Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Throne Room/King's Court/Procession + Outpost  (Read 21333 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

perturbator

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +4
    • View Profile
Re: Throne Room/King's Court/Procession + Outpost
« Reply #25 on: June 17, 2013, 12:14:00 pm »
0

I'm not so sure that Haven would work like Tactician in that it only stays in play if it has an unresolved effect. I think it's probably more like Outpost. Tactician specifically says "if you discarded", so if you didn't discard, you just don't do the next part of the sentence, so no effect is set up. Haven on the other hand, tells you, no matter what, to do something next turn. The problem is of course that it tells you to put the set-aside card into your hand, and that card might not exist, even at the time you set up this effect. So the question is whether you fail to set up the effect because the card doesn't exist, or whether you set it up and then only see that it doesn't exist at the time you resolve it. I'm guessing the latter, but don't know for sure.

Effects are immediate though. Haven's full effect is:
+1 card, +1 action, (select a card from your hand and set it aside face down), at the start of next turn, put it into your hand

If there is no IT (no card in your hand to choose from), then that specific haven effect (the one that makes it a duration) has failed, and thus throne room is not doubling its effect.

Consider playing a haven on its own. If as you say it's setting up an effect next turn no matter what, then a haven played with no cards in hand (without any modifier) would NOT be discarded during this turn's clean-up.

http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Haven
Quote
If you have no card in your hand to set aside when you play Haven, you set aside nothing, and clean up Haven at the end of that turn; it does not stay out.

If haven can fail by itself, then it surely can fail on the second throne roomed play, thus leaving haven in play while its modifier throne room is discarded.


See my example earlier in this thread with Masochist, which is Donald's own example. Nobody has addressed this.

I wasn't quite sure how to address this, and it seemed like you were agreeing with me insofar as the logic is concerned. Where you lost me is when you were talking about what was supposed to be happening, because I haven't seen any rules/rulings starting why that would be.

But as I said I think it's supposed to work like this: If Masochist is played as per above, it's correct as described. But if no Masochist is played, both Outposts get discarded in the clean-up of your first (and only) extra turn.

If the hypothetical existence of the masochist card would cause the remaining outpost's extra turn to be really evaluated after the masochist turn (rather than looking ahead when the first outpost extra turn is checked and then played, since it wouldn't know if you're planning on playing a masochist or not...), then there's no reason that the whole situation should be different if we take the hypothetical card out of the equation.

Edit: that paragraph seems jumbled, let me clarify:

Quote
Donald gives an example of a "ridiculous" card that goes "The player to your left takes an extra turn after this one, before any other extra turns for other players."

Let's say this card (Masochist) exists, it would play out like below:

Normal Turn:
- Play King's Court, choosing Outpost
-- Play Outpost, setting up later ability: draw only three cards during this turn's clean-up, take an extra turn after this one
-- Play Outpost, setting up later ability: ..., take an extra turn after this one (2 extra turns total due to accumulation)
-- Play Outpost, setting up later ability: ..., take an extra turn after this one (3 extra turns total due to accumulation)

- During clean-up phase:
-- Discard cards
--- Outpost still has effects that haven't been resolved (draw only three cards, 3 extra turns) so it and its modifier card (King's Court) stay in play
-- Draw only three cards, satisfying one of Outpost's effects

Attempt to take extra turn:
- succeeds, satisfying one of Outpost's effects (1 extra turn consumed, 2 extra turns remain)

Extra Turn:
- Play Masochist, setting up later ability: the player to your left takes an extra turn after this one, before any other extra turns for other players

- During clean-up phase:
-- Discard cards
--- Outpost still has effects that haven't been resolved (2 extra turns) so it and its modifier card (King's Court) stay in play
-- Draw five cards

Player to the left's extra turn:
- some stuff that has no bearing on the extra turn situation happens here


Attempt to take extra turn:
- succeeds (the last turn was the left player's, this is our first turn in a new sequence), satisfying one of Outpost's effects (1 extra turn consumed, 1 extra turn remains)

Extra Turn:
- During clean-up phase:
-- Discard cards
--- Outpost still has effects that haven't been resolved (1 extra turn) so it and its modifier card (King's Court) stay in play
-- Draw five cards

Attempt to take extra turn:
- succeeds (this will be the second unbroken extra turn in the chain), satisfying one of Outpost's effects (1 extra turn consumed, no extra turn remains, Outpost and its modifier card of King's Court are now flagged for discarding during this upcoming turn's clean-up phase)

Extra Turn:
- During clean-up phase:
-- Discard cards
--- Outpost and its modifier card of King's Court are now discarded since there are no longer any effects tied to this card remaining
-- Draw five cards

(play continues as normal)



If we were to remove the hypothetical card and thus the bolded Masochist bits, then everything else about the situation should remain the same (see the original post of this thread for how that would play out).

I don't think Outpost can have it both ways, even if the hypothetical card will never exist. Either:
a) when one outpost extra turn is being checked and applied, the rest of them are allowed to be nullified at this precise moment in time (thus masochist as worded above would never be able to break up two+ queued outpost extra turns)
b) the outpost extra turns are only ever nullified when they're attempted to be taken (thus masochist could actually work as it's been laid out above)

I find the strongest support for b) based on Donald's quote involving the hypothetical masochist card (here on BGG: http://boardgamegeek.com/article/5397175#5397175):

Quote
Outpost doesn't "know" it's not giving you an extra turn until the moment it fails to give it to you - to tell that we have to know who took the most recent turn, and we don't until that moment. So you have to leave the Throne Room out. At the point at which the Throned Outpost would give you that 2nd extra turn, it fails to, but not before then.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2013, 01:02:13 pm by perturbator »
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5345
    • View Profile
Re: Throne Room/King's Court/Procession + Outpost
« Reply #26 on: June 17, 2013, 06:49:58 pm »
0

or Outpost made played in possessed turn?
Then order is
  • cleanup with drawing 3 cards
  • Outpost turn
  • normal turn

I should have added that you have to be possessed twice for the Outpost problem. In this case the opponent may make you play an Outpost during your second possessed turn, forcing you to draw only three cards at its cleanup. As Outpost cannot make you have a third turn in a row, you will be forced to do your normal turn with a three-card hand.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5345
    • View Profile
Re: Throne Room/King's Court/Procession + Outpost
« Reply #27 on: June 17, 2013, 07:38:41 pm »
0

Why would TR "see" anything? The point that has been made is that the second extra turn has not been resolved yet, so there is no reason that TR+Outpost should be cleaned up. The extra turn will happen after this turn, after clean-up is already done. Only then do you check whether you get the extra turn, because of the condition that it fails if you've already had two consecutive turns. See my example earlier in this thread with Masochist, which is Donald's own example. Nobody has addressed this.

I read your older post and admit it makes sense. Outpost is worded "all-knowingly". If you are possessed, play Outpost, take that turn and then your normal one, Outpost actually causes you to take more than two turns in a row, which it claims it can't. This happens because the card has to check for its extra turn when it's time for it, just like any other card.

In other words, i accept your argumentation and conclude that trying to do an extra turn is enough to keep Outpost in play.

So it goes like this:
1. TR Outpost
2. Play turn
3. Cleanup
4. Draw up to 3 cards (twice).
5. Try to do extra turn, can
6. Do extra turn
7. Cleanup
8. Checking for extra turn has not yet been resolved, and as Outpost cannot possibly "know" whether it will succeed, it and Throne Room stay in play
9. Draw up to 5 cards
10. Fail to take extra turn, game goes on with Outpost and Throne Room still in play.
11. other players play
12. Do next turn
13. Cleanup
14. Discard Outpost and Throne Room

Another question: Is there an official ruling whether Possession or Outpost has to be resolved first? Otherwise you could actually do that Masochist thing, playing two Outposts and a Possession in one turn. Answered, thanks.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2013, 08:01:24 am by Asper »
Logged

perturbator

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +4
    • View Profile
Re: Throne Room/King's Court/Procession + Outpost
« Reply #28 on: June 18, 2013, 06:38:47 am »
+1

Another question: Is there an official ruling whether Possession or Outpost has to be resolved first? Otherwise you could actually do that Masochist thing, playing two Outposts and a Possession in one turn.

Possession and outpost interaction is covered on http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Outpost

A possession and outpost extra turn are the same thing (outpost has a caveat attached, but they've been ruled to be the same effect basically). When you're asked to resolve the same effect you get to choose which one happens first. Remember that this happens in turn order, so if you play an outpost and a possession on your turn, the outpost turn has to come first because it's affecting you (you're #1 in turn order at the moment) and the possession turn comes after it because it's affecting someone else (#2 in turn order for this example).

If you play a double+ possession, then during their possessed turn play an outpost, you get to decide which comes first (whether the outpost turn is valid or not) because they're both the same effect (extra turn) and they're both affecting the same player.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5345
    • View Profile
Re: Throne Room/King's Court/Procession + Outpost
« Reply #29 on: June 18, 2013, 08:00:55 am »
0

Remember that this happens in turn order, so if you play an outpost and a possession on your turn, the outpost turn has to come first because it's affecting you (you're #1 in turn order at the moment) and the possession turn comes after it because it's affecting someone else (#2 in turn order for this example).

Thanks, that was exactly what i was looking for. I thought i had read something like it before, but i couldn't find it.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Throne Room/King's Court/Procession + Outpost
« Reply #30 on: June 25, 2013, 02:30:30 pm »
0

Effects are immediate though. Haven's full effect is:
+1 card, +1 action, (select a card from your hand and set it aside face down), at the start of next turn, put it into your hand

If there is no IT (no card in your hand to choose from), then that specific haven effect (the one that makes it a duration) has failed, and thus throne room is not doubling its effect.

Consider playing a haven on its own. If as you say it's setting up an effect next turn no matter what, then a haven played with no cards in hand (without any modifier) would NOT be discarded during this turn's clean-up.

http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Haven
Quote
If you have no card in your hand to set aside when you play Haven, you set aside nothing, and clean up Haven at the end of that turn; it does not stay out.

If haven can fail by itself, then it surely can fail on the second throne roomed play, thus leaving haven in play while its modifier throne room is discarded.

Absolutely, I was considering the case of one Haven "failing" and the case of TR+Haven "failing" the second time, as equal. If the first case doesn't cause Haven to stay in play then the second case doesn't cause TR to stay in play. But I'm not sure that not having a card to set aside, means that you don't set up an effect. Tactician is unambiguous; it doesn't even tell you to set up an effect if you don't discard. Haven always tells you to. I see that the wiki says that the Haven doesn't stay, but no source is given. The Seaside rulebook doesn't mention it. I can't see that this can be resolved without a quote from Donald.

See my example earlier in this thread with Masochist, which is Donald's own example. Nobody has addressed this.

I wasn't quite sure how to address this, and it seemed like you were agreeing with me insofar as the logic is concerned. Where you lost me is when you were talking about what was supposed to be happening, because I haven't seen any rules/rulings starting why that would be.

Yes, I was agreeing with you. I was making two points. First, what is supposed to happen, according to Donald's own words. See the post I linked to. Second, that logically I can find no fault with your argument, meaning that Donald's intention doesn't seem to be what logically happens. And I was using the example of Masochist to illustrate this.

So, since we agree about this, I didn't go through the rest of your post. I assume that it's correct. :)

perturbator

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +4
    • View Profile
Re: Throne Room/King's Court/Procession + Outpost
« Reply #31 on: June 25, 2013, 04:09:25 pm »
0

But I'm not sure that not having a card to set aside, means that you don't set up an effect. Tactician is unambiguous; it doesn't even tell you to set up an effect if you don't discard. Haven always tells you to. I see that the wiki says that the Haven doesn't stay, but no source is given. The Seaside rulebook doesn't mention it. I can't see that this can be resolved without a quote from Donald.

The reason that haven fails, in my mind anyway, is that the IT in the text needs to refer to something for that next turn effect to actually be valid, meaning the haven card itself would stay in play only if it's doing something next turn. I believe this is the exact same reasoning for ironworks providing no bonus if you trader the gained card in for a silver.

I was able to scrounge up a direct quote about haven and no card however:

Does the "until the end of the turn in which they have effect" clause mean that, if I play Haven but have no cards to draw and my hand is empty, I should clean up Haven at the end of that turn?
Yes.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Throne Room/King's Court/Procession + Outpost
« Reply #32 on: June 29, 2013, 11:48:51 pm »
0

I was able to scrounge up a direct quote about haven and no card however:

Does the "until the end of the turn in which they have effect" clause mean that, if I play Haven but have no cards to draw and my hand is empty, I should clean up Haven at the end of that turn?
Yes.

Okay, that settles it then. Thanks. I'll add it to the FAQ eventually.
Pages: 1 [2]  All
 

Page created in 0.114 seconds with 21 queries.