Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Would gain  (Read 3051 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6476
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7861
    • View Profile
Would gain
« on: August 28, 2013, 09:56:46 am »
0

So I was trying to come up with a (bad) card idea that would interrupt the process of trying to gain a card when a player cannot (like, the pile is empty).  I tried the wording "when another player would gain a card," but someone pointed out that the condition wouldn't be satisfied in the case when they're supposed to gain, say, a Curse when the Curse pile is empty.  I guess I can believe that, but what is the actual process of gaining a card?  Is there a "trying to gain" step?
Logged

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: Would gain
« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2013, 10:08:45 am »
0

Perhaps "when another player is instructed to gain a card" would work.  Although that possibly excludes gains from buying.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

pst

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 584
  • Respect: +906
    • View Profile
Re: Would gain
« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2013, 10:13:29 am »
0

"Would gain" is not new for that card; it's what Trader says!

See the FAQ.
Logged

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6476
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7861
    • View Profile
Re: Would gain
« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2013, 10:19:38 am »
0

"Would gain" is not new for that card; it's what Trader says!

See the FAQ.

I know "Would Gain" isn't new.  The issue is, e.g., if my opponent plays a Witch and the Curse pile is empty and I have a Trader, can I reveal it?
Logged

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6476
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7861
    • View Profile
Re: Would gain
« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2013, 10:22:46 am »
0

So actually that is addressed in the FAQ as well:

Quote
19.2 "When would"

An ability that happens when an event would occur (such as when you would gain a card), happens before the event actually occurs (before you gain the card). Note however that this ability can only happen if the event would have otherwise occurred, i.e. if the event would have occurred if no when-would abilities had interfered (so you cannot for instance trigger a when-would-gain ability when "trying" to gain a card that's not available in Supply)

So in the example above you can't reveal Trader. 

So then the issue is, is there actually a step before "When-would-gain" that tests whether or not the gaining is possible?  There should be, because you have to actually try to do it to realize you can't do it.  Would Peebles' wording work?
« Last Edit: August 28, 2013, 10:27:39 am by Witherweaver »
Logged

Drab Emordnilap

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1832
  • Shuffle iT Username: Drab Emordnilap
  • Luther Bell Hendricks V
  • Respect: +1886
    • View Profile
Re: Would gain
« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2013, 10:47:23 am »
0

"When a player fails to gain a card"?
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Would gain
« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2013, 10:53:50 am »
0

I like "when instructed to gain a card" best. If you want to cover buying as well, then you can add that in as an "or"... "when a player buys a card, or is instructed to gain a card..."
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

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6476
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7861
    • View Profile
Re: Would gain
« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2013, 10:58:21 am »
0

"When a player fails to gain a card"?

That wouldn't actually work, since it wouldn't resolve until after the gaining process is done.  For reference, in the Really Bad Card Ideas post I wanted to make a card like:

"<When attempts to gain happen or whatever> you may reveal this from your hand.  If you do, return a card from your hand to the supply."

I originally used "Would gain," but according to the Trader's clarification, when-would-gain isn't satisfied when you try to gain a card that has an empty supply pile (since you would not have gained it).  I wasn't aware of this ruling before, so it may me wonder about the rules of timing issues.

Perhaps "When another player tries to gain a card" is best.  Would that trigger if a player, say, Upgraded a Copper when there are no $1 cards in the kingdom (i.e., a separate case from the Poor House pile existing but being empty)?  I would say yes, but maybe someone could argue semantics against it. 
Logged

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6476
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7861
    • View Profile
Re: Would gain
« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2013, 11:04:03 am »
0

I like "when instructed to gain a card" best. If you want to cover buying as well, then you can add that in as an "or"... "when a player buys a card, or is instructed to gain a card..."

I think that works.
Logged

Drab Emordnilap

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1832
  • Shuffle iT Username: Drab Emordnilap
  • Luther Bell Hendricks V
  • Respect: +1886
    • View Profile
Re: Would gain
« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2013, 12:28:46 pm »
0

"Whenever a player should gain a card"?
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: Would gain
« Reply #10 on: August 28, 2013, 01:30:59 pm »
0

I don't think there's any clean terminology that does what you want without engendering a lot of rules confusion from the mainstream player.

Trying to create a card that does this reminds me of this passage:

Quote from: Douglas Adams
The technology involved in making something properly invisible is so mind-bogglingly complex that 999,999,999 times out of a billion it's simpler just to take the thing away and do without it.
Logged

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6476
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7861
    • View Profile
Re: Would gain
« Reply #11 on: August 28, 2013, 01:52:53 pm »
0

I don't think there's any clean terminology that does what you want without engendering a lot of rules confusion from the mainstream player.

Trying to create a card that does this reminds me of this passage:

Quote from: Douglas Adams
The technology involved in making something properly invisible is so mind-bogglingly complex that 999,999,999 times out of a billion it's simpler just to take the thing away and do without it.

Haha, I actually only thought of it for the bad card ideas.  Precisely because it would be annoying and invoke a lot of technical rule stipulations when you (try to) play it.

(I named it Annoying Technical Card)
Logged

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: Would gain
« Reply #12 on: August 28, 2013, 03:29:11 pm »
0

I don't think there's any clean terminology that does what you want without engendering a lot of rules confusion from the mainstream player.

Trying to create a card that does this reminds me of this passage:

Quote from: Douglas Adams
The technology involved in making something properly invisible is so mind-bogglingly complex that 999,999,999 times out of a billion it's simpler just to take the thing away and do without it.

Well, this is for a really bad card idea.  If it were for an honest card, then the wording is even less of a concern, since this is simply a poor event to attach a reaction to.  I usually play with people I trust, and don't scrutinize every move.  Published reaction cards, which react to events triggered during an opponent's turn, are always attached to events which require me to do something, and therefore require my momentary attention.  For instance, if an opponent plays an Attack card, I'm going to have to do something anyhow, giving me a chance to react with Moat, Secret Chamber, Horse Traders, or Beggar (or bane).  If I suddenly gain something that also requires my attention, and thus I can reveal Trader.  If I'm made to discard or trash, then again my attention is drawn to the game, so I can reveal Tunnel or Market Square.

The main exceptions that I see are Attack cards with a non-interactive choice, like Pirate Ship or Minion for money.  But probably, if there were a clean way of presenting the rules, Donald would have preferred that you not reveal reactions in those scenarios.  The other exception is Fool's Gold, but usually an opponent gaining a Province is a significant enough event that I will notice it.

As for this hypothetical card, it is especially taxing to watch for even nonevents when cards are failed to be gained.  I mean, when I trash Copper with Remake or Upgrade, I usually don't even consciously acknowledge that I've failed to gain a $1 card.  It is just sort of hard coded into my mental understanding that while they upgrade most cards, that they just freebie trash Copper and Curse, with Poor House being some strange rule bending card.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

Witherweaver

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6476
  • Shuffle iT Username: Witherweaver
  • Respect: +7861
    • View Profile
Re: Would gain
« Reply #13 on: August 28, 2013, 05:34:14 pm »
0

I don't think there's any clean terminology that does what you want without engendering a lot of rules confusion from the mainstream player.

Trying to create a card that does this reminds me of this passage:

Quote from: Douglas Adams
The technology involved in making something properly invisible is so mind-bogglingly complex that 999,999,999 times out of a billion it's simpler just to take the thing away and do without it.

Well, this is for a really bad card idea.  If it were for an honest card, then the wording is even less of a concern, since this is simply a poor event to attach a reaction to.  I usually play with people I trust, and don't scrutinize every move.  Published reaction cards, which react to events triggered during an opponent's turn, are always attached to events which require me to do something, and therefore require my momentary attention.  For instance, if an opponent plays an Attack card, I'm going to have to do something anyhow, giving me a chance to react with Moat, Secret Chamber, Horse Traders, or Beggar (or bane).  If I suddenly gain something that also requires my attention, and thus I can reveal Trader.  If I'm made to discard or trash, then again my attention is drawn to the game, so I can reveal Tunnel or Market Square.

The main exceptions that I see are Attack cards with a non-interactive choice, like Pirate Ship or Minion for money.  But probably, if there were a clean way of presenting the rules, Donald would have preferred that you not reveal reactions in those scenarios.  The other exception is Fool's Gold, but usually an opponent gaining a Province is a significant enough event that I will notice it.

As for this hypothetical card, it is especially taxing to watch for even nonevents when cards are failed to be gained.  I mean, when I trash Copper with Remake or Upgrade, I usually don't even consciously acknowledge that I've failed to gain a $1 card.  It is just sort of hard coded into my mental understanding that while they upgrade most cards, that they just freebie trash Copper and Curse, with Poor House being some strange rule bending card.

So the name was apt!
Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.095 seconds with 20 queries.