Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Rules Questions => Topic started by: dirkdebeule on March 15, 2019, 07:22:56 pm
-
If I Overlord a Wine Merchant, how comes can't get WM back from Tavern Mat?
-
because Overlord stops being a Wine Merchant once it leaves play by going to the Tavern Mat.
-
because Overlord stops being a Wine Merchant once it leaves play by going to the Tavern Mat.
This is the correct answer. To expand on this a bit:
Overlord says "This is that card until it leaves play." The tavern mat is not in play, so Overlord goes back to being just Overlord. When it stops being Wine Merchant, it no longer has the condition to discard it at the end of the buy phase, so it's stuck there forever.
-
Irrelevant sidetrack time: It would actually work if there were no dividing line on the Wine Merchant.
-
Irrelevant sidetrack time: It would actually work if there were no dividing line on the Wine Merchant.
It would only work the turn it was played, right? Because then it would be an on-play effect of Wine Merchant, and this it wouldn't linger. So in general a way worse card.
-
It would only work the turn it was played, right? Because then it would be an on-play effect of Wine Merchant, and this it wouldn't linger. So in general a way worse card.
On-play effects can set up stuff that lingers beyond the end of the current turn. That's how Duration cards work, after all.
To me, "at the end of your Buy phase" is slightly ambiguous between "the next time you end one of your Buy phases" and "any time you end one of your Buy phases", but we already know how to read that, because of how the real card actually works.
-
Yes, it would work beyond the current turn - and actually for the rest of the game, which would present a tracking problem. But for this card it wouldn't matter in practice that you can't track it, since you can only discard it from your Tavern mat and since you can't discard it more than once. A Goons without a dividing line on the other hand...
-
I disagree. Under this interpretation, a once played Improve could 'improve' cards for the remainder of the game.
-
I disagree. Under this interpretation, a once played Improve could 'improve' cards for the remainder of the game.
Improve only lets you improve a card that you discard from play "this turn".
-
I disagree. Under this interpretation, a once played Improve could 'improve' cards for the remainder of the game.
So you mean because Improve doesn't say "at the start of Clean-up this turn".
Yeah, read literally it would apply to all Clean-up phases after the card was played (but it would make no difference, since you can't trash a card more than once). Encampment also says this. The implication is that they apply "this turn", but to be technically correct they should have said so. Note that Scheme (1st edition) actually did specify this, saying exactly "at the start of Clean-up this turn".
As Crj concluded, "at the end of your Buy phase" (on Wine Merchant) means any and all Buy phases. (Goons, Peddler etc. work the same way.) Based on this it would work the same way as an on-play instruction, read literally. But sure, you could also choose to assume that "this turn" is implied, like on Improve and Encampment. The problem is of course that the ability doesn't make any sense as an on-play instruction. That's why it's impossible to infer anything.
-
I disagree. Under this interpretation, a once played Improve could 'improve' cards for the remainder of the game.
Improve only lets you improve a card that you discard from play "this turn".
Right, I thought about that first. But actually it's not that simple. Let's say I would discard a Smithy this turn, and I choose to trash it at the start of Clean-up this turn. At the start of Clean-up next turn, I could now choose to trash that same Smithy again. The Smithy is lost track of though, so this can't happen in practice.
This is based on a literal (and wrong) interpration of Improve where "at the start of Clean-up" does not imply "at the start of Clean-up this turn".
-
Good point, I didn't catch the "this turn" deeper into the Improve wording. But I still think that the question about a Wine Merchant without dividing line is not as clear cut as you make it. There is simply no precedent for it, because the cards are usually well worded to make it clear. As crj wrote: It is ambiguous.
-
This is just the Theoretical Messed Up Highway Wording discussion again, isn't it.