Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Rules Questions => Topic started by: pst on April 19, 2015, 10:40:12 am
-
Finding a Page or a Peasant at the Black Market is interesting.
Exchanging a card is described with:
When a player discards a Traveller from play, he may exchange it for the card indicated; he returns the card being exchanged to its pile, takes the card he is exchanging it for, and puts that card into his discard pile.
What does returning the card being exchanged "to its pile" mean?
My first thought was that this is not possible, so you couldn't do that, but there is no "if you do" to stop you from taking the next card, so when discarding a Page you would get a Treasure Hunter even though you still had that Page, etc.
But the best literal interpretation may be that "its pile" is the Black Market deck, so you put the Page or Peasant on the top of that! Comments?
-
My thought is that it fails to find the pile to return to. Whether or not you still get the next traveler still seems weird. But based on other cards, I'd think you would.
-
My thought is that it fails to find the pile to return to. Whether or not you still get the next traveler still seems weird. But based on other cards, I'd think you would.
You won't. Exchanging requires both returning and acquiring. If there's no Page pile, there's nowhere for Page to return to, so you don't get a Treasure Hunter.
-
You won't. Exchanging requires both returning and acquiring.
I think it has been said that that was the case before the rules were published, but now we have the actual rules, and I quoted them. There is no "if you do" or similar about this. The condition you may think of may be that you only can exchange if "the card being exchanged for has any copies available", which isn't a problem here.
-
I think a strict reading of the rules would dictate that when you discard a Page from the Black Market you may take a Treasure Hunter but you keep the Page.
-
I think a strict reading of the rules would dictate that when you discard a Page from the Black Market you may take a Treasure Hunter but you keep the Page.
I like the "return it to the Black Market deck" hypothesis, but I'm not very confident of it. It seems like the most balanced way to deal with the issue though.
-
I think a strict reading of the rules would dictate that when you discard a Page from the Black Market you may take a Treasure Hunter but you keep the Page.
I like the "return it to the Black Market deck" hypothesis, but I'm not very confident of it. It seems like the most balanced way to deal with the issue though.
Yeah, it'd be cool if it kept going back in and gave multiple chances to start the chains off. I suspect this will often be a house rule. I think the problem with it as an official ruling though is that there's no defined way to return something to the Black Market deck.
-
- There's nowhere to return Page to if it's from the Black Market. You can't Ambassador something that came from the Black Market. Page cannot return anywhere, it cannot leave your deck.
-If we follow pst's idea, this means that I can infinitely use my Page to generate Treasure Hunters. Can you imagine a game where only one player has a Champion, and all five Warriors? That would be stupid. Stupider than a Curser or anything else overpowered in the Black Market.
-If we follow what Donald X was saying before, you have to do both - you have to return, and you have to get one. Therefore a Black Market Page does nothing. You spent $2 on a cantrip, good job. I'm much more comfortable with this, particularly since there is precedence for certain cards just being useless when they're from the Black Market.
-
Yeah, it'd be cool if it kept going back in and gave multiple chances to start the chains off. I suspect this will often be a house rule. I think the problem with it as an official ruling though is that there's no defined way to return something to the Black Market deck.
When you buy a card from the BM deck but use Trader so as to not get the bought card it goes back to the top of the BM deck. That is not really a precedent but at least show that cards can be put there.
-
Yeah, it'd be cool if it kept going back in and gave multiple chances to start the chains off. I suspect this will often be a house rule. I think the problem with it as an official ruling though is that there's no defined way to return something to the Black Market deck.
When you buy a card from the BM deck but use Trader so as to not get the bought card it goes back to the top of the BM deck. That is not really a precedent but at least show that cards can be put there.
But you're not returning it - it never left.
-
- There's nowhere to return Page to if it's from the Black Market. You can't Ambassador something that came from the Black Market. Page cannot return anywhere, it cannot leave your deck.
Ambassador says to return things "to the supply". The rules for Travellers say to return it "to its pile", which is slightly more ambiguous and may include the Black Market deck.
-If we follow what Donald X was saying before, you have to do both - you have to return, and you have to get one. Therefore a Black Market Page does nothing. You spent $2 on a cantrip, good job. I'm much more comfortable with this, particularly since there is precedence for certain cards just being useless when they're from the Black Market.
I just hate it when Donald X.'s ruling on a card is something different from what the rule booklet and/or card text says. That's sometimes unavoidable, but it's not really desirable.
-
- There's nowhere to return Page to if it's from the Black Market. You can't Ambassador something that came from the Black Market. Page cannot return anywhere, it cannot leave your deck.
Ambassador doesn't get into this. It returns cards "to the Supply" which you clearly can't do with BM-bought cards.
This is instead about putting a card "back into its pile". The formulation is so as to allow for returning also for example Treasure Hunter to "its pile" which is a pile with only Treasure Hunters or a pile with them all (page 4 or the rules), but nevertheless a pile that isn't in the Supply.
-If we follow pst's idea, this means that I can infinitely use my Page to generate Treasure Hunters.
My idea here is that the BM deck may be thought of as a "pile" and more specifically to be "its pile" for a card that came from it. So this idea is instead something that saves as from super strong travellers in the BM deck.
-If we follow what Donald X was saying before, you have to do both
I also remember a comment about that, but haven't found it again to see what it actually said, and if it actually said more than the part that actually is in the rules about a related question. Anyway it wouldn't be like Donald X to make rulings that contradict the Rules as published. We'll see, I guess!
-
Anyway it wouldn't be like Donald X to make rulings that contradict the Rules as published.
Except when he totally did that for Hermit/Scheme.
-
Anyway it wouldn't be like Donald X to make rulings that contradict the Rules as published.
Except when he totally did that for Hermit/Scheme.
How so?
-
Anyway it wouldn't be like Donald X to make rulings that contradict the Rules as published.
Except when he totally did that for Hermit/Scheme.
How so?
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Hermit#Other_Rules_clarifications
This was more the rules disagreeing with the actual text on the card.
-
Anyway it wouldn't be like Donald X to make rulings that contradict the Rules as published.
Except when he totally did that for Hermit/Scheme.
How so?
http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Hermit#Other_Rules_clarifications
This was more the rules disagreeing with the actual text on the card.
But this was a case where an example in the rule book was mistaken; it didn't follow the actual rules. Donald didn't change the rule, or rule differently than the rules said; he simply said that the printed example was wrong. Examples in rulebooks are never meant to create new rules.
-
My thought is that it fails to find the pile to return to. Whether or not you still get the next traveler still seems weird. But based on other cards, I'd think you would.
You won't. Exchanging requires both returning and acquiring. If there's no Page pile, there's nowhere for Page to return to, so you don't get a Treasure Hunter.
This is correct. Exchanging requires both things and you can't return the Page.
-
-If we follow pst's idea, this means that I can infinitely use my Page to generate Treasure Hunters. Can you imagine a game where only one player has a Champion, and all five Warriors? That would be stupid. Stupider than a Curser or anything else overpowered in the Black Market.
This part doesn't matter here; it's not a reason for me to rule one way or another.
-
I just hate it when Donald X.'s ruling on a card is something different from what the rule booklet and/or card text says. That's sometimes unavoidable, but it's not really desirable.
Well I don't think there's too much of this. Here the intention, with no thought given to Black Market, was always that exchange required both things to happen in order for anything to happen. The rulebook is trying to make that clear and at least does not clearly say the opposite.
-
- There's nowhere to return Page to if it's from the Black Market. You can't Ambassador something that came from the Black Market. Page cannot return anywhere, it cannot leave your deck.
Ambassador doesn't get into this. It returns cards "to the Supply" which you clearly can't do with BM-bought cards.
This is instead about putting a card "back into its pile". The formulation is so as to allow for returning also for example Treasure Hunter to "its pile" which is a pile with only Treasure Hunters or a pile with them all (page 4 or the rules), but nevertheless a pile that isn't in the Supply.
-If we follow pst's idea, this means that I can infinitely use my Page to generate Treasure Hunters.
My idea here is that the BM deck may be thought of as a "pile" and more specifically to be "its pile" for a card that came from it. So this idea is instead something that saves as from super strong travellers in the BM deck.
The Black Market deck isn't a "pile" and so much for that. You could argue that Page returns to the other 9 Pages, despite the fact that they're sitting in a box somewhere in non-pile form. To me that's not a pile either, but that's not as clear.