Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Ironworks + Trader  (Read 18345 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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: 6150
  • Respect: +24953
    • 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: 6150
  • Respect: +24953
    • 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: 6150
  • Respect: +24953
    • 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: 6150
  • Respect: +24953
    • 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 0.084 seconds with 22 queries.