51
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: June 29, 2024, 09:18:32 am »
Treasurer, Shaman, Gardens, Fairgrounds, Swindler... I'm sure there are many others.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
52
Rules Questions / Re: Quest accountability with "do as much as you can" principle
« on: June 25, 2024, 10:22:20 am »Orb because... you could look through your discard pile, find loads of Actions and Treasures, say "oops, all Curses; I'm choosing to play a card from my discard so Orb does nothing," in case you want to cheat in such a way as to have Orb do nothing instead of giving you $3 for some reason? Am I correctly understanding the cheating potential here?
Yes, Orb and Miser are just to avoid getting $, which I think is only beneficial if you're planning to play Storyteller and want to draw less cards. So extremely marginal. Treasurer is if you don't want the Key, maybe that could also matter if you're playing Storytellers somehow.
53
Rules Questions / Re: Quest accountability with "do as much as you can" principle
« on: June 25, 2024, 08:54:15 am »Current list of cards that don't always keep you honest: Graverobber, Quest, Small Castle, Treasure Map, TreasurerI think also Miser?
These used to be on the list, but have been changed: Mine, Moneylender, Throne Room, Opulent Castle
And Orb, assuming that "look through your discard pile" doesn't mean revealing it to anyone else.
Right, I had Miser too. Orb I hadn't caught. And actually Prince used to be one.
Some of these are extremely marginal and unlikely to ever matter. Of the current cards, Graverobber, Small Castle and Treasure Map are the ones that might matter if played "unexpectedly" (with Vassal for instance).
54
Rules Questions / Re: Quest accountability with "do as much as you can" principle
« on: June 25, 2024, 05:25:38 am »
Current list of cards that don't always keep you honest: Graverobber, Quest, Small Castle, Treasure Map, Treasurer
These used to be on the list, but have been changed: Mine, Moneylender, Throne Room, Opulent Castle
These used to be on the list, but have been changed: Mine, Moneylender, Throne Room, Opulent Castle
55
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: May 28, 2024, 03:31:21 am »* One time LastFootnote asked "So what happens when you BoM a Landing Party now?" and Donald X. said "Currently the way BoM works with Landing Party is, * has no idea, waits for DZ *". This was after I declared in spec chat that BoM Garrison and BoM Landing Party are the 2 most controversial Dominion rulings.Yeah, it's a bummer. Errata for Band of Misfits seems likely someday.
Uhm... is this a joke about BoM having already gotten errata ... or ... Yeah I mean, it has to be ... right?
56
Rules Questions / Re: Lighthouse and duration attacks
« on: May 14, 2024, 04:04:23 pm »
Yes, the Lighthouse protects you until the start of your next turn, not longer. But the protection applies right at the moment an Attack card is played. Since Lighthouse protected you when Corsair was played, Corsair doesn't affect you. If your opponent somehow played an Attack during your next turn or your Outpost turn (a Black Cat, let's say), the Lighthouse would not protect you from that.
The above is about 2nd-edition Lighthouse.
With 1st-edition Lighthouse ("while this is in play"), you're protected during your next turn too. You would not be protected if your opponent played a Black Cat during your Outpost turn.
Edit: 2nd-edition Lighthouse doesn't protect you during your next turn.
The above is about 2nd-edition Lighthouse.
With 1st-edition Lighthouse ("while this is in play"), you're protected during your next turn too. You would not be protected if your opponent played a Black Cat during your Outpost turn.
Edit: 2nd-edition Lighthouse doesn't protect you during your next turn.
57
Rules Questions / Re: Attack immunity at unusual times
« on: May 06, 2024, 04:22:45 am »
(You actually don't need Vassal; Way of the Mouse can play Lighthouse directly.)
58
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: April 21, 2024, 07:37:26 am »What is the recommended way to mark which card is the bane?It looks like the original rulebook had no such recommendation. I personally just put that pile next to the Young Witch pile on the table, and in my experience everyone will remember. If you need more you could mark it with the Young Witch randomizer card (or any randomizer card, since there aren't more of these).
Actullay, the original rulebook says: "mark its pile with the Young Witch randomizer card (underneath it, sideways)."
59
Rules Questions / Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« on: April 08, 2024, 06:53:50 am »OK, so you and I seem to agree that the natural interpretation of Giant is to curse when there is no card. That's good, given that it coincides with Donald X's intepretation. The same is true for Barbarian. That leaves Bounty Hunter, Sorcerer and Sorceress.
No, I think Giant and Barbarian should do nothing. (I agree with the ruling on the other three.) I don't really have time to engange in this thread now, but I explained it earlier in the thread.
60
Rules Questions / Can Rewards be returned to their pile?
« on: April 07, 2024, 02:48:32 pm »
The rules don't talk about a Reward pile. (They did talk about a Prize pile.)
What happens if you play a Reward using Way of the Horse?
What happens if you play a Reward using Way of the Horse?
61
Rules Questions / Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« on: April 07, 2024, 05:48:57 am »But the point is that for humans reading cards, these two things mean the same:My thought process when dealing with the first instance in the absence of a card is something like "There wasn't a card, so it isn't true that it costs from $3 to $6, so a Curse has to be gained."
"if it costs from $3 to $6, trash it; otherwise gain a Curse"
"if it doesn't cost from $3 to $6, gain a Curse; otherwise trash it"
My thought process when dealing with the second instance in the absence of a card is something like "There wasn't a card so it didn't cost from $3 to $6, so a Curse has to be gained."
For both phrasings my thought process in the absence of a card results in a Curse being gained. Isn't your argument based on the premise that they should give different results?
I'm saying that they should give the same result; but based on the argument that the others were making in this thread - that "it costs from $3 to $6" and "it doesn't cost from $3 to $6" are both false - they give different results, because in both cases the "otherwise" clause would be the result.
62
Rules Questions / Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« on: April 05, 2024, 05:03:44 am »I don't think they are equivalent, and I gathered some data by polling people on the Bayesian Conspiracy discord (over there because it's normal to poll people about random questions there). Almost half of the respondents agreed with your position that "The king is bald." -- "Not true." is not a normal usage of human language if you believe there is no king, but a slim majority agreed with me that it is normal. There was unanimous agreement that "The king is bald." -- "The king is not bald." is not a normal usage of human language if you believe there is no king though, so the average person seems to think there is a difference. Finally, with the exception of one person who disagreed that the thought experiment made sense, there was unanimous agreement that in a made up board game context, they would expect the rules to work equivalently to Barbarian handing out a curse and Sorcerer not handing it out.
You're saying that the average person thinks there's a difference between "It's not true that the king is bald" and "the king is not bald," but I don't think that's what your second poll shows. It shows that the half (9 out of 16) who think "not true" is a normal response, mostly (the second poll only got 13 responses) think there's a difference. But the other half doesn't. This is to be expected; the second poll didn't really show us anything that the first didn't.
This is a small sample size, and not composed of average people.
This is probably related to something I've observed many times (and I've done myself). People start analyzing some normal expression or construction in the language and come to the conclusion that it must be wrong based on etymology or logic (for example the notorious "irregardless", or "shameful" vs. "shameless"). When the question is posed like in this poll, people will start analyzing whether it's logically correct to say that the claim is not true, and just like in this thread, some will conclude that it should be, and therefore they respond "yes". Also! You're using a well-known example, so people who have read the Russell argument will bring that in.
But I admit that many players would probably intuitively think that Giant and Barbarian do curse. My point was that those cards should be logically consistent with the others, and "otherwise" should mean "if it doesn't have that cost". I do think that if you asked people to spell out what "otherwise" means (without mentioning an empty deck) that's what almost everybody would say. That's what the natural interpretation is in normal language. But when there's no card, some disconnect occurs where people make an assumption that "otherwise" probably also encompasses that situation. It's not that they think that "the card costs $x" is false (even in your poll half don't think that). I expect that if there were no cheaper card with the right type, they would also think they gained a curse - they just think "otherwise" covers all situations where they can't say yes.
63
Rules Questions / Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« on: April 04, 2024, 05:00:54 am »You're failing to consider that we're talking about human language. In English, if someone claims "You are short", the answers "Not true" and "I'm not" are equivalent. Meaning that "It's not true that I'm short" and "I'm not short" are equivalent.
That's because you actually exist. "I'm either average or tall" would also be equivalent with both of those. If someone claims "God plays dice with the universe", the answers "Not true" and "God does not do that" are not equivalent, because the latter statement agrees that there is a God (at least in a metaphorical sense) and only disagrees about said God's modus operandi, while the former is what you would say if you don't agree there is a God at all.
I'm saying that "not true" and "God doesn't do that" are equivalent in normal language. The proper answer if you don't agree there's a God is rejecting the premise of the claim: "There is no God" or "I don't believe in God".
"The king is bald." -- "Not true." -- means you disagree that the king is bald.
"The king is bald." -- "There is no king." -- means you disagree with the premise.
64
Rules Questions / Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« on: April 04, 2024, 03:37:40 am »"It's not true that the king of France is bald" does not mean the same as "the king of France is not bald".Uhm... That's a very strange claim. So "it's false that the king of France is bald" does not mean "the king of France is not bald"? Or are "false" and "not true" different? What about "untrue"?
"The king of France is bald" and "the king of France is not bald" are both false because France is a republic.
You're failing to consider that we're talking about human language. In English, if someone claims "You are short", the answers "Not true" and "I'm not" are equivalent. Meaning that "It's not true that I'm short" and "I'm not short" are equivalent.
65
Rules Questions / Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« on: April 04, 2024, 03:30:37 am »
That is all clear, and it's what I have been talking about from the OP in this thread.
Exactly. And I would say that it's not only hard but impossible to evaluate. This goes against what the people who oddly liked your post have been saying. They're saying that, if the Mona Lisa was not stolen, "The one who stole the Mona Lisa was Carmen Sandiego" is false.
And now I see that you agreed with Jack Rudd's post, which means you're contradicting your own post...?
I read about Russell's analysis of the King of France statement. It's just one theory, and one I don't agree with - especially in normal language.
Exactly as AJD illustrated:
"The king of France is bald."
"What? I don't think there's a king of France?"
It seems that Russell makes a weak argument, based on the WP article, since he analyzes the statement "the present King of France is bald" by making three statements, the first of which says that there is a King of France, and then concludes that the original statement must be false because there is no King of France. Essentially he's simply stating that the statement must be false because it has a false supposition.
EDIT: Yes, Russell is asserting that the statement "the present King of France is bald" contains an unspoken, hidden statement "there is presently a King of France".
EDIT2: And indeed, the theory of presuppositions is by Frege and is in opposition to Russell's theory. According to Frege, statements with false presuppositions fail to have a truth value. They're neither true nor false.
And in the scenario where the presupposition is false, the truth value of the sentence bearing the presupposition becomes harder to evaluate. If the Mona Lisa was not actually stolen, then The Mona Lisa was stolen by Carmen Sandiego is simply a false sentence. But if the Mona Lisa was not stolen, then The one who stole the Mona Lisa was Carmen Sandiego is certainly not true, but it's hard to say that it's false, either—it's hard to evaluate.
Exactly. And I would say that it's not only hard but impossible to evaluate. This goes against what the people who oddly liked your post have been saying. They're saying that, if the Mona Lisa was not stolen, "The one who stole the Mona Lisa was Carmen Sandiego" is false.
And now I see that you agreed with Jack Rudd's post, which means you're contradicting your own post...?
I read about Russell's analysis of the King of France statement. It's just one theory, and one I don't agree with - especially in normal language.
Exactly as AJD illustrated:
"The king of France is bald."
"What? I don't think there's a king of France?"
It seems that Russell makes a weak argument, based on the WP article, since he analyzes the statement "the present King of France is bald" by making three statements, the first of which says that there is a King of France, and then concludes that the original statement must be false because there is no King of France. Essentially he's simply stating that the statement must be false because it has a false supposition.
EDIT: Yes, Russell is asserting that the statement "the present King of France is bald" contains an unspoken, hidden statement "there is presently a King of France".
EDIT2: And indeed, the theory of presuppositions is by Frege and is in opposition to Russell's theory. According to Frege, statements with false presuppositions fail to have a truth value. They're neither true nor false.
66
Rules Questions / Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« on: April 03, 2024, 04:56:18 pm »"It's not true that the king of France is bald" does not mean the same as "the king of France is not bald".Uhm... That's a very strange claim. So "it's false that the king of France is bald" does not mean "the king of France is not bald"? Or are "false" and "not true" different? What about "untrue"?
67
Rules Questions / Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« on: April 03, 2024, 03:16:33 pm »Well, there are two different potential translations there: "if its cost is not $x", and "if it's not true that its cost is $x" which mean the same thing whenever the item's cost is well-defined, but which evaluate differently if it isn't.
That's exactly what I was referring to. When this argument was made earlier in this thread, the phrasing "if not its cost is $x" was used. You're using "if it's not true that its cost is $x", but it's the same argument. In human language, it still means the same as "if its cost is not $x".
I can demonstrate it like this: If we can't know if "its cost is not $x," then we can't know if "its cost is $x," and we can't know if "it's not true that its cost is $x."
68
Rules Questions / Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« on: April 03, 2024, 02:37:13 pm »
I don't know what that is.
But the point is that for humans reading cards, these two things mean the same:
"if it costs from $3 to $6, trash it; otherwise gain a Curse"
"if it doesn't cost from $3 to $6, gain a Curse; otherwise trash it"
Or to put it another way, "if not its cost is $x" means "if its cost is not $x" in human language. (We've been through all this.)
But the point is that for humans reading cards, these two things mean the same:
"if it costs from $3 to $6, trash it; otherwise gain a Curse"
"if it doesn't cost from $3 to $6, gain a Curse; otherwise trash it"
Or to put it another way, "if not its cost is $x" means "if its cost is not $x" in human language. (We've been through all this.)
69
Rules Questions / Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« on: April 03, 2024, 05:08:36 am »
Thanks.
So it sounds like you're going with "the card is undefined so nothing happens". (Otherwise Bounty Hunter and Sorcerer would do something.)
But to me, that should actually make Giant and Barbarian do nothing too, as you were reasoning in a previous post in this thread. That's because for human players (as opposed to computers), "otherwise" means "if it doesn't cost $x". Which is like Bounty Hunter.
So it sounds like you're going with "the card is undefined so nothing happens". (Otherwise Bounty Hunter and Sorcerer would do something.)
But to me, that should actually make Giant and Barbarian do nothing too, as you were reasoning in a previous post in this thread. That's because for human players (as opposed to computers), "otherwise" means "if it doesn't cost $x". Which is like Bounty Hunter.
70
Rules Questions / Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« on: April 01, 2024, 02:19:19 pm »
I see that the Temple Gates client has implemented these cards as follows:
Giant: if there's no card, you don't gain a curse.
Barbarian: if there's no card, you don't gain a curse.
Sorcerer: if there's no card, you don't gain a curse.
Sorceress: if there's no card, the other players don't gain a curse.
Bounty Hunter: if there's no card, you don't get +$3.
They all follow what I thought made the most sense in this thread.
But, the first three (Giant, Barbarian, Sorcerer) don't follow the last rulings that I'm aware of. Are they wrong in the client, or have you made new rulings, Donald X.?
Giant: if there's no card, you don't gain a curse.
Barbarian: if there's no card, you don't gain a curse.
Sorcerer: if there's no card, you don't gain a curse.
Sorceress: if there's no card, the other players don't gain a curse.
Bounty Hunter: if there's no card, you don't get +$3.
They all follow what I thought made the most sense in this thread.
But, the first three (Giant, Barbarian, Sorcerer) don't follow the last rulings that I'm aware of. Are they wrong in the client, or have you made new rulings, Donald X.?
71
Rules Questions / Re: Complete Dominion rules document
« on: April 01, 2024, 09:12:53 am »
Version 10.1 is now up, which is updated for Cornucopia & Guilds Second Edition, the promo Marchland, and the 2023 errata of the 6 "extra turn" cards:
Complete Rules for Dominion and All Its Expansions
Complete Rules for Dominion and All Its Expansions
72
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: February 20, 2024, 06:16:52 am »Actually, having the option to pick up 3 copper from Thief is a huge pitfall for new players).Not more than picking up Coppers with an extra +buy (which the rulebook actually offers as a possibility).
(I'm not disagreeing with anything else you said.)
73
Rules Questions / Re: 3 turns in a row with Possession
« on: February 09, 2024, 08:32:32 am »
Yes, Alice wouldn't even choose to have Bob play Outpost normally. I was just wondering if it was possible.
74
Rules Questions / 3 turns in a row with Possession
« on: February 09, 2024, 07:42:15 am »
It seems that even with the errata to Possession and Outpost, etc., it's possible to get 3 turns in a row like this:
* Alice regular turn, Alice plays Possession.
* Bob Possession turn, Bob plays Outpost.
(Outpost checks that it would be Bob's 2nd turn in a row, so the extra turn is given.)
* Bob Outpost turn (2nd turn in a row)
* Bob regular turn (3rd turn in a row)
Does this check out?
* Alice regular turn, Alice plays Possession.
* Bob Possession turn, Bob plays Outpost.
(Outpost checks that it would be Bob's 2nd turn in a row, so the extra turn is given.)
* Bob Outpost turn (2nd turn in a row)
* Bob regular turn (3rd turn in a row)
Does this check out?
75
Rules Questions / Re: Playing Treasures in Buy Phase
« on: December 13, 2023, 04:03:14 am »
Also in Prosperity, the first expansion where it mattered:
"During the Buy phase, playing Treasures comes strictly before buying cards; once a card is bought, no further Treasures can be played. This can be important, for example with Grand Market or Mint."
"During the Buy phase, playing Treasures comes strictly before buying cards; once a card is bought, no further Treasures can be played. This can be important, for example with Grand Market or Mint."