Print

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

[GigaKnight]

Dude, ignore my advice.  You don't care about who I am or what I think, right?  So there's no need to get wrapped up in it, especially if you're going to be mean about it.

I wasn't asking about variants.  I was asking what happens when a rule is violated.  If your response is just "figure it out", that's fine. Unsatisfying, but fine.

I don't know what you mean by "wrapped up in it" here, I am not "wrapped up in" anything, as I know those words. In general it would be great if you stopped attributing things to me.

You called for me personally to give you an answer. I do not see why you specifically need me here, and while I am slow to learn these things, it does not seem likely that my answer would do anything for you.

By "wrapped up", I mean "invested to the point of exasperation".  I *believe* you're clearly exasperated with me.  Apparently I attributed something to you that you didn't say/do.  The writing down points is cheating remark?  Here's where I got that:

Also, while we're here, in Dominion, you may not take notes. I am making this clear for anyone who somehow does not get it. You can't. You didn't know before, so that wasn't cheating, but if you do now, it's cheating. I would get into the idea of variants but let's keep this simple.

Your last point is unfair, IMO. Just because I disagree on a topic doesn't mean I don't respect your opinion; that's why I asked for it.  I appreciate that you're willing to respond in person and I'm genuinely sorry that I've tested your patience.  I keep responding in this thread in particular because new people keep joining in.  I don't want to argue with you about "may" anymore; it's clearly not productive.

[Donald X.]

By "wrapped up", I mean "invested to the point of exasperation".  I *believe* you're clearly exasperated with me.  Apparently I attributed something to you that you didn't say/do.

You said, "You don't care about who I am or what I think, right?  So there's no need to get wrapped up in it, especially if you're going to be mean about it." That is attributing things to me. Paraphrasing me in a misleading way - saying that I called note-taking cheating as if it were not then permissible as a variant - is also a bummer.

When all players agree to a variant - such as taking notes - that's not cheating, it's a variant. I have said this many times, and reference it in the bit you quoted. Taking notes is cheating though if any player has not agreed to it. Hope this is clear!

[GendoIkari]

GigaKnight, what are your thoughts on Soul's Attendant vs Soul Warden? This seems like such a perfect example.

I think the problem you describe is much more prevalent in Magic than in Dominion, simply because in Magic you have a lot more cards out on the field usually, and a lot more triggered effects that could happen. Just this week, someone in my playgroup had a Soul's Attendant out, and didn't gain life when an opponent played a creature (5-player game). By the time it was realized, it was too late, and he couldn't get the life. Had it been a Soul Warden instead, he would have.

Although, this issue arises because of the casual and fast nature of the way people play. The fact is, his Soul's Attendant DID trigger, and it's ability DID go on the stack. That still happens ever though it's "may." Once the ability resolves, at that point he can choose to do it or not. But because we were playing fast and loose, no one ever stopped to say "ok, a creature was just played, now what does the stack look like?" In the same way, in a casual setting, players may play a card or ability, and then another card or ability, without stopping and "passing priority" to the other players.

I guess what I'm saying is in that example, I feel like in a way the group made an illegal play just like we would have if it had been a Soul Warden instead. Because we never actually put the triggered ability on the stack. The guy didn't wait until it resolved and then chose not to gain life. Rather, it never went on the stack, and never resolved, because he forgot to put it on the stack.

Yeah, those cards are a good example; I would go with may.

You raise a very interesting point about the stack in Magic, though.  So you're saying you think you'd be required to put the decision itself on the stack with Soul's Attendant?  I'm very curious to know what a rules judge would say here.  I've never heard of a decision going on the stack, but I haven't played since well before they removed "damage on the stack".

But the fact that they removed "damage on the stack" makes it clear to me that not everything goes on the stack.  Is there a clear ruling about what does / doesn't go on the stack?  As I think about this more, I'd be surprised if decisions go on the stack.  It seems like the stack is place for game events, not meta-events like decisions.  So this is what I'd expect: the creature coming into play goes on the stack.  When it resolves, if the player opts to gain a life, the life gain goes on the stack.  But I could be wrong

I'm pretty sure about this... It's not the decision itself that goes on the stack, but the triggered event does. First a player casts a creature, that goes on the stack. When it resolves, that creature enters the battlefield. At that time, any enter the battlefield triggered events trigger, and go on the stack. This includes ALL things that say "whenever a creature enters the battlefield....". The "may" part of it doesn't come into play yet. At this time in the game, it doesn't event need to be known if the ability says may or not, because the ability hasn't resolved yet. When that ability resolves, you the do what it says, which in this case is "you may gain a life."

As for what goes on the stack, the rules do list for each type of event if it uses the stack or not. Im sure this isn't 100% comprehensive, but I believe spells, triggered abilities, and activated abilities are the only things that use the stack Things that definitely don't use the stack are:

Playing a land
Making a decision (like who to attack with, or whether or not to gain life from Soul's Attendant, after it's triggered ability has resolved)
Paying costs (both paying mana and other costs like tapping a creature or land)
Mana abilities... These are any abilities that do not have a target, and can add 1 or more mana to your mana pool.. I.E. a Forrest's activated ability of adding a green mana to your mana pool.
Dealing damage
Any state-based effects (like losing the game for having 0 or less life)

[GigaKnight]

By "wrapped up", I mean "invested to the point of exasperation".  I *believe* you're clearly exasperated with me.  Apparently I attributed something to you that you didn't say/do.

You said, "You don't care about who I am or what I think, right?  So there's no need to get wrapped up in it, especially if you're going to be mean about it." That is attributing things to me. Paraphrasing me in a misleading way - saying that I called note-taking cheating as if it were not then permissible as a variant - is also a bummer.

Ok, I see your point.  I'm sorry.  I generally try to use subjective statements for things like that, but I typed it out kind of fast.  I see that I claimed you don't care about what I think; I'm sorry if that's not true.  And I'm kind of surprised if it is.  As "just some guy on the internet", I wouldn't expect you to be invested in what I think.  That was certainly presumptuous of me, regardless of its truth.

Is there anything else that you see as unfair attribution?  The "especially if you're going to be mean about it"?  Again, I'm sorry if you don't think this was fair.  I asked a question about Haggler and I read your response as "I'm sick of this thread and your posts".  I felt that was mean; it didn't answer my question and I felt belittled.  I could just be misinterpreting everything and I apologize for the confusion if I am.

When all players agree to a variant - such as taking notes - that's not cheating, it's a variant. I have said this many times, and reference it in the bit you quoted. Taking notes is cheating though if any player has not agreed to it. Hope this is clear!

Yes, that's totally clear!  And it's actually been clear to me the whole.  I didn't mean to imply that it would be cheating if all players agreed to the variant.  I just meant it was cheating in "Dominion" the "purest" (non-variant) form.

[GigaKnight]

GigaKnight, what are your thoughts on Soul's Attendant vs Soul Warden? This seems like such a perfect example.

I think the problem you describe is much more prevalent in Magic than in Dominion, simply because in Magic you have a lot more cards out on the field usually, and a lot more triggered effects that could happen. Just this week, someone in my playgroup had a Soul's Attendant out, and didn't gain life when an opponent played a creature (5-player game). By the time it was realized, it was too late, and he couldn't get the life. Had it been a Soul Warden instead, he would have.

Although, this issue arises because of the casual and fast nature of the way people play. The fact is, his Soul's Attendant DID trigger, and it's ability DID go on the stack. That still happens ever though it's "may." Once the ability resolves, at that point he can choose to do it or not. But because we were playing fast and loose, no one ever stopped to say "ok, a creature was just played, now what does the stack look like?" In the same way, in a casual setting, players may play a card or ability, and then another card or ability, without stopping and "passing priority" to the other players.

I guess what I'm saying is in that example, I feel like in a way the group made an illegal play just like we would have if it had been a Soul Warden instead. Because we never actually put the triggered ability on the stack. The guy didn't wait until it resolved and then chose not to gain life. Rather, it never went on the stack, and never resolved, because he forgot to put it on the stack.

Yeah, those cards are a good example; I would go with may.

You raise a very interesting point about the stack in Magic, though.  So you're saying you think you'd be required to put the decision itself on the stack with Soul's Attendant?  I'm very curious to know what a rules judge would say here.  I've never heard of a decision going on the stack, but I haven't played since well before they removed "damage on the stack".

But the fact that they removed "damage on the stack" makes it clear to me that not everything goes on the stack.  Is there a clear ruling about what does / doesn't go on the stack?  As I think about this more, I'd be surprised if decisions go on the stack.  It seems like the stack is place for game events, not meta-events like decisions.  So this is what I'd expect: the creature coming into play goes on the stack.  When it resolves, if the player opts to gain a life, the life gain goes on the stack.  But I could be wrong

I'm pretty sure about this... It's not the decision itself that goes on the stack, but the triggered event does. First a player casts a creature, that goes on the stack. When it resolves, that creature enters the battlefield. At that time, any enter the battlefield triggered events trigger, and go on the stack. This includes ALL things that say "whenever a creature enters the battlefield....". The "may" part of it doesn't come into play yet. At this time in the game, it doesn't event need to be known if the ability says may or not, because the ability hasn't resolved yet. When that ability resolves, you the do what it says, which in this case is "you may gain a life."

As for what goes on the stack, the rules do list for each type of event if it uses the stack or not. Im sure this isn't 100% comprehensive, but I believe spells, triggered abilities, and activated abilities are the only things that use the stack Things that definitely don't use the stack are:

Playing a land
Making a decision (like who to attack with, or whether or not to gain life from Soul's Attendant, after it's triggered ability has resolved)
Paying costs (both paying mana and other costs like tapping a creature or land)
Mana abilities... These are any abilities that do not have a target, and can add 1 or more mana to your mana pool.. I.E. a Forrest's activated ability of adding a green mana to your mana pool.
Dealing damage
Any state-based effects (like losing the game for having 0 or less life)

Ah, I see.  That's interesting and it makes sense.  Boy, that's subtle, though.  If you have to remember to put things on the stack either way, it shifts the pendulum back towards requiring the life gain, for sure.

[GendoIkari]

Ah, I see.  That's interesting and it makes sense.  Boy, that's subtle, though.  If you have to remember to put things on the stack either way, it shifts the pendulum back towards requiring the life gain, for sure.

Yeah, I guess the trick is that, at least in casual play, players only think about the stack when someone has an instant or ability and wants to respond to a player doing something. So in the case of our game, what it looked and felt like to all of us was this: the creature entered the battlefield, nothing else happened (because that one player forgot). But what actually happened, according to all the rules of the game, was this: the creature entered the battlefield, the Soul's Attendant triggered and its ability went on the stack, then no one chose to respond to that ability, the ability resolved, then the player chose to not use the "may gain life" ability (the choice was made for him by him forgetting that it was an option). That's what technically happened, if you look at the rules very carefully.

[Donald X.]

I asked a question about Haggler and I read your response as "I'm sick of this thread and your posts".

Well that's fair, I'll cop to that.

There are a few games that say "here's how to deal with a misdeal" and so forth, but in general that kind of thing is not something that a rulebook needs to address, and rulebooks do not address it. When it's actually covered it's usually only in tournament rules, which are up to the people running the tournaments anyway. So I am not answering such questions. I am already answering plenty of questions.

There was just a thread on BGG where someone said how something worked, correctly, and someone else said, oh really, I don't believe you, I need a post from the game designer to prove this. Man! Someone else quoted the rulebook at him so it all worked out without me pissing people off, but really. When people are arguing about Star Wars, they don't get to have George Lucas step in and explain things every time they want.

So yes, when you say, "oh Donald X., plz answer this question that almost no rulebook every addresses," I think, man, really?

[GigaKnight]

I asked a question about Haggler and I read your response as "I'm sick of this thread and your posts".

Well that's fair, I'll cop to that.

There are a few games that say "here's how to deal with a misdeal" and so forth, but in general that kind of thing is not something that a rulebook needs to address, and rulebooks do not address it. When it's actually covered it's usually only in tournament rules, which are up to the people running the tournaments anyway. So I am not answering such questions. I am already answering plenty of questions.

There was just a thread on BGG where someone said how something worked, correctly, and someone else said, oh really, I don't believe you, I need a post from the game designer to prove this. Man! Someone else quoted the rulebook at him so it all worked out without me pissing people off, but really. When people are arguing about Star Wars, they don't get to have George Lucas step in and explain things every time they want.

So yes, when you say, "oh Donald X., plz answer this question that almost no rulebook every addresses," I think, man, really?

Well, after the rulebook, you're the closest thing to an authority and you do seem to make yourself available.  I didn't intend an appeal to you as anything other than "well, he's kind of the authority and he answers questions, so let's see what he says."  With the Haggler issue, it's not that I'm incapable of figuring that out (I've done it before in games with friends); it's just more that I'm curious what the game creator would prefer in that situation.

But, yeah that's fair.  It's totally reasonable that there are certain discussions that you just don't want to waste your time in.  I'm sorry to have created a couple of them in this thread.   But again, thanks for responding.

[Jack Rudd]

The rule for competitive chess, incidentally, is that if an illegal move is discovered before the game is finished, you have to roll the game state back to the move the illegal move was played, and then carry on from there.

[Schneau]

The rule for competitive chess, incidentally, is that if an illegal move is discovered before the game is finished, you have to roll the game state back to the move the illegal move was played, and then carry on from there.

Which is only possible because chess games are notated as they are played. If Dominion games were similarly notated, this may be possible, but I doubt it.

As a side note, I had a friends that played a whole USCF rated game that started with his bishops and knights swapped. No one noticed (including his opponent) until after the game, so the tournament director counted it as an official game.

[blueblimp]

As a side note, I had a friends that played a whole USCF rated game that started with his bishops and knights swapped. No one noticed (including his opponent) until after the game, so the tournament director counted it as an official game.

Man, I have only played Chess a little, but how can anyone not notice this the first time they try to move a knight (which is usually pretty early)?

[Schneau]

As a side note, I had a friends that played a whole USCF rated game that started with his bishops and knights swapped. No one noticed (including his opponent) until after the game, so the tournament director counted it as an official game.

Man, I have only played Chess a little, but how can anyone not notice this the first time they try to move a knight (which is usually pretty early)?

I believe his first (or maybe second) move was Kd3. It was a huge innovation in opening theory, but has rarely been played since.

[zahlman]

As a side note, I had a friends that played a whole USCF rated game that started with his bishops and knights swapped. No one noticed (including his opponent) until after the game, so the tournament director counted it as an official game.

Man, I have only played Chess a little, but how can anyone not notice this the first time they try to move a knight (which is usually pretty early)?

I believe his first (or maybe second) move was Kd3. It was a huge innovation in opening theory, but has rarely been played since.

You mean Nd3, yes? Also, wasn't somebody notating or otherwise presiding over the game?

[theory]

Chess Lists by Andy Soltis has a great section entitled "Nineteen Master Games with Illegal Moves", if you're into that thing.

[carstimon]

This bit me in a game today, with develop.  I had a hand like gold, develop, some crap, and I thought: "oh great, develop my gold into an inn and an expand, guaranteed province next turn!

[Schneau]

As a side note, I had a friends that played a whole USCF rated game that started with his bishops and knights swapped. No one noticed (including his opponent) until after the game, so the tournament director counted it as an official game.

Man, I have only played Chess a little, but how can anyone not notice this the first time they try to move a knight (which is usually pretty early)?

I believe his first (or maybe second) move was Kd3. It was a huge innovation in opening theory, but has rarely been played since.

You mean Nd3, yes? Also, wasn't somebody notating or otherwise presiding over the game?

Oops, yes. Both players took notation (as is standard in tournament games) but neither noticed. The whole thing went unnoticed until going over the game after that round.

[theory]

I call shenanigans.  As soon as you Nf3 or Nc6 or even Bg7 someone should have noticed the error.

[zahlman]

I call shenanigans.  As soon as you Nf3 or Nc6 or even Bg7 someone should have noticed the error.

I see what you did there.

[ashersky]

Of general interest on the topic of "you may," see below a list of all the cards using the phrase from the respective sets (taken from dominionstrategy.com).  Interesting to note where strategic options are added when you look at the list as a whole.  Also, Hinterlands take the cake for using it the most--sensibly I suppose, if it is seen as the "complex" set.

Base (4/25):

Moat (...you may reveal this from your hand...)
Chancellor (...you may immediately put your deck...)
Thief (...you may gain any or all of these trashed...)
Library (...you may set aside...)

Intrigue (5/25):

Secret Chamber (...you may reveal this...)
Masquerade (...you may trash a card...)
Baron (...you may discard an Estate...)
Mining Village (...you may trash this card immediately...)
Saboteur (...He trashes that card and may gain...)

Seaside (4/26):

Native Village (...you may look at the cards on your mat...)
Pearl Diver (...you may put it on top...)
Explorer (...you may reveal a Province...)
Treasury (...you may put this on top...)

Alchemy (3/12):

Herbalist:  (...you may put one of your Treasures...)
University:  (...you may gain an Action card...)
Alchemist:  (...you may put this on top...)

Prosperity (5/25):

Watchtower:  (...you may reveal this...)
Mint:  (...you may reveal...)
Mountebank:  (...each other player may discard a curse...)
Royal Seal:  (...you may put that card on top...)
King's Court:  (...you may choose an Action card...)

Cornucopia: (4/13)

Hamlet:  (...you may discard...)
Horse Traders:  (...you may set this aside...)
Tournament:  (...each player may reveal...)
Young Witch:  (...each other play may reveal...)

Hinterlands: (8/26)

Fool's Gold:  (...you may trash this from your hand...)
Scheme:  (...you may choose an Action card...)
Tunnel:  (...you may reveal it...)
Jack of All Trades:  (...you may trash a card...)
Spice Merchant:  (...you may trash a Treasure...)
Trader:  (...you may reveal this...)
Ill-Gotten Gains:  (...you may gain a Copper...)
Stables:  (...you may discard a Treasure...)

Promo (4/5):

Black Market:  (...you may buy one of them...)
Walled Village:  (...you may put this on top...)
Governor:  (...each player may trash a card...)
Stash:  (...you may put this anywhere...)

[J.Co.]

I didn't want to read through four pages of comments, so I'm not sure if this has been discussed yet, but what happens when you have a Watchtower in hand when you gain Inn? Do you get to put Inn on top of the deck without shuffling? Do you shuffle and lose Watchtower's ability?

[Morgrim7]

You stil carry out Inn's effect, but instead of shuffling Inn into your deck, you put it on top.

[carstimon]

On isotropic, you choose which order.  It's not clear to me that this is actually how it should be.  In fact I really am stumped on this one.
Here's two scenarios:
Scenario A) First, reveal watchtower, put inn on deck.  Then put actions in your deck and shuffle.  Now inn is anywhere.
Scenario B) First, put actions including possibly inn into your deck and shuffle.  Then reveal watchtower and put inn on your deck.
The interesting part about scenario B is you can't carry out the second part.  (Iso just doesn't give you the reveal watchtower option).  But this "can't" feels very much outside of the game. 

[AJD]

On isotropic, you choose which order.  It's not clear to me that this is actually how it should be.

The regular Dominion rule is, if you have to do two things at the same time, you choose what order to do them in.

In fact I really am stumped on this one.
Here's two scenarios:
Scenario A) First, reveal watchtower, put inn on deck.  Then put actions in your deck and shuffle.  Now inn is anywhere.
Scenario B) First, put actions including possibly inn into your deck and shuffle.  Then reveal watchtower and put inn on your deck.
The interesting part about scenario B is you can't carry out the second part.  (Iso just doesn't give you the reveal watchtower option).  But this "can't" feels very much outside of the game.

This is what the often-summarized "losing track" rule is for: roughly, if Card A moves Card B away from where Card C expects it to be, Card C can't track it down and move it somewhere else. (In this case, A and B are both Inn and C is Watchtower.)

And of course if you don't shuffle Inn into your deck with Inn's own power, you can still reveal Watchtower to top-deck Inn after you've shuffled, and Isotropic correctly allows this.

[carstimon]

This makes sense thanks.

[GendoIkari]

And of course if you don't shuffle Inn into your deck with Inn's own power, you can still reveal Watchtower to top-deck Inn after you've shuffled, and Isotropic correctly allows this.

Now this I didn't realize! So you can in fact use Watchtower to end up with an Inn on top of your deck? I always assumed that it was impossible; Inn would either be shuffled into your draw deck or left in your discard. I guess it makes sense, that "lose-track" doesn't actually happen here; but I always thought it would. You gain Inn; then choose Inn's reaction first. This allows you to look through your discard pile and pull actions out of it. Even though Inn doesn't actually move to another place because of this, your discard pile is being manipulated; to the point that I thought Watchtower would lose track of Inn.