Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2]  All

Author Topic: Procession-->BoM as Fortress  (Read 12081 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ooksoo

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19
  • Respect: +6
    • View Profile
Re: Procession-->BoM as Fortress
« Reply #25 on: April 26, 2013, 02:52:17 am »
0

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

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5347
    • View Profile
Re: Procession-->BoM as Fortress
« Reply #26 on: April 30, 2013, 03:29:55 pm »
0

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...
« Last Edit: April 30, 2013, 03:54:32 pm by Asper »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2529
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1642
    • View Profile
Re: Procession-->BoM as Fortress
« Reply #27 on: May 01, 2013, 09:31:38 pm »
0

"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

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3413
    • View Profile
Re: Procession-->BoM as Fortress
« Reply #28 on: May 02, 2013, 02:33:17 am »
0

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.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5347
    • View Profile
Re: Procession-->BoM as Fortress
« Reply #29 on: May 02, 2013, 09:03:29 am »
0

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...
« Last Edit: May 02, 2013, 09:04:42 am by Asper »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2529
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1642
    • View Profile
Re: Procession-->BoM as Fortress
« Reply #30 on: May 02, 2013, 10:03:55 am »
0

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

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5347
    • View Profile
Re: Procession-->BoM as Fortress
« Reply #31 on: May 02, 2013, 01:57:54 pm »
0

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.
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3413
    • View Profile
Re: Procession-->BoM as Fortress
« Reply #32 on: May 03, 2013, 02:30:50 am »
0

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.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5347
    • View Profile
Re: Procession-->BoM as Fortress
« Reply #33 on: May 03, 2013, 03:43:36 pm »
0

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.
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3413
    • View Profile
Re: Procession-->BoM as Fortress
« Reply #34 on: May 03, 2013, 04:05:05 pm »
0

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.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5347
    • View Profile
Re: Procession-->BoM as Fortress
« Reply #35 on: May 03, 2013, 07:00:10 pm »
0

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.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2013, 07:04:50 pm by Asper »
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3296
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4443
    • View Profile
Re: Procession-->BoM as Fortress
« Reply #36 on: May 03, 2013, 09:55:27 pm »
+1

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.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9709
  • Respect: +10765
    • View Profile
Re: Procession-->BoM as Fortress
« Reply #37 on: May 03, 2013, 10:37:57 pm »
0

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."
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3413
    • View Profile
Re: Procession-->BoM as Fortress
« Reply #38 on: May 04, 2013, 02:04:41 am »
0

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.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2529
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1642
    • View Profile
Re: Procession-->BoM as Fortress
« Reply #39 on: May 04, 2013, 12:06:20 pm »
0

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

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5347
    • View Profile
Re: Procession-->BoM as Fortress
« Reply #40 on: May 06, 2013, 02:26:38 pm »
+1

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 :P
« Last Edit: May 06, 2013, 03:41:35 pm by Asper »
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3413
    • View Profile
Re: Procession-->BoM as Fortress
« Reply #41 on: May 07, 2013, 02:20:54 am »
+1

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.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea
Pages: 1 [2]  All
 

Page created in 0.208 seconds with 20 queries.