Dominion Strategy Forum
Archive => Archive => Dominion: Renaissance Previews => Topic started by: DooWopDJ on February 06, 2019, 09:09:16 am
-
As I was re-organizing my cards and noticed that the 'origin' cards for the Artifacts did not have their own 'card type'. I am not intending to criticize the introduction of this new concept, but the other non-card type cards (at least in Renaissance have some sort of 'origin' card. Doom > Hex, Fate > Boon. Why did the Artifacts 'origin' card not have their own type? Maybe 'Reward' or 'Trophy'. I doubt it was an 'oversight' by design.
-
There would be no rules benefit to a new type. Several cards can add Hexes to the game, so tagging them with Doom means you can put that rule in one place instead of saying it separately for each card. But only Flagbearer adds Flag. Even if you had some Artifact-Bringer type, you would still have to spell out in the rulebook which artifact it brings.
There is precedent of cards that uniquely add another card (Hermit, etc) and those didn't get a special type either.
-
The difference with Doom and Fate is that Hexes and Boons require some setup. The card type is there so that you can see "I have a Fate card; I need to shuffle the Boons".
-
As I was re-organizing my cards and noticed that the 'origin' cards for the Artifacts did not have their own 'card type'. I am not intending to criticize the introduction of this new concept, but the other non-card type cards (at least in Renaissance have some sort of 'origin' card. Doom > Hex, Fate > Boon. Why did the Artifacts 'origin' card not have their own type? Maybe 'Reward' or 'Trophy'. I doubt it was an 'oversight' by design.
Types are used in Dominion either to have rules tied to them, or because making the cards a different color has value.
Those cases did not come up here; so, no new type.
-
There would be no rules benefit to a new type. Several cards can add Hexes to the game, so tagging them with Doom means you can put that rule in one place instead of saying it separately for each card. But only Flagbearer adds Flag. Even if you had some Artifact-Bringer type, you would still have to spell out in the rulebook which artifact it brings.
There is precedent of cards that uniquely add another card (Hermit, etc) and those didn't get a special type either.
Excellent insight on consequences of 'new types'. Thanks.
-
As I was re-organizing my cards and noticed that the 'origin' cards for the Artifacts did not have their own 'card type'. I am not intending to criticize the introduction of this new concept, but the other non-card type cards (at least in Renaissance have some sort of 'origin' card. Doom > Hex, Fate > Boon. Why did the Artifacts 'origin' card not have their own type? Maybe 'Reward' or 'Trophy'. I doubt it was an 'oversight' by design.
Types are used in Dominion either to have rules tied to them, or because making the cards a different color has value.
Those cases did not come up here; so, no new type.
Doom and Fate are something of a stretch though. Is the only rule attached to them "shuffle the Hex/Boon pile before the game begins"? Receiving a Boon doesn't seem significantly different from gaining a Spoils, or a Prize.
-
Doom and Fate are something of a stretch though. Is the only rule attached to them "shuffle the Hex/Boon pile before the game begins"? Receiving a Boon doesn't seem significantly different from gaining a Spoils, or a Prize.
They require you to shuffle the Hexes/Boons, yes. "Receive a Boon" needs rules, it's incomprehensible otherwise, unlike "gain a Spoils from the Spoils pile" - but those rules are independent of "Fate."
-
The Heirloom cards are a relevant comparison: Heirlooms themselves have a new type, but the cards they come with do not.
-
As I was re-organizing my cards and noticed that the 'origin' cards for the Artifacts did not have their own 'card type'. I am not intending to criticize the introduction of this new concept, but the other non-card type cards (at least in Renaissance have some sort of 'origin' card. Doom > Hex, Fate > Boon. Why did the Artifacts 'origin' card not have their own type? Maybe 'Reward' or 'Trophy'. I doubt it was an 'oversight' by design.
Types are used in Dominion either to have rules tied to them, or because making the cards a different color has value.
Those cases did not come up here; so, no new type.
Strictly speaking, Gathering fulfils neither of these requirements; the way I understood it, those cards have a type just so that other cards can refer to them.
-
As I was re-organizing my cards and noticed that the 'origin' cards for the Artifacts did not have their own 'card type'. I am not intending to criticize the introduction of this new concept, but the other non-card type cards (at least in Renaissance have some sort of 'origin' card. Doom > Hex, Fate > Boon. Why did the Artifacts 'origin' card not have their own type? Maybe 'Reward' or 'Trophy'. I doubt it was an 'oversight' by design.
Types are used in Dominion either to have rules tied to them, or because making the cards a different color has value.
Those cases did not come up here; so, no new type.
Strictly speaking, Gathering fulfils neither of these requirements; the way I understood it, those cards have a type just so that other cards can refer to them.
Same as Attack. Indeed "so that cards can refer to them" should have been listed as a third reason.
-
As I was re-organizing my cards and noticed that the 'origin' cards for the Artifacts did not have their own 'card type'. I am not intending to criticize the introduction of this new concept, but the other non-card type cards (at least in Renaissance have some sort of 'origin' card. Doom > Hex, Fate > Boon. Why did the Artifacts 'origin' card not have their own type? Maybe 'Reward' or 'Trophy'. I doubt it was an 'oversight' by design.
Types are used in Dominion either to have rules tied to them, or because making the cards a different color has value.
Those cases did not come up here; so, no new type.
Strictly speaking, Gathering fulfils neither of these requirements; the way I understood it, those cards have a type just so that other cards can refer to them.
Same as Attack. Indeed "so that cards can refer to them" should have been listed as a third reason.
I think that pretty comfortably falls under "have rules tied to them".
-
As I was re-organizing my cards and noticed that the 'origin' cards for the Artifacts did not have their own 'card type'. I am not intending to criticize the introduction of this new concept, but the other non-card type cards (at least in Renaissance have some sort of 'origin' card. Doom > Hex, Fate > Boon. Why did the Artifacts 'origin' card not have their own type? Maybe 'Reward' or 'Trophy'. I doubt it was an 'oversight' by design.
Types are used in Dominion either to have rules tied to them, or because making the cards a different color has value.
Those cases did not come up here; so, no new type.
Strictly speaking, Gathering fulfils neither of these requirements; the way I understood it, those cards have a type just so that other cards can refer to them.
Same as Attack. Indeed "so that cards can refer to them" should have been listed as a third reason.
I think that pretty comfortably falls under "have rules tied to them".
I suppose you could call the wording on cards such as Moat "rules", but the problem with that any card could refer to any other subset of cards. The question really is whether or not that subset is a subset that it makes sense form a design perspective to want to refer to.
Attack is a simple and logical thing; we want players to be able to respond to their opponents hurting their deck. Gathering probably could have been fine without the type; Defiled Shrine would more or less work fine without that clause; it would just make the gathering cards a little stronger in games with Defiled Shrine.
-
Another similar 'missing' type would be the various cards that involve Spirit type cards
Exorcist, Devil's Workshop and Tormentor are the type 'Conjour'
I understand that the Artifacts have a one-to-one (mostly) relationship, but prefer the idea of a an 'origin' >>> non-supply card correlation.
I would even suggest that the "Potion" cost cards could have been given a type of "Spell"
I appreciate the discussion on this topic though. It is not meant to be a slight or negative, just 'musings' of the complexities of Dominion.
-
Another similar 'missing' type would be the various cards that involve Spirit type cards
Exorcist, Devil's Workshop and Tormentor are the type 'Conjour'
I understand that the Artifacts have a one-to-one (mostly) relationship, but prefer the idea of a an 'origin' >>> non-supply card correlation.
I would even suggest that the "Potion" cost cards could have been given a type of "Spell"
I appreciate the discussion on this topic though. It is not meant to be a slight or negative, just 'musings' of the complexities of Dominion.
In my opinion, Dominion actually has far too many types. I think there should be only Action, Treasure, Night, Victory. And Curse, I suppose, although rules-wise that would have worked fine as a Victory type instead.
All the other types are fundamentally different from those 4 or 5. Those ones are really needed; they tell you what you can do with the card and when (when you can play it; or if you can play it). Things like attack could have been a keyword instead; this was dicussed somewhere else recently.
Duration doesn't have any meaningful rules associated with it; all cards are cleaned up on that last turn in which they do something. It just so happens that for regular actions, that's the same turn they were played. It's not clear from the rulebooks if Reaction actually has special rules. For both of those, I can see how the color is helpful, though. Although Temporum did fine with having "until-next-turn" cards just stay out without any special type.
I've said before that I'm against Reserve being a type. It's not even clear what that type means. Not that it can be called (Distant Lands). Not that it uses the Tavern Mat (Miser/Copper). The color doesn't seem particularly meaningful; because you know that stuff on your Tavern Mat is stuff to pay attention to at special times (except when Copper ends up there. Or Distant Lands).
-
Another similar 'missing' type would be the various cards that involve Spirit type cards
Exorcist, Devil's Workshop and Tormentor are the type 'Conjour'
I understand that the Artifacts have a one-to-one (mostly) relationship, but prefer the idea of a an 'origin' >>> non-supply card correlation.
I would even suggest that the "Potion" cost cards could have been given a type of "Spell"
I appreciate the discussion on this topic though. It is not meant to be a slight or negative, just 'musings' of the complexities of Dominion.
And I will now add the Heirloom 'origin' cards to the list (yes I know they have their 'type' in the Heirloom banner, this seems to fall into the same thing that I am noticing as 'types'.
-
What the type Reserve "means" is when you play it, you put it on your Tavern mat.
-
What the type Reserve "means" is when you play it, you put it on your Tavern mat.
But it says so in the card text already. By that logic, Island would need a special type as well.
-
Another similar 'missing' type would be the various cards that involve Spirit type cards
Exorcist, Devil's Workshop and Tormentor are the type 'Conjour'
I understand that the Artifacts have a one-to-one (mostly) relationship, but prefer the idea of a an 'origin' >>> non-supply card correlation.
I would even suggest that the "Potion" cost cards could have been given a type of "Spell"
I appreciate the discussion on this topic though. It is not meant to be a slight or negative, just 'musings' of the complexities of Dominion.
In my opinion, Dominion actually has far too many types. I think there should be only Action, Treasure, Night, Victory. And Curse, I suppose, although rules-wise that would have worked fine as a Victory type instead.
All the other types are fundamentally different from those 4 or 5. Those ones are really needed; they tell you what you can do with the card and when (when you can play it; or if you can play it). Things like attack could have been a keyword instead; this was dicussed somewhere else recently.
Duration doesn't have any meaningful rules associated with it; all cards are cleaned up on that last turn in which they do something. It just so happens that for regular actions, that's the same turn they were played. It's not clear from the rulebooks if Reaction actually has special rules. For both of those, I can see how the color is helpful, though. Although Temporum did fine with having "until-next-turn" cards just stay out without any special type.
I've said before that I'm against Reserve being a type. It's not even clear what that type means. Not that it can be called (Distant Lands). Not that it uses the Tavern Mat (Miser/Copper). The color doesn't seem particularly meaningful; because you know that stuff on your Tavern Mat is stuff to pay attention to at special times (except when Copper ends up there. Or Distant Lands).
I agree mostly, though there is some value to being able to refer to certain cards (Knights/Castles/Spirits) Knights and Castles could probably have been solved by "a card from this pile". Things that refer to Spirits could refer to all cards individually, though I expect the wording would be messy on Exorcist.
-
What the type Reserve "means" is when you play it, you put it on your Tavern mat.
But this by itself seems as arbitrary as a thing to give a type to as any other thing that cards do when you play them. Cards with "trash this" don't have a type; Cards with "+1 Action" don't have a type; etc.
-
What the type Reserve "means" is when you play it, you put it on your Tavern mat.
But this by itself seems as arbitrary as a thing to give a type to as any other thing that cards do when you play them. Cards with "trash this" don't have a type; Cards with "+1 Action" don't have a type; etc.
Good point... I could have gotten carried away and had "Lab", "Village" as types if I extrapolated my thoughts out more.
Note: I still like to see more types, but I can understand why there were limited.
-
As I was re-organizing my cards and noticed that the 'origin' cards for the Artifacts did not have their own 'card type'. I am not intending to criticize the introduction of this new concept, but the other non-card type cards (at least in Renaissance have some sort of 'origin' card. Doom > Hex, Fate > Boon. Why did the Artifacts 'origin' card not have their own type? Maybe 'Reward' or 'Trophy'. I doubt it was an 'oversight' by design.
Types are used in Dominion either to have rules tied to them, or because making the cards a different color has value.
Those cases did not come up here; so, no new type.
Strictly speaking, Gathering fulfils neither of these requirements; the way I understood it, those cards have a type just so that other cards can refer to them.
The rules on cards are also rules, but sure, we can add, having card text able to refer to the type. That is exactly what Gathering is there for.
You could also argue for "letting players refer to the group of cards by the type." This is handy although it's never been enough on its own to create a type.
-
In my opinion, Dominion actually has far too many types. I think there should be only Action, Treasure, Night, Victory. And Curse, I suppose, although rules-wise that would have worked fine as a Victory type instead.
I feel the opposite! Types let you refer to the types. This both lets you deal with problems, and lets you make cards that work with a category in the simplest way. The cost is just a word on that bottom bar; it does not feel high. A good example is, multiple cards would have liked to exempt Throne Rooms or one-shots. This would be trivial if they had types. It's essentially impossible given that they don't.
The ability of players to refer to the group is also nice. It's nice in the rulebooks too, even when there aren't special rules.
Of all existing types, conceivably I could have done without Gathering (living with those interactions). The others all feel like they're pulling their weight.
All the other types are fundamentally different from those 4 or 5. Those ones are really needed; they tell you what you can do with the card and when (when you can play it; or if you can play it). Things like attack could have been a keyword instead; this was dicussed somewhere else recently.
Duration doesn't have any meaningful rules associated with it; all cards are cleaned up on that last turn in which they do something. It just so happens that for regular actions, that's the same turn they were played. It's not clear from the rulebooks if Reaction actually has special rules. For both of those, I can see how the color is helpful, though. Although Temporum did fine with having "until-next-turn" cards just stay out without any special type.
I've said before that I'm against Reserve being a type. It's not even clear what that type means. Not that it can be called (Distant Lands). Not that it uses the Tavern Mat (Miser/Copper). The color doesn't seem particularly meaningful; because you know that stuff on your Tavern Mat is stuff to pay attention to at special times (except when Copper ends up there. Or Distant Lands).
"Attack" could be a word in the middle of card text, and that does have some benefits; I don't think anything else can benefit from that approach. Mid-text Attack is handling two things: attacks that are optional, and attacks timed at other than when playing a card (e.g. Ill-Gotten Gains). Arguably I shouldn't have done optional attacks - they're political (yes you can draw two terminals and choose to play the attack or not, but getting rid of some of the politics is still a positive). I don't know how much trouble "let you Moat Ill-Gotten Gains" is worth.
Duration was not originally a type, and Greed also has those cards without a special type. But there is in fact a lot of value to the color there, ditto for Reactions. Reactions originally had rules associated with them, and that version was better (they could be played at a special time).
Reserve cards put themselves on your Tavern mat. It seemed helpful at the time and I mean no regrets.
-
Having extra types makes Courtier better, and that's all the reason I need
-
The cost is just a word on that bottom bar; it does not feel high.
Honest to God, i first read this sentence and was like, 'huh? The cost is a number on that bottom bar.'
-
The cost is just a word on that bottom bar; it does not feel high.
Honest to God, i first read this sentence and was like, 'huh? The cost is a number on that bottom bar.'
Oh wow I had no idea what that sentence was saying until I read this reply a couple of times.
Also:
Greed also has those cards without a special type.
This was really confusing to me until I finally realized that he wasn't talking about Greed (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Greed). A situation where autolink is a bad thing.
-
I was this thread old when I found out Gathering was a type.
-
What the type Reserve "means" is when you play it, you put it on your Tavern mat.
But this by itself seems as arbitrary as a thing to give a type to as any other thing that cards do when you play them. Cards with "trash this" don't have a type; Cards with "+1 Action" don't have a type; etc.
Knowing that, except for Coppers, only brown cards can be on your Tavern mat is incredibly useful to prevent mess-ups, just like knowing that those orange cards might stay in play for more than one turn.
You can of course argue that the text is all that a card needs but types and colours and icons (and keywords, +1 Coffers is far more elegant than take a Coin token) are shorter than walls of text. Just imagine every Treasure card being as white as Action cards and featuring the text: you can only play this in your Buy phase. That would reduce ease of play quite a bit.
-
What the type Reserve "means" is when you play it, you put it on your Tavern mat.
But this by itself seems as arbitrary as a thing to give a type to as any other thing that cards do when you play them. Cards with "trash this" don't have a type; Cards with "+1 Action" don't have a type; etc.
Knowing that, except for Coppers, only brown cards can be on your Tavern mat is incredibly useful to prevent mess-ups, just like knowing that those orange cards might stay in play for more than one turn.
You can of course argue that the text is all that a card needs but types and colours and icons (and keywords, +1 Coffers is far more elegant than take a Coin token) are shorter than walls of text. Just imagine every Treasure card being as white as Action cards and featuring the text: you can only play this in your Buy phase. That would reduce ease of play quite a bit.
I don't disagree with the idea of the coloring; especially for things like reactions and durations. Not as sure about reserves, since the Tavern mat isn't all that different from the Native Village or Island mats. But really what I meant was that I see "type" being used in different ways for different types.
When it is used for action, treasure, night, victory, and curse, it means one thing, while when it is used for for duration, reserve, and reaction it is a different thing (color to help it stand out), while it means yet another different thing when used by all the other not-often-used types. I just would have liked to seen the "primary types" get something distinct from all the "secondary types". Durations and Reactions could still have a different color under that system.
-
I don't think that anything as rigid as primary vs secondary types is necessary, Dominion is thankfully not as rule-intense as a CCG.
You have nonetheless something like an implicit order of types. For example Werewolf is Action-Night-Attack-Doom so you could argue that the "primary" types (that say if/when you can play a card) are coming first, Attack as more of a keyword comes second (although I somehow really like that unlike any similar games it isn't interpreted as keyword in/above the text but as type in a part of the card underneath the normal text, that is somehow visually more elegant) and Doom as a mere setup thing come last.
Then again Josephine isn't playing along, Action-Victory-Attack-Knight, would make more sense from a hierarchy of types perspective.
I also think that a less rigid approach comes with the benefit of a more pronounced theme. Heirlooms and Shelters could just be labeled or codified or coloured or whatever as non-Supply cards and not feature any type. This would be clearer rule-wise but come at the cost of flavour. I like to know that this eerie mirror is a family heirloom.
-
When it is used for action, treasure, night, victory, and curse, it means one thing, while when it is used for for duration, reserve, and reaction it is a different thing (color to help it stand out), while it means yet another different thing when used by all the other not-often-used types. I just would have liked to seen the "primary types" get something distinct from all the "secondary types". Durations and Reactions could still have a different color under that system.
If there were "primary" and "secondary" types, Reaction would be a primary type.
-
When it is used for action, treasure, night, victory, and curse, it means one thing, while when it is used for for duration, reserve, and reaction it is a different thing (color to help it stand out), while it means yet another different thing when used by all the other not-often-used types. I just would have liked to seen the "primary types" get something distinct from all the "secondary types". Durations and Reactions could still have a different color under that system.
If there were "primary" and "secondary" types, Reaction would be a primary type.
Why? The Wiki (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Card_types) doesn't list it that way. Reaction is a type so that it can get the color, so it can remind you to pay attention to it when you aren't playing it. It doesn't have rules associated with it about what it can do or when.
-
When it is used for action, treasure, night, victory, and curse, it means one thing, while when it is used for for duration, reserve, and reaction it is a different thing (color to help it stand out), while it means yet another different thing when used by all the other not-often-used types. I just would have liked to seen the "primary types" get something distinct from all the "secondary types". Durations and Reactions could still have a different color under that system.
If there were "primary" and "secondary" types, Reaction would be a primary type.
Why? The Wiki (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Card_types) doesn't list it that way. Reaction is a type so that it can get the color, so it can remind you to pay attention to it when you aren't playing it. It doesn't have rules associated with it about what it can do or when.
Well. If I were changing the game to have primary and secondary types, maybe I would also get to change Reactions to be cards you could play in a certain situation (putting them into play rather than just revealing them). Then they would be primary.
-
Why? The Wiki (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Card_types) doesn't list it that way. Reaction is a type so that it can get the color, so it can remind you to pay attention to it when you aren't playing it. It doesn't have rules associated with it about what it can do or when.
It is a type that "can appear as the only type on a card", which is how the Wiki classifies it.
-
Why? The Wiki (http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Card_types) doesn't list it that way. Reaction is a type so that it can get the color, so it can remind you to pay attention to it when you aren't playing it. It doesn't have rules associated with it about what it can do or when.
It is a type that "can appear as the only type on a card", which is how the Wiki classifies it.
There is no reaction-only card. Not saying there couldn't be... but it's ambiguous if "can appear as the only type on a card" means that it "could", or if that there are existing examples. The Wiki isn't clear here; that seems like a bad sentence to have. Seems clear that Shelter could also be the only type on a card as much as Reaction could; there was no game design laws that forced all 3 Shelters to also do something that required another type.
Hovel doesn't have any of the 5 listed primary types, but there's also a difference between "can appear as the only type on a card" and "every card must have at least 1 primary type".
Night can also appear as the only type on a card, but it's not listed under the primary types on the Wiki (though under my definition, Night would be a primary type; it doesn't really matter that there's only 1 expansion to use it).
-
There is no reaction-only card.
Hovel clearly shows that Reaction would indeed, if such a classification system existed, be a primary type.
Shelter is really only a subtype that is there for flavour and to remind you that it is a non-Supply card and couldn't be the only type on a card unless you want to do Confusion / an empty card.
-
There is no reaction-only card.
Hovel clearly shows that Reaction would indeed, if such a classification system existed, be a primary type.
Shelter is really only a subtype that is there for flavour and to remind you that it is a non-Supply card and couldn't be the only type on a card unless you want to do Confusion / an empty card.
As Donald mentioned, if there were a system involving primary types, then reaction would be a different thing that would be a primary type. Reaction as it exists today does not fit the same category as the primary types. With today's rules, Hovel would function identically without the reaction type.
So really I think we're just talking about 2 different things. The primary types that would exist if there were a primary type system; vs the types that exist under the current system which, under the current system, work differently than the other types.
-
Sure, it isn't all very formalized. But I am fairly certain that a card with the only type Shelter makes no sense whereas a card with the only type Reaction does. Tunnel makes sense and works without the 2VPs, Necropolis is unplayable without the Action type.
-
But I am fairly certain that a card with the only type Shelter makes no sense
I disagree, because a version of Hovel, exactly like it is in every way, except without the reaction type (a card with Shelter as the only type), would make sense, and work exactly the same as it does today.
-
But I am fairly certain that a card with the only type Shelter makes no sense
I disagree, because a version of Hovel, exactly like it is in every way, except without the reaction type (a card with Shelter as the only type), would make sense, and work exactly the same as it does today.
Sure, the triggers of reactions are fairly arbitarily, e.g. on-gain or on-trash aren't blue.
But cards like Hovel or Tunnels which consist of nothing but a reaction wouldn't make much sense as a non-Reaction. Sure, you could "technically" do it but it wouldn't be a very intuitive design to pretend that a pure reaction card is not a Reaction. It'd be like doing a white card without type that says somewhere in small print "you may only play this in your Buy Phase" instead of painting that fellow yellow.
-
Duration doesn't have any meaningful rules associated with it; all cards are cleaned up on that last turn in which they do something. It just so happens that for regular actions, that's the same turn they were played.
Unless something has changed recently, this is not strictly true. The rules for leaving cards in play specifically refer to Durations; other cards are discarded even if they are still doing something. Otherwise, Possession would stay in play at the end of the turn you played it.
-
Duration doesn't have any meaningful rules associated with it; all cards are cleaned up on that last turn in which they do something. It just so happens that for regular actions, that's the same turn they were played.
Unless something has changed recently, this is not strictly true. The rules for leaving cards in play specifically refer to Durations; other cards are discarded even if they are still doing something. Otherwise, Possession would stay in play at the end of the turn you played it.
Yes, the rules as written do make that distinction. I forgot about Possession; I think that's the only exception though where this rule doesn't happen to also apply to non-Durations.
-
The base game rulebook says that all cards in play and in hand are discarded during Clean-up and that's how everybody teaches the game. Seaside rules mentions an exception to that rule in the case of Durations.
So Durations are an absolutely necessary type and the notion that only the cards that stop doing something are discarded during Clean-up is an incorporation of the specific Duration rules into a general rules framework that tries to makes sense of stuff like throning a Duration.
-
The base game rulebook says that all cards in play and in hand are discarded during Clean-up and that's how everybody teaches the game. Seaside rules mentions an exception to that rule in the case of Durations.
So Durations are an absolutely necessary type and the notion that only the cards that stop doing something are discarded during Clean-up is an incorporation of the specific Duration rules into a general rules framework that tries to makes sense of stuff like throning a Duration.
I understand all that. What I meant was that the rule for durations could just as easily be the rule for all cards instead. It wasn't necessarily to make a separate rule for durations. The only difference would be Possession staying out.
-
I understand all that. What I meant was that the rule for durations could just as easily be the rule for all cards instead. It wasn't necessarily to make a separate rule for durations. The only difference would be Possession staying out.
Sure but from a didactic point of view it would have been a total mess to introduce the weird general rule that all cards which stop doing something this turn get discarded when no such cards do exist in Base and Intrigue, a rule which, before 2015, would have been only relevant for the folks who own one expansions out of 8.
-
There is a special rule about Reactions, although not formalized. It's that you can resolve a Reaction card in your hand several times to the same event. That's not a general rule, because then you would get infinite VP with a Goons in play.
EDIT: Well, I kind of take it back. You could state this rule as pertaining to all cards that are resolved in your hand. I don't think any other cards than Reactions can be resolved when they're in your hand.
-
There is a special rule about Reactions, although not formalized. It's that you can resolve a Reaction card in your hand several times to the same event. That's not a general rule, because then you would get infinite VP with a Goons in play.
EDIT: Well, I kind of take it back. You could state this rule as pertaining to all cards that are resolved in your hand. I don't think any other cards than Reactions can be resolved when they're in your hand.
As I recall, the rule about multiple-revealing is specific to the idea that it is in your hand; this is why you can't reveal a Tunnel repeatedly for multiple Gold when you discard it. It's stems from the fact that your hand is hidden; and thus other players can't tell whether you were revealing the same card twice, or 2 different cards once each. But I'm not aware of this being unique to reaction specifically.
It's a moot question though, as there is no printed non-reaction that says "when, X, you may reveal this from your hand for Y." If such a card did exist though, it would be hard to argue that the intention is that because it's not a reaction, you aren't allowed to reveal it from your hand.
-
It's a moot question though
And a Moat question!
-
Yes, I said it was only Reactions that are resolved in your hand (and not just revealed, see Market Square). Then I said that it could be that it applies to all cards that can be resolved in your hand. What it stems from is not the issue here though, it's still a rule. We don't really know if it applies to all cards or just Reactions, since there are no non-Reactions like that. But it has always only been talked about when discussing Reactions. Donald has even said that if he had handled Reactions differently, he wouldn't need that rule.