Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: gain prohibition with Knights  (Read 12670 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1751
    • View Profile
gain prohibition with Knights
« on: November 11, 2013, 10:38:39 am »
0

There has been plenty of discussion (mostly on the Variants and Fan Cards subforum) on why prohibitting gaining is a bad idea. Clashing of rules occur when one card says "Gain a Duchy" and another says "Duchies cannot be Gained".

However, the rules seem to state that all Knights are in the supply but only the top-one can be gained. So, what happens if I Upgrade or Remake a $4 cost and there are no other $5 costs in the supply and Sir Martin is the top Knight? The card is telling me to do something (gain a $5 from the Supply) and there are $5s in the supply, but the DA rules tell me those $5s cannot be gained. Moreover, I assume as usual that rules on cards take priority over rules on the rulebook, but I am also pretty sure that the intended behavior is that you do not gain Knights not on top. Same thing if Sir Martin is not on top and something makes you gain him (like Upgrading a $3 and there are no other $4s in the supply).

This I think is a small loophole in the rules, but also, it shows that prohibiting gaining is confusing, but not the worse idea ever.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: gain prohibition with Knights
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2013, 11:07:08 am »
+5

The non-top Knights are not considered to be "in the Supply" for the purposes of game mechanics. Otherwise you could use Band of Misfits as Sir Martin even when it was buried somewhere in the Knights pile. The Band of Misfits FAQ states that you cannot do this.

I tentatively agree that you could have an effect that forbids gaining certain cards, but you'd have to specify in the rules what that means. It more or less would mean that the given card(s) are not in the Supply for the purposes of gaining.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2013, 11:09:25 am by LastFootnote »
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4995
  • Respect: +5345
    • View Profile
Re: gain prohibition with Knights
« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2014, 12:31:30 pm »
+3

I don't think prohibiting gaining is that hard to do. Just translate "Duchies cannot be gained" to "When you would gain a Duchy, gain nothing instead".
We allready have that situation with Trader and an empty Silver pile, just here it's forced. Trader rules (which are, admittedly, confusing sometimes) apply.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12849
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: gain prohibition with Knights
« Reply #3 on: February 20, 2014, 01:33:43 pm »
+4

I don't think there is anything wrong with "you can't gain this". According to the rules, when you play a card, you follow the instructions and do everything you can do. So, if you play an Upgrade, trash a Copper and the only $1 card says "you can't gain this", you check if you can draw a card - it's possible so you do it. Then you check if you can get an action - it's possible so you do it. Then you check if you can trash a card from your hand - it's possible so you do it. Then you check if you can gain a card costing exactly $1 more than the trashed card - you can't, because there isn't a $1 card in the supply that you can gain, so you don't gain anything.

Moat and Lighthouse work this way, too.

I don't see where's the problem.

EDIT: Of course, you would probably need a FAQ explaining this.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2014, 01:34:45 pm by Awaclus »
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: gain prohibition with Knights
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2014, 11:05:08 am »
+1

There is a potential issue with priority, especially with "In games using..." or "While this card is in play..." clauses.

Consider a duration card called Barricade.  While you have a Barricade in play, you cannot gain Curses or Ruins.  Now, there are various ways of gaining.  Presumably if an opponent plays a Witch, you won't gain the Curse.  Seems to be what was intended.  But what if I buy a Curse?  The wording looks like I could spend a bunch of buys on Curses while my Goons stack is in play, but not gain any Curses.  What if I buy something that is embargoed, do I gain a Curse then?  What if I buy Death Cart, do I gain the Ruins?  What if I have a Haggler in play and buy a Poor House while the Copper pile is empty?

That last one seems especially thorny.  Does Barricade trump Haggler, or does Haggler trump Barricade?  Does it which one I played first?
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1751
    • View Profile
Re: gain prohibition with Knights
« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2014, 11:10:43 am »
0

There is a potential issue with priority, especially with "In games using..." or "While this card is in play..." clauses.

Consider a duration card called Barricade.  While you have a Barricade in play, you cannot gain Curses or Ruins.  Now, there are various ways of gaining.  Presumably if an opponent plays a Witch, you won't gain the Curse.  Seems to be what was intended.  But what if I buy a Curse?  The wording looks like I could spend a bunch of buys on Curses while my Goons stack is in play, but not gain any Curses.  What if I buy something that is embargoed, do I gain a Curse then?  What if I buy Death Cart, do I gain the Ruins?  What if I have a Haggler in play and buy a Poor House while the Copper pile is empty?

That last one seems especially thorny.  Does Barricade trump Haggler, or does Haggler trump Barricade?  Does it which one I played first?

This was my point on why it is bad to prohibit gains. Similarly, you cannot forcet to buy something, because it could conflict with Contraband's prohibition. If I were designing a card with a gain prevention/prohibition, I would probably cancel or replace the gain a la Trader instead.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12849
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: gain prohibition with Knights
« Reply #6 on: March 02, 2014, 12:04:09 pm »
+2

There is a potential issue with priority, especially with "In games using..." or "While this card is in play..." clauses.

Consider a duration card called Barricade.  While you have a Barricade in play, you cannot gain Curses or Ruins.  Now, there are various ways of gaining.  Presumably if an opponent plays a Witch, you won't gain the Curse.  Seems to be what was intended.  But what if I buy a Curse?  The wording looks like I could spend a bunch of buys on Curses while my Goons stack is in play, but not gain any Curses.  What if I buy something that is embargoed, do I gain a Curse then?  What if I buy Death Cart, do I gain the Ruins?  What if I have a Haggler in play and buy a Poor House while the Copper pile is empty?

That last one seems especially thorny.  Does Barricade trump Haggler, or does Haggler trump Barricade?  Does it which one I played first?
The relevant rules are:

"He announces which card he is playing and follows the instructions written on that card from top to bottom. The player may still play an Action card even if he is not able to do everything the Action card tells him to do; but the player must do as much as he can." - Base game rulebook

"The instructions written on all the action cards alter the rules of the game by, for example, allowing the player to draw more cards from his Deck, play more Action cards in the Action phase, use more coins for the Buy phase, Buy extra cards in the Buy phase, and so on." - Base game rulebook

The instructions on the card alter the rules of the game, so if you buy a Curse, you won't gain a Curse. You could spend a bunch of buys on Curses while your Goons stack is in play, but not gain any Curses.

If you buy something that is embargoed, you follow Embargo's instructions. Because you can't gain Curses, you are not able to do everything Embargo tells you to do; but you must do as much as you can - nothing, that is.

If you buy Death Cart, you follow Death Cart's instructions. Because you can't gain Ruins, you are not able to do everything Death Cart tells you to do.

If you buy a Poor House while you have a Haggler in play, you follow Haggler's instructions. Because you can't gain Ruins or Curses and the Copper pile is empty, you are not able to do everything Haggler tells you to do.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1751
    • View Profile
Re: gain prohibition with Knights
« Reply #7 on: March 02, 2014, 12:33:45 pm »
+1

You could interpret that Death Cart alters the rules of the game, thus making you gain a Ruins, even though there was a previous alteration of the rules that said you could not do such a thing.

It is clear that rules on the card take precedence over rules on the rulebooks, and that physical possibility take precedence over both (thus, you cannot draw from empty deck, gain from empty supply pile, etc). However, there should be no contradiction between rules in the same level of precedence, or otherwise a way to resolve precedence needs to be stated.

For instance, in arithmetic, sum and subtraction have the same precedence. So there is an additional rule of left-most operator taking precedence as tie-breaker, to uniquely define whether 3-2+1 is equal to 2 or 0.

EDIT: To answer a previous claim, I think Moat and Lighthouse "you are unaffected" is also poorly specified, but it is pretty clear and stated in the FAQ that the unaffection (?) takes precedence over the instructions in the Attack card.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2014, 12:36:33 pm by soulnet »
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12849
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: gain prohibition with Knights
« Reply #8 on: March 02, 2014, 02:26:42 pm »
0

You could interpret that Death Cart alters the rules of the game, thus making you gain a Ruins, even though there was a previous alteration of the rules that said you could not do such a thing.
The previous alteration of the rules prohibits alterations of the rules that make you gain Ruins.
Quote
It is clear that rules on the card take precedence over rules on the rulebooks, and that physical possibility take precedence over both (thus, you cannot draw from empty deck, gain from empty supply pile, etc). However, there should be no contradiction between rules in the same level of precedence, or otherwise a way to resolve precedence needs to be stated.
Where is this "physical" possibility mentioned? The base game rulebook only mentions possibility in general. The precedence depends on your ability to follow the instructions; when you buy a Death Cart, you need to ask yourself, can you follow the instructions. You can't, because there's the card that tells you that you can't gain any Ruins.
Quote
EDIT: To answer a previous claim, I think Moat and Lighthouse "you are unaffected" is also poorly specified, but it is pretty clear and stated in the FAQ that the unaffection (?) takes precedence over the instructions in the Attack card.
The reason why the unaffection takes precedence is that you can't follow the instructions on the card because you are unaffected by it. The FAQ is there just to clarify things for people who couldn't figure this out just from the rules.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1751
    • View Profile
Re: gain prohibition with Knights
« Reply #9 on: March 02, 2014, 02:48:18 pm »
0

Where is this "physical" possibility mentioned? The base game rulebook only mentions possibility in general. The precedence depends on your ability to follow the instructions; when you buy a Death Cart, you need to ask yourself, can you follow the instructions. You can't, because there's the card that tells you that you can't gain any Ruins.

There is this other card that says you must gain a Ruins. The fact that the prohibition takes precedence is arbitrary (unless the order in which the cards are played is important for precedence, but that is not specified anywhere I have seen).

So, if I made SuperCultist that said "Each other payer gains a Ruins, even if they cannot." would that make a difference to you? I don't think that such texts make any sense.

Consider the AntiGoons "While this is in play, you cannot gain VP chips.". If I play Goons and then AntiGoons, do I gain VP chips? What if I played them in reverse order? What about Goons/AntiGoons/Goons and AntiGoons/Goons/AntiGoons? Does it make sense that "you cannot gain VP chips" is more powerful that "gain VP chips". The gaining of VP chips from Goons is not optional (the fact that it is always good for you to gain it is completely irrelevant, and you can even so the same with AntiMerchantGuild, and the coin tokens from MG can be bad due to Possession).
Logged

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: gain prohibition with Knights
« Reply #10 on: March 02, 2014, 03:08:24 pm »
0

You could interpret that Death Cart alters the rules of the game, thus making you gain a Ruins, even though there was a previous alteration of the rules that said you could not do such a thing.
The previous alteration of the rules prohibits alterations of the rules that make you gain Ruins.

Lol.  I have a hard to believing that you said this with a straight face.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

sudgy

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3431
  • Shuffle iT Username: sudgy
  • It's pronounced "SOO-jee"
  • Respect: +2706
    • View Profile
Re: gain prohibition with Knights
« Reply #11 on: March 02, 2014, 03:10:41 pm »
+1

Where is this "physical" possibility mentioned? The base game rulebook only mentions possibility in general. The precedence depends on your ability to follow the instructions; when you buy a Death Cart, you need to ask yourself, can you follow the instructions. You can't, because there's the card that tells you that you can't gain any Ruins.

There is this other card that says you must gain a Ruins. The fact that the prohibition takes precedence is arbitrary (unless the order in which the cards are played is important for precedence, but that is not specified anywhere I have seen).

The rules say you can buy a card, but Contraband says I can't.  Which takes precedence?  It's obvious.  I think the same thing about cards saying you can't gain cards.
Logged
If you're wondering what my avatar is, watch this.

Check out my logic puzzle blog!

   Quote from: sudgy on June 31, 2011, 11:47:46 pm

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3292
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4434
    • View Profile
Re: gain prohibition with Knights
« Reply #12 on: March 02, 2014, 03:18:47 pm »
+2

Where is this "physical" possibility mentioned? The base game rulebook only mentions possibility in general. The precedence depends on your ability to follow the instructions; when you buy a Death Cart, you need to ask yourself, can you follow the instructions. You can't, because there's the card that tells you that you can't gain any Ruins.

There is this other card that says you must gain a Ruins. The fact that the prohibition takes precedence is arbitrary (unless the order in which the cards are played is important for precedence, but that is not specified anywhere I have seen).

The rules say you can buy a card, but Contraband says I can't.  Which takes precedence?  It's obvious.  I think the same thing about cards saying you can't gain cards.

The rules say you can buy a card, but Contraband, a card, says you can't. Cards supersede rules. But why does one card supersede the effects of another card?

(However, there are cases where this does happen. As noted, Moat and Lighthouse supersede attack cards; also Contraband supersedes Black Market, which tells you you may buy a card.)
Logged

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: gain prohibition with Knights
« Reply #13 on: March 02, 2014, 03:25:35 pm »
+1

Moat/Lighthouse have always been on shaky grounds.  "the attack does not affect you" is quite ambiguous in theory, if not in practice.  Unfortunately, that ambiguity restricts what a card with the Attack type is able to do.  In particular, it is one reason that Masquerade would break if it had the Attack type.

Black Market is also weird rules-wise.  The card text does not make it clear at all that you may play Treasures, for instance.

I don't think that pointing towards these three cards is the best if you are defending the consistency of hypothetical gain prohibition.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12849
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: gain prohibition with Knights
« Reply #14 on: March 02, 2014, 04:25:00 pm »
0

Where is this "physical" possibility mentioned? The base game rulebook only mentions possibility in general. The precedence depends on your ability to follow the instructions; when you buy a Death Cart, you need to ask yourself, can you follow the instructions. You can't, because there's the card that tells you that you can't gain any Ruins.

There is this other card that says you must gain a Ruins. The fact that the prohibition takes precedence is arbitrary (unless the order in which the cards are played is important for precedence, but that is not specified anywhere I have seen).

So, if I made SuperCultist that said "Each other payer gains a Ruins, even if they cannot." would that make a difference to you? I don't think that such texts make any sense.

Consider the AntiGoons "While this is in play, you cannot gain VP chips.". If I play Goons and then AntiGoons, do I gain VP chips? What if I played them in reverse order? What about Goons/AntiGoons/Goons and AntiGoons/Goons/AntiGoons? Does it make sense that "you cannot gain VP chips" is more powerful that "gain VP chips". The gaining of VP chips from Goons is not optional (the fact that it is always good for you to gain it is completely irrelevant, and you can even so the same with AntiMerchantGuild, and the coin tokens from MG can be bad due to Possession).
What does your SuperCultist do when the Ruins pile is empty?

But if it was worded "While this is in play, your opponents are unaffected by 'you can't gain Ruins' effects", then it would definitely make a difference. Though, why would you want to prohibit a prohibition effect?

If you have AntiGoons and Goons in play and you buy a card, you try to follow Goons' instructions and fail. It doesn't matter in which order you played the cards.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

soulnet

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Respect: +1751
    • View Profile
Re: gain prohibition with Knights
« Reply #15 on: March 02, 2014, 04:51:22 pm »
0

If you have AntiGoons and Goons in play and you buy a card, you try to follow Goons' instructions and fail. It doesn't matter in which order you played the cards.

I disagree with your interpretation completely. You are given precedence to the rules just because one has a timing (when you buy) and the other does not, which I do not see any reason to. Let me put it differently:

Goons: "While this is in play, when you buy a card, +1 VP token."
AntiGoons: "While this is in play, when you buy a card, do not gain a VP token."

Do you think the resolution if both are in play is to gain no VP token when you buy something? Why violating Goons is reasonable but violating AntiGoons for being "impossible" is not?


EDIT: It seems from all your posts you are assuming some kind of timing-based precedence, based on the triggering of each rule and the consequent order in which they are applied. That is of course reasonable, is just not specified anywhere that it has to be that way. Even more, Goleming into two copies of a card that say "You cannot play more Action cards this turn." create serious problems.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2014, 04:54:37 pm by soulnet »
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12849
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: gain prohibition with Knights
« Reply #16 on: March 02, 2014, 05:25:16 pm »
0

If you have AntiGoons and Goons in play and you buy a card, you try to follow Goons' instructions and fail. It doesn't matter in which order you played the cards.

I disagree with your interpretation completely. You are given precedence to the rules just because one has a timing (when you buy) and the other does not, which I do not see any reason to. Let me put it differently:

Goons: "While this is in play, when you buy a card, +1 VP token."
AntiGoons: "While this is in play, when you buy a card, do not gain a VP token."

Do you think the resolution if both are in play is to gain no VP token when you buy something? Why violating Goons is reasonable but violating AntiGoons for being "impossible" is not?
You can choose the order of those effects, since they happen at the same time. If you do Goons first, you'll get the token (well, with that wording, you'll get the token even if you do AntiGoons first, but that's not the point).

Quote
EDIT: It seems from all your posts you are assuming some kind of timing-based precedence, based on the triggering of each rule and the consequent order in which they are applied. That is of course reasonable, is just not specified anywhere that it has to be that way. Even more, Goleming into two copies of a card that say "You cannot play more Action cards this turn." create serious problems.
That would cause serious confusion for sure, but not a rules problem. You just leave one of the Action cards on the deck.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: gain prohibition with Knights
« Reply #17 on: March 02, 2014, 05:36:17 pm »
0

You just leave one of the Action cards on the deck.

How does that second copy of the action card get onto the deck?  I have no instructions that tell me where to put that card (it was supposed to be played, in which case it would be discarded during clean up and recycled).  It would probably be returned to my deck at the end of the game, but I'd have to doublecheck the rules on that.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12849
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: gain prohibition with Knights
« Reply #18 on: March 02, 2014, 06:12:39 pm »
0

You just leave one of the Action cards on the deck.

How does that second copy of the action card get onto the deck?  I have no instructions that tell me where to put that card (it was supposed to be played, in which case it would be discarded during clean up and recycled).  It would probably be returned to my deck at the end of the game, but I'd have to doublecheck the rules on that.
It never leaves the deck.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: gain prohibition with Knights
« Reply #19 on: March 02, 2014, 06:59:41 pm »
0

You just leave one of the Action cards on the deck.

How does that second copy of the action card get onto the deck?  I have no instructions that tell me where to put that card (it was supposed to be played, in which case it would be discarded during clean up and recycled).  It would probably be returned to my deck at the end of the game, but I'd have to doublecheck the rules on that.
It never leaves the deck.

It leaves the Deck when you reveal it.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

amalloy

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 453
  • Respect: +620
    • View Profile
    • Twitch stream
Re: gain prohibition with Knights
« Reply #20 on: March 02, 2014, 07:08:26 pm »
+2

You just leave one of the Action cards on the deck.

How does that second copy of the action card get onto the deck?  I have no instructions that tell me where to put that card (it was supposed to be played, in which case it would be discarded during clean up and recycled).  It would probably be returned to my deck at the end of the game, but I'd have to doublecheck the rules on that.

The definition of "reveal" says to put it back wherever you got it from when you're done revealing it. Many cards, like Golem, tell you to do something else with the card instead (play it, trash it, whatever), and so then you don't put it back. If for some reason Golem could not play the card, then by the definition of revealing it would go back on top of your deck.
Logged

SirPeebles

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3249
  • Respect: +5459
    • View Profile
Re: gain prohibition with Knights
« Reply #21 on: March 02, 2014, 07:40:38 pm »
0

I can see that, but it says to return them unless instructed specifically to put it elsewhere.  They are instructed to be put elsewhere, namely in play, but that instruction is obstructed by another card.
Logged
Well you *do* need a signature...

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (´。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12849
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
Re: gain prohibition with Knights
« Reply #22 on: March 02, 2014, 09:34:03 pm »
+3

I can see that, but it says to return them unless instructed specifically to put it elsewhere.  They are instructed to be put elsewhere, namely in play, but that instruction is obstructed by another card.
Well, you can't follow the instruction, so you aren't instructed specifically to put it elsewhere.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: gain prohibition with Knights
« Reply #23 on: March 03, 2014, 08:54:59 am »
0

And I think this discussion explains why there are so few "you may not" clauses on cards.  I think Contraband is the only one.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
Re: gain prohibition with Knights
« Reply #24 on: March 03, 2014, 09:03:24 am »
0

And I think this discussion explains why there are so few "you may not" clauses on cards.  I think Contraband is the only one.

Grand Market is another.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All
 

Page created in 0.159 seconds with 20 queries.