Print

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

[tlloyd]

Coppersmith is not the only card that changes the effects of playing another card (copper). Every treasure changes the effect of playing a Bank.

The effect of Bank is "$1 per Treasure in play". Playing Treasures doesn't change that effect.

This is just semantics. You could just as well say that a copper is worth $1 + $1 per Coppersmith in play, in which case playing a coppersmith doesn't change that effect. Nonsense.

[popsofctown]

It's not actually a semantic difference, it's a real difference that no card in the game is capable of triggering.  Coppersmith creates an until end of turn effect that modifies what playing a copper does.  Even if you trashed that Coppersmith from play, which as far as I know you can't, Copper would still have a modified effect for the rest of the turn.  So right now, the changing effects of Coppersmith and Bank, although entirely different from a rules perspective, are never distinct in any real-game situation.  The moment Rio Grande games prints something like "+6 actions.  Whenever you play an action card this turn, trash it immediately afterward", Bank and Coppersmith do become different.

So Coppersmith does have a unique effect.  Or doesn't yet.  Depends on how you look at it.  It's kind of a "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it does it make a sound" kinda thing.

[Deadlock39]

This is just semantics. You could just as well say that a copper is worth $1 + $1 per Coppersmith in play, in which case playing a coppersmith doesn't change that effect. Nonsense.

I don't really agree.  This is a question of semantics, but the semantics are explicitly applied in a different way between the two cards. 

Copper is worth $1.  It denotes it's own value as $1.  Coppersmith alters that value.  Bank is worth $1 per treasure in play.  This is Bank's value as determined by Bank itself.  To say that playing treasures changes the effect of playing Bank, you would need Bank to be explicitly worth $0 (not $?) and put "When this is in play, Bank produces an additional $1" on every single treasure card in the game.   Bank is determining its own value based on the number of treasures in play, the treasures in play are not acting on Bank to change its value.

[tlloyd]

When you pick up one end of a stick, you pick up the other as well. If A is affected by B, then B affects A. The effect of playing Bank is affected by previous treasures you've played, just as the effect of playing a copper is affected by previous Coppersmiths you've played. Ergo, both Coppersmith and any treasure card can affect the effect of a later card. It doesn't even matter if there is some possible scenario in which these effects would operate differently - they share the attribute in question in that they CAN affect the effect of playing a later card. The difference you are straining at is that one produces the effect by being played, while the others produce the effect by being in play. That's an important distinction as far as rules go, but much less so in a silly exercise to identify unique card attributes. 

[tlloyd]

Here's another way to make the point:

Claim 1: "Coppersmith is the only card that changes the effect of playing another card."

Claim 2: "Copper changes the effect of playing Bank."

One of these claims must be wrong (or at least incomplete). You tell me which one.

There are a few other counter-examples that are not quite as strong:
"Lighthouse changes the effect of playing Militia"
"Throne room changes the effect of playing Conspirator"
"Lookout changes the effect of playing Library"

[rinkworks]

I think the problem here is that we're not all defining "effect" in the same way.  tlloyd is defining "effect" by the ultimate outcome, as in:  "Bank's effect is +$2 under these conditions, and +$3 under those conditions, so Bank's effect is different under the two conditions."    Indeed, this is absolutely correct.

AJD, et al, is saying, "Bank's effect is +$ equal to the number of Treasure cards in play."  Thus, its effect is the same whether 2 Treasure cards are in play vs. 3 Treasure cards in play.  Mention was made in this thread of "atoms."  Bank only has the one atom, and playing Treasures beforehand doesn't change what that atom is, nor does it change the atoms of any other card, played or yet to play.

Neither are unreasonable arguments.  The former is player-centric:  the player doesn't care what internal mechanism is at work, only how much money he can spend when all is said and done.  The latter is game-design-centric:  what matters is NOT the ultimate outcome but rather the specific function of each component of the machinery.

Both of these views are important, depending on the context of the conversation.  In this one, though, a conversation about how individual cards actually work, I have to side with AJD.  No, Copper does not change Bank's effect when played.  Yes, Coppersmith does change Copper's effect when played.

Now, if Coppersmith were reworded thus:  "After you are finished playing Treasures, +$1 per Copper in play," then I would agree that Coppersmith does NOT change Copper's effect -- even though the ultimate outcome would be the same.  Because in that case, Coppersmith would be the card performing the effect.  But it doesn't read that way:  it says that, specifically, Copper does a new thing.  And so it does.

[AJD]

Hm, I do think, on the other hand, tlloyd is right about Lighthouse (and Moat)—they do change the effect of attack cards. So I guess Coppersmith isn't the only card that changes the effect of playing another card; it's just the most blatant about it.

[tlloyd]

The way I see it is both Coppersmith-Copper and [insert treasure card]-Bank have the dynamic that A changes the effect of B. The biggest difference is which of the two cards establishes that dynamic. For Coppersmith, A tells us that "A affects B." For Bank, B tells us that "A affects B." But the dynamic is the same in either case. I don't see the value in attributing the dynamic to one card or the other, since if A affects B then B is affected by A.

[tlloyd]

I think Duke/Duchy is a great comparison. Imagine that duke said nothing, and duchy was changed to say "3 VP + 1 VP per Duke." This would have absolutely no effect on the attributes of either Duke or Duchy (try the math yourself). The same change could in theory work for bank, but then you'd have to state the effect in several cards instead of just one.

[Karrow]

lol!  I love you guys.  Where's that eating popcorn smiley...   

Sorry for the interruption, please continue.

[RiemannZetaJones]

Is Black Market the only card that allows you to play actions after playing treasure cards?

[play2draw]

Black Market is unique in many ways 

[popsofctown]

I think the problem here is that we're not all defining "effect" in the same way.  tlloyd is defining "effect" by the ultimate outcome, as in:  "Bank's effect is +$2 under these conditions, and +$3 under those conditions, so Bank's effect is different under the two conditions."    Indeed, this is absolutely correct.

AJD, et al, is saying, "Bank's effect is +$ equal to the number of Treasure cards in play."  Thus, its effect is the same whether 2 Treasure cards are in play vs. 3 Treasure cards in play.  Mention was made in this thread of "atoms."  Bank only has the one atom, and playing Treasures beforehand doesn't change what that atom is, nor does it change the atoms of any other card, played or yet to play.

Neither are unreasonable arguments.  The former is player-centric:  the player doesn't care what internal mechanism is at work, only how much money he can spend when all is said and done.  The latter is game-design-centric:  what matters is NOT the ultimate outcome but rather the specific function of each component of the machinery.

Both of these views are important, depending on the context of the conversation.  In this one, though, a conversation about how individual cards actually work, I have to side with AJD.  No, Copper does not change Bank's effect when played.  Yes, Coppersmith does change Copper's effect when played.

Now, if Coppersmith were reworded thus:  "After you are finished playing Treasures, +$1 per Copper in play," then I would agree that Coppersmith does NOT change Copper's effect -- even though the ultimate outcome would be the same.  Because in that case, Coppersmith would be the card performing the effect.  But it doesn't read that way:  it says that, specifically, Copper does a new thing.  And so it does.

Seems semantic.  I mean, I agree in principle but I'm totally unable to come up with a situation where Coppersmith and the interpretation of "Copper = 1$ + 1$ per Coppersmith" is any different from bank (even with fictional cards).

I was pointing out that it's unique in being an until-end-of-turn effect, but I realize you're talking about something else here.

[AJD]

I was pointing out that it's unique in being an until-end-of-turn effect, but I realize you're talking about something else here.

Bridge is also an until-end-of-turn effect.

Anyhow, maybe the simpler way to put the Coppersmith situation is that, when you play Coppersmith, it makes Copper have an effect which is different from the effect printed on the Copper card. (The same is true for revealing Moat, or having Lighthouse in play—the result is that an Attack has a different effect than what is printed on the attack card.) Having treasures in play doesn't cause Bank to have an effect different from what is printed on the card.

[Jack Rudd]

Possession is the only card that allows one player to make decisions for another player's turn.

Envoy and Contraband say hello.

[AJD]

To be more specific, it's the only card that allows one player to choose what plays another player makes on the latter's turn.

[GendoIkari]

Tribute is the only card that can affect another player's deck without attacking (thought I guess you could argue that possession does too...).

I think you'd definitely have to count Possession, but even more so, Ill-Gotten-Gains.

[GendoIkari]

Here's another way to make the point:

Claim 1: "Coppersmith is the only card that changes the effect of playing another card."

Claim 2: "Copper changes the effect of playing Bank."

One of these claims must be wrong (or at least incomplete). You tell me which one.

I think Claim 2 is wrong. The issue here isn't a question of the semantics of what it means to "affect" another card, the issue is that there are 2 possible definitions of the word "effect." The OP meant the specific Dominion-related definition of "the steps you take when you play a card." There is also a more general definition of "effect," which is more like "the net result of playing a card." In the second definition, yes, copper changes the effect of playing Bank.

However, looking at "effect" as "steps you preform when you play a card," then when you play a Bank, you preform the same steps, no matter what treasure has been played: count how many treasures are in play, and get that many coins.

But the effect of playing Copper has actually changed. If you've played a Coppersmith, you cannot preform the steps listed on the Copper card, which is "get 1 coin." That step is gone, you now preform a new step instead, which is "get 2 coins."

*Edit* rinkworks seems to have said the same basic thing...

[Newcomer]

I feel like someone had to have mentioned it, but I didn't see Tournament anywhere in this discussion. That one jumps out as pretty obvious. :-P

[mDuo13]

Tribute is the only card that can affect another player's deck without attacking (thought I guess you could argue that possession does too...).

I think you'd definitely have to count Possession, but even more so, Ill-Gotten-Gains.

Well, IGG doesn't actually affect the other players' decks - it affects their discard pile by making them gain something. Speaking of which, Masquerade isn't a "real" attack either, but it also affects the other players "overall" decks. In fact, I think Masquerade is the only non-attack that affects other players' hands. Well, and Possession.

Secret Chamber is the only card you can reveal multiple times with different effects.

Well, you could reveal a Watchtower twice with different effects against a Mountebank (trash the Curse, put the Copper on deck)... which is pretty similar.

Outpost is the only card that cares about consecutive turns.

I guess Fool's Gold and Tunnel would have been unique before the other was revealed (The only reactions that aren't also actions) but now they're a pair. Go figure.

I was going to say that Trader is the only card that can replace a gain action with another gain action, but technically Possession does something very similar.

Mining Village is the only card that gives you the option of trashing itself when you play it.

I guess Horn of Plenty doesn't explicitly give you that option, but as long as you can choose a Victory card, it effectively does.

How about this one: as far as I can think of, there is currently no card that makes you choose / single out another player. Everything affects either all players or a single player based on turn order. (Seems like an explicit omission so far. We'll see if any cards come along that break that rule.)

[Jimmmmm]

In fact, I think Masquerade is the only non-attack that affects other players' hands. Well, and Possession.

Bishop, Vault, Council Room, Governor, just off the top of my head.

In terms of affecting others' decks without attacking, Noble Brigand (on buy) and Duchess.

[HP7289]

How about this one: as far as I can think of, there is currently no card that makes you choose / single out another player. Everything affects either all players or a single player based on turn order. (Seems like an explicit omission so far. We'll see if any cards come along that break that rule.)

I don't think there's coming up a card that will have an effect like that. It's not intended to have politics in Dominion. There's much information about that on Secret History of Dominion Cards.

[AJD]

I feel like someone had to have mentioned it, but I didn't see Tournament anywhere in this discussion. That one jumps out as pretty obvious. :-P

The obvious unique thing that Tournament does is also done by Black Market, essentially.

[ftl]

Gain Prizes? No, I'm pretty sure tournament is the only card that lets you gain Prizes.

[AJD]

I mean, I feel like the fact that the cards that you gain with Tournament have the 'Prize' type and the fact that the cards that you gain with Black Market don't isn't that much of a big deal (any more that that the cards you gain with University have the 'Action' type), so much as what they both do is introduce single copies of cards to the game that are gained from outside the Supply.