Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Rules Questions => Topic started by: ehunt on July 30, 2014, 11:21:58 am
-
This is several years old, but possibly very slight rewording. (There is no question in here. Just trying to word the rule for myself in light of other discussions on the board about the moving rules).
Trader is different from, say, watchtower, in that trader cancels gaining events. No other card works in this way.
Ironworks says "Gain a card... If it is...." If Ironworks is played on great hall, and trader is revealed, there is no gaining event. The "it" in Ironworks has no antecedent, because the gaining event triggered by Ironworks has been canceled. As a result, we have done as much of Ironworks as we can, and we ignore the rest.
Please no blue dog jokes.
-
Possession also cancels the gaining initiated by Ironworks.
-
Does Goko do this correctly? I know this was one of the rare things that Isotropic had wrong (though to be fair, not even Donald knew what the correct rule was at the time it was implemented on Iso).
-
Possession also cancels the gaining initiated by Ironworks.
Why should that be?
If a card is gained by Ironworks, it does not matter, where it goes - relevant is only that it got gained.
-
Possession also cancels the gaining initiated by Ironworks.
Why should that be?
If a card is gained by Ironworks, it does not matter, where it goes - relevant is only that it got gained.
The card isn't gained by Ironworks, it's gained by Possession.
-
Possession also cancels the gaining initiated by Ironworks.
Why should that be?
If a card is gained by Ironworks, it does not matter, where it goes - relevant is only that it got gained.
The card isn't gained by Ironworks, it's gained by Possession.
Exactly, just like how the Silver you get from revealing trader isn't gained by Ironworks. Possession doesn't say "when the player gains a card, move it to your discard pile". It says "would gain", and replaces their gain with a completely new and separate event. It so happens that the new and separate event is also a gain (like it is with Trader), but it's a gain that has nothing to do with Ironworks. As far as Ironworks knows, the new event could have just been draw a card or something.
-
Goko gets it wrong for possession: http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?/20140730/log.50ca9bbae4b0c3bfb6b97227.1406738241545.txt
But correct for trader: http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?/20140730/log.50ca9bbae4b0c3bfb6b97227.1406738336778.txt
For Trader it doesn't even show the original gain event
-
Goko gets it wrong for possession: http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?/20140730/log.50ca9bbae4b0c3bfb6b97227.1406738241545.txt
But correct for trader: http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?/20140730/log.50ca9bbae4b0c3bfb6b97227.1406738336778.txt
For Trader it doesn't even show the original gain event
Thanks. Actually it doesn't show the original gain event for Possession either; it only shows the new gain:
Serf Bot plays Ironworks
GeoLib gains Forager
-
Wouldn't the player you're possessing draw a card if you make him gain something with ironworks? the way I see it is that he did gain it, but possession moved it from his discard pile to a separate pile, which you put into your discard pile at the end of the turn.
-
Wouldn't the player you're possessing draw a card if you make him gain something with ironworks? the way I see it is that he did gain it, but possession moved it from his discard pile to a separate pile, which you put into your discard pile at the end of the turn.
No, that's not what Possession says. No gain (from Ironworks) ever happened... Possession happens on "would gain" not on "gain", like Trader does. It doesn't react to the gain happening; it stops the gain from happening at all, and does something different instead. Also, the gain from Possession goes right into the player who's possessing's discard pile, like a normal gain. It does not get set aside and put into the discard pile later. This could matter if the possessed person plays Governor or Council Room or Soothsayer.
-
Wouldn't the player you're possessing draw a card if you make him gain something with ironworks? the way I see it is that he did gain it, but possession moved it from his discard pile to a separate pile, which you put into your discard pile at the end of the turn.
No, that's not what Possession says. No gain (from Ironworks) ever happened... Possession happens on "would gain" not on "gain", like Trader does. It doesn't react to the gain happening; it stops the gain from happening at all, and does something different instead. Also, the gain from Possession goes right into the player who's possessing's discard pile, like a normal gain. It does not get set aside and put into the discard pile later. This could matter if the possessed person plays Governor or Council Room or Soothsayer.
I see. Makes sense.
-
Goko gets it wrong for possession: http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?/20140730/log.50ca9bbae4b0c3bfb6b97227.1406738241545.txt
But correct for trader: http://www.gokosalvager.com/static/logprettifier.html?/20140730/log.50ca9bbae4b0c3bfb6b97227.1406738336778.txt
For Trader it doesn't even show the original gain event
i like to imagine serfbot is human and only wants to know why you insisted on playing a game with possession and ironworks, then a game with trader and ironworks, but is too scared of looking like a noob to ask
-
Possession also cancels the gaining initiated by Ironworks.
Why should that be?
If a card is gained by Ironworks, it does not matter, where it goes - relevant is only that it got gained.
The card isn't gained by Ironworks, it's gained by Possession.
I could not understand that, so i did some searching here and on BGG about this topic: I concede to Donald's ruling, that the "it" of Ironworks does have an implicit assumption:
The card has to be gained by the player of Ironworks through Ironworks, to get the effects.
That is the crucial point, which explains the why and which i did not see in GendoIkari's explanations. The rest of his/her explanations is completely logical from there on.
-
I could not understand that, so i did some searching here and on BGG about this topic: I concede to Donald's ruling, that the "it" of Ironworks does have an implicit assumption:
The card has to be gained by the player of Ironworks through Ironworks, to get the effects.
That's unnecessary, though. There is no way for any other player to gain a card through Ironworks.
-
That's unnecessary, though.
Oh! Really? Why?
There is no way for any other player to gain a card through Ironworks.
Did i say so?
Or what is you point?
-
That's unnecessary, though.
Oh! Really? Why?
There is no way for any other player to gain a card through Ironworks.
Did i say so?
Or what is you point?
It's unnecessary, because there is no way for any other player to gain a card through Ironworks. So saying that Ironworks has an implicit assumption that "The card has to be gained by the player of Ironworks through Ironworks" is like saying that Ironworks has an implicit assumption that "The card has to be a Dominion card".
-
Trader doesn't replace the card, it replaces the event, that's the most important thing I guess.
-
It's unnecessary, because there is no way for any other player to gain a card through Ironworks.
It may be obvious for you, but repeating a statement instead of explaining why does not help.
... is like saying that Ironworks has an implicit assumption that "The card has to be a Dominion card".
It really does have. Because anything not explicitly stated on a card, but must be fullfilled, is the meaning of implicit.
OK, may be "implicit assumption" is a not so proper term. But the "implicit" got used by Donald himself: Ironworks does not say "if you do," ... It's implicit, ...
I wanted to emphasize some reqirements in gaining a card through Ironworks. If only one is not fullfilled, than nobody gets the effect(s). And I wanted to emphasize, that it is not obvious on first sight, that the "If it is" has a strong binding to the "Gain". And that is the reason for the confusion, if one does not recognize that "implicit" if you gain that card. Which i did not in combination with possession.
I can make a longer story out of it: Donald could have written Ironworks so:
Name a card in supply. Try to gain that card. If you do succesfull gain that card, you get additional benefits depending on type(s) of that card : ...
Clarifying FAQ could be:
One does not gain that card succesfull, if that card gets exchanged before it leaves supply (for instance by revealing Trader) or somebody else gains that card instead (for instance in extra turn from Possession).
-
It's unnecessary, because there is no way for any other player to gain a card through Ironworks.
It may be obvious for you, but repeating a statement instead of explaining why does not help.
... is like saying that Ironworks has an implicit assumption that "The card has to be a Dominion card".
It really does have. Because anything not explicitly stated on a card, but must be fullfilled, is the meaning of implicit.
OK, may be "implicit assumption" is a not so proper term. But the "implicit" got used by Donald himself: Ironworks does not say "if you do," ... It's implicit, ...
I wanted to emphasize some reqirements in gaining a card through Ironworks. If only one is not fullfilled, than nobody gets the effect(s). And I wanted to emphasize, that it is not obvious on first sight, that the "If it is" has a strong binding to the "Gain". And that is the reason for the confusion, if one does not recognize that "implicit" if you gain that card. Which i did not in combination with possession.
I can make a longer story out of it: Donald could have written Ironworks so:
Name a card in supply. Try to gain that card. If you do succesfull gain that card, you get additional benefits depending on type(s) of that card : ...
Clarifying FAQ could be:
One does not gain that card succesfull, if that card gets exchanged before it leaves supply (for instance by revealing Trader) or somebody else gains that card instead (for instance in extra turn from Possession).
If I'm Possessing you and you play an Ironworks, as far as Ironworks knows, nobody gains a card. Possession replaces the "gain a card" with another effect, so Ironworks never gains any card. The other effect, by coincidence, happens to be the exact same card being gained by me, but Ironworks doesn't care about that. It could be the same card being gained by you, too, and Ironworks would still give no bonus.
-
Trader doesn't replace the card, it replaces the event, that's the most important thing I guess.
I don't agree: The event is the same "If you would gain". It is so before and after revealing Trader, so no replacing events. But if i name Great Hall when playing Ironworks and then reveal Trader than it is a silver whoever gains it. How is that not replacing a card? Perhaps you prefer exchanging?
-
... so Ironworks never gains any card. ...
That is my central / prime point: why results that in no effect(s), not which other card does it with whatever mechanic. And why is there confusion wether or who get the effect(s).
You can shout a thousand times "Possession does blablabla". It only repeats, when or where Possession interferes with the usual gain process. It does not clarify why Ironworks then gives not the effect(s). Which is because of the implicit If you gain that card ....
-
The effect of the event is the same (you gain a card), but it isn't the same event.
Ironworks' event it wants to react to is the "gain" it causes.
Trader catches this and asks you if you want to "instead, gain a Silver", which is a new event on its own.
Trader doesn't replace Ironworks' gained card (from Great Hall to Silver), it replaces Ironworks' "gain a card, if it is..." with its own "instead, gain a Silver".
It's like Band of Misfits, imagine rewriting part of the card.
The moment you reveal Trader to IW, this happens:
Ironworks normally reads: Gain a card costing up to 4 Coins. If it is an... Action card, +1 Action. Treasure card, +1 Coin. Victory card, +1 Card.
>> REVEAL TRADER <<
Ironworks now reads: (blank) The whole part about gaining and anything that happens from it is gone
And Trader just causes you to gain that Silver it promises.
-
Trader doesn't replace the card, it replaces the event, that's the most important thing I guess.
I don't agree: The event is the same "If you would gain". It is so before and after revealing Trader, so no replacing events. But if i name Great Hall when playing Ironworks and then reveal Trader than it is a silver whoever gains it. How is that not replacing a card? Perhaps you prefer exchanging?
No, it's not the same event. Here's what happens:
1 — Player A is about to gain a Great Hall with Ironworks.
2 — He now "would gain a card". This trigger's Trader's reaction.
3 — Player A reveals Trader. This erases the gain effect that would have taken place due to Ironworks from existence and creates a new effect, Trader's "gain a Silver".
4 — Ironworks didn't gain any cards, so Player A doesn't gain a bonus.
That is my central / prime point: why results that in no effect(s), not which other card does it with whatever mechanic. And why is there confusion wether or who get the effect(s).
You can shout a thousand times "Possession does blablabla". It only repeats, when or where Possession interferes with the usual gain process. It does not clarify why Ironworks then gives not the effect(s). Which is because of the implicit If you gain that card ....
Possession does not merely "interfere" with the usual gain process, it completely prevents it from happening. Then, it makes a new gain process of its own happen. This is separate from Ironworks. Ironworks gives no effects because it didn't gain anything; the "it" it's referring to does not exist.
-
Hm, has Donald weighed in on the Possession/Ironworks thing? I don't disagree with the interpretations here, but I feel like the "intended function" would be as Goko implements. The idea is "The Possessed player plays a turn as normal except that you make all the decisions and gain all the cards", it's just hard to make that all technically sound.
-
Well, Possession just says "would gain" on the card, so I think it should work like Trader, relevant part of text on Possession: Any cards he would gain on that turn, you gain instead.
1. Possess
2. Play IW to gain a card
3. Before you actually gain it (and take any actions in response to gaining it), Possession's "would gain" takes over and just lets the possessing player gain the card instead at which point he can react with Watchtower or Trader
I think it's even more important for a card like Ill-Gotten Gains, which reads: When you gain this, each other player gains a Curse.
Imaging doing this on a possession turn:
(0. Play Highway)
1. Play IW to grab an IGG
>>> Now Possession's clause kicks in, giving the IGG instead to the possessor, the "gain" from IW is caught and replaced by Possession
2. Because the possessing player gains an IGG, the opponent (who is possessed) gains a Curse
>>> Possession kicks in again, giving the Curse instead to the possessor
So the gaining of the Curse by the possessor actually happens from trying to let the possessee gain that Curse and not as a reaction from the possessee gaining that IGG. The possessee never gains anything, so he can't do any "when-gain" stuff.
3. Okay, we're back to Ironworks and it doesn't have a clue what just happened, so it just fizzles.
-
Hm, has Donald weighed in on the Possession/Ironworks thing? I don't disagree with the interpretations here, but I feel like the "intended function" would be as Goko implements. The idea is "The Possessed player plays a turn as normal except that you make all the decisions and gain all the cards", it's just hard to make that all technically sound.
Donald +1'd my last post, where I described how it works (the same as Trader).
-
Hm, has Donald weighed in on the Possession/Ironworks thing? I don't disagree with the interpretations here, but I feel like the "intended function" would be as Goko implements. The idea is "The Possessed player plays a turn as normal except that you make all the decisions and gain all the cards", it's just hard to make that all technically sound.
Donald +1'd my last post, where I described how it works (the same as Trader).
I see. that's what I'd expect. But surely this was one of those unintended things, right?
-
Hm, has Donald weighed in on the Possession/Ironworks thing? I don't disagree with the interpretations here, but I feel like the "intended function" would be as Goko implements. The idea is "The Possessed player plays a turn as normal except that you make all the decisions and gain all the cards", it's just hard to make that all technically sound.
Donald +1'd my last post, where I described how it works (the same as Trader).
I see. that's what I'd expect. But surely this was one of those unintended things, right?
Yes, in the original "Blue dog" thread at BGG (http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/716619/ironworks-and-trader), when Donald first made his ruling about how Ironworks/Trader would work (then reversed it, then reversed it again); he specifically said "Sadly this must also apply to Possession."
-
Hm, has Donald weighed in on the Possession/Ironworks thing? I don't disagree with the interpretations here, but I feel like the "intended function" would be as Goko implements. The idea is "The Possessed player plays a turn as normal except that you make all the decisions and gain all the cards", it's just hard to make that all technically sound.
Donald +1'd my last post, where I described how it works (the same as Trader).
I see. that's what I'd expect. But surely this was one of those unintended things, right?
Yes, in the original "Blue dog" thread at BGG (http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/716619/ironworks-and-trader), when Donald first made his ruling about how Ironworks/Trader would work (then reversed it, then reversed it again); he specifically said "Sadly this must also apply to Possession."
Ah, I see. Thanks.
-
Hm, has Donald weighed in on the Possession/Ironworks thing? I don't disagree with the interpretations here, but I feel like the "intended function" would be as Goko implements. The idea is "The Possessed player plays a turn as normal except that you make all the decisions and gain all the cards", it's just hard to make that all technically sound.
Donald +1'd my last post, where I described how it works (the same as Trader).
It is certainly easier to +1 your post than to write his own. Ain't no way he's opening that can of blue worms again.
-
Hm, has Donald weighed in on the Possession/Ironworks thing? I don't disagree with the interpretations here, but I feel like the "intended function" would be as Goko implements. The idea is "The Possessed player plays a turn as normal except that you make all the decisions and gain all the cards", it's just hard to make that all technically sound.
Donald +1'd my last post, where I described how it works (the same as Trader).
It is certainly easier to +1 your post than to write his own. Ain't no way he's opening that can of blue worms again.
Open a can of worms.
If it was...
Blue, +1 card
Green, +$1
-
the can is blue/green, not the worms?
-
... so Ironworks never gains any card. ...
That is my central / prime point: why results that in no effect(s), not which other card does it with whatever mechanic. And why is there confusion wether or who get the effect(s).
You can shout a thousand times "Possession does blablabla". It only repeats, when or where Possession interferes with the usual gain process. It does not clarify why Ironworks then gives not the effect(s). Which is because of the implicit If you gain that card ....
I wouldn't say that Ironworks has an implicit "if you gain that card" (with or without emphasis). The "it" in "if it is" just refers to the card that you just gained through Ironworks. Possession and Trader both prevent this gaining from ever taking place, so there simply doesn't exist any antecedent for it.
Programming Analogy because those always make things clearer:
If Dominion cards were little programs, it's like when Ironworks gains a card it assigns the local variable "it" to the card. Then it looks up the types of "it" in the next sentence and gives you a bonus accordingly. When Trader or Possession interrupts the gain it also interrupts the variable assignment, so when Ironworks references "it" again it's referencing an unassigned variable. Here a computer program would get an error except that Dominion has a persistent Try-Except statement where any errors are ignored (a python construct. Basically if the program throws an error then you can specify a way for it to handle it). Now I'm sure that's cleared everything up for everyone. :P
Another point is that the event that replaces the gain could be completely identical to the original gain event. Consider:
Worthless Trader
When you would gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, instead, gain that card.
If you revealed this to an ironworks gain it would still prevent you from getting the ironworks bonus. In fact, the only thing that would change is that you would no longer get the ironworks bonus (someone edge case me).
Also note that the only existing "would gain" cards replace the gain with another gain, but this doesn't have to be the case. They could easily say something like "when you would gain a card, instead, +1 card."
I think I should probably go back to what I'm supposed to be doing now...
-
Hm, has Donald weighed in on the Possession/Ironworks thing? I don't disagree with the interpretations here, but I feel like the "intended function" would be as Goko implements. The idea is "The Possessed player plays a turn as normal except that you make all the decisions and gain all the cards", it's just hard to make that all technically sound.
Donald +1'd my last post, where I described how it works (the same as Trader).
It is certainly easier to +1 your post than to write his own. Ain't no way he's opening that can of blue worms again.
Open a can of worms.
If it was...
Blue, +1 card
Green, +$1
What if it was blue when you chose it, but green when you opened it?
(Quickedit) Also, it would have been amazing if you had said, "If it was... Green, +1 Card, White, +1 Action, Yellow, +$1"
-
Programming Analogy because those always make things clearer:
If Dominion cards were little programs, it's like when Ironworks gains a card it assigns the local variable "it" to the card. Then it looks up the types of "it" in the next sentence and gives you a bonus accordingly. When Trader or Possession interrupts the gain it also interrupts the variable assignment, so when Ironworks references "it" again it's referencing an unassigned variable. Here a computer program would get an error except that Dominion has a persistent Try-Except statement where any errors are ignored (a python construct. Basically if the program throws an error then you can specify a way for it to handle it). Now I'm sure that's cleared everything up for everyone. :P
private bool CheckWouldGainReactions()
{
if (PossessionInPlay)
{
return false;
}
else if (TraderRevealed)
{
return false;
}
else
{
return true;
}
}
public void GainCardFromIronworks(Card chosenCard)
{
Card gainedCard = null;
if (CheckWouldGainReactions())
{
gainedCard = chosenCard;
}
if (gainedCard != null)
{
if (gainedCard.Types.Includes("Action"))
{
AddAction();
}
if (gainedCard.Types.Includes("Victory"))
{
DrawCard();
}
if (gainedCard.Types.Includes("Treasure"))
{
AddCoin();
}
}
}
-
Programming Analogy because those always make things clearer:
If Dominion cards were little programs, it's like when Ironworks gains a card it assigns the local variable "it" to the card. Then it looks up the types of "it" in the next sentence and gives you a bonus accordingly. When Trader or Possession interrupts the gain it also interrupts the variable assignment, so when Ironworks references "it" again it's referencing an unassigned variable. Here a computer program would get an error except that Dominion has a persistent Try-Except statement where any errors are ignored (a python construct. Basically if the program throws an error then you can specify a way for it to handle it). Now I'm sure that's cleared everything up for everyone. :P
private bool CheckWouldGainReactions()
{
if (PossessionInPlay)
{
return false;
}
else if (TraderRevealed)
{
return false;
}
else
{
return true;
}
}
public void GainCardFromIronworks(Card chosenCard)
{
Card gainedCard = null;
if (CheckWouldGainReactions())
{
gainedCard = chosenCard;
}
if (gainedCard != null)
{
if (gainedCard.Types.Includes("Action"))
{
AddAction();
}
if (gainedCard.Types.Includes("Victory"))
{
DrawCard();
}
if (gainedCard.Types.Includes("Treasure"))
{
AddCoin();
}
}
}
I was thinking more like:
def try_gain_card(player,valid_gain_choices=all_cards_in_supply):
valid_choice = False
while not valid_choice:
card_to_gain = input("Choose a card to gain")
if card_to_gain in valid_gain_choices:
valid_choice = True
return would_gain(player,card_to_gain)
def would_gain(player,card_to_gain):
would_gain_effects = []
if is_possessed(player):
would_gain_effects.append(possession_would_gain)
if input("reveal trader?"):
would_gain_effects.append(trader_would_gain)
while len(would_gain_effects)>0:
effect_to_resolve = input("which would_gain effect would you like to resolve?")
return would_gain_effects[effect_to_resolve](card_would_gain)
return gain(player,card_to_gain)
def gain(player, card_to_gain):
gain_effects = input(black_box_that_checks_for_all_potential_gain_effects)
while len(gain_effects)>0:
effect_to_resolve = input("which gain effect would you like to resolve?")
gain_effects[effect_to_resolve](card_gained)
return card_to_gain
def possession_would_gain(player_to_gain,card_would_gain):
would_gain(player_to_gain-1,card_would_gain)
return
def trader_would_gain(player_to_gain,card_would_gain):
would_gain(player_to_gain,silver)
return
def ironworks():
card_gained = try_gain_card(current_player,cards_in_supply_costing_less_than_4)
try:
if type(card_gained)==Action:
action_count+=1
if type(card_gained)==Treasure:
money_pool+=1
if type(card_gained)==Victory:
draw_cards(1)
return
except:
return
-
Hm, has Donald weighed in on the Possession/Ironworks thing? I don't disagree with the interpretations here, but I feel like the "intended function" would be as Goko implements. The idea is "The Possessed player plays a turn as normal except that you make all the decisions and gain all the cards", it's just hard to make that all technically sound.
Donald +1'd my last post, where I described how it works (the same as Trader).
It is certainly easier to +1 your post than to write his own. Ain't no way he's opening that can of blue worms again.
Open a can of worms.
If it was...
Blue, +1 card
Green, +$1
What if it was blue when you chose it, but green when you opened it?
(Quickedit) Also, it would have been amazing if you had said, "If it was... Green, +1 Card, White, +1 Action, Yellow, +$1"
Schrödinger's worm.
-
So it's at a superposition of blue and green?
-
I'm pretty sure that if you open it, you're observing it...
-
But as long as you don't open it, it's not green, not blue, but both!