Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Rules Questions => Topic started by: KC-KC-Scout-Scout-Scout on September 01, 2012, 10:52:58 am
-
When buying an embargoed IGG during a regular buy phase, who gets the first curse?
This situation happened to me yesterday on Androminion with only one curse left and it went to the non buying player. I was pretty sure it was an error from the program so I dug up the rules to confirm my thought.
The two cards in question:
Embargo
+$2
Trash this card. Put an Embargo token on top of a Supply pile.
When a player buys a card, he gains a Curse card per Embargo token on that pile.
IGG
Worth $1
When you play this, you may gain a Copper, putting it into your hand.
—
When you gain this, each other player gains a Curse.
From the rules:
When you buy a card, first you buy the card, then gain it.
When two things happens to a player at the same time, the player picks the order to do them.
When two things happens to different players, go in turn order, starting with player whose turn it is.
So this is what I assume is supposed to happen:
Player A buys an IGG.
It triggers the embargo clause. Player A gains a curse per token on IGG pile.
Player A gains the IGG. It triggers the IGG "on gain" clause. Every other player gain a curse in turn order.
Is that right?
-
You're right, the Embargo should trigger first. Submit that bug! They may still be able to fix it before it goes down.
-
I am a big fan of your Forum name, by the way.
-
You're right, the Embargo should trigger first. Submit that bug! They may still be able to fix it before it goes down.
Done and fixed. (http://code.google.com/p/androminion/issues/detail?id=415&can=1&colspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Priority%20Component%20Owner%20Stars%20Summary&start=400)
Thanks for reminding me to report this.
I am a big fan of your Forum name, by the way.
;D
-
I am a big fan of your Forum name, by the way.
Now I'm imagining a cheerleading squad chanting this.
-
I am a big fan of your Forum name, by the way.
Now I'm imagining a cheerleading squad chanting this.
Kings Court! Kings Court! Scout! Scout! Scout!
Let's draw all those green cards out!
-
Even if Embargo's Curse were when-gain, the buying player would get the Curse. All the gain effects (from Embargo and IGG) would be at the same time, which means they're resolved in turn order starting with the current player.
-
Even if Embargo's Curse were when-gain, the buying player would get the Curse. All the gain effects (from Embargo and IGG) would be at the same time, which means they're resolved in turn order starting with the current player.
Pretty sure that's incorrect. When multiple gain effects happen, the current player gets to choose the order they happen in. So he could choose to take the curse from embargo, or for the opponent to take it from IGG. You're thinking of when a card instructs multiple people to gain something at the same time, then the gains happen in turn order.
-
Even if Embargo's Curse were when-gain, the buying player would get the Curse. All the gain effects (from Embargo and IGG) would be at the same time, which means they're resolved in turn order starting with the current player.
Pretty sure that's incorrect. When multiple gain effects happen, the current player gets to choose the order they happen in. So he could choose to take the curse from embargo, or for the opponent to take it from IGG. You're thinking of when a card instructs multiple people to gain something at the same time, then the gains happen in turn order.
Naw, when things happen to different people at the same time, they always go in turn order, regardless of whether they're one card affecting multiple people or several different cards acting simultaneously.
-
Even if Embargo's Curse were when-gain, the buying player would get the Curse. All the gain effects (from Embargo and IGG) would be at the same time, which means they're resolved in turn order starting with the current player.
Pretty sure that's incorrect. When multiple gain effects happen, the current player gets to choose the order they happen in. So he could choose to take the curse from embargo, or for the opponent to take it from IGG. You're thinking of when a card instructs multiple people to gain something at the same time, then the gains happen in turn order.
Naw, when things happen to different people at the same time, they always go in turn order, regardless of whether they're one card affecting multiple people or several different cards acting simultaneously.
Really? This seems inconsistent... There's 2 separate things happening, IGGs trigger and Embargo's trigger. Seems odd that the fact that both triggers happen to result in a curse being given would change the normal rule that the current player chooses the order of the triggers.
-
I think it's that when stuff is happening at the same time to one player, it happens in the order which that player chooses, which slightly different than the current player choosing the order of triggers.
When stuff is happening at the same time to multiple players, it happens in turn order.
But of course, there is still one exception to this: Masquerade; the passing does actually happen "at once" rather than in turn order.
-
Even if Embargo's Curse were when-gain, the buying player would get the Curse. All the gain effects (from Embargo and IGG) would be at the same time, which means they're resolved in turn order starting with the current player.
Pretty sure that's incorrect. When multiple gain effects happen, the current player gets to choose the order they happen in. So he could choose to take the curse from embargo, or for the opponent to take it from IGG. You're thinking of when a card instructs multiple people to gain something at the same time, then the gains happen in turn order.
Naw, when things happen to different people at the same time, they always go in turn order, regardless of whether they're one card affecting multiple people or several different cards acting simultaneously.
Really? This seems inconsistent... There's 2 separate things happening, IGGs trigger and Embargo's trigger. Seems odd that the fact that both triggers happen to result in a curse being given would change the normal rule that the current player chooses the order of the triggers.
The "normal rule" isn't that the current player chooses the order of the triggers, and the fact that both triggers happen to result in a curse being gained is irrelevant. When multiple events happen at the same time, they go in turn order, whether they're all the same type of event (everyone gains a curse!) or different events (I trash an Urchin, you reveal a Secret Chamber), if they're triggered by the same event.
So for instance—to pick a real example—if I buy an Embargoed Noble Brigand, first I gain a curse, and then you get thieved. I don't get to choose the order, because the abilities affect different people at the same time.
-
Yes, I and if I play Witch in a four player game, with one Curse left, I don't get to choose what player gets the Curse. It's the player to my left. This is from the rule book of the base game.
"If there aren't enough Curses left to go around when you play the Witch, you deal them out in turn order – starting with the player after you."
So that's probably the earliest statement of that rule.
-
So okay, if Embargo was "on gain" the IGG-Embargo cursing would happen in turn order. But where does that start exactly? Are you the first in line or your left hand neighbor?
-
I guess it is like this:
When multiple effects activate at same time:
First, resolve all concerning the current player, current player chooses the order of resolving of all abilities affecting him.
Then, resolve all concerning the next player, current player (?) chooses the order of all resolving abilities.
and so on.
-
Even if Embargo's Curse were when-gain, the buying player would get the Curse. All the gain effects (from Embargo and IGG) would be at the same time, which means they're resolved in turn order starting with the current player.
Pretty sure that's incorrect. When multiple gain effects happen, the current player gets to choose the order they happen in. So he could choose to take the curse from embargo, or for the opponent to take it from IGG. You're thinking of when a card instructs multiple people to gain something at the same time, then the gains happen in turn order.
Naw, when things happen to different people at the same time, they always go in turn order, regardless of whether they're one card affecting multiple people or several different cards acting simultaneously.
Really? This seems inconsistent... There's 2 separate things happening, IGGs trigger and Embargo's trigger. Seems odd that the fact that both triggers happen to result in a curse being given would change the normal rule that the current player chooses the order of the triggers.
The "normal rule" isn't that the current player chooses the order of the triggers, and the fact that both triggers happen to result in a curse being gained is irrelevant. When multiple events happen at the same time, they go in turn order, whether they're all the same type of event (everyone gains a curse!) or different events (I trash an Urchin, you reveal a Secret Chamber), if they're triggered by the same event.
So for instance—to pick a real example—if I buy an Embargoed Noble Brigand, first I gain a curse, and then you get thieved. I don't get to choose the order, because the abilities affect different people at the same time.
Right, I see my error now.
-
First, resolve all concerning the current player, current player chooses the order of resolving of all abilities affecting him.
Then, resolve all concerning the next player, current player (?) chooses the order of all resolving abilities.
and so on.
No, each player chooses the order of the abilities happening to himself. Of course Donald has stated this in forums, but going by officially published rules it's not stated explicitly until Hinterlands.
First of all, I wasn't entirely accurate that the explanation about Witch that I quoted was the earliest statement that concurrent abilities happen in turn order. This is from the base game rules:
"If an ability of a card affects multiple players, and the order matters, resolve that ability for each affected player in turn order, starting with the player whose turn it is."
So that answers the hypothetical "when-gain Embargo" and IGG case. The next thing, several concurrent abilities for one player. This is given in the Seaside rules:
"If multiple cards resolve at the same time on your turn [...], you choose what order to resolve them. A card that affects multiple players during your turn still resolves in player order, affecting you first if it affects all players and then proceeding clockwise."
But this doesn't address several concurrent abilities for a player who isn't the current player. Who chooses then? The Hinterlands rules make it explicit that the rule from Seaside applies even when it's not your turn:
"When two things happen to a player at the same time, that player picks the order to do them."
The only examples I can think of when this happens to a not-current player, is Reaction cards. You can choose which order to resolve your Reaction cards when another player plays an Attack for instance. Can anyone think of other examples?
-
But do the embargo token and the buy effect of pseudo-IGG count as 'one ability' or 'multiple cards resolving at the same time on your turn'?
-
"When two things happen to a player at the same time, that player picks the order to do them."
The only examples I can think of when this happens to a not-current player, is Reaction cards. You can choose which order to resolve your Reaction cards when another player plays an Attack for instance. Can anyone think of other examples?
You can choose in what order to receive your Curse and your Copper when you get Mountebanked. This probably doesn't matter unless you're Watchtowering them to the top of your deck.
-
You can choose in what order to receive your Curse and your Copper when you get Mountebanked. This probably doesn't matter unless you're Watchtowering them to the top of your deck.
And now you've got me trying to come up with a situation where a player would want to top-deck both the curse and the copper, and would care about the order...
-
You can choose in what order to receive your Curse and your Copper when you get Mountebanked.
Are you sure about this? I thought "gain a Curse and a Copper" was to be interpreted as 'gain a Curse and then a Copper'.
-
You can choose in what order to receive your Curse and your Copper when you get Mountebanked. This probably doesn't matter unless you're Watchtowering them to the top of your deck.
And now you've got me trying to come up with a situation where a player would want to top-deck both the curse and the copper, and would care about the order...
Hmm.... through diligent card-counting, you know that the four cards remaining in your deck add up to $7; you have an Ambassador and a Great Hall in hand.
-
But do the embargo token and the buy effect of pseudo-IGG count as 'one ability' or 'multiple cards resolving at the same time on your turn'?
Yeah, actually I see that the first quote doesn't completely answer this hypothetical case, and neither does the second quote. Embargo and IGG are obviously multiple cards resolving at the same time on your turn, and IGG is a card that affects multiple players. So actually the second quote (from Seaside) seems to contradict what we've been saying. It's correct though if the third quote (from Hinterlands) supersedes the second one. Here's more from that passage:
"When two things happen to a player at the same time, that player picks the order to do them. [...] When two things happen to different players at the same time, they happen in turn order, starting with the player whose turn it is."
This is more general, and it's chronologically the latest ruling. According to this pseudo-Embargo's on-gain Curse would go to you no matter what. This rule is also consistent with posts from Donald like this: http://boardgamegeek.com/article/5224530#5224530 (http://boardgamegeek.com/article/5224530#5224530). It's unfortunate that the rule from Seaside makes this unclear though.
Are you sure about this? I thought "gain a Curse and a Copper" was to be interpreted as 'gain a Curse and then a Copper'.
You're right. See here: http://boardgamegeek.com/article/6893644#6893644 (http://boardgamegeek.com/article/6893644#6893644)
-
You can choose in what order to receive your Curse and your Copper when you get Mountebanked. This probably doesn't matter unless you're Watchtowering them to the top of your deck.
And now you've got me trying to come up with a situation where a player would want to top-deck both the curse and the copper, and would care about the order...
Upgrade, Harvest, Watchtower, and Horn of Plenty in hand. You don't trash the incoming Curse because you want to play Upgrade to get it into play for HoP but have nothing else to trash. You keep the Copper because you've trashed the rest of your Copper, so by putting it on your deck (below the Curse), you help the Harvest get more money.
-
Upgrade, Harvest, Watchtower, and Horn of Plenty in hand. You don't trash the incoming Curse because you want to play Upgrade to get it into play for HoP but have nothing else to trash. You keep the Copper because you've trashed the rest of your Copper, so by putting it on your deck (below the Curse), you help the Harvest get more money.
How do you get the Copper below the Curse?
-
Upgrade, Harvest, Watchtower, and Horn of Plenty in hand. You don't trash the incoming Curse because you want to play Upgrade to get it into play for HoP but have nothing else to trash. You keep the Copper because you've trashed the rest of your Copper, so by putting it on your deck (below the Curse), you help the Harvest get more money.
How do you get the Copper below the Curse?
You can't; but the question here 'if you could, why would you want to?'
-
After reading Donald's posts in this thread: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4535.new (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4535.new) it seems that what I've been saying here isn't correct. Since pseudo-Embargo resolves when you gain the card and IGG also resolves when you gain the card, you get to order them.
I buy an Embargoed Noble Brigand: I get to decide if I gain a Curse or attack the other players first. But of course the other players resolve Noble Brigand's attack in turn order.
Though in the case of "I trash an Urchin, you reveal a Secret Chamber", I have to do Urchin first.
-
"When two things happen to a player at the same time, that player picks the order to do them."
The only examples I can think of when this happens to a not-current player, is Reaction cards. You can choose which order to resolve your Reaction cards when another player plays an Attack for instance. Can anyone think of other examples?
Actually I can answer my own question here.
Another player plays Saboteur and hits your Cultist, which you are now forced to trash. You have Market Square in your hand. Cultist says "When you trash this, +3 Cards" and Market Square says "When one of your cards is trashed, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, gain a Gold" so you choose which one to resolve first. Lets say there are less than three cards left in your deck after trashing the Cultist. This means there will be a reshuffle when you draw the 3 cards. So if you reveal Market Square before drawing the cards, the Gold will be shuffled in (along with the Market Square itself).
As a side note, the cards costing less than $3 that were set aside by the Saboteur before hitting Cultist, won't be shuffled in, and neither will the card you can gain from the Saboteur attack (costing $2 less than the Cultist). You are reshuffling in the middle of resolving the Saboteur attack. You choose what card to gain after you draw your 3 cards.
-
Another player plays Saboteur and hits your Cultist, which you are now forced to trash. You have Market Square in your hand. Cultist says "When you trash this, +3 Cards" and Market Square says "When one of your cards is trashed, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, gain a Gold" so you choose which one to resolve first. Lets say there are less than three cards left in your deck after trashing the Cultist. This means there will be a reshuffle when you draw the 3 cards. So if you reveal Market Square before drawing the cards, the Gold will be shuffled in (along with the Market Square itself).
Which also means that the Cultist-trashing draw can cause you to draw a market square, which can be revealed in response to the cultist trashing.
Or did I miss something?
-
Another player plays Saboteur and hits your Cultist, which you are now forced to trash. You have Market Square in your hand. Cultist says "When you trash this, +3 Cards" and Market Square says "When one of your cards is trashed, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, gain a Gold" so you choose which one to resolve first. Lets say there are less than three cards left in your deck after trashing the Cultist. This means there will be a reshuffle when you draw the 3 cards. So if you reveal Market Square before drawing the cards, the Gold will be shuffled in (along with the Market Square itself).
Which also means that the Cultist-trashing draw can cause you to draw a market square, which can be revealed in response to the cultist trashing.
Or did I miss something?
That sounds right to me. Both Market Square and Cultist trigger as soon as Cultist is trashed. You can choose to resolve the +3 cards before resolving the discard a Market Square, which also means that you can discard a newly-drawn Market Square.
-
That sounds right to me. Both Market Square and Cultist trigger as soon as Cultist is trashed. You can choose to resolve the +3 cards before resolving the discard a Market Square, which also means that you can discard a newly-drawn Market Square.
This actually means you can discard Market Square for a Gold, shuffle both into your deck (assuming you had less than three cards left in deck), draw the same Market Square and discard it again for another Gold. Heheh!