the BV. But what about if I gain a BV, from that gain a Cultist, and then trash the Cultist with Watchtower, drawing three cards? Where would the BV be as I'm drawing cards? I can still topdeck it, so it can't be in my discard pile yet (since Watchtower now redirects gains). So it's still in "nowhere" land. Not exactly intuitive.

Also, Inn would not be able to shuffle itself into your deck, since we would do all on-gain effect before the card is actually gained.

[Asper]

But what about if I gain a BV, from that gain a Cultist, and then trash the Cultist with Watchtower, drawing three cards? Where would the BV be as I'm drawing cards? I can still topdeck it, so it can't be in my discard pile yet (since Watchtower now redirects gains). So it's still in "nowhere" land. Not exactly intuitive.

Also, Inn would not be able to shuffle itself into your deck, since we would do all on-gain effect before the card is actually gained.

So if i understand you, this means that i can buy BV, gain Cultist, trash it, draw 3 cards and then topdeck BV if, and only if, i didn't have to shuffle inbetween? I see that in such cases there is a difference between my idea for a ruling and the official one, which i didn't intend. Inn is a good point, too.

Fair's fair, i accept it's not working my way.

[Davio]

But what about if I gain a BV, from that gain a Cultist, and then trash the Cultist with Watchtower, drawing three cards? Where would the BV be as I'm drawing cards? I can still topdeck it, so it can't be in my discard pile yet (since Watchtower now redirects gains). So it's still in "nowhere" land. Not exactly intuitive.

Also, Inn would not be able to shuffle itself into your deck, since we would do all on-gain effect before the card is actually gained.

So if i understand you, this means that i can buy BV, gain Cultist, trash it, draw 3 cards and then topdeck BV if, and only if, i didn't have to shuffle inbetween? I see that in such cases there is a difference between my idea for a ruling and the official one, which i didn't intend. Inn is a good point, too.

Fair's fair, i accept it's not working my way.

Here the infamous lose-track rule roars its ugly head.
This is how it happens:
1. You gain BV, it goes to your discard pile
2. You can choose to resolve BV's gain or WT's reaction, you pick BV's gain
3. You gain Cultist, it goes to your discard pile, BV is now covered and lost track of (by WT)
4. You trash Cultist with WT, draw 3 cards (may have to shuffle the BV into a new draw deck)

Whether you had to shuffle or not isn't important. If you didn't, you still can't topdeck BV after gainig Cultist first, because it's been covered by another card and thus lost track of, that's the rule. If we diverge on step 2:
2. You choose to resolve WT's reaction and topdeck BV
3. You then gain Cultist, it goes to your discard
4. You trash it with WT and draw 3 cards, one of which is the topdecked BV


The result of this is that WT doesn't redirect gains in mid-air, it moves cards to another location from a certain location. If the card to be moved isn't in the expected location anymore (top of your discard pile, hand, or top of your deck) or it has been covered in between (meaning that the top card isn't necessarily the one you gained anymore) the WT loses track of it and can't move it.

You could make an argument for covered cards that become uncovered: "hey, I can see the card, it's right on top, why can't I move it now?" but that would make the ruling just more incoherent. This way it may be more awkward, but covers edge cases better.

Simple edge case example: Gain BV, gain Inn, shuffle BV into your deck (not Inn), I believe you can still trash Inn (which is still on top of your discard pile where WT expects it to be) with WT, but it's impossible to move BV with WT.

[Asper]

But what about if I gain a BV, from that gain a Cultist, and then trash the Cultist with Watchtower, drawing three cards? Where would the BV be as I'm drawing cards? I can still topdeck it, so it can't be in my discard pile yet (since Watchtower now redirects gains). So it's still in "nowhere" land. Not exactly intuitive.

Also, Inn would not be able to shuffle itself into your deck, since we would do all on-gain effect before the card is actually gained.

So if i understand you, this means that i can buy BV, gain Cultist, trash it, draw 3 cards and then topdeck BV if, and only if, i didn't have to shuffle inbetween? I see that in such cases there is a difference between my idea for a ruling and the official one, which i didn't intend. Inn is a good point, too.

Fair's fair, i accept it's not working my way.

Here the infamous lose-track rule roars its ugly head.

I'm glad i'm not the only one to think that way... Also reminds me of Monty Python

It's just weird to me that Nomad Camp and Watchtower work different. They shouldn't. Jeebus insists NC never visits the discard because it is moved on-gain (and the rules say the same, too). But you insist cards i move on-gain with Watchtower DO visit the discard (which, i think, was already said in an older thread).

My problem is not actually about Watchtower losing track. It's the fact that two on-gain-effects of two cards have very different impacts allthough they even say the same. So same trigger, same description, different effect. Simply doesn't go in my head. Or one of you two is wrong.

[Davio]

Well, there is a BGG thread linked to somewhere in these forums where Donald mentions something about WT.

Basically, I think it comes down to the fact that cards are always somewhere. Sometimes they're in places not specifically mentioned in the rule book, but they're not hanging in mid-air.

So NC moves itself on-gain directly to the top of your deck. WT doesn't move cards straight from the supply pile to your trash or your deck. If a card is still in the supply pile it would mean you haven't yet gained it. WT's "when" is confusing for me as you could explain "when" happens while the gaining is in process, but it was explained to me as meaning "directly after".

But there's a big difference between NC and WT: NC references itself while WT can only do something with other, already gained, cards. I don't see any contradictions there.

For clarification: NC's on-gain is a special effect mentioned on the card, WT's on-gain is a reaction and thus reacts to something: having gained a card.

[Asper]

But there's a big difference between NC and WT: NC references itself while WT can only do something with other, already gained, cards. I don't see any contradictions there.

For clarification: NC's on-gain is a special effect mentioned on the card, WT's on-gain is a reaction and thus reacts to something: having gained a card.

WT does something to cards that are gained. Otherwise you could just as well argue that NC does something about itself after being gained. Reflexivity is no plausible reason to draw a distinction where there is none on the cards.

You also seem to assume that there's a difference because the card types are different. I don't think that's a valid point. WT is a reaction because the rules have to have a way how cards that are not actively participating can influence the game. It doesn't say anything about the trigger or the effect itself.

Personally i also find it highly counter-intuitive to have one wording with two different effects.

Edit: Maybe i'll just have to accept we disagree, as i can't find any good point beyond that last sentence. Maybe i'm just unable to understand yours, though.

[AJD]

Personally i also find it highly counter-intuitive to have one wording with two different effects.

It is in fact highly counterintuitive. We just have to accept that Nomad Camp's wording is not a very good description of what the card is actually supposed to do.

[GendoIkari]

Personally i also find it highly counter-intuitive to have one wording with two different effects.

It is in fact highly counterintuitive. We just have to accept that Nomad Camp's wording is not a very good description of what the card is actually supposed to do.

I believe this is correct; and I think Donald has essentially said as much. Nomad Camp's effect is NOT an on-gain trigger, even though it is worded the same as one. Rather, it is a poorly chosen wording of "this card gets gained to your draw deck instead of the discard pile."

[Davio]

Okay, I see the points for misunderstanding now, seems like a lot has been lost in translation.

I never thought about NC's special effect as a specific on-gain even though it's worded as one and I referred to it as on-gain, just to compare it to WT.

I also see the problem now more clearly: With NC and WT worded as they are, the problem comes from gaining NC with WT in hand. NC and WT both "trigger" on gaining NC and you can choose which to resolve first.

If you pick WT first, where is NC at this point? In the supply? On top of your deck? In the discard? You might think it's in the discard because that's where gained cards go. But NC specifies it goes to the top of your deck. However, you aren't resolving NC just yet, are you?

I think the best way is with how Donald said it, with that phrase there is no real trigger happening and WT functions after the card has been gained, just like it expects to do.

[Jeebus]

It's just weird to me that Nomad Camp and Watchtower work different. They shouldn't. Jeebus insists NC never visits the discard because it is moved on-gain (and the rules say the same, too). But you insist cards i move on-gain with Watchtower DO visit the discard (which, i think, was already said in an older thread).

The place in this thread where I "insist" that NC never visits the discard, I link to a post by Donald, which I suggest you read (or re-read) because it answers everything you're asking. He says exactly how Nomad Camp works, how he considered phrasing it differently (and more correctly) but decided against it, and how the NC FAQ explains how it works.

So NC is not moved on-gain like WT (even though NC says so). Rather it triggers before gain, changing the gaining destination, just like Bureaucrat changes the gaining destination of the Silver. In the case of NC we have to rely on the card FAQ, not the card itself, to know exactly how it works. Luckily this is hardly ever (if ever) a problem. It seems the fact that NC is gained directly to your deck creates problems not for NC itself, but mostly because people think that by extension the same goes for WT (and Royal Seal), which does create problems.

I also see the problem now more clearly: With NC and WT worded as they are, the problem comes from gaining NC with WT in hand. NC and WT both "trigger" on gaining NC and you can choose which to resolve first.

If you pick WT first, where is NC at this point? In the supply? On top of your deck? In the discard? You might think it's in the discard because that's where gained cards go. But NC specifies it goes to the top of your deck. However, you aren't resolving NC just yet, are you?

Well, in this hypothetical (NC and WT both trigger on-gain), NC would be in your discard, because it triggers when you gain it, at which point it's in your discard. I can't see any reason why it couldn't have been that way. I'm guessing Donald thought of it to work like Mine and Bureaucrat, because that seemed simpler. I'm thinking that it maybe was a mistake to give it the same wording as WT and RS though.

[Asper]

It's just weird to me that Nomad Camp and Watchtower work different. They shouldn't. Jeebus insists NC never visits the discard because it is moved on-gain (and the rules say the same, too). But you insist cards i move on-gain with Watchtower DO visit the discard (which, i think, was already said in an older thread).

The place in this thread where I "insist" that NC never visits the discard, I link to a post by Donald, which I suggest you read (or re-read) because it answers everything you're asking. He says exactly how Nomad Camp works, how he considered phrasing it differently (and more correctly) but decided against it, and how the NC FAQ explains how it works.

So NC is not moved on-gain like WT (even though NC says so). Rather it triggers before gain, changing the gaining destination, just like Bureaucrat changes the gaining destination of the Silver. In the case of NC we have to rely on the card FAQ, not the card itself, to know exactly how it works. Luckily this is hardly ever (if ever) a problem. It seems the fact that NC is gained directly to your deck creates problems not for NC itself, but mostly because people think that by extension the same goes for WT (and Royal Seal), which does create problems.

I also see the problem now more clearly: With NC and WT worded as they are, the problem comes from gaining NC with WT in hand. NC and WT both "trigger" on gaining NC and you can choose which to resolve first.

If you pick WT first, where is NC at this point? In the supply? On top of your deck? In the discard? You might think it's in the discard because that's where gained cards go. But NC specifies it goes to the top of your deck. However, you aren't resolving NC just yet, are you?

Well, in this hypothetical (NC and WT both trigger on-gain), NC would be in your discard, because it triggers when you gain it, at which point it's in your discard. I can't see any reason why it couldn't have been that way. I'm guessing Donald thought of it to work like Mine and Bureaucrat, because that seemed simpler. I'm thinking that it maybe was a mistake to give it the same wording as WT and RS though.

Okay, i didn't see the link for that discussion before. Probably because you posted that before my question and originally what i thought about wasn't NC. Thanks for the link.
I too think it's problematic that NC is worded this way, as i'm a good example how it can lead you to assume WT working differently than it is supposed to do. I'm still not sure whether i like the real ruling of WT, though - if you gain a card on-gain of another card (with BV or Haggler in play), you'll always be forced to leave the cheaper card on top of the more expensive one or not top-deck it at all.

Edit: I see most of what i nagged about already was discussed here. I'll read more carefully, next time. Don't have a clue how to explain NC=/=WT to my family, though

[Davio]

The wording on NC is awkward because you might think it has the same timing as WT, I don't think it has.

NC's timing takes precedence over everything but Trader's would-gain, so it's somewhere between Trader's would-gain and WT's after-gain. WT can only act after you've gained a card, at which point NC is on your deck. It's never in your discard pile.