Print

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

[KingZog3]

On another note, a card that attacks next turn is a bad idea, since it's hard to track whether each player revealed a Moat when you first played it.

It's less confusing than processioning a duration card.

[eHalcyon]

On another note, a card that attacks next turn is a bad idea, since it's hard to track whether each player revealed a Moat when you first played it.

It's less confusing than processioning a duration card.

No it isn't.  With Procession, you leave a Procession out as a reminder.  There's nothing to leave out to indicate Moat status.

And even if it is, that's not a great excuse anyway.

[KingZog3]

On another note, a card that attacks next turn is a bad idea, since it's hard to track whether each player revealed a Moat when you first played it.

It's less confusing than processioning a duration card.

No it isn't.  With Procession, you leave a Procession out as a reminder.  There's nothing to leave out to indicate Moat status.

And even if it is, that's not a great excuse anyway.

There isn't a way to tell which card was processioned if there are two durations in the supply. I do agree with you that it's not a great idea (even if that was my submission), but it's not a terrible idea either. Saying it's too straining on your memory to remember if you revealed a moat is a poor excuse against it. There are many other more complex things. Procession Band of Misfits, there's no reminder to what I played it as, and Possession doesn't stay out to remind me how many I played. What if I played 5 Possessions? There's nothing to indicate I need to take 5 extra turns.

[AJD]

On another note, a card that attacks next turn is a bad idea, since it's hard to track whether each player revealed a Moat when you first played it.

It's less confusing than processioning a duration card.

No it isn't.  With Procession, you leave a Procession out as a reminder.  There's nothing to leave out to indicate Moat status.

And even if it is, that's not a great excuse anyway.

There isn't a way to tell which card was processioned if there are two durations in the supply. I do agree with you that it's not a great idea (even if that was my submission), but it's not a terrible idea either. Saying it's too straining on your memory to remember if you revealed a moat is a poor excuse against it.

Another strike against Duration–Attack is that people who didn't read the FAQ will try to reveal Moat on the second turn, when the attack takes effect. This strike also exists for e.g. Noble Brigand, though, so it needn't be fatal to a card.

(And, um, I can't quite figure out how Duration–Attack would interact with Lighthouse, either.)

[scott_pilgrim]

On another note, a card that attacks next turn is a bad idea, since it's hard to track whether each player revealed a Moat when you first played it.

It's less confusing than processioning a duration card.

No it isn't.  With Procession, you leave a Procession out as a reminder.  There's nothing to leave out to indicate Moat status.

And even if it is, that's not a great excuse anyway.

There isn't a way to tell which card was processioned if there are two durations in the supply. I do agree with you that it's not a great idea (even if that was my submission), but it's not a terrible idea either. Saying it's too straining on your memory to remember if you revealed a moat is a poor excuse against it.

Another strike against Duration–Attack is that people who didn't read the FAQ will try to reveal Moat on the second turn, when the attack takes effect. This strike also exists for e.g. Noble Brigand, though, so it needn't be fatal to a card.

(And, um, I can't quite figure out how Duration–Attack would interact with Lighthouse, either.)

I think it seems clear from the wording on Lighthouse that it would need to be in play when the Attack card is played in order to block it.  It says "While this is in play, when another player plays an attack card..."  So was the attack card played while Lighthouse was in play?  If not, then Lighthouse can't block it.

Similarly, I wouldn't think there's any ambiguity at all with Moat, even if you never read the FAQ.  It very clearly says right on the card "When another players plays an attack card, you may reveal..."  Did another player just play an attack card?  If not, then you can't reveal it.

[lehmacdj]

Similarly, I wouldn't think there's any ambiguity at all with Moat, even if you never read the FAQ.  It very clearly says right on the card "When another players plays an attack card, you may reveal..."  Did another player just play an attack card?  If not, then you can't reveal it.

Well, probably not everyone reads cards carefully.  I'm sure some people play Dominion just as a family game and not at all competitively.  Dominion really should try to thwart ambiguity that could confuse such people.

[StrongRhino]

Sent my card in (see, no mint mine jokes here). It's pretty wild and crazy, and put it in over a safe card. I do agree with the apparent sentiment here that Durations should have a good reason to be a duration.

[scott_pilgrim]

Similarly, I wouldn't think there's any ambiguity at all with Moat, even if you never read the FAQ.  It very clearly says right on the card "When another players plays an attack card, you may reveal..."  Did another player just play an attack card?  If not, then you can't reveal it.

Well, probably not everyone reads cards carefully.  I'm sure some people play Dominion just as a family game and not at all competitively.  Dominion really should try to thwart ambiguity that could confuse such people.

Yeah, but there are all sorts of things like this that require you to go back to precise wording in Dominion, or even worse (Ironworks+Trader).  Even if you're just talking about base Dominion, a lot of casual players find Throne Room+Feast to be confusing.  If you have a good idea for a Duration-Attack I wouldn't kill it just because its interactions with Moat and Lighthouse might confuse some casual players.  I can't see a Duration-Attack being anywhere near as crazy rules-wise as Possession or Band of Misfits.

[lehmacdj]

Similarly, I wouldn't think there's any ambiguity at all with Moat, even if you never read the FAQ.  It very clearly says right on the card "When another players plays an attack card, you may reveal..."  Did another player just play an attack card?  If not, then you can't reveal it.

Well, probably not everyone reads cards carefully.  I'm sure some people play Dominion just as a family game and not at all competitively.  Dominion really should try to thwart ambiguity that could confuse such people.

Yeah, but there are all sorts of things like this that require you to go back to precise wording in Dominion, or even worse (Ironworks+Trader).  Even if you're just talking about base Dominion, a lot of casual players find Throne Room+Feast to be confusing.  If you have a good idea for a Duration-Attack I wouldn't kill it just because its interactions with Moat and Lighthouse might confuse some casual players.  I can't see a Duration-Attack being anywhere near as crazy rules-wise as Possession or Band of Misfits.

I see your point.  I still think duration attacks are generally a little to confusing.  I mean in the rules it says that anything that modifies a duration stays out and wouldn't a moat or a lighthouse modify that duration attack by making it affect the player.  If this is the case should it stay in play as well?  I don't think that the rules confusion really makes it so worth it (I don't really have to many good ideas for one though).

[werothegreat]

One way to make a Duration-Attack work would be to only have it attack on the turn its played.

[KingZog3]

One way to make a Duration-Attack work would be to only have it attack on the turn its played.

That works of course. But the attack would be the point of the card. If it's on the turn you play it, then the duration part might feel tacked on.

[sudgy]

One way to make a Duration-Attack work would be to only have it attack on the turn its played.

That works of course. But the attack would be the point of the card. If it's on the turn you play it, then the duration part might feel tacked on.

Eh, it could work.

Card
Action - Attack - Duration
Each other player discards down to three cards in hand.
At the start of your next turn, +2 Cards.

You draw the cards they discarded, or something.

[LastFootnote]

One way to make a Duration-Attack work would be to only have it attack on the turn its played.

That works of course. But the attack would be the point of the card. If it's on the turn you play it, then the duration part might feel tacked on.

Or it might feel thematic.

[eHalcyon]

Out of curiosity, are we planning on using the official expansion symbols on these cards, or making a brand new Treasure Chest expansion symbol?  Or maybe both?

[AJD]

(And, um, I can't quite figure out how Duration–Attack would interact with Lighthouse, either.)

I think it seems clear from the wording on Lighthouse that it would need to be in play when the Attack card is played in order to block it.  It says "While this is in play, when another player plays an attack card..."  So was the attack card played while Lighthouse was in play?  If not, then Lighthouse can't block it.

So, what Lighthouse says is "While this is in play, when another player plays an Attack card, it doesn't affect you."

Suppose we've got an Attack–Duration that attacks on the second turn—say, "Armada: Now and at the beginning of your next turn, each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand" or something. You play Armada while I have Lighthouse in play. Armada doesn't affect me at the moment; I don't discard.

Now your next turn comes around. I no longer have Lighthouse in play and Armada tries to make me discard again. What happens? Does the Lighthouse from the previous turn block it? Arguably not! Lighthouse says it has its blocking effect while it's in play, when an Attack is played—and neither of those conditions obtains! Armada is having an effect at a time other than when it's played, and Lighthouse doesn't say anything about blocking effects of Attack cards that take place other than when they're played.

(The counterargument to this, of course, is based on the fact that the next-turn effects of a Duration card are still considered to be on-play effects of the card, activated in principle when the card is played but delayed in their realization; but this depends on a strained interpretation of "affect".)

[LastFootnote]

Just a heads-up: I won't have the Seaside ballot (or the Dark Ages results) up until at least this afternoon, possibly this evening. Thanks for your patience!

[XerxesPraelor]

Now I'll miss the Grand Opening because I'll be asleep.

Actually, I think it's good. I won't be wanting to relook every half-hour this way.

[scott_pilgrim]

(And, um, I can't quite figure out how Duration–Attack would interact with Lighthouse, either.)

I think it seems clear from the wording on Lighthouse that it would need to be in play when the Attack card is played in order to block it.  It says "While this is in play, when another player plays an attack card..."  So was the attack card played while Lighthouse was in play?  If not, then Lighthouse can't block it.

So, what Lighthouse says is "While this is in play, when another player plays an Attack card, it doesn't affect you."

Suppose we've got an Attack–Duration that attacks on the second turn—say, "Armada: Now and at the beginning of your next turn, each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand" or something. You play Armada while I have Lighthouse in play. Armada doesn't affect me at the moment; I don't discard.

Now your next turn comes around. I no longer have Lighthouse in play and Armada tries to make me discard again. What happens? Does the Lighthouse from the previous turn block it? Arguably not! Lighthouse says it has its blocking effect while it's in play, when an Attack is played—and neither of those conditions obtains! Armada is having an effect at a time other than when it's played, and Lighthouse doesn't say anything about blocking effects of Attack cards that take place other than when they're played.

(The counterargument to this, of course, is based on the fact that the next-turn effects of a Duration card are still considered to be on-play effects of the card, activated in principle when the card is played but delayed in their realization; but this depends on a strained interpretation of "affect".)

You're right, that's not as trivial as I had assumed.  I would still think it would block both turns, but I can see the argument against that too.

[werothegreat]

Moat et al. block an Attack "when it is played."  Not when it activates, or anything like that.  A Duration-Attack blocked by Moat et al. when first played will Attack neither turn, but by the same token, if it is not blocked when first played, it will Attack both turns, even if the opponent plays a Lighthouse in the meantime.

[Schneau]

(And, um, I can't quite figure out how Duration–Attack would interact with Lighthouse, either.)

I think it seems clear from the wording on Lighthouse that it would need to be in play when the Attack card is played in order to block it.  It says "While this is in play, when another player plays an attack card..."  So was the attack card played while Lighthouse was in play?  If not, then Lighthouse can't block it.

So, what Lighthouse says is "While this is in play, when another player plays an Attack card, it doesn't affect you."

Suppose we've got an Attack–Duration that attacks on the second turn—say, "Armada: Now and at the beginning of your next turn, each other player discards down to 4 cards in hand" or something. You play Armada while I have Lighthouse in play. Armada doesn't affect me at the moment; I don't discard.

Now your next turn comes around. I no longer have Lighthouse in play and Armada tries to make me discard again. What happens? Does the Lighthouse from the previous turn block it? Arguably not! Lighthouse says it has its blocking effect while it's in play, when an Attack is played—and neither of those conditions obtains! Armada is having an effect at a time other than when it's played, and Lighthouse doesn't say anything about blocking effects of Attack cards that take place other than when they're played.

(The counterargument to this, of course, is based on the fact that the next-turn effects of a Duration card are still considered to be on-play effects of the card, activated in principle when the card is played but delayed in their realization; but this depends on a strained interpretation of "affect".)

I have to say, this seems wrong, which I'm surprised at considering how much a stickler for rules AJD is. Let's first consider a plain Action-Duration like Merchant Ship. When you play Merchant Ship, it says:

Now and at the start of your next turn: +$2.

The effects of Merchant Ship happen when it is played. This includes the +$2 now, but also the +$2 next turn. If you do not play Merchant Ship, you will surely not get +$2 from it. It doesn't matter if it's in your hand, or you discard it, or whatever; the only time you get its effects is when you play it. It just so happens that some of Merchant Ship's effects happen next turn. This is not unique to Duration cards to have some of a card's on-play effects happen at a time besides exactly when it is played. Scheme is such an example, since it affects something at the start of your Clean-up. So is Possession, which affects the player on your left's next turn.

Now let's consider the Action-Duration-Attack Armada that AJD proposed. I'd say that the effects of the card happen when it is played, and just like other durations, this includes the effects that happen next turn. So, let's look at Lighthouse again.

While this is in play, when another player plays an Attack card, it doesn't affect you.

If I have a Lighthouse in play and you play an Armada, Lighthouse says that I'm not affected by Armada. By my interpretation, this definitely means that Armada's effects won't affect me this turn or next turn, since they were triggered when you played Armada. Same goes for Moat.

I think to convince me that Lighthouse shouldn't block the next-turn affects of Armada, you'd have to convince me that the next-turn affects aren't triggered when the card is played. But, that seems weird -- how else would you define when they are triggered?


P.S. In the end, the actual answer here might be outside of what is provably true given the rules of Dominion as they are stated. I think either way, a Duration-Attack could be fine, and could just clarify the interactions in a rules-book type rules clarification.

[SirPeebles]

I agree with Schneau.  It is more clear with Moat.  If you play Armada and I reveal Moat now, then I will not have to discard on either turn.  If you play Armada, on turn 3, then I cannot simply reveal a Moat at the start of your turn 4 to block the "second half" of the attack.  I'm pretty sure that Lighthouse would function the same way.  Armada tries to set up this multipronged attack right when played, but that entire plot is foiled if there is a Lighthouse.

[soulnet]

What about something like?

Curfew: Action/Duration/Attack (who cares about the cost)
Now, and at the beginning of next turn:
+$1
---
While this is in play, when another player does its clean-up phase, they draw 4 cards instead of 5.

With Moat, it seems clear that revealing means you are unaffected, because Moat says that you are not affected. But with Lighthouse, there is a "While this is in play", meaning that when it is out of play, you are not protected, and also, it says "plays an Attack". Thus, I think Lighthouse would not protect against Curfew if in play when Curfew is played, nor if in play when you do the "reduced draw" clean-up Curfew prescribes.

[werothegreat]

What about something like?

Curfew: Action/Duration/Attack (who cares about the cost)
Now, and at the beginning of next turn:
+$1
---
While this is in play, when another player does its clean-up phase, they draw 4 cards instead of 5.

With Moat, it seems clear that revealing means you are unaffected, because Moat says that you are not affected. But with Lighthouse, there is a "While this is in play", meaning that when it is out of play, you are not protected, and also, it says "plays an Attack". Thus, I think Lighthouse would not protect against Curfew if in play when Curfew is played, nor if in play when you do the "reduced draw" clean-up Curfew prescribes.

But its only the *playing* of Curfew that matters to Moat and Lighthouse.  Compare with Minion and Pirate Ship - even if you don't choose the Attack, you still played an Attack, and they can still reveal a Reaction.

[markusin]

What about something like?

Curfew: Action/Duration/Attack (who cares about the cost)
Now, and at the beginning of next turn:
+$1
---
While this is in play, when another player does its clean-up phase, they draw 4 cards instead of 5.

With Moat, it seems clear that revealing means you are unaffected, because Moat says that you are not affected. But with Lighthouse, there is a "While this is in play", meaning that when it is out of play, you are not protected, and also, it says "plays an Attack". Thus, I think Lighthouse would not protect against Curfew if in play when Curfew is played, nor if in play when you do the "reduced draw" clean-up Curfew prescribes.

But its only the *playing* of Curfew that matters to Moat and Lighthouse.  Compare with Minion and Pirate Ship - even if you don't choose the Attack, you still played an Attack, and they can still reveal a Reaction.

I'm gonna have to agree here. If you play Curfew while your opponent has Lighthouse is in play, the Lighthouse grants your opponent immunity to the attack because you played the attack while it was in play. Lighthouse doesn't say "...when an effect caused by your opponent's attack card would affect you, you are unaffected by it".

[AJD]

A few points I want to make:

• I don't mean to actually claim that 'Lighthouse doesn't block the second-turn effects of Duration–Attacks' is the correct interpretation of the rules—just that it's not obviously incorrect. I think plausible arguments can be made both ways, and in fact both interpretations may be compatible with the official rules. I agree with Schneau that a rule-book clarification would probably be needed.

• This argument doesn't apply to Moat, because Moat and Lighthouse have slightly different wording as regards timing. With Lighthouse, what happens when an Attack is played is that the Attack doesn't affect you. What happens with Moat when an Attack is played is just that you reveal the Moat. If you do reveal the Moat, then you're told "you are unaffected by the Attack", but that clause isn't bound to any specific time.

• As a point of meta-game logic, it's certainly desirable for Lighthouse and Moat to block attacks in the same way, but for the purposes of this discussion I'm talking about what the cards and rules say, not what they should say. (It would also be desirable for Throne Room and King's Court to work the same way, but that ship has sailed and I think Donald made the right call when designing King's Court.)

• The same questions arise when Attacks have while-in-play effects. Actually the rules questions might get even hairier here. Suppose Goons were "while this is in play, when you buy a card, each other player takes a –1VP token." If you Throne Room your mirror-universe Goons and I reveal Moat the first time but not the second time, do I have to take –1VP tokens when you buy a card?

• Schneau says:

I think to convince me that Lighthouse shouldn't block the next-turn affects of Armada, you'd have to convince me that the next-turn affects aren't triggered when the card is played.

I disagree. They're certainly "triggered" when the card is played; the key point is whether they "affect you" at the same time as when they're "triggered".