Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nik]

I think it's rather easy, but maybe not:

I am an Action, but yet I am not
I give you +1 Action, but yet I do not
I give you +1 card, but yet I do not
What card am I?

Extra hint:I cost less than $6

[RTT]

Im not shure if i understand everything... but my guess would be:

Great Hall?

[TheMirrorMan]

Ironmonger ?

[Awaclus]

Market Square? If you discard it, it doesn't matter that it's an Action, and it doesn't give you +1 card of +1 action.

[silverspawn]

Im not shure if i understand everything... but my guess would be:

Great Hall?

line 2 and 3 don't fit

Ironmonger ?

you mean Ironworks?
that's an action though.

[KingZog3]

Loan? Because it's technically non-terminal, and it flips cards and trashes one that "is in your hand"...sort of

[Davio]

Obviously Conspirator, which is not an Action, rather an Action CARD. 

[TheMirrorMan]

Well, no silverspawn, I meant Ironmonger. But Ironworks could be plausible too.

[silverspawn]

Well, no silverspawn, I meant Ironmonger. But Ironworks could be plausible too.

but ironmonger always has +1card +1action and its an action

[soulnet]

Loan? Because it's technically non-terminal, and it flips cards and trashes one that "is in your hand"...sort of

That's nice, but I think Venture would be a better fit, in this line of reasoning.

[GeoLib]

Loan? Because it's technically non-terminal, and it flips cards and trashes one that "is in your hand"...sort of

That's nice, but I think Venture would be a better fit, in this line of reasoning.

Venture is my answer too.

It's an action in that the word can be a verb, 'to venture.' I don't think any action card works with the first clue, so it's got to be a special treasure.

[silverspawn]

yes venture makes sense because there is adventurer, so he's like an action card, but he's not.

[RTT]

Even IGG could work then

[eHalcyon]

I would guess Throne Room.

[GeoLib]

I would guess Throne Room.

How does it give you +1 card?

[eHalcyon]

I would guess Throne Room.

How does it give you +1 card?

Throne Room is an action (card), but by itself it does nothing.
Throne Room duplicates another action card, which is sort of like +1 Card ("drawing" another copy of the duplicated action) and +1 Action (playing that copy of the duplicated action).

[Witherweaver]

My thought was either Venture or Golem.  But Venture isn't exactly like +1 Action.  Golem is more like +1 Action, +1 Card (net), but it doesn't actually give those.  And Golem is an Action, but a golem itself is a thing.

[mail-mi]

Market Square? If you discard it, it doesn't matter that it's an Action, and it doesn't give you +1 card of +1 action.

Agree.

[silverspawn]

no, no, venture fits way better than golem or market square

[cluckyb]

Ozel's lack of posting in this thread makes me sad 

[sudgy]

Ozel's lack of posting in this thread makes me sad 

Moat?

[Witherweaver]

no, no, venture fits way better than golem or market square

Venture was my first thought, but I don't see how it's like +1 Action.  Maybe just because it isn't a terminal card.  Or that it plays the +1 Card that it gives.  Or because it actually does something that is an action.. like digs for treasure.. I don't know~

[Awaclus]

I guess it could be Band of Misfits too.

[eHalcyon]

The OP gave me +1. I think that means I was right?

[sudgy]

The OP gave me +1. I think that means I was right?

How do you see who gave you your +1s?

[KingZog3]

The OP gave me +1. I think that means I was right?

How do you see who gave you your +1s?

You click on the tab next to the +number. It shows who's +'ed it.

[Nik]

You're right! It's Throne Room.
This riddle is much harder:

Manned only with a sword
(And an Adventurer, too)
Ran I did, to the
Grave of Marram.
Ran, I did, none like a Rogue
And the Adventurer asked me 'must we keep running?'
'Vad' I told him, for that was his name
'End it would be if we were not running.'

That's a really hard riddle, so here are three hints to help you on your way:
If you've read A Series of Unfortunate Events, this might be easier for you.
There are two ways to solve this.
The card I am talking about costs $5.

[silverspawn]

You're right! It's Throne Room.

that doesn't make sense. throne room is an action. and it doesn't give +1action or +1card or neither, it can give any number of +cards and several +actions. 

[Awaclus]

The OP gave me +1. I think that means I was right?

How do you see who gave you your +1s?

By clicking on the icon that looks like a person with a "?" on his face next to the arrow icon (or just next to the number if it's your own post).

[Nik]

You're right! It's Throne Room.

that doesn't make sense. throne room is an action. and it doesn't give +1action or +1card or neither, it can give any number of +cards and several +actions. 

Well, cards that give you +1 action are generally referred to as 'free actions.' Throne Room gives you +1 card because it's like taking a card from the Supply. And it lets you play that card along with another, so it's also like +1 action.

[Awaclus]

Throne Room gives you +1 card because it's like taking a card from the Supply. And it lets you play that card along with another, so it's also like +1 action.

But if you play Throne Room, you end up with two less cards in your hand and one less action than you started with unless the Action you're playing twice gives +cards or +actions.

[heron]

Well, the second riddle is pretty clearly Margrave.

[Nik]

Well, the second riddle is pretty clearly Margrave.

Wow! It is Margrave! Just to make sure you weren't guessing, how did you know?

[WalrusMcFishSr]

Well, the second riddle is pretty clearly Margrave.

Wow! It is Margrave! Just to make sure you weren't guessing, how did you know?

Well it's one of those classic poem riddle thingies where the answer is spelled vertically in each line's first letter. Like in King's Quest 6!

[SirPeebles]

Yeah, I got it just from reading the first letters.  I didn't even read much of the riddle itself, since the card name appeared so prominently to me.

[eHalcyon]

You're right! It's Throne Room.

that doesn't make sense. throne room is an action. and it doesn't give +1action or +1card or neither, it can give any number of +cards and several +actions. 

It's a riddle. I explained how it works on the previous page, and it makes perfect sense. You just have to think abstractly.



Edit: Here is a more thorough explanation.

I am an Action, but yet I am not

You guy mostly settled on Venture, with the justification that it is *like* an Action in that Venture is reminiscent of Adventurer, but it is also not actually an action because it's a treasure.  OK, that's fair.  It's an interesting take on the clue.  A different but no less valid interpretation is to find an actual action that is *not like* an action.  The clue says that the card both IS and IS NOT an action, so you have to think creatively either way.

Throne Room is an actual Action, but by itself it doesn't do anything at all.  In this way, it's sort of not an action and fits the clue.  I think it fits much better than Venture because the wordplay for Venture is pretty weak; it's quite a stretch to say that Venture IS an action.  It's an easier to leap to say that Throne Room isn't an action, since it does effectively nothing when you play it, at least until you play a different action card.

I give you +1 Action, but yet I do not
I give you +1 card, but yet I do not

It's clear enough how this is supposed to apply to Venture.  It actually doesn't fit so well for the second half of the clue.  Venture really does draw a card.  It *literally* doesn't give +1 Card, but it effectively does.  Still, I think it leans far more towards the "gives +1 card" side than the "does not give +1 card" side.  I am really surprised that people don't see how the clue applies to the actual answer.

When you play TR on an action, it effectively lets you play a second copy of that card.  Getting that "second copy" can be interpreted as getting +1 Card.  Being able to freely play it is like getting +1 Action.

Or, a different way to think about how the card works:

Playing Throne Room on a card is effectively equivalent to adding +1 Card, +1 Action to that card, with the added requirement that the card you draw is another copy of the first card and that you play that card immediately.  In this way, it *does* give you +1 Card and +1 Action.  However, the card you "draw" is virtual and doesn't even exist in your deck, so "yet it does not" give +1 Card.  You can't play anything other than that card so "yet it does not" give +1 Action.

Hopefully that clears it up.

Throne Room gives you +1 card because it's like taking a card from the Supply. And it lets you play that card along with another, so it's also like +1 action.

But if you play Throne Room, you end up with two less cards in your hand and one less action than you started with unless the Action you're playing twice gives +cards or +actions.

It's not about the net effect, it's about what the card itself gives you when you play it.  The total net effect depends on the card that TR is playing, not on TR itself.  TR itself can be thought of as giving +1 Card, +1 Action as per my explanation above.

[RTT]

Procession should work just as well as Throne Room does.

[silverspawn]

It's a riddle. I explained how it works on the previous page, and it makes perfect sense. You just have to think abstractly.

.... okay 

[KingZog3]

Procession should work just as well as Throne Room does.

And King's Court

[eHalcyon]

Procession should work just as well as Throne Room does.

And King's Court

Not KC, because that would be "drawing" two extra cards and playing two extra actions.

[KingZog3]

Procession should work just as well as Throne Room does.

And King's Court

Not KC, because that would be "drawing" two extra cards and playing two extra actions.

Whatever. You solved it. And the margrave riddle was solved too. New riddle please!

[Awaclus]

Playing Throne Room on a card is effectively equivalent to adding +1 Card, +1 Action to that card, with the added requirement that the card you draw is another copy of the first card and that you play that card immediately.  In this way, it *does* give you +1 Card and +1 Action.  However, the card you "draw" is virtual and doesn't even exist in your deck, so "yet it does not" give +1 Card.  You can't play anything other than that card so "yet it does not" give +1 Action.

Isn't that also true for, say, Militia? It's effectively equivalent to being just simply +1 Card, +1 Action with the added requirement that the card you draw is a Militia and that you play it immediately.

[soulnet]

Isn't that also true for, say, Militia? It's effectively equivalent to being just simply +1 Card, +1 Action with the added requirement that the card you draw is a Militia and that you play it immediately.

I agree completely. Venture is convoluted, but I think fits way better.

[eHalcyon]

Playing Throne Room on a card is effectively equivalent to adding +1 Card, +1 Action to that card, with the added requirement that the card you draw is another copy of the first card and that you play that card immediately.  In this way, it *does* give you +1 Card and +1 Action.  However, the card you "draw" is virtual and doesn't even exist in your deck, so "yet it does not" give +1 Card.  You can't play anything other than that card so "yet it does not" give +1 Action.

Isn't that also true for, say, Militia? It's effectively equivalent to being just simply +1 Card, +1 Action with the added requirement that the card you draw is a Militia and that you play it immediately.

That makes no sense.  Playing Militia doesn't give you an extra Militia card drawn or Militia played.  Playing Throne Room + Militia (or generic card X) is like playing Militia (or X) and getting an extra +1 Card, +1 Action where the drawn card is a second virtual Militia (or X), which you then immediately play.

Seriously, it baffles me that this is confusing people.

[Awaclus]

That makes no sense.  Playing Militia doesn't give you an extra Militia card drawn or Militia played.  Playing Throne Room + Militia (or generic card X) is like playing Militia (or X) and getting an extra +1 Card, +1 Action where the drawn card is a second virtual Militia (or X), which you then immediately play.

I agree that it makes no sense, but it's the same logic you're using for Throne Room.

I'd argue that Duchess is at least as fitting as Throne Room, since playing Duchess is like playing an Abandoned Mine and getting and extra +1 Card, +1 Action where the drawn card is a second virtual Abandoned Mine, which you then immediately play. And it's also an Action, but you usually gain it when you buy a Victory card, so for example Quarry doesn't help with that.

[eHalcyon]

That makes no sense.  Playing Militia doesn't give you an extra Militia card drawn or Militia played.  Playing Throne Room + Militia (or generic card X) is like playing Militia (or X) and getting an extra +1 Card, +1 Action where the drawn card is a second virtual Militia (or X), which you then immediately play.

I agree that it makes no sense, but it's the same logic you're using for Throne Room.

It really, really isn't.  I must not be explaining it well enough.



Suppose you play TR-Peddler.  Net effect is +2 Cards, +2 Actions, +$2.

An equivalent set of actions would be playing BonusPeddler followed by Peddler, where Bonus Peddler gives +2 Cards, +2 Actions, +$1.  In other words, BonusPeddler is Peddler with an extra +1 Card, +1 Action. 

Where is this extra (virtual) +1 Card, +1 Action coming from?  It's coming from the Throne Room.

Edit: scratch this, this is not what I mean.  I think I'm getting confused trying to explain it differently.  Using a non-terminal makes it harder to see, and talking about net effects isn't the right way to look at it either.  Going to redo this with a different action...

Edit again: actually, it's fine.  But I'll still try including a terminal action example to help...

[eHalcyon]

I'd argue that Duchess is at least as fitting as Throne Room, since playing Duchess is like playing an Abandoned Mine and getting and extra +1 Card, +1 Action where the drawn card is a second virtual Abandoned Mine, which you then immediately play. And it's also an Action, but you usually gain it when you buy a Victory card, so for example Quarry doesn't help with that.

That doesn't work because Duchess and Abandoned Mine have nothing to do with each other.  The way you gain a Duchess doesn't make it "not an action" even in an abstract sense.  It's not a good fit at all.

Does the new example I gave above help with understanding how Throne Room fits perfectly?  I'm genuinely trying to help here.  This way of concepting Throne Room is completely intuitive to me so I am having a lot of trouble figuring out what you guys are missing and explaining it adequately...

[Awaclus]

That doesn't work because Duchess and Abandoned Mine have nothing to do with each other.

What? If we ignore the self-spy, it's the same thing as playing Abandoned Mine with Throne Room. Why wouldn't it work?

Suppose you play TR-Peddler.  Net effect is +2 Cards, +2 Actions, +$2.

An equivalent set of actions would be playing BonusPeddler followed by Peddler, where Bonus Peddler gives +2 Cards, +2 Actions, +$1.  In other words, BonusPeddler is Peddler with an extra +1 Card, +1 Action. 

Where is this extra (virtual) +1 Card, +1 Action coming from?  It's coming from the Throne Room.

But if you play BonusPeddler followed by Peddler, you'll end up with 6 cards in hand.

EDIT: Also, I don't think there is anything I'm missing here, I just think that it's wrong.

[eHalcyon]

Ugh, actually, the Peddler example was not explained properly.  It's confusing because Peddler is already non-terminal.  And I guess I'm not properly explaining how TR fits in.

But I think I know what the confusion is now.  The puzzle is utilising two different abstractions of Throne Room.

First abstraction is "Throne Room as a pseudo village", where you can imagine it as being a village that draws a second copy of the chosen card, and then you play both copies consecutively.  Can I trust that this is understood without further explanation?  This is one of the more common ways of thinking of TR, I think.  In this case, it fits the +1 Card of the riddle but it's more +2 actions than +1 action.

Second abstraction is that TR becomes a "bonus" version of the chosen card, where the bonus is an extra +1 Action.  This better fits the +1 action portion of the riddle.

I'm combining the two abstractions, so TR is giving/drawing you a virtual copy of the chosen card (fulfilling the +1 card part of the riddle) and granting you the ability to play it for free (fulfilling the +1 action part of the riddle).







The Duchess/Abandoned Mine thing doesn't work because there's no reason to just suddenly split the Duchess in half.  I'm really not sure what you're getting at with that.

[Awaclus]

The Duchess/Abandoned Mine thing doesn't work because there's no reason to just suddenly split the Duchess in half.  I'm really not sure what you're getting at with that.

So why is there a reason to suddenly split the Throne Room in half?

[eHalcyon]

The Duchess/Abandoned Mine thing doesn't work because there's no reason to just suddenly split the Duchess in half.  I'm really not sure what you're getting at with that.

So why is there a reason to suddenly split the Throne Room in half?

Nowhere am I splitting TR in half.  Can you quote where you think I say that so that I can explain that part better?

[Awaclus]

The Duchess/Abandoned Mine thing doesn't work because there's no reason to just suddenly split the Duchess in half.  I'm really not sure what you're getting at with that.

So why is there a reason to suddenly split the Throne Room in half?

Nowhere am I splitting TR in half.  Can you quote where you think I say that so that I can explain that part better?

For example here:

Playing Throne Room + Militia (or generic card X) is like playing Militia (or X) and getting an extra +1 Card, +1 Action where the drawn card is a second virtual Militia (or X), which you then immediately play.

[eHalcyon]

The Duchess/Abandoned Mine thing doesn't work because there's no reason to just suddenly split the Duchess in half.  I'm really not sure what you're getting at with that.

So why is there a reason to suddenly split the Throne Room in half?

Nowhere am I splitting TR in half.  Can you quote where you think I say that so that I can explain that part better?

For example here:

Playing Throne Room + Militia (or generic card X) is like playing Militia (or X) and getting an extra +1 Card, +1 Action where the drawn card is a second virtual Militia (or X), which you then immediately play.

That's not splitting in half though.  That's doubling.  TR doubles a card -- that is literally what it does.  What I'm describing is an alternative way of thinking of it, where you are getting and playing a second copy of card X.  There is no splitting there.

[Awaclus]

The Duchess/Abandoned Mine thing doesn't work because there's no reason to just suddenly split the Duchess in half.  I'm really not sure what you're getting at with that.

So why is there a reason to suddenly split the Throne Room in half?

Nowhere am I splitting TR in half.  Can you quote where you think I say that so that I can explain that part better?

For example here:

Playing Throne Room + Militia (or generic card X) is like playing Militia (or X) and getting an extra +1 Card, +1 Action where the drawn card is a second virtual Militia (or X), which you then immediately play.

That's not splitting in half though.  That's doubling.  TR doubles a card -- that is literally what it does.  What I'm describing is an alternative way of thinking of it, where you are getting and playing a second copy of card X.  There is no splitting there.

But that is splitting in half. Throne Room's effect is doubling a card; or you can think of it in an alternative way where you split it in half and think of it as playing the card, then getting and playing a second copy of the card.

[eHalcyon]

The Duchess/Abandoned Mine thing doesn't work because there's no reason to just suddenly split the Duchess in half.  I'm really not sure what you're getting at with that.

So why is there a reason to suddenly split the Throne Room in half?

Nowhere am I splitting TR in half.  Can you quote where you think I say that so that I can explain that part better?

For example here:

Playing Throne Room + Militia (or generic card X) is like playing Militia (or X) and getting an extra +1 Card, +1 Action where the drawn card is a second virtual Militia (or X), which you then immediately play.

That's not splitting in half though.  That's doubling.  TR doubles a card -- that is literally what it does.  What I'm describing is an alternative way of thinking of it, where you are getting and playing a second copy of card X.  There is no splitting there.

But that is splitting in half. Throne Room's effect is doubling a card; or you can think of it in an alternative way where you split it in half and think of it as playing the card, then getting and playing a second copy of the card.

It's not, because there is also the other card to consider.  Throne Room is standing in for one full copy of the other card.  What is being halved?

Also note that nothing is coming out of thin air.  We have TR and we have the other card, and the abstraction thinks of TR as the other card.  How does that work at all with Duchess and Abandoned Mine?  You have Duchess... and then randomly name Abandoned Mine for no reason?

I think we might be getting off track though.    You haven't actually commented on the explanation in this post.  Is that still confusing?

[Awaclus]

It's not, because there is also the other card to consider.  Throne Room is standing in for one full copy of the other card.  What is being halved?

Also note that nothing is coming out of thin air.  We have TR and we have the other card, and the abstraction thinks of TR as the other card.  How does that work at all with Duchess and Abandoned Mine?  You have Duchess... and then randomly name Abandoned Mine for no reason?

I think we might be getting off track though.    You haven't actually commented on the explanation in this post.  Is that still confusing?

No, Throne Room is standing in for two full copies of the other card, and the other card becomes unusable. Playing a Duchess is pretty much the same as Throne Rooming an Abandoned Mine, except you lose one card instead of two and there's the self-spy thing.

Thinking of Throne Room as a pseudo-village that draws another copy of the card and plays both copies makes as much sense as thinking of Militia as a pseudo-cantrip that draws a Militia and then plays it.

I can agree with the +1 Action part, though.

[eHalcyon]

It's not, because there is also the other card to consider.  Throne Room is standing in for one full copy of the other card.  What is being halved?

Also note that nothing is coming out of thin air.  We have TR and we have the other card, and the abstraction thinks of TR as the other card.  How does that work at all with Duchess and Abandoned Mine?  You have Duchess... and then randomly name Abandoned Mine for no reason?

I think we might be getting off track though.    You haven't actually commented on the explanation in this post.  Is that still confusing?

No, Throne Room is standing in for two full copies of the other card, and the other card becomes unusable. Playing a Duchess is pretty much the same as Throne Rooming an Abandoned Mine, except you lose one card instead of two and there's the self-spy thing.

Thinking of Throne Room as a pseudo-village that draws another copy of the card and plays both copies makes as much sense as thinking of Militia as a pseudo-cantrip that draws a Militia and then plays it.

I can agree with the +1 Action part, though.

That idea (TR = 2 copies, original copy unusable) is itself another abstraction.  It's a fine way of looking at it, but it's not the only way.  TR as pseudo-village is a common way of thinking of it.  Or you can look at it literally -- it plays the original card, then it plays it again.  That's the exact mechanic as written on the card.

TR as pseudo-village is not the same as Militia as pseudo-cantrip that draws Militia.  In this example, you have redefined Militia as a pseudo-cantrip, so even if it draws another Militia it will just be another cantrip.  If you really want to, you can think of it as a pseudo-cantrip that draws a completely different card that matches what Militia originally was... except that there is no reason to do so, and in the end that particular abstraction does not really change how you can think of the card.  It's like redefining an equation as the same equation multiplied by 1.  True, but essentially tautological.  The abstractions I gave are actually different (and still legitimate) ways of looking at TR, like explaining multiplication in terms of addition.

As for Duchess and Abandoned Mine... why did you suddenly bring TR into that example?  You were saying that Duchess fits the original riddle as well as Throne Room, except now you are pulling in two other cards out of thin air.

[GeoLib]

It's not, because there is also the other card to consider.  Throne Room is standing in for one full copy of the other card.  What is being halved?

Also note that nothing is coming out of thin air.  We have TR and we have the other card, and the abstraction thinks of TR as the other card.  How does that work at all with Duchess and Abandoned Mine?  You have Duchess... and then randomly name Abandoned Mine for no reason?

I think we might be getting off track though.    You haven't actually commented on the explanation in this post.  Is that still confusing?

No, Throne Room is standing in for two full copies of the other card, and the other card becomes unusable. Playing a Duchess is pretty much the same as Throne Rooming an Abandoned Mine, except you lose one card instead of two and there's the self-spy thing.

Thinking of Throne Room as a pseudo-village that draws another copy of the card and plays both copies makes as much sense as thinking of Militia as a pseudo-cantrip that draws a Militia and then plays it.

I can agree with the +1 Action part, though.

Error: Stack Overflow. Recursion Depth Exceeded.

[KingZog3]

The Duchess/Abandoned Mine thing doesn't work because there's no reason to just suddenly split the Duchess in half.  I'm really not sure what you're getting at with that.

So why is there a reason to suddenly split the Throne Room in half?

Nowhere am I splitting TR in half.  Can you quote where you think I say that so that I can explain that part better?

For example here:

Playing Throne Room + Militia (or generic card X) is like playing Militia (or X) and getting an extra +1 Card, +1 Action where the drawn card is a second virtual Militia (or X), which you then immediately play.

That's not splitting in half though.  That's doubling.  TR doubles a card -- that is literally what it does.  What I'm describing is an alternative way of thinking of it, where you are getting and playing a second copy of card X.  There is no splitting there.

The rulebook says that it does not double. It explicitly says that. It plays the card twice, but does not double it.

[Awaclus]

That idea (TR = 2 copies, original copy unusable) is itself another abstraction.  It's a fine way of looking at it, but it's not the only way.  TR as pseudo-village is a common way of thinking of it.  Or you can look at it literally -- it plays the original card, then it plays it again.  That's the exact mechanic as written on the card.

TR as pseudo-village is not the same as Militia as pseudo-cantrip that draws Militia.  In this example, you have redefined Militia as a pseudo-cantrip, so even if it draws another Militia it will just be another cantrip.  If you really want to, you can think of it as a pseudo-cantrip that draws a completely different card that matches what Militia originally was... except that there is no reason to do so, and in the end that particular abstraction does not really change how you can think of the card.  It's like redefining an equation as the same equation multiplied by 1.  True, but essentially tautological.  The abstractions I gave are actually different (and still legitimate) ways of looking at TR, like explaining multiplication in terms of addition.

As for Duchess and Abandoned Mine... why did you suddenly bring TR into that example?  You were saying that Duchess fits the original riddle as well as Throne Room, except now you are pulling in two other cards out of thin air.

But... it's not an abstraction. It's literally what happens. Throne Room makes you play the card twice, then you can no longer play the card.

Indeed, there is no reason to think of cards as cantrips that draw and play a card with the effect of the original card. I fail to see why Throne Room should be an exception.

And I'm not suddenly bringing TR into that example, the example has always been a comparison between Duchess and Throne Room, because they both have an effect that is pretty much "play an Abandoned Mine twice", if your Throne Room "target" is an Abandoned Mine.

Oh, and I did say that I agree with the +1 action thing, but I'm taking some of that back - I don't think it makes any sense to think of Throne Room like that unless you are Throne Rooming another Throne Room.

[eHalcyon]

Sorry for the derail, Nik.  Maybe this should be split into another thread.  Nonetheless, I press on...

The rulebook says that it does not double. It explicitly says that. It plays the card twice, but does not double it.

Just checked the rule book and it says nothing about doubling or not doubling.  TR doubles a card in that it results in one card getting played two times instead of one time.

But... it's not an abstraction. It's literally what happens. Throne Room makes you play the card twice, then you can no longer play the card.

Throne Room has you select a card, which you then play.  Then TR has you play it again.

This is similar to but still distinct from what you described: TR has you select a card, which is never played.  Then TR becomes two full copies of another card.  Note that you said that "the other card becomes unusable".  That's what makes it an abstraction.  That card does NOT become unusable.  That card is played.  But you are making an abstraction where "Throne Room is standing in for two full copies of the other card".

Another way to think about Throne Room is that it stands in for a second copy of the other card.  Having TR-X in hand is very similar to having X-X in hand.  It's not exactly the same, of course -- you can't play both X's if it's terminal, but you would get to play "both" with TR-X.  Or if X is non-terminal, TR-X will leave you with an extra action(s) afterwards compared to playing X followed by X.  So in this abstraction, you get an extra +1 action out of the TR itself.

Indeed, there is no reason to think of cards as cantrips that draw and play a card with the effect of the original card. I fail to see why Throne Room should be an exception.

But with TR, I'm not thinking of it as "a cantrip that draws and plays a card with the effect of the original card"!  In this sentence, the original card is Throne Room.  Rather, I am thinking of it as drawing and playing a card with the effect of whatever is played WITH Throne Room.  That's why your statement with Militia is confusing, and it's the point of GeoLib's Stack Overflow joke.

And I'm not suddenly bringing TR into that example, the example has always been a comparison between Duchess and Throne Room, because they both have an effect that is pretty much "play an Abandoned Mine twice", if your Throne Room "target" is an Abandoned Mine.

That comparison still makes no sense.  I explained (or at least tried to explain) how TR fits the riddle by referencing Throne Room and what the card effectively does.

Then you said that Duchess fits the original riddle just as well as Throne Room.  So to show this, you'd have to explain how Duchess matches each of the clues only by referencing Duchess itself.  You can't just randomly bring in Throne Room and Abandoned Mine into this explanation -- that's nonsensical!

[Awaclus]

This is similar to but still distinct from what you described: TR has you select a card, which is never played.  Then TR becomes two full copies of another card.  Note that you said that "the other card becomes unusable".  That's what makes it an abstraction.  That card does NOT become unusable.  That card is played.  But you are making an abstraction where "Throne Room is standing in for two full copies of the other card".

You have two Actions in hand, one is Throne Room and the other is Militia. You can choose to play Throne Room or Militia. If you choose Throne Room, Militia gets played twice and when Throne Room has finished, you no longer have a Militia that you can choose to play; playing it twice was Throne Room's effect, and after that, it became unusable.

But with TR, I'm not thinking of it as "a cantrip that draws and plays a card with the effect of the original card"!  In this sentence, the original card is Throne Room.  Rather, I am thinking of it as drawing and playing a card with the effect of whatever is played WITH Throne Room.  That's why your statement with Militia is confusing, and it's the point of GeoLib's Stack Overflow joke.

But the effect of playing a Throne Room is the effect of playing whatever is played with Throne Room twice. It's the same thing.

That comparison still makes no sense.  I explained (or at least tried to explain) how TR fits the riddle by referencing Throne Room and what the card effectively does.

Then you said that Duchess fits the original riddle just as well as Throne Room.  So to show this, you'd have to explain how Duchess matches each of the clues only by referencing Duchess itself.  You can't just randomly bring in Throne Room and Abandoned Mine into this explanation -- that's nonsensical!

If you explain Throne Room only by referencing Throne Room itself, it's a terminal action that doesn't do anything.

[heron]

Personally, I like to see Throne Room as giving +1 Card, +2 Actions actually.

Explanation:
Say you play Throne Room-Militia.
Cards were played three times, but it only took two cards from your hand. So it's like you got an extra card.
It also only took one action for three card-plays, so that's like +2 Actions.

[markusin]

Then you said that Duchess fits the original riddle just as well as Throne Room.  So to show this, you'd have to explain how Duchess matches each of the clues only by referencing Duchess itself.  You can't just randomly bring in Throne Room and Abandoned Mine into this explanation -- that's nonsensical!

If you explain Throne Room only by referencing Throne Room itself, it's a terminal action that doesn't do anything.

Yeah, I don't think Throne Room matches the first clue for this reason. It's always an Action.

[florrat]

I request assistance.  Over in the puzzles forum, Nik posted a riddle.  The answer was immediately obvious to me, but nobody else seems to understand it.  I repeatedly tried to explain what is completely intuitive to me but I'm failing.  Am I just crazy?

Can we keep the discussion of which card fits or does not fit a very vague description in one topic?
The only correct answer to the puzzle is that no card fits the description, because it is internally inconsistent. So the question is for which card do you have to bend the description as little as possible. And that depends on which direction you bend the description. I think that there are a lot of cards where one can make some argument why that card fits the description better than other cards, but I also think that there's isn't a unique card which fits the description best in all aspects.

[Watno]

Personally, I like to see Throne Room as giving +1 Card, +2 Actions actually.

Explanation:
Say you play Throne Room-Militia.
Cards were played three times, but it only took two cards from your hand. So it's like you got an extra card.
It also only took one action for three card-plays, so that's like +2 Actions.

Yeah, +1 card +1 action doesn't make sense. I can see considering it as +2 actions, +1 card, or as just +1 action, but both are probably missleading ways to think about Throne Room.

[silverspawn]

cmon why are you complaining the discussion is way more interesting than the thread itself

[eHalcyon]

This is similar to but still distinct from what you described: TR has you select a card, which is never played.  Then TR becomes two full copies of another card.  Note that you said that "the other card becomes unusable".  That's what makes it an abstraction.  That card does NOT become unusable.  That card is played.  But you are making an abstraction where "Throne Room is standing in for two full copies of the other card".

You have two Actions in hand, one is Throne Room and the other is Militia. You can choose to play Throne Room or Militia. If you choose Throne Room, Militia gets played twice and when Throne Room has finished, you no longer have a Militia that you can choose to play; playing it twice was Throne Room's effect, and after that, it became unusable.

But with TR, I'm not thinking of it as "a cantrip that draws and plays a card with the effect of the original card"!  In this sentence, the original card is Throne Room.  Rather, I am thinking of it as drawing and playing a card with the effect of whatever is played WITH Throne Room.  That's why your statement with Militia is confusing, and it's the point of GeoLib's Stack Overflow joke.

But the effect of playing a Throne Room is the effect of playing whatever is played with Throne Room twice. It's the same thing.

Again, you are thinking of Militia becoming unusable and TR standing in for two effects.  But you can just as well think of Militia being used and TR standing in for one effect.  These are different abstractions that have the same effective result.

If you explain Throne Room only by referencing Throne Room itself, it's a terminal action that doesn't do anything.

Not quite.  The text on Throne Room also talks about another card, so referencing TR itself includes referencing another card.  The key here is that this other card is never specified, and this remains true in all my explanations.  (Clarification: I have tried giving examples with specific cards, but those explanations work just as well with any generic card X, which I have also used at times.)

Then you said that Duchess fits the original riddle just as well as Throne Room.  So to show this, you'd have to explain how Duchess matches each of the clues only by referencing Duchess itself.  You can't just randomly bring in Throne Room and Abandoned Mine into this explanation -- that's nonsensical!

If you explain Throne Room only by referencing Throne Room itself, it's a terminal action that doesn't do anything.

Yeah, I don't think Throne Room matches the first clue for this reason. It's always an Action.

It's a riddle though.  The riddley explanation for when TR isn't an "Action" is when it isn't matched with another action card, in which case TR does nothing.

I request assistance.  Over in the puzzles forum, Nik posted a riddle.  The answer was immediately obvious to me, but nobody else seems to understand it.  I repeatedly tried to explain what is completely intuitive to me but I'm failing.  Am I just crazy?

Can we keep the discussion of which card fits or does not fit a very vague description in one topic?
The only correct answer to the puzzle is that no card fits the description, because it is internally inconsistent. So the question is for which card do you have to bend the description as little as possible. And that depends on which direction you bend the description. I think that there are a lot of cards where one can make some argument why that card fits the description better than other cards, but I also think that there's isn't a unique card which fits the description best in all aspects.

I posted in the Random thread because this was mostly just me and Awaclus going back and forth.  It was getting too repetitive and clearly neither of us were explaining our thoughts well to the other, so I thought some more voices would help.  Moreover, it was the RANDOM thread.  Nothing is off-topic there, so I don't see an issue.  I didn't start a brand new thread or anything...

Anyway, yes, I agree that any answer to a riddle HAS to make some odd interpretations and strange leaps, sure, and you can certainly argue that different cards are better fits depending on the particular take you have on the riddle.  I'm not particularly arguing that TR is the absolute best fit (though I do believe this is so).  I'm just trying to show that Throne Room is a reasonable fit for the riddle.

[eHalcyon]

From the random thread:

And yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you either, I don't think that there's anything wrong with the logic. I just think that there isn't a particular reason to ever use that logic, and that you can use that logic to justify any Action card as an answer for the puzzle, not just Throne Room (well, at least for the +1 card, +1 action part; you still need to come up with a reason why the Action card is also not an Action card).

The logic does not work for any other card (other than Procession).  If you apply it to another card like Militia, adding in a virtual cantrip (as you did in an earlier argument), the net effect of that virtual cantrip is nothing at all.  But the net effect with TR really does produce a phantom +1 action, the same way it appears with Cultist or Herald.  It appears because the card itself has you play another card without spending any actions.

The thought process for +1 card is a bit more of a stretch, so I'm giving up on explaining that.  But the phantom +1 action is pretty clear for TR, I think.

[Awaclus]

The logic does not work for any other card (other than Procession).  If you apply it to another card like Militia, adding in a virtual cantrip (as you did in an earlier argument), the net effect of that virtual cantrip is nothing at all.  But the net effect with TR really does produce a phantom +1 action, the same way it appears with Cultist or Herald.  It appears because the card itself has you play another card without spending any actions.

Yeah, the phantom +1 action is a part of Throne Room's effect. But you're adding the virtual cantrip there in addition to that.

[Witherweaver]

From the random thread:

And yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you either, I don't think that there's anything wrong with the logic. I just think that there isn't a particular reason to ever use that logic, and that you can use that logic to justify any Action card as an answer for the puzzle, not just Throne Room (well, at least for the +1 card, +1 action part; you still need to come up with a reason why the Action card is also not an Action card).

The logic does not work for any other card (other than Procession).  If you apply it to another card like Militia, adding in a virtual cantrip (as you did in an earlier argument), the net effect of that virtual cantrip is nothing at all.  But the net effect with TR really does produce a phantom +1 action, the same way it appears with Cultist or Herald.  It appears because the card itself has you play another card without spending any actions.

The thought process for +1 card is a bit more of a stretch, so I'm giving up on explaining that.  But the phantom +1 action is pretty clear for TR, I think.

It seems like the closest analogy to a hand of Throne Room, Militia, X, X, X is Village, Militia, Militia, X, X.  Play Throne Room on Militia, you're left with 0 actions and X,X,X.  Play Village, Militia, Militia, you're left with 0 actions and X,X, and new X. 

I agree with Throne Room as a virtual +1 action.. you play it, plus another action card.  The +1 card thing kind of shows itself in the hands compared above.. it's like+1 card where that card is another Militia.  Though that seems a bit like an accounting trick to me. 

Of course, since the net effect (modulo reshuffles and counting action cards in play) is Militia is played twice and you have a hand of X,X,X, you could also argue Throne Room is +1 card, +2 actions (where the extra card must be a Militia (or the target) and both actions must be spent on both Militias (or targets).

I still feel Golem and Venture fit better than Throne Room

[eHalcyon]

The logic does not work for any other card (other than Procession).  If you apply it to another card like Militia, adding in a virtual cantrip (as you did in an earlier argument), the net effect of that virtual cantrip is nothing at all.  But the net effect with TR really does produce a phantom +1 action, the same way it appears with Cultist or Herald.  It appears because the card itself has you play another card without spending any actions.

Yeah, the phantom +1 action is a part of Throne Room's effect. But you're adding the virtual cantrip there in addition to that.

No, those were separate abstractions.  The virtual cantrip metaphor was (attempting to) explain how it fits the +1 card clue.  When you play TR-X, you get a second card X played.  It's like the TR drew you that second X, and in that way it's sort of like +1 card.  Yes, it's a bit of a stretch.

The same logic does not apply to other cards because you aren't getting anything extra out of your virtual cantrip. 

If you now recognize the phantom +1 action, then I think that's enough for me, hahaha.

I still feel Golem and Venture fit better than Throne Room

That's fair.  I just don't think there is a satisfactory explanation for how Golem isn't an action.  IIRC, the only explanation that came up was that golems themselves are objects, i.e. a noun rather than a verb... but I don't like that because it applies to most cards.  As for Venture, I think it's a bigger stretch to call it an action than anything I described with TR.  But I guess that's subjective.

[Witherweaver]

I still feel Golem and Venture fit better than Throne Room

That's fair.  I just don't think there is a satisfactory explanation for how Golem isn't an action.  IIRC, the only explanation that came up was that golems themselves are objects, i.e. a noun rather than a verb... but I don't like that because it applies to most cards.  As for Venture, I think it's a bigger stretch to call it an action than anything I described with TR.  But I guess that's subjective.

Yes, that's a stretch, but it's perfectly valid in a riddle.  I mean, go up to someone on the street and ask them if a golem is an action.. they'll tell you i't's a thing (after looking at you like you're crazy).  And venture is a verb.. and the card itself performs an action.. you play it, you do stuff. 

[eHalcyon]

I still feel Golem and Venture fit better than Throne Room

That's fair.  I just don't think there is a satisfactory explanation for how Golem isn't an action.  IIRC, the only explanation that came up was that golems themselves are objects, i.e. a noun rather than a verb... but I don't like that because it applies to most cards.  As for Venture, I think it's a bigger stretch to call it an action than anything I described with TR.  But I guess that's subjective.

Yes, that's a stretch, but it's perfectly valid in a riddle.  I mean, go up to someone on the street and ask them if a golem is an action.. they'll tell you i't's a thing (after looking at you like you're crazy).  And venture is a verb.. and the card itself performs an action.. you play it, you do stuff.

Asking someone on the street is out of context though.  Venture is also a noun, and I think in context it makes more sense as a noun rather than a verb.  But yeah, alright, it's a riddle and all.  Subjectivity! 

[KingZog3]

Actually I think the answer is Scout. It's an action, but not an action. It gives plus cards, but it doesn't give plus cards. And if gives +1action, but who cares really.

[Awaclus]

No, those were separate abstractions.  The virtual cantrip metaphor was (attempting to) explain how it fits the +1 card clue.  When you play TR-X, you get a second card X played.  It's like the TR drew you that second X, and in that way it's sort of like +1 card.  Yes, it's a bit of a stretch.

The same logic does not apply to other cards because you aren't getting anything extra out of your virtual cantrip.

But you aren't getting anything extra out of your virtual cantrip for Throne Room either. You still just play the other card twice, which is Throne Room's effect.

[Watno]

I agree with Throne Room as a virtual +1 action.. you play it, plus another action card.  The +1 card thing kind of shows itself in the hands compared above.. it's like+1 card where that card is another Militia.  Though that seems a bit like an accounting trick to me. 

But if you consider it to add an extra Militia to your hand, you need 2 actions to play both Militias. I really don't see how +1 action and +1 card can make sense at the same time.

[Witherweaver]

I agree with Throne Room as a virtual +1 action.. you play it, plus another action card.  The +1 card thing kind of shows itself in the hands compared above.. it's like+1 card where that card is another Militia.  Though that seems a bit like an accounting trick to me. 

But if you consider it to add an extra Militia to your hand, you need 2 actions to play both Militias. I really don't see how +1 action and +1 card can make sense at the same time.

Well this way you have to consider it as the first play plays one Militia, the next action is used to play the second Militia.  But I agree that's a twist, and I don't disagree with your statement.

On the other hand, the riddle doesn't actually say it does those at the same time. 

[eHalcyon]

No, those were separate abstractions.  The virtual cantrip metaphor was (attempting to) explain how it fits the +1 card clue.  When you play TR-X, you get a second card X played.  It's like the TR drew you that second X, and in that way it's sort of like +1 card.  Yes, it's a bit of a stretch.

The same logic does not apply to other cards because you aren't getting anything extra out of your virtual cantrip.

But you aren't getting anything extra out of your virtual cantrip for Throne Room either. You still just play the other card twice, which is Throne Room's effect.

It's re-framing what TR does.  Imagine that TR is not playing the card twice, but is instead doing Something Mysterious before you play the chosen action card X.  What is that Something Mysterious?  It's an extra play of action card X.  In a sense, this is like it's given or drawn you an extra card X.

Yes, this is what TR itself does.  That is the entire point. >_>

[Awaclus]

It's re-framing what TR does.  Imagine that TR is not playing the card twice, but is instead doing Something Mysterious before you play the chosen action card X.  What is that Something Mysterious?  It's an extra play of action card X.  In a sense, this is like it's given or drawn you an extra card X.

Yeah, getting the effects of the action card X is part of Throne Room's effect, getting them again is another part. Why do you "draw a card" for this partial effect of Throne Room?

[eHalcyon]

It's re-framing what TR does.  Imagine that TR is not playing the card twice, but is instead doing Something Mysterious before you play the chosen action card X.  What is that Something Mysterious?  It's an extra play of action card X.  In a sense, this is like it's given or drawn you an extra card X.

Yeah, getting the effects of the action card X is part of Throne Room's effect, getting them again is another part. Why do you "draw a card" for this partial effect of Throne Room?

To fit the riddle.  Really, that is it.  Having TR in your hand is like having a second copy of another action already in your hand.  A way to think about that is that TR becomes that other card.  Another way to think about it is that TR gives you that other card.  That's all.

[Awaclus]

It's re-framing what TR does.  Imagine that TR is not playing the card twice, but is instead doing Something Mysterious before you play the chosen action card X.  What is that Something Mysterious?  It's an extra play of action card X.  In a sense, this is like it's given or drawn you an extra card X.

Yeah, getting the effects of the action card X is part of Throne Room's effect, getting them again is another part. Why do you "draw a card" for this partial effect of Throne Room?

To fit the riddle.  Really, that is it.  Having TR in your hand is like having a second copy of another action already in your hand.  A way to think about that is that TR becomes that other card.  Another way to think about it is that TR gives you that other card.  That's all.

Yeah, and having Militia in hand is like having a Militia in hand. A way to think about that is that Militia is that Militia. Another way to think about it is that the Militia gives you that Militia. Why doesn't Militia fit the riddle (if you don't count obviously being an action)?

[eHalcyon]

It's re-framing what TR does.  Imagine that TR is not playing the card twice, but is instead doing Something Mysterious before you play the chosen action card X.  What is that Something Mysterious?  It's an extra play of action card X.  In a sense, this is like it's given or drawn you an extra card X.

Yeah, getting the effects of the action card X is part of Throne Room's effect, getting them again is another part. Why do you "draw a card" for this partial effect of Throne Room?

To fit the riddle.  Really, that is it.  Having TR in your hand is like having a second copy of another action already in your hand.  A way to think about that is that TR becomes that other card.  Another way to think about it is that TR gives you that other card.  That's all.

Yeah, and having Militia in hand is like having a Militia in hand. A way to think about that is that Militia is that Militia. Another way to think about it is that the Militia gives you that Militia. Why doesn't Militia fit the riddle (if you don't count obviously being an action)?

In the end, what does Militia give you?  It gives you $2 and a discard attack.  It doesn't give you another card in any sense, and it certainly doesn't give you an action in any sense.  You could frame it as if it's giving you the effects of another virtual card that happens to give you $2 and a discard attack, except this virtual card is still something specific.

In the end, what does TR give you?  It gives you the effects of another card.  In a (admittedly loose) sense, this is giving you +1 card.  As previously discussed, it also effectively gives you the +1 action needed to "play" that other card.  The key thing here is that this virtual card is NOT specific.  It's generic, depending on whatever card is paired with TR.

[Awaclus]

The key thing here is that this virtual card is NOT specific.  It's generic, depending on whatever card is paired with TR.

How is that key?

[eHalcyon]

The key thing here is that this virtual card is NOT specific.  It's generic, depending on whatever card is paired with TR.

How is that key?

Because the pseudo-cantrip framing device with something specific can be completely collapsed into just that specific something.  Pseudo-cantrip that draws a pseudo-Militia is effectively just Militia (barring edge cases, yadda yadda).

With TR, the card at the end is not just another TR.  Instead, TR+X is re-imagined as X'+X.

If it helps, forget about the entire virtual pseudo-cantrip stuff.  Instead, here is a much simpler way of looking at it:

Playing TR+X is a lot like playing X+X. 
In this way, it's like TR is becoming another copy of X.
In a sense, "transforming into card X" is like "giving you card X".
In a sense, "drawing you a card X" is like "giving you a card X".

Yes, I know that this is all very loose and abstract, especially after being broken down systematically in an attempt to explain what is supposed to be intuitive. Such is the nature of riddles.

[Awaclus]

Playing TR+X is a lot like playing X+X. 
In this way, it's like TR is becoming another copy of X.
In a sense, "transforming into card X" is like "giving you card X".
In a sense, "drawing you a card X" is like "giving you a card X".

What do you mean by "giving you a card X"? Because transforming into card X and drawing you a card X are entirely different things, there must be a step in between that I'm not getting.

[eHalcyon]

Playing TR+X is a lot like playing X+X. 
In this way, it's like TR is becoming another copy of X.
In a sense, "transforming into card X" is like "giving you card X".
In a sense, "drawing you a card X" is like "giving you a card X".

What do you mean by "giving you a card X"? Because transforming into card X and drawing you a card X are entirely different things.

Before <action>, you do not have a random card X.  After <action>, you do. 

<action> is getting card X.  It could be fulfilled by something drawing card X, or it could be fulfilled by something transforming into card X.  Thus, both the drawing and the transforming are similar in a sense.


Is this the part where you get hung up then?  This is the kind of abstraction that I just accept as a given when it comes to riddles.  Maybe it's too big a leap for your taste, but it doesn't feel like such a big jump to me.

[Awaclus]

Before <action>, you do not have a random card X.  After <action>, you do. 

<action> is getting card X.  It could be fulfilled by something drawing card X, or it could be fulfilled by something transforming into card X.  Thus, both the drawing and the transforming are similar in a sense.


Is this the part where you get hung up then?  This is the kind of abstraction that I just accept as a given when it comes to riddles.  Maybe it's too big a leap for your taste, but it doesn't feel like such a big jump to me.

But you kind of do have the card, because it's Throne Room's effect and you have Throne Room.

[eHalcyon]

Before <action>, you do not have a random card X.  After <action>, you do. 

<action> is getting card X.  It could be fulfilled by something drawing card X, or it could be fulfilled by something transforming into card X.  Thus, both the drawing and the transforming are similar in a sense.


Is this the part where you get hung up then?  This is the kind of abstraction that I just accept as a given when it comes to riddles.  Maybe it's too big a leap for your taste, but it doesn't feel like such a big jump to me.

But you kind of do have the card, because it's Throne Room's effect and you have Throne Room.

But you don't have it until you play TR and it "transforms", thus giving it to you.  This is the entire point.

Again I repeat, maybe this is just too big a leap for your taste in riddles, even though it works perfectly for me.

[Awaclus]

Before <action>, you do not have a random card X.  After <action>, you do. 

<action> is getting card X.  It could be fulfilled by something drawing card X, or it could be fulfilled by something transforming into card X.  Thus, both the drawing and the transforming are similar in a sense.


Is this the part where you get hung up then?  This is the kind of abstraction that I just accept as a given when it comes to riddles.  Maybe it's too big a leap for your taste, but it doesn't feel like such a big jump to me.

But you kind of do have the card, because it's Throne Room's effect and you have Throne Room.

But you don't have it until you play TR and it "transforms", thus giving it to you.  This is the entire point.

Again I repeat, maybe this is just too big a leap for your taste in riddles, even though it works perfectly for me.

Yeah, and you don't have Militia's effect either until you play it. Throne Room isn't any different.

And yeah, the leap is too big for my taste, but I still don't think that even if I was willing to make that leap, Throne Room would be the answer I'd end up with.

[Asper]

Another one:
Witch does three things. I do one of them once, and two of them twice.

Rewording of the riddle to avoid arguments later:

Witch does three things, one twice. I do the one it does twice twice and the other two too.

[soulnet]

Another one:
Witch does three things. I do one of them once, and two of them twice.

From your point of view, Witch draws cards, deals Curses to an opponent and makes you receive Curses. In a 3 player game, you draw just once from a single Witch/player, but deal out two Curses and receive two Curses (one per Witch of each opponent).

[Asper]

Another one:
Witch does three things. I do one of them once, and two of them twice.

From your point of view, Witch draws cards, deals Curses to an opponent and makes you receive Curses. In a 3 player game, you draw just once from a single Witch/player, but deal out two Curses and receive two Curses (one per Witch of each opponent).

That's not quite it.
Let me reword that so it works better:

Witch does three things, one twice. I do the one it does twice twice and the other two too.

[sudgy]

The one that you do twice is drawing cards, one of the ones is giving curses, but I'm not sure what the last is.  Playing the card itself?

[eHalcyon]

Before <action>, you do not have a random card X.  After <action>, you do. 

<action> is getting card X.  It could be fulfilled by something drawing card X, or it could be fulfilled by something transforming into card X.  Thus, both the drawing and the transforming are similar in a sense.


Is this the part where you get hung up then?  This is the kind of abstraction that I just accept as a given when it comes to riddles.  Maybe it's too big a leap for your taste, but it doesn't feel like such a big jump to me.

But you kind of do have the card, because it's Throne Room's effect and you have Throne Room.

But you don't have it until you play TR and it "transforms", thus giving it to you.  This is the entire point.

Again I repeat, maybe this is just too big a leap for your taste in riddles, even though it works perfectly for me.

Yeah, and you don't have Militia's effect either until you play it. Throne Room isn't any different.

And yeah, the leap is too big for my taste, but I still don't think that even if I was willing to make that leap, Throne Room would be the answer I'd end up with.

Except the effect that TR gives can arguably fit the riddle, whereas Militia's effect cannot.  Again, the point.

[silverspawn]

Another one:
Witch does three things. I do one of them once, and two of them twice.

Rewording of the riddle to avoid arguments later:

Witch does three things, one twice. I do the one it does twice twice and the other two too.

followers?

[liopoil]

torturer?

[eHalcyon]

Another one:
Witch does three things. I do one of them once, and two of them twice.

Rewording of the riddle to avoid arguments later:

Witch does three things, one twice. I do the one it does twice twice and the other two too.

followers?

I agree with this.

Witch does three things:

gets played?
draws a card (twice)
hands out a curse (at least once, depending on players)

If it does the one it does twice twice, then it draws a card twice.  It does the other two too, so it basically does the same thing.  Followers fits the bill.  Followers also gains an Estate and causes others to discard, but the riddle doesn't preclude doing extra things.



On a separate note, I have no idea about silverspawn's third riddle.

[liopoil]

Witch does three things:

draw a card
draw a card
deals out a curse

This card does the drawing a card twice and also does the other two. So it:

draws a card (x2)
draws a card
deals out a curse

torturer is closest. You could even consider it drawing negative cards for the other players, but that only sort of fits. So maybe that's not what he meant.

[Asper]

Another one:
Witch does three things. I do one of them once, and two of them twice.

Rewording of the riddle to avoid arguments later:

Witch does three things, one twice. I do the one it does twice twice and the other two too.

followers?

I agree with this.

Witch does three things:

gets played?
draws a card (twice)
hands out a curse (at least once, depending on players)

If it does the one it does twice twice, then it draws a card twice.  It does the other two too, so it basically does the same thing.  Followers fits the bill.  Followers also gains an Estate and causes others to discard, but the riddle doesn't preclude doing extra things.



On a separate note, I have no idea about silverspawn's third riddle.

The card is correct, but the reasoning why is not yet.

[Awaclus]

Before <action>, you do not have a random card X.  After <action>, you do. 

<action> is getting card X.  It could be fulfilled by something drawing card X, or it could be fulfilled by something transforming into card X.  Thus, both the drawing and the transforming are similar in a sense.


Is this the part where you get hung up then?  This is the kind of abstraction that I just accept as a given when it comes to riddles.  Maybe it's too big a leap for your taste, but it doesn't feel like such a big jump to me.

But you kind of do have the card, because it's Throne Room's effect and you have Throne Room.

But you don't have it until you play TR and it "transforms", thus giving it to you.  This is the entire point.

Again I repeat, maybe this is just too big a leap for your taste in riddles, even though it works perfectly for me.

Yeah, and you don't have Militia's effect either until you play it. Throne Room isn't any different.

And yeah, the leap is too big for my taste, but I still don't think that even if I was willing to make that leap, Throne Room would be the answer I'd end up with.

Except the effect that TR gives can arguably fit the riddle, whereas Militia's effect cannot.  Again, the point.

I don't think so. Either they both can arguably fit the riddle, or neither of them can.

[eHalcyon]

Except the effect that TR gives can arguably fit the riddle, whereas Militia's effect cannot.  Again, the point.

I don't think so. Either they both can arguably fit the riddle, or neither of them can.

You are definitely misreading something.  I've explained repeatedly the way that you can tease out TR fitting the clues.  At the very least, you cannot in any way suggest that Militia fits the +1 action part of the clue.  TR does because of the phantom action it creates.

[Asper]

As a help:
"I do the one it does twice twice and the other two, too." doesn't just mean
"I do the one it does twice twice and i do the other two, too."

[eHalcyon]

As a help:
"I do the one it does twice twice and the other two, too." doesn't just mean
"I do the one it does twice twice and i do the other two, too."

OK...


Witch does these things:

- attacks other players once
- hands out junk to players once
- draws a card twice

If the clue doesn't mean what I initially thought it meant, then perhaps the "other two too" means that the other two also happen twice.  So, Followers.

Followers does these things:

- attacks other players twice (junking attack and discard attack)
- hands out junk to players twice (Curses to others, Estate to self)
- draws a card twice

[Asper]

As a help:
"I do the one it does twice twice and the other two, too." doesn't just mean
"I do the one it does twice twice and i do the other two, too."

OK...


Witch does these things:

- attacks other players once
- hands out junk to players once
- draws a card twice

If the clue doesn't mean what I initially thought it meant, then perhaps the "other two too" means that the other two also happen twice.  So, Followers.

Followers does these things:

- attacks other players twice (junking attack and discard attack)
- hands out junk to players twice (Curses to others, Estate to self)
- draws a card twice

That's the correct solution. Though when wording the riddle i actually even forgot another thing Followers does twice that Witch does once. And that's changing the relative score by one.

Edit: Sorry i'm not very good at this.

[Awaclus]

You are definitely misreading something.  I've explained repeatedly the way that you can tease out TR fitting the clues.  At the very least, you cannot in any way suggest that Militia fits the +1 action part of the clue.  TR does because of the phantom action it creates.

But playing Militia is just like playing a cantrip that draws Militia. That's already +1 card and +1 action there, no need to use a different abstraction to get the +1 action (which you need for Throne Room).

[silverspawn]

? nvm. i messed up sites or something
let me do a riddle instead:

i can draw more cards than there are cards in the supply
i can make more actions than any village
i can make more money than any victory card
and yet i cant trash myself

[eHalcyon]

You are definitely misreading something.  I've explained repeatedly the way that you can tease out TR fitting the clues.  At the very least, you cannot in any way suggest that Militia fits the +1 action part of the clue.  TR does because of the phantom action it creates.

But playing Militia is just like playing a cantrip that draws Militia. That's already +1 card and +1 action there, no need to use a different abstraction to get the +1 action (which you need for Throne Room).

No.  You are misunderstanding the purpose of that abstraction (and, for the record, you are causing another stack overflow there).  If you are adding in a cantrip that just draws the original card, the cantrip might as well not be there.  It is completely invisible and meaningless.  The abstraction with Throne Room DOES NOT do that -- it draws a DIFFERENT card that is NOT Throne Room.  This has already been explained ad nauseum:

In the end, what does Militia give you?  It gives you $2 and a discard attack.  It doesn't give you another card in any sense, and it certainly doesn't give you an action in any sense.  You could frame it as if it's giving you the effects of another virtual card that happens to give you $2 and a discard attack, except this virtual card is still something specific.

In the end, what does TR give you?  It gives you the effects of another card.  In a (admittedly loose) sense, this is giving you +1 card.  As previously discussed, it also effectively gives you the +1 action needed to "play" that other card.  The key thing here is that this virtual card is NOT specific.  It's generic, depending on whatever card is paired with TR.

A virtual cantrip does not give a net result of either +1 card or +1 action.  It disappears.  Its purpose in the abstraction is to re-frame the "transformation" of a TR into the second copy of a card and thus (as already explained) can be imagined to give +1 card.  It doesn't work for anything other than TR or Procession.  The sense of "+1 card" comes from the transformation.  The +1 action is the phantom action that TR provides.  These are net results from playing TR.  Militia does neither.

[Witherweaver]

? nvm. i messed up sites or something
let me do a riddle instead:

i can draw more cards than there are cards in the supply
i can make more actions than any village
i can make more money than any victory card
and yet i cant trash myself

More money than any victory card?

[Asper]

? nvm. i messed up sites or something
let me do a riddle instead:

i can draw more cards than there are cards in the supply
i can make more actions than any village
i can make more money than any victory card
and yet i cant trash myself

Herold?

? nvm. i messed up sites or something
let me do a riddle instead:

i can draw more cards than there are cards in the supply
i can make more actions than any village
i can make more money than any victory card
and yet i cant trash myself

More money than any victory card?

More than 2$

[Witherweaver]

You are definitely misreading something.  I've explained repeatedly the way that you can tease out TR fitting the clues.  At the very least, you cannot in any way suggest that Militia fits the +1 action part of the clue.  TR does because of the phantom action it creates.

But playing Militia is just like playing a cantrip that draws Militia. That's already +1 card and +1 action there, no need to use a different abstraction to get the +1 action (which you need for Throne Room).

No.  You are misunderstanding the purpose of that abstraction (and, for the record, you are causing another stack overflow there).  If you are adding in a cantrip that just draws the original card, the cantrip might as well not be there.  It is completely invisible and meaningless.  The abstraction with Throne Room DOES NOT do that -- it draws a DIFFERENT card that is NOT Throne Room.  This has already been explained ad nauseum:
...

Can I throne room the abstractions of the cantrips?!

[silverspawn]

Herold?

nope

[Awaclus]

You are definitely misreading something.  I've explained repeatedly the way that you can tease out TR fitting the clues.  At the very least, you cannot in any way suggest that Militia fits the +1 action part of the clue.  TR does because of the phantom action it creates.

But playing Militia is just like playing a cantrip that draws Militia. That's already +1 card and +1 action there, no need to use a different abstraction to get the +1 action (which you need for Throne Room).

No.  You are misunderstanding the purpose of that abstraction (and, for the record, you are causing another stack overflow there).  If you are adding in a cantrip that just draws the original card, the cantrip might as well not be there.  It is completely invisible and meaningless.  The abstraction with Throne Room DOES NOT do that -- it draws a DIFFERENT card that is NOT Throne Room.  This has already been explained ad nauseum:

In the end, what does Militia give you?  It gives you $2 and a discard attack.  It doesn't give you another card in any sense, and it certainly doesn't give you an action in any sense.  You could frame it as if it's giving you the effects of another virtual card that happens to give you $2 and a discard attack, except this virtual card is still something specific.

In the end, what does TR give you?  It gives you the effects of another card.  In a (admittedly loose) sense, this is giving you +1 card.  As previously discussed, it also effectively gives you the +1 action needed to "play" that other card.  The key thing here is that this virtual card is NOT specific.  It's generic, depending on whatever card is paired with TR.

A virtual cantrip does not give a net result of either +1 card or +1 action.  It disappears.  Its purpose in the abstraction is to re-frame the "transformation" of a TR into the second copy of a card and thus (as already explained) can be imagined to give +1 card.  It doesn't work for anything other than TR or Procession.  The sense of "+1 card" comes from the transformation.  The +1 action is the phantom action that TR provides.  These are net results from playing TR.  Militia does neither.

Okay, fine, it's a bit different. Your cantrip is drawing only half of Throne Room's effect, so the equivalent for Militia would be this:

Card A
$4 Action
+$2
Gain and topdeck a Card B from the Card B pile.
+1 card
+1 action that you can only use for playing a Card B

Card B
$0* Action - Attack
Each other player discards down to 3 cards in his hand. Return this to the Card B pile.

[eHalcyon]

Okay, fine, it's a bit different. Your cantrip is drawing only half of Throne Room's effect, so the equivalent for Militia would be this:

Card A
$4 Action
+$2
Gain and topdeck a Card B from the Card B pile.
+1 card
+1 action that you can only use for playing a Card B

Card B
$0* Action - Attack
Each other player discards down to 3 cards in his hand. Return this to the Card B pile.

But your Card B isn't a real card.  The extra card that TR giving you is still a real card.  It's whatever card is being copied.  And you're still not getting any phantom action out of this.

Bahh, I give up.  Whatever example I give, you somehow focus in on the wrong part and miss the point or you take the logic and apply it in a way that doesn't work or doesn't show anything useful.  If you aren't just trolling me, then clearly you just think differently than I do (please note, this not at all a bad thing; the world needs different kinds of thinkers) and I won't be able to make this clear no matter what I try.

I *think* you've got the phantom action clear.  That's enough.  I'm tired of this, I'm sure others are tired of it too.  I give.

[ashersky]

? nvm. i messed up sites or something
let me do a riddle instead:

i can draw more cards than there are cards in the supply
i can make more actions than any village
i can make more money than any victory card
and yet i cant trash myself

Celestial Chameleon?

[sudgy]

? nvm. i messed up sites or something
let me do a riddle instead:

i can draw more cards than there are cards in the supply
i can make more actions than any village
i can make more money than any victory card
and yet i cant trash myself

Black Market!

[KingZog3]

? nvm. i messed up sites or something
let me do a riddle instead:

i can draw more cards than there are cards in the supply
i can make more actions than any village
i can make more money than any victory card
and yet i cant trash myself

Scrying Pool?

[silverspawn]

Scrying Pool?

nope

Black Market!

nope

[eHalcyon]

i can draw more cards than there are cards in the supply

Since it refers to out of supply, maybe it should involve cards that aren't in the supply.  Or it could just be riddle-rific hyperbole for a card that draws a lot.

i can make more actions than any village

"Making actions" could be a reference to actual +actions or to gaining action cards... from outside the supply maybe?

i can make more money than any victory card

Most VP cards don't make money, unless you pair it with Salvager or Vault or something.  There's Tunnel (gains Gold), Feodum (gains 3 Silver), Harem (worth $2)... that might be it.

and yet i cant trash myself

An odd clue.  Most things don't trash themselves.  For it to be called out, it sounds like it should be something that never gets trashed (so, Fortress) or typically gets returned to the supply rather than trashed (Madman, Spoils).

Yeah, I don't know.

[liopoil]

Hermit/Madman!

[silverspawn]

you're thinking way too complicted. it's tribute.

"i can draw more cards than there are cards in the supply"
tribute can draw 4 cards. there may be less in the supply

"i can make more money than any victory card"
this is trivial. 4$ > 2$


"i can make more actions than any village"
also trivial. +4 > +3

"and yet i cant trash myself"
a crucial clue to add further confusion

[sudgy]

you're thinking way too complicted. it's tribute.

"i can draw more cards than there are cards in the supply"
tribute can draw 4 cards. there may be less in the supply

"i can make more money than any victory card"
this is trivial. 4$ > 2$


"i can make more actions than any village"
also trivial. +4 > +3

"and yet i cant trash myself"
a crucial clue to add further confusion

I think Black Market is a way cooler solution...

[Nevermind]

Here's a riddle for you (note: this is my first riddle I'm doing, so if it's weak, then tell me, if it's confusing tell me, if you hate it and me, then nothing really happens, 'cause I don't care):

Dig, men, dig!
We must react to the militia and torturers, so dig!
As a bonus, my men, there might be treasure nearby, so dig!!

What card am I?

[Dsell]

Here's a riddle for you (note: this is my first riddle I'm doing, so if it's weak, then tell me, if it's confusing tell me, if you hate it and me, then nothing really happens, 'cause I don't care):

Dig, men, dig!
We must react to the militia and torturers, so dig!
As a bonus, my men, there might be treasure nearby, so dig!!

What card am I?

Tunnel?       

[pingpongsam]

A festival trader I am not.
I interpret the revelations.

[Witherweaver]

A festival trader I am not.
I interpret the revelations.

Fortune Teller?

[Nevermind]

Here's a riddle for you (note: this is my first riddle I'm doing, so if it's weak, then tell me, if it's confusing tell me, if you hate it and me, then nothing really happens, 'cause I don't care):

Dig, men, dig!
We must react to the militia and torturers, so dig!
As a bonus, my men, there might be treasure nearby, so dig!!

What card am I?

Tunnel?       

Bingbingbingbingbingbingbing!!! Give the man a silver dollar! Congratulations! You, Dsell, the winner, get the fantastic prize of... NOTHING! How does it feel to solve a riddle and get nothing in the same day?

[Dsell]

Here's a riddle for you (note: this is my first riddle I'm doing, so if it's weak, then tell me, if it's confusing tell me, if you hate it and me, then nothing really happens, 'cause I don't care):

Dig, men, dig!
We must react to the militia and torturers, so dig!
As a bonus, my men, there might be treasure nearby, so dig!!

What card am I?

Tunnel?       

Bingbingbingbingbingbingbing!!! Give the man a silver dollar! Congratulations! You, Dsell, the winner, get the fantastic prize of... NOTHING! How does it feel to solve a riddle and get nothing in the same day?

I'm so honored! :') I don't know what to say!

[pingpongsam]

A festival trader I am not.
I interpret the revelations.

Fortune Teller?

Nope.

[Witherweaver]

A festival trader I am not.
I interpret the revelations.

Fortune Teller?

Nope.

Sad.. Soothsayer?

[pingpongsam]

A festival trader I am not.
I interpret the revelations.

Fortune Teller?

Nope.

Sad.. Soothsayer?

Nope again.
Hint: There is a play on words

[SirPeebles]

Oracle

[pingpongsam]

Oracle

No, dang, I thought I made it too easy...

[Nevermind]

AI?

[pingpongsam]

AI?

Not sure what that is except that it is not the card in the riddle.

Hint:it is a $3 card

[Witherweaver]

AI?

Not sure what that is except that it is not the card in the riddle.

Hint:it is a $3 card

Sage?  I really don't get this.  I'm caught up with interpreting revelations.

[Dsell]

AI?

Not sure what that is except that it is not the card in the riddle.

Hint:it is a $3 card

Sage?  I really don't get this.  I'm caught up with interpreting revelations.

Yeah this is my guess too. Just beat me to it.

[pingpongsam]

No But it does start with an "S", lol, jeez

[Nik]

Spy? If not, just give us the card.

[SirPeebles]

Spades, Ace of

[SirPeebles]

Silver?

[silverspawn]

Silver?

yes?

[SirPeebles]

Silver?

yes?

How is your Pawn doing?

[silverspawn]

Silver?

yes?

How is your Pawn doing?

did you call me just to make fun of my name? :c

[SirPeebles]

Silver?

yes?

How is your Pawn doing?

did you call me just to make fun of my name? :c

What about MakingFun's name?

[ConMan]

A festival trader I am not.
I interpret the revelations.

I feel like I should know this one. I suspect I know the trick to the question, but when I try to apply it I get some things that are familiar, but not quite what I need.

[ConMan]

Also, in a similar vein to an earlier riddle:

In Victory, I am a Prize,
As an Action, I am sometimes a Ruin, and sometimes a Curse in disguise,
And yet I am none of these.

Try to fake me, you cannot break me,
Try to make me, you cannot take me,
But dig deep, and I will give you less than what I am.

[Davio]

Scout?

[liopoil]

Bag of gold?

[Nevermind]

copper

[silverspawn]

Also, in a similar vein to an earlier riddle:

In Victory, I am a Prize,
As an Action, I am sometimes a Ruin, and sometimes a Curse in disguise,
And yet I am none of these.

Try to fake me, you cannot break me,
Try to make me, you cannot take me,
But dig deep, and I will give you less than what I am.

I'll also say bag of gold. it's a prize when you win the game, it's a ruin (+1 action) nothing if you draw it dead. it's not really any of these because it gains you gold. You can't take it and whatnot, because it's not in the supply. You gain less than what it is, because it's a bag full of gold, and you can just get a few golds with it

[Awaclus]

Also, in a similar vein to an earlier riddle:

In Victory, I am a Prize,
As an Action, I am sometimes a Ruin, and sometimes a Curse in disguise,
And yet I am none of these.

Try to fake me, you cannot break me,
Try to make me, you cannot take me,
But dig deep, and I will give you less than what I am.

Tribute?

If it hits Victory and Action, it's +2 cards +2 actions which could be as good as Trusty Steed, which is a Prize. When you play it as an Action, sometimes it hits two Curses and it's basically a Survivors for your opponent, and sometimes, your opponent has an empty deck and it does nothing.

[Ozle]

Moat?

[pingpongsam]

A festival trader I am not.
I interpret the revelations.

Answer:Swindler

[ConMan]

Nope, no-one's got mine yet. Or Mine. Which mine isn't. And it isn't Mint, either. Or Moat.

[Witherweaver]

A festival trader I am not.
I interpret the revelations.

Answer:Swindler

I don't get it

[pingpongsam]

A festival trader I am not.
I interpret the revelations.

Answer:Swindler

I don't get it

Another word for festival is fair.
The card lets the player choose replacements for the revealed card thus an interpretation of the revelations.

[heron]

A festival trader I am not.
I interpret the revelations.

Answer:Swindler

I don't get it

Another word for festival is fair.
The card lets the player choose replacements for the revealed card thus an interpretation of the revelations.

Whoa there, no cards are revealed after a Swindler play

[SirPeebles]

Another word for festival is fair.

>_<

That pun is a bit of a stretch.  Festival is a synonym of a homonym of fair.

[ConMan]

Also, in a similar vein to an earlier riddle:

In Victory, I am a Prize,
As an Action, I am sometimes a Ruin, and sometimes a Curse in disguise,
And yet I am none of these.

Try to fake me, you cannot break me,
Try to make me, you cannot take me,
But dig deep, and I will give you less than what I am.

Two fairly big hints:
Hint 1: What kind of card is none of those types?
Hint 2: How can you fake or make something, especially a particular type of thing?

[mail-mi]

Also, in a similar vein to an earlier riddle:

In Victory, I am a Prize,
As an Action, I am sometimes a Ruin, and sometimes a Curse in disguise,
And yet I am none of these.

Try to fake me, you cannot break me,
Try to make me, you cannot take me,
But dig deep, and I will give you less than what I am.

Two fairly big hints:
Hint 1: What kind of card is none of those types?
Hint 2: How can you fake or make something, especially a particular type of thing?

counterfeit?

[Aidan Millow]

Spoils.

In Victory, I am a Prize,
As an Action, I am sometimes a Ruin, and sometimes a Curse in disguise,
And yet I am none of these.

It technically costs 0 so can be swindled into ruins or curses, it isn't an action, ruin, curse, victory or prize, but can be thought of as a prize in being a reward.

Try to fake me, you cannot break me,
Try to make me, you cannot take me,
But dig deep, and I will give you less than what I am.

Doesn't get trashed by counterfeit, can't be gained by normal means and is limited it the number of times you can use it

[mail-mi]

10 of us, but only one of me.
Just buy 1 card, and you can Upgrade me!
I scoff at diplomats and laugh at the ruler of Estate.
Who am I?

[Witherweaver]

A festival trader I am not.
I interpret the revelations.

Answer:Swindler

I don't get it

Another word for festival is fair.
The card lets the player choose replacements for the revealed card thus an interpretation of the revelations.

I'd respond to this, but I'm too tired from that long roundabout path I had to take to follow that connection

[Aidan Millow]

Hovel

10 of us, but only one of me.

Starting cards

Just buy 1 card, and you can Upgrade me!

Trashed when you buy a victory card (so it's an upgrade)

I scoff at diplomats and laugh at the ruler of Estate.

Diplomat=ambassador, the ruler of estate is Baron, this interacts poorly with both.

[ConMan]

Spoils.

In Victory, I am a Prize,
As an Action, I am sometimes a Ruin, and sometimes a Curse in disguise,
And yet I am none of these.

It technically costs 0 so can be swindled into ruins or curses, it isn't an action, ruin, curse, victory or prize, but can be thought of as a prize in being a reward.

Try to fake me, you cannot break me,
Try to make me, you cannot take me,
But dig deep, and I will give you less than what I am.

Doesn't get trashed by counterfeit, can't be gained by normal means and is limited it the number of times you can use it

Correct answer, and mostly correct reasoning on interpreting the second half. Specifically, Counterfeit doesn't trash it, Mint doesn't gain it, and Mine gives you either Copper or Silver, both of which give less coins.

As for the first half, it's all terrible word play. Spoils are a prize for the victor in a war, if food spoils it's ruined, if someone spoils a child too much it often turns out worse for them in the long run, thus being a curse for the child (both of the last two being uses of the word "spoils" as a verb, i.e. an action word).

[ConMan]

And here's another:

While many are ten we ten are one,
Though nine are three I alone am four.

And one more, for good measure:

Do nothing, I am like a great expanse of land.
Do something, I am like a glistening coin.
Do everything, I am like the foulest of words.

[ashersky]

And here's another:

While many are ten we ten are one,
Though nine are three I alone am four.

I feel like this would be Sir Martin, but only if that three was a five.

[Jimmmmm]

While many are ten we ten are one,
Though nine are three I alone am four.

Poor House?

[Davio]

And here's another:

While many are ten we ten are one,
Though nine are three I alone am four.

I feel like this would be Sir Martin, but only if that three was a five.

No, I think it's Fool's Gold,

Many are ten = most kingdom cards have 10 copies
We ten are one = On their own, they're worth $1
Nine are three = 3 Fool's Golds played gives $9
I alone am four = the second (and later) Fool's Gold gives $4

[heron]

And here's another:
While many are ten we ten are one,
Though nine are three I alone am four.

Dame Josephine

[Jimmmmm]

And here's another:
While many are ten we ten are one,
Though nine are three I alone am four.

Dame Josephine

Very nice!

[Jimmmmm]

And here's another:
While many are ten we ten are one,
Though nine are three I alone am four.

Dame Josephine

Very nice!

Although there are more than nine that are three.

[SirPeebles]

I don't think heron is right.

edit:  I wonder if it is Sir Martin and ConMan meant to say "Though nine are five".

[Jimmmmm]

I don't think heron is right.

edit:  I wonder if it is Sir Martin and ConMan meant to say "Though nine are five".

What do you think it is?

edit: I think that would be too easy.

[SirPeebles]

Do nothing, I am like a great expanse of land.
Do something, I am like a glistening coin.
Do everything, I am like the foulest of words.

Harem?

[Awaclus]

Do nothing, I am like a great expanse of land.
Do something, I am like a glistening coin.
Do everything, I am like the foulest of words.

Mountebank?

[SirPeebles]

I don't think heron is right.

edit:  I wonder if it is Sir Martin and ConMan meant to say "Though nine are five".

What do you think it is?

edit: I think that would be too easy.

How does Dame Josephine fit?

[Jimmmmm]

I don't think heron is right.

edit:  I wonder if it is Sir Martin and ConMan meant to say "Though nine are five".

What do you think it is?

edit: I think that would be too easy.

How does Dame Josephine fit?

What does she have four of that all the other Knights have three of?

[SirPeebles]

Oh, I think I get it now.

[pingpongsam]

A festival trader I am not.
I interpret the revelations.

Answer:Swindler

I don't get it

Another word for festival is fair.
The card lets the player choose replacements for the revealed card thus an interpretation of the revelations.

Whoa there, no cards are revealed after a Swindler play

True, according tot he text the card is trashed. However, the opponent gets to select the replacement. The identity of the top card must become public knowledge in order for the opponent to make his decision. Whenever the contents of a player's deck or hand are made public knowledge we tend to call that revealing.

[ConMan]

And here's another:
While many are ten we ten are one,
Though nine are three I alone am four.

Dame Josephine

Correct! As for the comment that "others are also three", this is specifically in the context of the ten that are one

[ConMan]

And one more, for good measure:

Do nothing, I am like a great expanse of land.
Do something, I am like a glistening coin.
Do everything, I am like the foulest of words.

This one's still open.

And how about a hard mode one?
I am not a Base Card,
But I am always in the game.

And this one has clues for a few cards:
Have you been listening carefully?
Or are you trying to choose between us?
Or do you think I have nothing to give?
Or do you think I'm going to change?
Or maybe you just think I'm too strange?

[soulnet]

And how about a hard mode one?
I am not a Base Card,
But I am always in the game.

The trash card?

[Donald X.]

And how about a hard mode one?
I am not a Base Card,
But I am always in the game.

- Hermit. Don't just spend all day at your computer dude. Get some sunlight.
- Masterpiece. Thank you, thank you.
- Governor. And that game is Puerto Rico.
- Moat. People are just scared of attacks I guess.
- The placeholder card for the Copper pile.
- Province, but not the one with art from Base Cards.
- Nobles. The players themselves are nobles, and not "base."
- Minion, it's in the title, obv.

[ConMan]

And how about a hard mode one?
I am not a Base Card,
But I am always in the game.

- Hermit. Don't just spend all day at your computer dude. Get some sunlight.
- Masterpiece. Thank you, thank you.
- Governor. And that game is Puerto Rico.
- Moat. People are just scared of attacks I guess.
- The placeholder card for the Copper pile.
- Province, but not the one with art from Base Cards.
- Nobles. The players themselves are nobles, and not "base."
- Minion, it's in the title, obv.

The last of these is infact the one I intended. I do love me some word play.

[Nevermind]

The measly urchin knocks on my door
So I react surprised
And don't give him anything
After that man left
Another urchin came
While I still didn't give him anything
I couldn't react
For I was emotionless

What card am I?

[silverspawn]

The measly urchin knocks on my door
So I react surprised
And don't give him anything
After that man left
Another urchin came
While I still didn't give him anything
I couldn't react
For I was emotionless

What card am I?

beggar?

[Awaclus]

The measly urchin knocks on my door
So I react surprised
And don't give him anything
After that man left
Another urchin came
While I still didn't give him anything
I couldn't react
For I was emotionless

What card am I?

Horse Traders?

[MarkowKette]

The measly urchin knocks on my door
So I react surprised
And don't give him anything
After that man left
Another urchin came
While I still didn't give him anything
I couldn't react
For I was emotionless

What card am I?

I think it has to be Tunnel

[Nevermind]

awalcus got it, congrats

[MarkowKette]

awalcus got it, congrats

can you explain pls?

i mean you can potentially react a horse traders to the second urchin. Yes if you already put it aside at the first opportunity you can't again, but that is also true for Beggar as you discarted it. Tunnel on the other Hand can only be reacted to the first urchin as you can't discard a card again with the second play

[Nevermind]

awalcus got it, congrats

can you explain pls?

i mean you can potentially react a horse traders to the second urchin. Yes if you already put it aside at the first opportunity you can't again, but that is also true for Beggar as you discarted it. Tunnel on the other Hand can only be reacted to the first urchin as you can't discard a card again with the second play

I realize now that all of these could work. Horse traders was the one I intended, but all can work. So, on my behalf, I apologize that I didn't note your posts as the right answer.

[eHalcyon]

awalcus got it, congrats

can you explain pls?

i mean you can potentially react a horse traders to the second urchin. Yes if you already put it aside at the first opportunity you can't again, but that is also true for Beggar as you discarted it. Tunnel on the other Hand can only be reacted to the first urchin as you can't discard a card again with the second play

Mechanically, all three of Horse Traders, Beggar and Tunnel seem like they should fit the riddle.   However, you can rule out Tunnel in two ways.  It technically does not react to the Urchin.  It reacts to being discarded, which is an effect of the Urchin.  Flavour-wise, it doesn't make sense for the story because a Tunnel is inanimate and thus cannot react in surprise.

Beggar is trickier to rule out.  Mechanically, it gets discarded so it technically isn't around for the second Urchin.  Horse Traders is still there, just in "set aside" land.  Flavour-wise, an Urchin probably wouldn't be asking for anything from a Beggar anyway, and many Beggars don't have doors upon which to knock (some do, of course).

[MarkowKette]

awalcus got it, congrats

can you explain pls?

i mean you can potentially react a horse traders to the second urchin. Yes if you already put it aside at the first opportunity you can't again, but that is also true for Beggar as you discarted it. Tunnel on the other Hand can only be reacted to the first urchin as you can't discard a card again with the second play

Mechanically, all three of Horse Traders, Beggar and Tunnel seem like they should fit the riddle.   However, you can rule out Tunnel in two ways.  It technically does not react to the Urchin.  It reacts to being discarded, which is an effect of the Urchin.  Flavour-wise, it doesn't make sense for the story because a Tunnel is inanimate and thus cannot react in surprise.

Beggar is trickier to rule out.  Mechanically, it gets discarded so it technically isn't around for the second Urchin.  Horse Traders is still there, just in "set aside" land.  Flavour-wise, an Urchin probably wouldn't be asking for anything from a Beggar anyway, and many Beggars don't have doors upon which to knock (some do, of course).

the thing with these riddles is that you never know what you can take word by word and what you can also interpret in a different way:
in this case i took the "react surprised and dont give him anything" as not discart the tunnel =>not gain gold =>not give the urchung a gold because the first urchin came unexpected, then when the second urchin comes it is expected and you want to discart tunnel to give him a gold but now you can't anymore because of already 4 cards hand.
Tunnel does not react directly to urchin but the riddle does not strictly imply a reaction to urchin, just a reaction after the urchin comes
So with different interpretations of words different cards qualify for being the correct answer.
This interpretation might be a bit far-fetched but once you found something that fits one interpretation and that interpretation also disqualifies all other cards you don't think further into it. 

[ConMan]

A couple of hints for the ones still untouched.

And one more, for good measure:

Do nothing, I am like a great expanse of land.
Do something, I am like a glistening coin.
Do everything, I am like the foulest of words.

What, in most games, is the greatest expanse of land?
What, in most games, is the most valuable of coin?
What might the foulest of words be? It's not Scout.
Why might a card care that you've done nothing, something, or everything?

And this one has clues for a few cards:
Have you been listening carefully?
Or are you trying to choose between us?
Or do you think I have nothing to give?
Or do you think I'm going to change?
Or maybe you just think I'm too strange?

Each line after the first is a clue to a different card.
Is anyone here a fan of cryptic crosswords?

[Aidan Millow]

A couple of hints for the ones still untouched.

And one more, for good measure:

Do nothing, I am like a great expanse of land.
Do something, I am like a glistening coin.
Do everything, I am like the foulest of words.

What, in most games, is the greatest expanse of land?
What, in most games, is the most valuable of coin?
What might the foulest of words be? It's not Scout.
Why might a card care that you've done nothing, something, or everything?

It's peddler, like is in cost, doing is actions I feel dumb that I didn't see this before the clues.

[ConMan]

A couple of hints for the ones still untouched.

And one more, for good measure:

Do nothing, I am like a great expanse of land.
Do something, I am like a glistening coin.
Do everything, I am like the foulest of words.

What, in most games, is the greatest expanse of land?
What, in most games, is the most valuable of coin?
What might the foulest of words be? It's not Scout.
Why might a card care that you've done nothing, something, or everything?

It's peddler, like is in cost, doing is actions I feel dumb that I didn't see this before the clues.

Well, neither did anybody else, so well done!

[dominator 123]

And this one has clues for a few cards:
Have you been listening carefully?
Or are you trying to choose between us?
Or do you think I have nothing to give?
Or do you think I'm going to change?
Or maybe you just think I'm too strange?

"Have you been listening carefully" probably means easily confused cards. So I'm gonna guess Procession and Possession for the last two lines (Procession changes an action card into something better, Possession is just a weird card)
I'm still unsure for the first two though.

[ConMan]

And this one has clues for a few cards:
Have you been listening carefully?
Or are you trying to choose between us?
Or do you think I have nothing to give?
Or do you think I'm going to change?
Or maybe you just think I'm too strange?

"Have you been listening carefully" probably means easily confused cards. So I'm gonna guess Procession and Possession for the last two lines (Procession changes an action card into something better, Possession is just a weird card)
I'm still unsure for the first two though.

A bit off track, but not completely. Unless you think quite heavily outside the box, this is probably one of those ones that will make more sense after it's explained.

[Donald X.]

A bit off track, but not completely. Unless you think quite heavily outside the box, this is probably one of those ones that will make more sense after it's explained.

I know what cards are outside the box - they're promos. I think the Big Box may have had some though.

[Wrclass]

you're thinking way too complicted. it's tribute.

"i can draw more cards than there are cards in the supply"
tribute can draw 4 cards. there may be less in the supply

"i can make more money than any victory card"
this is trivial. 4$ > 2$


"i can make more actions than any village"
also trivial. +4 > +3

"and yet i cant trash myself"
a crucial clue to add further confusion

There can't be less than four cards in the supply without the game ending

[soulnet]

There can't be less than four cards in the supply without the game ending

You can be in the middle of the game-ending megaturn when you play Tribute and draw 4 cards. The supply could even be empty by that point.

[BraveBear]

I do almost everything

You may not always want to play me

Unless you know the top card of your deck

[Davio]

Lookout?

It discards, trashes and puts on top.
It can even draw.... a Fortress, or by trashing Rats/Overgrown Estate.

[BraveBear]

Lookout doesn't do almost everything.

Hint: I don't consider putting a card on top of your deck as a thing

[BraveBear]

or discard for that matter

[SirPeebles]

Golem?

[BraveBear]

Golem can do everything in essence, not almost.  Also I would think there aren't many times that knowing only the top card of your deck would decide whether you would want to play it or not.

[SirPeebles]

I was thinking that Golem could play every action, except Golem itself.  A similar guess is Herald.  Herald cares more about the top, but plays every action including Herald.

[Witherweaver]

I do almost everything

You may not always want to play me

Unless you know the top card of your deck

Junk Dealer?  If you don't want to trash what you have in hand before you play it (or only have Junk Dealer in hand), you have to make sure the top card of your deck won't hurt you if it's trashed.

[BraveBear]

Nice one Witherweaver!

[Witherweaver]

Nice one Witherweaver!

What are the things you're counting as "everything," and what does Junk Dealer miss from those things?

[BraveBear]

I was thinking of the core things.  It is missing +buy

The second two lines were most of the riddle

[SirPeebles]

My number is 78.

I am ignored by the noblest among us.

But I may be forged from the objects of their desire.

[Witherweaver]

I was thinking of the core things.  It is missing +buy

The second two lines were most of the riddle

Ah right, okay.  Upgrade works as well if you count "gaining" as a thing, but yeah Junk Dealer has more of the core. 

[BraveBear]

Here's another.

I draw

I attack

Goko lets me decide but it doesn't matter

[BadAssMutha]

My number is 78.

I am ignored by the noblest among us.

But I may be forged from the objects of their desire.

Platinum - atomic #78, not stolen by Noble Brigand, and forging Silver+Gold nets you one.

[SirPeebles]

Here's another.

I draw

I attack

Goko lets me decide but it doesn't matter

Oracle

[BraveBear]

Buy me, but not only one

Nomad Camp could be a good plan

Trash me if you want

[Awaclus]

Buy me, but not only one

Nomad Camp could be a good plan

Trash me if you want

Fool's Gold.

[BraveBear]

I give you money instantly

Get green early and you will see

I'm not the best but DXV doesn't care

[Awaclus]

I give you money instantly

Get green early and you will see

I'm not the best but DXV doesn't care

Explorer?

[BraveBear]

Man I have to start making these harder

[Awaclus]

Man I have to start making these harder

Procession?

[BraveBear]

I help you buy but not always

Its important when you play me

That's fine, I'll get a Gold I guess

[SirPeebles]

Fool's Gold.

[BraveBear]

Nope, keep guessing

[Witherweaver]

I help you buy but not always

Its important when you play me

That's fine, I'll get a Gold I guess

Counterfeit.

(Sometimes hurts your buy if they deny what you want, they get to choose what you can't buy when you play it, and if they deny your power $5, alternate $6, or maybe Province and you don't want Duchy yet, you get a Gold instead.)

[BraveBear]

You mean Contraband?

[Witherweaver]

You mean Contraband?

Yes.. they, uh.. look a lot alike when you spell them.. just like Mine/Mint.

[BraveBear]

Play me and then play what you wanted to

Play me then Play me

Play me, I'm worst then Scout

[Witherweaver]

Play me and then play what you wanted to

Play me then Play me

Play me, I'm worst then Scout

Throne Room/King's Court?  Assuming the last one means there is no additional Action to play.

[BraveBear]

Keep guessing

[SirPeebles]

Play me and then play what you wanted to

Play me then Play me

Play me, I'm worst then Scout

Tournament.  When you first win a Tournament, you get to play whichever Prize you want.   You can then play it a few more times for more Prizes.  Eventually when the selection of Prizes is its worst you will gain a topdecked Duchy and probably not draw it due to a revealed Province.  Then you play Scout to clear the Duchy off your deck.

[BraveBear]

Defiantly on the right track with how it's related to scout.  But not it!

[Witherweaver]

Defiantly on the right track with how it's related to scout.  But not it!

Maybe Crossroads.  You stop getting +Action after the first play.  But it's only worse than Scout if you have no Victory cards in hand.

[BraveBear]

No it functions more like scout then just being a dead card.  Which yes, scout usually is 

[BraveBear]

Hint:  Think of the order of each clue as the progression of a game.

[Awaclus]

Sage?

[Witherweaver]

Hint:  Think of the order of each clue as the progression of a game.

Sage?  First it digs for your expensive card, which you usually want.  If you have two it might find itself.. once you start greening it has a good chance of just digging for the Victory card?

[Awaclus]

Sagemind!

[BraveBear]

Okay you guys are good.  Or my riddles are easy.  I'm thinking its the former 

Here's another one because I am bored at work.


Market Square is my nemesis

I hope potion is on the board

Estate. fml

[Witherweaver]

Okay you guys are good.  Or my riddles are easy.  I'm thinking its the former 

Here's another one because I am bored at work.


Market Square is my nemesis

I hope potion is on the board

Estate. fml

Swindler

[ConMan]

And this one has clues for a few cards:
Have you been listening carefully?
Or are you trying to choose between us?
Or do you think I have nothing to give?
Or do you think I'm going to change?
Or maybe you just think I'm too strange?

Too hard, apparently. Let's see whether I can drop some useful hints.
In a cryptic crossword, what do clues about hearing or listening usually represent?
What's a word that indicates you have a choice?
What word describes land that gives nothing?

[navical]

Or do you think I have nothing to give?

Too hard, apparently. Let's see whether I can drop some useful hints.
What word describes land that gives nothing?

Baron (barren)?

[SirPeebles]

And this one has clues for a few cards:
Have you been listening carefully?
Or are you trying to choose between us?
Or do you think I have nothing to give?
Or do you think I'm going to change?
Or maybe you just think I'm too strange?

Too hard, apparently. Let's see whether I can drop some useful hints.
In a cryptic crossword, what do clues about hearing or listening usually represent?
What's a word that indicates you have a choice?
What word describes land that gives nothing?

I don't understand the original post.  Is each line a different card?

[ConMan]

And this one has clues for a few cards:
Have you been listening carefully?
Or are you trying to choose between us?
Or do you think I have nothing to give?
Or do you think I'm going to change?
Or maybe you just think I'm too strange?

Too hard, apparently. Let's see whether I can drop some useful hints.
In a cryptic crossword, what do clues about hearing or listening usually represent?
What's a word that indicates you have a choice?
What word describes land that gives nothing?

I don't understand the original post.  Is each line a different card?

There is no more than one card described per line.

[heron]

Does the second line describe either Coppersmith of Counterfeit?

[ConMan]

Does the second line describe either Coppersmith of Counterfeit?

No, although that does remind me of a (non-Dominion) riddle/poem:

Can you tell me why
The liar's eye
Can better see
Than you or me
On how many toes
A pussycat goes?

The eye of deceit
Can best counterfeit,
And so, I suppose,
Can best count her toes.

[BraveBear]

Here's another

I get better and better as the game goes on

Only if you buy a certain card

Throw me away isn't an easy decision

[soulnet]

I get better and better as the game goes on

Only if you buy a certain card

Throw me away isn't an easy decision

HoP

[SirPeebles]

Here's another

I get better and better as the game goes on

Only if you buy a certain card

Throw me away isn't an easy decision

Feodum

[dominator 123]

Here's another

I get better and better as the game goes on

Only if you buy a certain card

Throw me away isn't an easy decision

City?
Edit: changed answer, see below

[Davio]

Here's another

I get better and better as the game goes on

Only if you buy a certain card

Throw me away isn't an easy decision

Fool's Gold?

[Awaclus]

Here's another

I get better and better as the game goes on

Only if you buy a certain card

Throw me away isn't an easy decision

Hermit? It gets worse and worse as the game goes on, unless you buy Market Squares.

[dominator 123]

Here's another

I get better and better as the game goes on

Only if you buy a certain card

Throw me away isn't an easy decision

Feodum. It gets better (more vp), only if you buy Silver, and Trashing it can be a hard decision at times.
Edit: whoops, this has already been posted. Sorry for having you chase my posts! Nevertheless, he didn't provide explanation

[Asper]

Okay you guys are good.  Or my riddles are easy.  I'm thinking its the former 

Here's another one because I am bored at work.


Market Square is my nemesis

I hope potion is on the board

Estate. fml

Swindler

Not saying first and last don't match, i'm pretty sure you got it - but aren't Potions often bad for Swindler? If you trash a Potion card with it, you won't be able to chose something else for it and give the hit person the same card again. Unless they run out, of course.

[silverspawn]

Okay you guys are good.  Or my riddles are easy.  I'm thinking its the former 

Here's another one because I am bored at work.


Market Square is my nemesis

I hope potion is on the board

Estate. fml

Swindler

Not saying first and last don't match, i'm pretty sure you got it - but aren't Potions often bad for Swindler? If you trash a Potion card with it, you won't be able to chose something else for it and give the hit person the same card again. Unless they run out, of course.

hitting potion cards with swindler is often not bad, because you effectively discard it. hitting a 4$ and giving him a potion for it is often knight+witch, which is huge. and hitting a potion card after the pile is empty is huge too.

so, all in all, potion makes swindler stronger on average, no doubt.

[Awaclus]

Okay you guys are good.  Or my riddles are easy.  I'm thinking its the former 

Here's another one because I am bored at work.


Market Square is my nemesis

I hope potion is on the board

Estate. fml

Swindler

Not saying first and last don't match, i'm pretty sure you got it - but aren't Potions often bad for Swindler? If you trash a Potion card with it, you won't be able to chose something else for it and give the hit person the same card again. Unless they run out, of course.

Turning $4s into Potions is pretty good.

EDIT: Getting Sarnath'd isn't.

[Asper]

Asper

• Governor
• 
• Offline
• Posts: 4995
•