Print

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

[soulnet]

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

What does not affect you? The playing. In Armada, I agree that the playing of the card is what prescribes the discarding, in any turn, and thus, it is prevented.

With Curfew, however, the penalty is not prescribed by the playing of the card, but by the card "being in play", and therefore, it is not prevented by Lighthouse (now that I write it, I think it would also not be prevented by Moat). It is kind of like Lighthouse and Moat being unable to prevent Possession, cursing from IGG, or most notably, Noble Brigand's on-gain attack. They can only prevent penalties prescribed by playing of Attack cards. They cannot prevent penalties prescribed by non-attacks (like Possession) nor penalties prescribed by Attacks in moments other than the playing of the card (Noble Brigand's on-gain).

• 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?

Kind of ninja'd, this example shows the problem I was illustrating in a practical way.

[Schneau]

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.

The problem here isn't actually the Duration attack -- it's that it's an "while this is in play" Attack, and you're confusing it because it's Duration. For example, what about a card:

Mean Person
Types: Action-Attack
Cost: $2
+2 Cards
--
While this is in play, when you play an Action card, each opponent gains a Curse.

This card is just as confusing as Curfew as to how it is affected by Moat/Lighthouse. So, I'd say this question is about how "while this is in play" Attacks work, not how Duration Attacks work.


Note that I don't know the answer here.

[Schneau]

I largely agree with you here. But:

• 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.)

Here is where I think the confusion is. In fact, I think the main difference in our opinions lies between the semantics of "if...then" and "when". I take "when" to be equivalent to "if" on Lighthouse: it means that if/when an opponent plays an Attack, you are not affected by it. My interpretation of "when" here does not mean the "what time" interpretation of "when", it means the "any time this happens" interpretation of "when". I'm not saying yours is a wrong interpretation, but I feel that its the intention of the card.

[AJD]

While-in-play Attacks and Duration–Attacks are different but related questions. They both deal with effects that happen because you play an Attack card but not when you play it. The questions differ because the Duration effects are activated by the playing of the card (but happen at a different time), whereas while-in-play effects aren't activated by the playing of the card (though they won't happen if you don't play the card).

[AJD]

In fact, I think the main difference in our opinions lies between the semantics of "if...then" and "when". I take "when" to be equivalent to "if" on Lighthouse: it means that if/when an opponent plays an Attack, you are not affected by it. My interpretation of "when" here does not mean the "what time" interpretation of "when", it means the "any time this happens" interpretation of "when". I'm not saying yours is a wrong interpretation, but I feel that its the intention of the card.

I agree that if Lighthouse said "If another player plays an Attack while this is in play, you are unaffected by the Attack" we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

[sudgy]

I largely agree with you here. But...

...If you buy 6 completos, it's only $6.

[Schneau]

In fact, I think the main difference in our opinions lies between the semantics of "if...then" and "when". I take "when" to be equivalent to "if" on Lighthouse: it means that if/when an opponent plays an Attack, you are not affected by it. My interpretation of "when" here does not mean the "what time" interpretation of "when", it means the "any time this happens" interpretation of "when". I'm not saying yours is a wrong interpretation, but I feel that its the intention of the card.

I agree that if Lighthouse said "If another player plays an Attack while this is in play, you are unaffected by the Attack" we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

Ok, then this seems pretty clear from the Seaside rules on Lighthouse:

Attack cards played by other players don’t affect you, even if you want them to.

There's no "when" or other time-dependent clause in that sentence.

[AJD]

In fact, I think the main difference in our opinions lies between the semantics of "if...then" and "when". I take "when" to be equivalent to "if" on Lighthouse: it means that if/when an opponent plays an Attack, you are not affected by it. My interpretation of "when" here does not mean the "what time" interpretation of "when", it means the "any time this happens" interpretation of "when". I'm not saying yours is a wrong interpretation, but I feel that its the intention of the card.

I agree that if Lighthouse said "If another player plays an Attack while this is in play, you are unaffected by the Attack" we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

Ok, then this seems pretty clear from the Seaside rules on Lighthouse:

Attack cards played by other players don’t affect you, even if you want them to.

There's no "when" or other time-dependent clause in that sentence.

Fair enough, though I think FAQ rulings on cards have been invalidated by unforeseen interactions with future cards in the past.

[eHalcyon]

In fact, I think the main difference in our opinions lies between the semantics of "if...then" and "when". I take "when" to be equivalent to "if" on Lighthouse: it means that if/when an opponent plays an Attack, you are not affected by it. My interpretation of "when" here does not mean the "what time" interpretation of "when", it means the "any time this happens" interpretation of "when". I'm not saying yours is a wrong interpretation, but I feel that its the intention of the card.

I agree that if Lighthouse said "If another player plays an Attack while this is in play, you are unaffected by the Attack" we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

Ok, then this seems pretty clear from the Seaside rules on Lighthouse:

Attack cards played by other players don’t affect you, even if you want them to.

There's no "when" or other time-dependent clause in that sentence.

I think you're taking that ruling out of context.  The point is that Lighthouse protection is not optional; it's not meant to be a ruling about timing, which was unnecessary anyways because no official attack cards create this kind of timing confusion.  Moreover, Donald X. probably planned on never creating such an attack, precisely because it would cause confusion like this.  While it may seem clear-cut to rules-sticklers on f.ds, it really isn't obvious to casual players.  Even though confusing situations can still arise through Procession and other official cards, the Secret Histories show that many cards really were cut due to potential confusion and tracking issues.  I think that's a good design philosophy.

[werothegreat]

Mean Person
Types: Action-Attack
Cost: $2
+2 Cards
--
While this is in play, when you play an Action card, each opponent gains a Curse.

This card might actually work if you made it not an Attack.  And gave it +1 Action.

If we're really delving into theory, you could call Council Room an Attack, and people would be able to reveal Moat so as not to draw another card (relevant to Menagerie/Poor House).  You can call anything an Attack.  All Moat does is wave itself around when an Attack is played, and if that Attack would do anything to you, now it doesn't.  So back to Mean Person, if it remained an Attack, and I waved my Moat around when you played it, I would not take any Curses, no matter how many Actions you played, and I would not have to reveal Moat again.  You could play Minion, going for the discard, I could elect not to reveal my Moat for it, taking it out of my hand, to a new hand of four cards with no Moat, and I would still not get a Curse from Mean Person.

[KingZog3]

Another way to do this would be to make a second card that is gained by the Duration-Attack card like:

CARD A
Duration-Attack

+1action
A the start of your next turn, gain a CARD B into your hand

CARD B
Action-Attack

+1 action
Attack

(this is not in the supply)

[SirPeebles]

I still say that a Duration card like Caravan or Outpost or Tactician has one effect, and it happens when played.  That effect does not finish resolving until a future turn, but there is one effect which is triggered at one moment.

I would argue that the mirror-universe Goons would be unmoatable.  More precisely, you could reveal the Moat, but the Moat would not interact with the "While in play" effect, since that is simply a matter of where the card happens to be, and is independent of the card being played.

Consider:

Blockade
Action - Attack - Duration

Now and at the start of your next turn: each other player discards a card from his hand.
While this card is in play, no other player may buy a card.

If someone plays Blockade, and I reveal a Moat, then I will not need to discard a card now nor at the start of his next turn.  However, I still won't be able to buy cards.

Same for on-trash effects:

Kamikaze
Action-Attack

Each other player discards down to 3 cards in his hand.  You may trash this.
When you trash this, each other player gains a Curse.

If I Moat a Kamikaze, then I don't need to discard down to 3, but I would still gain a Curse if my opponent chooses to trash his card.

[soulnet]

unforeseen interactions with future cards in the past.

Time to go watch back to the future again.

[LastFootnote]

Ballot's up. Let me know if I misprinted or omitted your card. Thanks!

[AJD]

Mean Person
Types: Action-Attack
Cost: $2
+2 Cards
--
While this is in play, when you play an Action card, each opponent gains a Curse.

This card might actually work if you made it not an Attack.  And gave it +1 Action.

And made it a $2 card strictly better than Laboratory?

All Moat does is wave itself around when an Attack is played, and if that Attack would do anything to you, now it doesn't.  So back to Mean Person, if it remained an Attack, and I waved my Moat around when you played it, I would not take any Curses, no matter how many Actions you played, and I would not have to reveal Moat again.

This sounds obvious (and I think I agree with you), but it's not obvious. Revealing a Moat certainly protects you against what an Attack card does when it is played. It obviously doesn't automatically protect against all other things that Attack card might do between when it is played and when it leaves play. If I Throne Room a Witch, you have to reveal Moat twice to be protected twice; revealing Moat the first time its is played doesn't protect you against the same Witch trying to give you another Curse later in the turn even though you've already protected yourself against the effects of that card.

How do you interpret the interaction of Moat with mirror-universe Goons?

(Fun edge case: It is possible, through an unholy combination of Procession, Graverobber, Ambassador, and Moat, to play a copy of Noble Brigand and then buy it. Obviously the fact that you revealed Moat when I played Noble Brigand doesn't protect you against the on-buy effects of the same Noble Brigand.)

[Warfreak2]

I don't think Moat is necessary for that combo to work; you can just return two Noble Brigands, so that after your opponent gets one, you can buy the other one.

[SirPeebles]

Should Shipwreck Cove have an Attack type?

[cluckyb]

Just glancing over cards for now

Harbourmaster
Types: Action – Duration
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. You may discard this from play. If you don't, then at the start of your next turn, trash this and +3 Cards.

think the wording on this one should be cleaned up a bit. Something like either "At the start of your next turn, if this card is in play trash it and +3 Card" or "At the start of your next turn, if this card is in play trash it. If you do +3 Cards" but wouldn't you be able to throne room this, don't discard it, then discard it and somehow have to track that its getting trashed and you get +3 cards at the start of your next turn?

[AJD]

My favorite card name among the ballots is Clipper: cost reduction = fast travel as with Highway, but it's also a pun.

[soulnet]

Nitpicking: Maybe Dock and Docks could have (A) and (B) attached, since even though they are different words, they are easy to confuse, with something like "Playing several Docks in a row would be too powerful"

[LastFootnote]

Ballot Edit: Martello now has "when any player" rather than "when another player".

Should Shipwreck Cove have an Attack type?

Yeah, that seems like a good idea. In my defense, it was submitted without the Attack type. I'll add it soon.

Just glancing over cards for now

Harbourmaster
Types: Action – Duration
Cost: $5
+3 Cards. You may discard this from play. If you don't, then at the start of your next turn, trash this and +3 Cards.

think the wording on this one should be cleaned up a bit. Something like either "At the start of your next turn, if this card is in play trash it and +3 Card" or "At the start of your next turn, if this card is in play trash it. If you do +3 Cards" but wouldn't you be able to throne room this, don't discard it, then discard it and somehow have to track that its getting trashed and you get +3 cards at the start of your next turn?

I'll update it to the first, Throne-able version.

Nitpicking: Maybe Dock and Docks could have (A) and (B) attached, since even though they are different words, they are easy to confuse, with something like "Playing several Docks in a row would be too powerful"

I'd considered doing this and decided not to, but your argument has swayed me.

[achmed_sender]

Coastal Raiders
Types: Action – Attack – Duration
Cost: $3
Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand. At the start of your next turn, +$3.

Am I missing something or is this card just soooo overpowered at $6. I mean, it does nothing for you on this turn, but is much stronger than Militia on the next turn, basically a cantrip Gold with attack. Shouldn't that cost $6 or $7?

[LastFootnote]

Coastal Raiders
Types: Action – Attack – Duration
Cost: $3
Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand. At the start of your next turn, +$3.

Am I missing something or is this card just soooo overpowered at $6. I mean, it does nothing for you on this turn, but is much stronger than Militia on the next turn, basically a cantrip Gold with attack. Shouldn't that cost $6 or $7?

It doesn't attack next turn. It only attacks on the turn you play it.

[LastFootnote]

By the way, the next contest will be Intrigue, but if you're one of the people who wish there was a Base Set contest, feel free to submit your Base Set cards to that contest. Intrigue has a lot of just regular cards, after all. Consider it an informal Intrigue/Base contest.

[GeoLib]

Coastal Raiders
Types: Action – Attack – Duration
Cost: $3
Each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand. At the start of your next turn, +$3.

Am I missing something or is this card just soooo overpowered at $6. I mean, it does nothing for you on this turn, but is much stronger than Militia on the next turn, basically a cantrip Gold with attack. Shouldn't that cost $6 or $7?

They don't discard next turn. You just get the $3

Edit: Ninja'd