Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Ironworks + Trader  (Read 18283 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DsnowMan

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
  • Respect: +26
    • View Profile
Ironworks + Trader
« on: October 28, 2011, 02:08:34 pm »
+1

In case you are wondering, if you Ironworks something (like a Great Hall), then reveal Trader to gain a Silver instead of the Great Hall, you are opening a can of worms.

The correct result is You get the silver, but no bonus. You don't claim the bonus from the first card (+1 card, + 1action for Great Hall), or the +$1 Silver bonus. . So quoth Mr. X.

http://boardgamegeek.com/article/7742414#7742414


Edited
« Last Edit: November 09, 2011, 04:01:24 pm by DsnowMan »
Logged

guided

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 940
  • Respect: +92
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2011, 02:15:35 pm »
0

Note this interaction is so confusing that Donald wrote up a post explaining why you get no bonus from Ironworks, then changed his mind and ruled that you get the bonus from the original card ;)
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9402
  • Respect: +10405
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2011, 02:17:59 pm »
+1

I love the fact that someone thought of a question so confusing (though not involving some never-will-happen situation that requires a specific 5 cards to be on the board or anything) that the creator of the game himself had to change his mind after giving his original answer!
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

HiveMindEmulator

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2222
  • Respect: +2117
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #3 on: October 28, 2011, 05:21:20 pm »
0

So the ruling is that "Gain a card costing up to $4" is equivalent to "Choose a card costing up to $4. Gain it." And for the rest of the card, "it" refers to the chosen card (not the gained card). Similarly, for upgrade "Trash a card from your hand" means "Choose a card from your hand. Trash it." In general, "[verb] a card" means "Choose a card. [verb] it."
But his original ruling was that "[verb1] a card. [verb2] it" meant "[verb] a card. [verb2] the [verb1]ed card".
I think I liked the one he settled on. Seems simpler, if nothing else.

Logged

guided

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 940
  • Respect: +92
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2011, 06:09:50 pm »
+1

So the ruling is that "Gain a card costing up to $4" is equivalent to "Choose a card costing up to $4. Gain it." And for the rest of the card, "it" refers to the chosen card (not the gained card). Similarly, for upgrade "Trash a card from your hand" means "Choose a card from your hand. Trash it." In general, "[verb] a card" means "Choose a card. [verb] it."
But his original ruling was that "[verb1] a card. [verb2] it" meant "[verb] a card. [verb2] the [verb1]ed card".
I think I liked the one he settled on. Seems simpler, if nothing else.
Great way to explain it, though it could really use more blue dogs.
Logged

HiveMindEmulator

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2222
  • Respect: +2117
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2011, 03:15:32 am »
0

Thinking more about it, I'm not actually happy with my explanation, or even Donald's ruling, really. If you don't have to actually gain the card to get the benefit, what stops you from just naming a card you can't gain (say one that's not in the supply)? You choose to gain a great hall, which is less than $4. You can't, since there are none, so you gain nothing, but you still do the +1 card/+1 action part?

Or maybe there is just an implicit assumption that "gain a card costing up to $4" means gain a card that is in the supply and costs up to $4?
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6148
  • Respect: +24949
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #6 on: October 29, 2011, 03:20:46 am »
0

Thinking more about it, I'm not actually happy with my explanation, or even Donald's ruling, really. If you don't have to actually gain the card to get the benefit, what stops you from just naming a card you can't gain (say one that's not in the supply)? You choose to gain a great hall, which is less than $4. You can't, since there are none, so you gain nothing, but you still do the +1 card/+1 action part?

Or maybe there is just an implicit assumption that "gain a card costing up to $4" means gain a card that is in the supply and costs up to $4?
What stops you is, you have to pick a card in the supply. You have to pick one if you can and don't get to if you can't.
Logged

HiveMindEmulator

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2222
  • Respect: +2117
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2011, 03:26:21 am »
0

you have to pick a card in the supply
Is the same then true for the card named in contraband?
I guess my question is, does the "in the supply" requirement come from the fact that it's a "gain", or is it true for any time you have to pick a card?
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6148
  • Respect: +24949
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #8 on: October 29, 2011, 03:39:59 am »
0

you have to pick a card in the supply
Is the same then true for the card named in contraband?
I guess my question is, does the "in the supply" requirement come from the fact that it's a "gain", or is it true for any time you have to pick a card?
Contraband does not require you to name a card in the supply, and this is in its FAQ. Wishing Well doesn't say but it's the same, you do not have to name a supply card.

Gained cards come from the supply unless otherwise specified. Workshop etc. don't say this explicitly because by having it be a rule I get to save on all that extra text.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6148
  • Respect: +24949
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #9 on: October 29, 2011, 12:02:06 pm »
0

btw I switched to "you get nothing" on the strength of an "a" I wasn't paying attention to.
Logged

Anon79

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 264
  • Respect: +39
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #10 on: October 31, 2011, 02:21:06 am »
0

Note this interaction is so confusing that Donald wrote up a post explaining why you get no bonus from Ironworks, then changed his mind and ruled that you get the bonus from the original card ;)
Apparently, this interaction is so confusing that Donald wrote up a post explaining why you get no bonus from Ironworks, then changed his mind and ruled that you get the bonus from the original card, but changed his mind again and reverted to the ruling of no bonus.

And for good measure ruled that Possessed Ironworks get no bonus whatsoever.
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4784
  • Respect: +3401
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #11 on: October 31, 2011, 08:21:59 am »
0

I like the "no bonus" decision best.

Trader has the word "instead" on it, which to me is more important than the whole "it" debate of Ironworks.

The timeline to me looks like this:
1. Player plays an Ironworks, deciding (and probably saying out loud) which card to gain from the Supply
2. Trader swoops in, replacing the "gain" event of Ironworks with its own, rendering the rest of Ironworks moot.
3. The gained Silver goes to the discard (barring Watchtower of course).

I like how the Trader event replaces the other gain event, this works for Watchtower too, because the Silver goes to discard instead of topdeck/trash. It doesn't switch the card in mid-air.

For Possession, I also favor the argument that it has a gain event which replaces all other gain events in the possessed player's hand. If the possessed player has a Watchtower, this doesn't mean YOU get to topdeck or trash anything if you gain it.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1762
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
  • Respect: +2016
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #12 on: October 31, 2011, 08:31:21 am »
0

Of course the unfortunate result of the "no bonus" ruling is that there will never (misclicks or changing your mind aside) be any situation in which doing this is useful - just Ironworks the Silver. Can anyone think of a situation that would prove me wrong?
Logged

rod-

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 213
  • Respect: +49
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #13 on: October 31, 2011, 10:02:21 am »
0

Wouldn't that imply that all of the "8 provinces on turn 5" threads would be breaking the rules due to relying heavily on ironworks/watchtower interactions?  Or is there something about the way watchtower is worded that makes the replacement gain "different"?
Logged

kn1tt3r

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 585
  • Respect: +278
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #14 on: October 31, 2011, 10:26:58 am »
0

Wouldn't that imply that all of the "8 provinces on turn 5" threads would be breaking the rules due to relying heavily on ironworks/watchtower interactions?  Or is there something about the way watchtower is worded that makes the replacement gain "different"?
Watchtower does something when you gain a card.
Trader does something instead when you originally would have gained a card.
Logged

Jimmmmm

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1762
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jimmmmm
  • Respect: +2016
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #15 on: October 31, 2011, 10:27:44 am »
0

Watchtower can't stop you from gaining a card. It just allows you to do something different with it after you gain it. Once Watchtower starts reacting, Ironworks (or whatever else caused you to gain the card) has totally finished its job. However Trader prevents Ironworks from doing its job and does something else instead.
Logged

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6108
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #16 on: October 31, 2011, 10:39:54 am »
0

I believe Ironworks should give you +$1 for the Silver, and here is my reasoning:

I'm going to dinner with my wife.  The sommelier/waiter comes and explains to me that if I choose the beef entree, I get a red wine; if I choose the fish entree, I get a white wine; if I choose the vegetarian entree, I get a rosť wine.  I decide I want the filet mignon, and tell the waiter accordingly.  But my wife interrupts: "No, honey, you need to be on a diet.  He'll be having the halibut instead."  Surely the restaurant will now bring me a white wine. 

Trader says, "you were going to get something, but instead you're getting this."  To Ironworks, all it should see is that you are getting a Silver.  It doesn't know if you chose the Silver, or if you chose the Great Hall but something else happened to get you a Silver.  It says, gain a card of your choice, I chose, and I ended up getting a Silver.  The fact that I chose at first to get a Great Hall, and then chose to do something else to end up with a Silver instead shouldn't affect Ironworks any more than if I took a Great Hall, but then changed my mind and took a Silver instead.

I like this outcome because:

A) It is weird to say that I get nothing for revealing the Trader, when I could have just gained the Silver with Ironworks directly;
B) This interpretation produces the expected result with Possession, namely, that Possessed players should have Ironworks bonuses.
Logged

DG

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4074
  • Respect: +2623
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #17 on: October 31, 2011, 10:54:59 am »
0

Quote
Watchtower can't stop you from gaining a card. It just allows you to do something different with it after you gain it. Once Watchtower starts reacting, Ironworks (or whatever else caused you to gain the card) has totally finished its job.


It's slightly different. You play the ironworks and gain the card. The watchtower reaction takes effect and is resolved by trashing the card. The ironworks will complete after the card is trashed to give you the benefit, since you did gain the card.


Quote
I believe Ironworks should give you +$1 for the Silver, and here is my reasoning:
I'm going to dinner with my wife

That makes as much sense as anything else and we should stop the debate there!
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6148
  • Respect: +24949
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #18 on: October 31, 2011, 11:14:08 am »
+1

Trader says, "you were going to get something, but instead you're getting this."
The key is, Trader does not replace "what you were getting" with Silver; it replaces "you getting something" with a new event, which happens to be you getting Silver.

This is already cemented in place by the FAQ for Trader; if Thief steals Copper and you use Trader to get Silver instead, you don't take the Silver from the trash; if you buy Nomad Camp and reveal Trader, the Silver does not go on your deck.

The original event Ironworks generated did not happen; the fact that you happen to be gaining a Silver now is just confusing the issue.
Logged

rod-

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 213
  • Respect: +49
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #19 on: October 31, 2011, 11:20:13 am »
0

(relevant portions of)
Trader:  When you would gain a card, you may reveal this:  If you do, instead, gain a silver.
Watchtower:  When you would gain a card, you may reveal this:  If you do, either trash that card, or put it on top of your deck.

To me, watchtower replaces the gain with "gain this card, place it on top of deck" while Trader replaces the gain with "gain a silver"  The gain is replaced either way, it shouldn't matter what the gain is replaced with. 

It's arguable that the watchtower was intended to merely replace the "second half" of the gain effect "take this card and put it in your discard" with "take this card and put it in your trash / on top of your deck" but that seems inelegant to me, as you are subdividing the way that "gains" work.
Logged

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3603
  • Respect: +6108
    • View Profile
    • Dominion Strategy
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #20 on: October 31, 2011, 11:26:06 am »
0

The original event Ironworks generated did not happen; the fact that you happen to be gaining a Silver now is just confusing the issue.
I don't think that matters to Ironworks.  If Trader had said "Whenever you would gain a card, gain a Silver from an opponent's hand instead." I still think Ironworks should get you +$1.

Ironworks says, Gain a card.  Then Traders interrupts, and does a bunch of magic, the end result being, you gain a Silver.  Now when you lift it off the "stack", Ironworks says, now, here's the relevant bonus based on whatever card you gained.  Ironworks doesn't know you originally chose Great Hall and now have a Silver, Ironworks doesn't care that there's a Quarry in play and you got to pick something that's >$4.  All it cares is, it asked you to gain something, and now you have gained a Silver, so that's your bonus.  It's a new "gain" event, but it's still a gain event!

I play Upgrade-Into-Hand, which reads "Trash a card from your hand and gain one that costs exactly $1 more.  Put it into your hand."  I use it on a Forge, gaining a Peddler.  But wait!  Traders interrupts, and gains me a Silver instead.  That Silver should still go into my hand.  This differs from Nomad Camp and Thief, because:

1) In Nomad Camp, the whole when-gain effect is now gone because you have  a Silver instead;
2) In Thief, you've replaced the non-gain-event with a new gain-event. 

But in any circumstance that calls for a gain event, then gives you something to do with that gain event, the fact that you subbed in the Traders gain event doesn't mean the rest of the card should be nullified, since it's still a gain event.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6148
  • Respect: +24949
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #21 on: October 31, 2011, 11:38:34 am »
0

I don't think that matters to Ironworks.  If Trader had said "Whenever you would gain a card, gain a Silver from an opponent's hand instead." I still think Ironworks should get you +$1.

Ironworks says, Gain a card.  Then Traders interrupts, and does a bunch of magic, the end result being, you gain a Silver.  Now when you lift it off the "stack", Ironworks says, now, here's the relevant bonus based on whatever card you gained.  Ironworks doesn't know you originally chose Great Hall and now have a Silver, Ironworks doesn't care that there's a Quarry in play and you got to pick something that's >$4.  All it cares is, it asked you to gain something, and now you have gained a Silver, so that's your bonus.  It's a new "gain" event, but it's still a gain event!
Ironworks is referring to a specific card, and that card is not the Silver that Trader got you. So you get no bonus. You could gain ten cards in-between playing Ironworks and getting to "if it is...;" whatever, the bonuses you get are for the card Ironworks is referring to, and not to anything else.

We could phrase Ironworks so that it worked however we wanted. "During the resolution of this action, when you gain a card, if it is..." But Ironworks has the phrasing it has, and that includes giving you a bonus based on the qualities of a specific card.

Quote
I play Upgrade-Into-Hand, which reads "Trash a card from your hand and gain one that costs exactly $1 more.  Put it into your hand."  I use it on a Forge, gaining a Peddler.  But wait!  Traders interrupts, and gains me a Silver instead.  That Silver should still go into my hand.
You are incorrect. Any similarities between Trader gaining you a card and Ironworks or Upgrade-Into-Hand gaining a card are irrelevant; you did not gain the card you were supposed to, the card being referred to by "it" is undefined, thus you get nothing / put nothing in your hand.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6148
  • Respect: +24949
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #22 on: October 31, 2011, 11:51:08 am »
0

In case this is helpful, let's consider the card, Throw in a Silver, which reads, "when you would gain a card other than Silver, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, you also gain a Silver."

I play Ironworks, gaining an Estate, and reveal Throw in a Silver. Do you expect to get bonuses for both cards from Ironworks?
Logged

Thanar

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 123
  • Respect: +137
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #23 on: October 31, 2011, 12:29:11 pm »
0

(relevant portions of)
Trader:  When you would gain a card, you may reveal this:  If you do, instead, gain a silver.
Watchtower:  When you would gain a card, you may reveal this:  If you do, either trash that card, or put it on top of your deck.

Your quote of the relevant portion of Watchtower is incorrect. It does not say "would gain" but simply "gain". So the two card effects are not parallel.

Here is the actual Watchtower quote: "<i>When you gain a card</i>, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, either trash that card, or put it on top of your deck."
Logged

rod-

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 213
  • Respect: +49
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #24 on: October 31, 2011, 12:57:17 pm »
0

must've been just from looking at them at the same time, i missed that. 
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4378
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #25 on: October 31, 2011, 01:31:54 pm »
0

To go with the dinner example, it's as if your friend is the waiter and tells you he'll give you a free red with beef, white with salad, rose with fish (doesn't matter what is what exactly). You tell him you want the filet mignon, your wife interrupts you, and then your friend goes away and a different waiter comes, then regardless of what you would have gotten originally, you get nothing now, because the new waiter doesn't have this agreement with you. So even if you replace a silver with a silver, then you don't get the bonus (but if you hadn't revealed the trader, you would have). The trader replacement means that the ironworks no longer knows that it's responsible for you gaining the thing. It would be different if ironworks was a 'while this is in play' effect. Because it only happens or gaining with ironworks, and you aren't gaining this silver with ironworks but rather with trader, you don't get the bonus. It makes sense.

bedlam

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 124
  • Respect: +72
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #26 on: October 31, 2011, 01:57:24 pm »
+1

I don't know why this is even a question. It states specifically in the Trader FAQ that "if something would have happened due to gaining the other card, it does not happen, because you did not gain it." Open and shut case right? You never gained a card from ironworks so you never get a bonus.
Logged

guided

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 940
  • Respect: +92
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #27 on: October 31, 2011, 02:16:47 pm »
0

I don't know why this is even a question. It states specifically in the Trader FAQ that "if something would have happened due to gaining the other card, it does not happen, because you did not gain it." Open and shut case right? You never gained a card from ironworks so you never get a bonus.
Ironworks doesn't say "If you do..." - i.e. there's no explicit contingency stated on the card between gaining a card and getting a bonus. The ruling hinges on what the word "it" in the 2nd sentence refers to, and Donald has most recently ruled that "it" means "the card you gained" (rather than something else, like "the card you chose to gain").
Logged

tlloyd

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • Respect: +84
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #28 on: October 31, 2011, 02:19:13 pm »
+1

In case this is helpful, let's consider the card, Throw in a Silver, which reads, "when you would gain a card other than Silver, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, you also gain a Silver."

I play Ironworks, gaining an Estate, and reveal Throw in a Silver. Do you expect to get bonuses for both cards from Ironworks?

There goes my Highway-Highway-Ironworks (Border Village(Duchy(Duchess))) (+1 card, +2 actions) combo...
 :P
Logged

Karrow

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56
  • Respect: +7
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #29 on: October 31, 2011, 02:20:53 pm »
+1

The day of doom has finally come.

Love ya Donald X, but I'm also fascinated by train wrecks.

Donald has made it clear before.  There is no erreta.  All cards are as printed, and all rules are as printed.  There are no extended rulebooks or errata lists you to keep up on to play the game (like Magic).  And there was clear intent that it would stay that way.  And there are no complicated rules on order of operations.  Play cards one at a time, if more than one thing happens, the player who's turn it is gets to decide what order.

I saw the utopian intent, and I understand it.  But no matter how much you wish it to be, utopia is not real.


There are now Rio Grande sponsored tournaments.  There are prizes.  There will be disputes.

(Theoretically)  If in a tournament you Ironworks the great hall and gain a silver from trader instead, I'm protesting if you gain +1/+1.  It doesn't matter what I think it should be, this is a tournament and all I care about is winning.  Ironworks says "it."  I'm going to claim "it" never happened, "it" was not an action or victory so you get neither.  No it doesn't matter what you chose to gain, the card does not say "choose a card to gain."  It says "Gain a card... if it."  "It" obviously refers to the gained card.  The gained card was not an action or victory or treasure.  The gained card was nothing.  It did not happen.  You gained a silver, from trader, instead of the ironworks effect.  Trader's FAQ clearly states that card gain effects don't happen when replaced with a silver.  Even if lose my argument, I'm then going to claim that then the silver must be the "it" card so you get +1$.  If I'm convincing enough for either argument, I 'll get a judge to agree. 

But then some other judge says no "Donald X said on BGG this is what happens."  Then the protest gets ugly.  What's BGG?  I'm just playing by the rules.  So BGG is now an official rules publication?  I thought Donald said there were no rule changes or errata?  If Donald posted a message on BGG stating you must scratch your ass when you play a Ironworks on a Tuesday, does this somehow become a legitimate rule in a dominion tournament?  How are we supposed to know what the rules are?  Are we supposed to read every post of BGG to follow the rules?  What if Donald posts in another forum?  Do I have to keep a printout of every post Donald makes on every internet forum as proof of the rules in case I need to protest someone who is wrongly trying to play as the cards as they are written?  Because all I'm trying to do with ironworks is play it how it reads.  Gain a card.. if it is one of these things... it is none of those things... you get nothing! 

Any way you play ironworks that benefits you, I'm protesting and arguing the opposite because I want to win the tournament prize. (Theoretical situation aside.  This is one of the reasons I don't play in many real for prize tournaments.  And I understand this is what Donald wanted to avoid.  But utopia doesn't exist.)

Then someone at the tournament will screw something up.  The internet will blaze on fire.  The results of the tournament, and viability for competitive Dominion will be brought under question.

It's vague enough, it can be argued either way.

The answer is clear.  Errata Ironworks or the rules to however Donald wants it to work.  Rio Grande hosts the official errata page.
Then it can go any way desired. 
"chose a card to gain...  if the card chosen is a"
"gain a card... if it is gained and is a ..."
Leave ironworks and rule on Trader, "trader replaces the ironworks card with a silver so ironworks trigers from the silver's card type."
or "Trader gains the silver instead of ironworks activating.  So ironworks fizzles and does nothing."


« Last Edit: October 31, 2011, 02:28:25 pm by Karrow »
Logged

bedlam

  • Bishop
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 124
  • Respect: +72
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #30 on: October 31, 2011, 02:49:12 pm »
0

I don't know why this is even a question. It states specifically in the Trader FAQ that "if something would have happened due to gaining the other card, it does not happen, because you did not gain it." Open and shut case right? You never gained a card from ironworks so you never get a bonus.
Ironworks doesn't say "If you do..." - i.e. there's no explicit contingency stated on the card between gaining a card and getting a bonus. The ruling hinges on what the word "it" in the 2nd sentence refers to, and Donald has most recently ruled that "it" means "the card you gained" (rather than something else, like "the card you chose to gain").

It doesn't have to say "If you do..." - 'Gain a card' means 'gain a card' not 'intend to gain a card' If you never gained a card due to ironworks then you get no bonus. The explicit contingency is stated in the BASE game where gaining a card is defined as taking a card from the supply and putting it on your discard pile. (of course with other, newer cards, where that card is placed can differ, but that has nothing to do with this confusion.) Trader doesn't say to gain a card, fulfill all actions and reactions based on that card, then put it back to the supply and instead gain a silver. It states "When you would gain a card...instead, gain a silver" meaning you never gained the original card and all reaction based on gaining that card are no longer in effect. And that, I believe, most accurately reflects Donald's latest interpretation.
Logged

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1343
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #31 on: October 31, 2011, 02:55:11 pm »
0

When even Donald X goes back and forth between multiple resolutions a few times, I think that makes it pretty obvious that the rules, as printed, are unclear. Regardless of which one ends up being the 'right' answer in the end.

I'm not sure there's much of a point in arguing the semantics at this point. Depending on how you interpret the cards, it could swing either way; whichever one is the final answer, I could put together a very convincing argument for why that one HAD to have been right all along. As Karrow said, it would be nice to have some 'official' answer to play by, since I don't read BGG and will continue to have no idea whether there've been updates or re-rulings there, on this issue or on other future interactions.
Logged

Thisisnotasmile

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1493
  • Respect: +674
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #32 on: October 31, 2011, 02:59:56 pm »
0

Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6148
  • Respect: +24949
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #33 on: October 31, 2011, 03:04:42 pm »
+1

The answer is clear.  Errata Ironworks or the rules to however Donald wants it to work.  Rio Grande hosts the official errata page.
For a tournament, whatever the person running the tournament says goes, right or wrong. That is how tournaments work.

No errata is necessary; nothing is being modified. Everything does what it says it does. My confusion originally was over what "it" means there, but the resolution of that involved looking at how English works and did not involve modifying any cards. My ruling involves no changes, and does not even involve me interpreting something ambiguous. It is not ambiguous, it is just subtle.

What would be nice is a FAQ, but the rulebook can't get it now and Jay is busy okay, the RGG site is not going to maintain a FAQ. The question is answered on BGG and so much for that. Anyone who wants to maintain their own FAQ somewhere is free to.
Logged

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1343
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #34 on: October 31, 2011, 04:42:08 pm »
0

I can understand the lack of a FAQ/errata though. As long as the questions get answered on forums that's good enough in the end, since anybody who's gonna rules lawyer is prolly gonna check these sorts of places anyway :)

Though trying to claim it was never ambiguous in the first place, when you get into such technicalities over what "it" means that are so subtle that even the person who wrote the cards didn't know for sure until being argued back and forth between different answers a few times... yeah, it was ambiguous. That's okay though, it's pretty hard to write this many lines of text over hundreds of cards without ambiguity. 

So the final final answer is that if I Ironworks an X and then reveal trader and gain a Silver instead, I get no bonus; and if I use Ironworks while Possessing someone, I also get no bonus? Is that right?

I'm trying to think of any other situations where this might apply, I think there aren't any more in existing cards, I can't think of any other cards which would 'prevent you from gaining something' rather than trashing-after-gain. Anyone else got any? While we're on the subject.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2011, 04:45:12 pm by ftl »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6148
  • Respect: +24949
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #35 on: October 31, 2011, 05:00:21 pm »
+2

So the final final answer is that if I Ironworks an X and then reveal trader and gain a Silver instead, I get no bonus; and if I use Ironworks while Possessing someone, I also get no bonus? Is that right?
Yes.
Logged

guided

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 940
  • Respect: +92
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #36 on: October 31, 2011, 06:44:10 pm »
0

It doesn't have to say "If you do..." - 'Gain a card' means 'gain a card' not 'intend to gain a card' If you never gained a card due to ironworks then you get no bonus. The explicit contingency is stated in the BASE game where gaining a card is defined as taking a card from the supply and putting it on your discard pile. (of course with other, newer cards, where that card is placed can differ, but that has nothing to do with this confusion.) Trader doesn't say to gain a card, fulfill all actions and reactions based on that card, then put it back to the supply and instead gain a silver. It states "When you would gain a card...instead, gain a silver" meaning you never gained the original card and all reaction based on gaining that card are no longer in effect. And that, I believe, most accurately reflects Donald's latest interpretation.
You failed so thoroughly to digest what I wrote that I would wonder if you even read it, except that you threw the words "explicit contingency" back in my face in a context where it made absolutely no sense to do so. Suffice it to say you have not understood the subtleties of this issue, and you would do well to settle yourself down and consider it more carefully. Again, the question is what the word "it" in the card text refers to. Donald has ruled that it refers to "the card you gained" rather than "the card you tried to gain".
Logged

Anon79

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 264
  • Respect: +39
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #37 on: October 31, 2011, 10:04:49 pm »
0

Think it's safe to say that the community is quite divided over this issue. And to think, if Trader hadn't come along, perhaps no one may have picked up on the Possession + Ironworks interaction!
Logged

Karrow

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56
  • Respect: +7
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #38 on: October 31, 2011, 11:39:50 pm »
0

For a tournament, whatever the person running the tournament says goes, right or wrong. That is how tournaments work.
And when a tournament is run by those who officially represent Dominion, any ruling made is a de facto official ruling of the official Dominion sanctioning body.  And any dignified tournament afterwards would surely be expected to follow the rulings of the official dominion tournament by default if not stated otherwise.

Everyone I know will take anything you say as an official ruling.  For obvious reasons, you know the design intent of the cards better than anyone.  You've made a great game, you know what you are doing.  I respect that you know what works for the game by a large order of magnitude better than I ever will.  So I'd like to play as you think is best to properly experience what you've created.  Yes, we know, variants are welcome.  But they are variants.  Your word is the official non-variant.  So for a few hours, the official ruling on Ironworks changed.  And like the Kings Court / Throne Room change, the ruling has little impact to the big picture of the game.  We just want to play right, so we just need to know the ruling so we can all play by the same rules.  Then when two different groups get together, we can just play a great game rather than argue what the word "it" means.  (Arguing about the definition of "it" is what the internet is for :)  )

No errata is necessary; nothing is being modified. Everything does what it says it does.

Of course the card and rules are correct.  Some will tell stories of the few hours the Ironworks rules changed, or they may tell stories of some changes on the Throne Room/Kings Court rules.  But the rules have never changed.  The rules are right.  The rules have always been right.  Completely true.  Never mind that the directions on how to follow the rules have changed the way the game is played.  Although it would be nice if we could just change the understanding of the rules for Masquerade.  That part about everyone passing cards at the same time, clearly if one person cannot pass a card then we can not all pass cards at the same time.  So if one person can not pass a card, that part fails in total and no one passes any cards.  You know, not a rule change.  Just a better understanding of what the rules mean.
Logged

guided

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 940
  • Respect: +92
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #39 on: November 01, 2011, 12:24:49 am »
0

For KC & TR, do you mean the change in how Durations are cleaned up on TR & KC chains?
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2852
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #40 on: November 05, 2011, 09:36:16 pm »
0

Fwiw, currently on isotropic you can get draw bonuses and action bonuses and still gain a silver.  I'm 9/10 sure I did so.


I think the reason this is so confusing is because it's a memory question. 

In MtG, I might have a creature that says "tap: Gain an amount of life equal to this creature's power".
I could use that ability, and with MtG's stack you could kill that creature before the ability happens.  So then the question of how much life I need to gain comes up.  0 because the creature is a Nothing-creature now?  Any amount I want since there's an undefined value?  Or did the game store information about that creature and put it somewhere, so that later when we ask this question the game state knows as well as both human players at the table do that the creature had 3 power right before it died?

In MtG, comprehensive rules explicitly explain that the third option is what happens, and explicitly state that the game state itself keeps a record of what things were like right before they ceased to exist.  So in tournament, you gain 3 life.  Even so, people's intuitions go both directions on it, and one of the incorrect rulings a judge has given me in tournament concerned Last Known Information.  (three fifths of the rulings I've gotten from judges in MtG have disagreed with me and turned out to contradict the official rules, so I'm rather unmoved by Karrow's arguments that Dominion would benefit from top-down rulings and errata)


In this situation, I play an Ironworks.  I decide that Ironworks is going to gain me a Great Hall.  The way Trader is written, though, it implies that, at least when it is in the supply or BM, gains always wait a moment to see if someone wants to cancel them.  So the gain a Great Hall event goes on a stack, or waiting area, or something.  Then I get a chance to reveal Traders.  I do, so then the gain a Great hall event is replaced with a gain a silver event.  That replacement means that the gain a Great Hall event is destroyed, and I stick a gain a silver event in its place.  Then I gain a silver, and you go on to the second sentence.
"If it's a green card +1 card, action +1 action, treasure +1$".  It, rather clearly to me, refers to the gain a Great Hall event that was destroyed just a moment ago.  It's referring to the card gained by Ironwork's ability, and since Traders suggests a delay period just before gains actually happen, it got as far as selection.  (you could argue that Traders can swoop in and replace a more general "gain a card costing up to 4$ event", but you'd get the same conclusion I advocate).

However, even though both players at the table know that the card Ironworks is referring to is a Great Hall, the game state itself doesn't know that the card is a Great Hall because the event was destroyed.  Dominion doesn't have a last known information rule, so we can't expect it to remember things that have been completely destroyed.  There's an exception for when cards imply that some sort of data is being stored, like when Outpost implies the game is counting how many extra turns you're taking so that its last sentence can function.  But Ironworks doesn't suggest that kind of exception, the card doesn't function improperly without extra data storage, if you gain a curse with Ironworks it functions the same way that it does when Traders ruins with it so it's just working as intended.

So I agree with Donald X's most recent interpretation.  It seems counterintuitive because Ironworks' ability had to get far along enough to know what bonuses it was planning to get, but the game doesn't have a protocol for making decisions based on objects that have ceased to exist, so by default you don't make the decision because you can't.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6148
  • Respect: +24949
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #41 on: November 05, 2011, 10:14:58 pm »
+2

In MtG, I might have a creature that says "tap: Gain an amount of life equal to this creature's power". I could use that ability, and with MtG's stack you could kill that creature before the ability happens.  So then the question of how much life I need to gain comes up.
As it happens, I am the person who suggested that rule for Magic. Which is to say, as with anything I suggested, I don't know if they got it from me or from someone else with the same suggestion, since I never saw what went on internally; but there was a point when they needed a good rule here and I proposed last known information.

I dodged LKI in Dominion by having cost be the only card stat that can change, and changing it everywhere whenever it changes. If you need to know what types a card has, you always know, because it never changes. If all copies of the card are hidden away in decks, look at the randomizer.

We can't really evaluate how the corresponding situation would go in Magic, without picking a precise phrasing for a Magic card, and you know, it's always going to come down to stuff that isn't part of the actual Dominion question. But I mean, if you have a Demonic Tutor-like card that says "then gain life equal to its CMC" or some such, and Shadow of Doubt stops you from searching, there's no card to refer to the CMC of. For example. Even if Shadow of Doubt also gave you a Silver.
Logged

popsofctown

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5477
  • Respect: +2852
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #42 on: November 05, 2011, 10:44:57 pm »
0

I'm not trying to firmly say that it goes one way or the other in MtG, my main point was to point out where the variety of intuitions is coming from.
Logged

tlloyd

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • Respect: +84
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #43 on: November 10, 2011, 03:54:50 pm »
0

The key is, Trader does not replace "what you were getting" with Silver; it replaces "you getting something" with a new event, which happens to be you getting Silver.

If I play Goons, buy a copper, then reveal Trader and gain a silver instead, do I still get the VP? Or does the "gain a silver" event replace the "buying a copper" event? I would expect the answer is I do get the VP, since that is triggered by buying the copper, which I've already done before I can gain it. Since the Trader is triggered by "about-to-gain," it only replaces the "gain a copper" event, not the "buy a copper event." Right?
Logged

Karrow

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56
  • Respect: +7
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #44 on: November 10, 2011, 04:01:58 pm »
0

The key is, Trader does not replace "what you were getting" with Silver; it replaces "you getting something" with a new event, which happens to be you getting Silver.

If I play Goons, buy a copper, then reveal Trader and gain a silver instead, do I still get the VP? Or does the "gain a silver" event replace the "buying a copper" event? I would expect the answer is I do get the VP, since that is triggered by buying the copper, which I've already done before I can gain it. Since the Trader is triggered by "about-to-gain," it only replaces the "gain a copper" event, not the "buy a copper event." Right?

I'd say you are right.  This was about something else, but from this quote from Donald X here it's pretty clear.

Subtle but important point: when you "buy" a card, you subsequently "gain" it. In other words, the gaining comes strictly after the buying. No, this isn't stated in any of the rulebooks, but it's implied by the Mint FAQ in the Prosperity rulebook, and it's been explicitly confirmed by official tester Jeff Wolfe on BGG.

Here's one example of why it matters: Suppose you play Royal Seal, then buy a Mint. The Mint's "when you buy" effect triggers, trashing the Royal Seal. Then you gain the Mint, but since the Royal Seal is no longer in play its "when you gain" effect can't be used to put the Mint on top of your deck.
I am just here to back this up. Buying happens before gaining. Possession should make it clear that gaining and buying are different, in addition to some cards saying gain and some saying buy, and this distinction is at least mentioned in a sidebar in one of the rulebooks.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=261.msg3214#msg3214
Logged

rinkworks

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1316
  • Respect: +936
    • View Profile
    • RinkWorks
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #45 on: November 10, 2011, 04:23:10 pm »
0

Likewise, I suppose that if you bought a Festival, then used Trader to gain a Silver instead, and you did all this while Haggler was in play, you'd get to gain a card from the Haggler (since it's an on-buy) and the gained card could be less than $5 rather than less than $3.

Complicated.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6148
  • Respect: +24949
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #46 on: November 10, 2011, 04:25:43 pm »
0

If I play Goons, buy a copper, then reveal Trader and gain a silver instead, do I still get the VP? Or does the "gain a silver" event replace the "buying a copper" event? I would expect the answer is I do get the VP, since that is triggered by buying the copper, which I've already done before I can gain it. Since the Trader is triggered by "about-to-gain," it only replaces the "gain a copper" event, not the "buy a copper event." Right?
Yes, you get the VP. You bought a Copper.

You could for example play Haggler, buy Mint, trash your treasures from play, gain a card costing less than Mint via Haggler, and still Trader the Mint into a Silver.
Logged

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1855
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #47 on: November 10, 2011, 04:26:58 pm »
0

I also recall reading about the importance of the buy vs. gain distinction in Donald's secret history of the Hinterlands cards; there was a case where Farmland's on-buy effect previously triggered on-gain, which would allow players to gain multiple Farmlands in a turn from just buying 1.
Logged

tlloyd

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • Respect: +84
    • View Profile
Re: Ironworks + Trader
« Reply #48 on: November 10, 2011, 04:38:12 pm »
0

I also recall reading about the importance of the buy vs. gain distinction in Donald's secret history of the Hinterlands cards; there was a case where Farmland's on-buy effect previously triggered on-gain, which would allow players to gain multiple Farmlands in a turn from just buying 1.

I actually am disappointed you can't do that very thing (though I don't doubt Donald made the right call). First time I played with Farmland I had a turn with $6 to spend and three or four $4 cards in hand--that coulda been awesome!
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [All]
 

Page created in 0.439 seconds with 22 queries.