Print

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

[SpinBlack]

...upon playing a card, you immediately gain 2 cards where the cost of the second card is not specified other than that it must cost less than the first.

I have a specific interaction in mind which happened to me yesterday in an IRL game. Awkward wording so that there aren't alternative solutions.*



* Then again, I've come to expect nothing short of edge cases within edge cases from users of this forum.

[Grujah]

Play Haggler, buy Border Village, gain Duchy, gain 4$ non-victory (no 5$ cost cards in kingdom).

nvm.

[silverspawn]

play procession, play any 5$, gain border village, gain another card. doesn't seem complicated. am I misunderstanding this somehow? do you have to gain cards before the card that you play is resolving?

[SpinBlack]

play procession, play any 5$, gain border village, gain another card. doesn't seem complicated. am I misunderstanding this somehow? do you have to gain cards before the card that you play is resolving?

In this case, you gain Border Village due to Procession but there's another card (the $5 card) that you must resolve in between Procession and gaining the 2 cards, thus you are not immediately gaining 2 cards due to playing the Procession and this does not answer the question. (It was hard to word it to avoid this case.)

[liopoil]

play rogue, border village is the only card costing 3 to 6 in the trash.

[SpinBlack]

I suppose that's correct.

Can anyone think of a solution that doesn't necessarily involved Border Village?

[liopoil]

Butcher a catacombs into another 5 cost

[SpinBlack]

Butcher a catacombs into another 5 cost

Butchering or Remodeling Catacombs doesn't necessarily imply that the cost of the second gained card is less than the first.

[markusin]

Butcher a catacombs into another 5 cost

Butchering or Remodeling Catacombs doesn't necessarily imply that the cost of the second gained card is less than the first.

But trashing it with Remake does.

Edit: Nevermind, you gain the cheaper card first.

[KingZog3]

Is it Moat?

[GeoLib]

Stonemason piling out the only pile costing 1 less than the SMed card? How general is this supposed to be?

[Awaclus]

Gain Catacombs with University, trash Catacombs with Watchtower?

[ephesos]

Remodel Watchtower into Catacombs, gaining Catacombs, then revealing Watchtower to trash Catacombs and gain a card cheaper than it. Not sure if it counts since the second one isn't immediately after the Remodel, it's after the first card was gained.

[EDIT] Dang it, got Sarnath'd twice in a row. I had the stonemason case typed up, then I saw the post and changed it...

List of possible cards for gaining a card costing (strictly) less than another:
Catacombs
Border Village
Stonemason
Haggler? Only on buy, but maybe Black Market could work here. Also, technically you have to buy then gain, so it's not immediate.

Develop? Must be one less, so it specifies something else
Saboteur? Must be at least 2 less, so it specifies something else

Don't think I've missed any here, so these are the only cards that specifically mention gaining a card of lower cost than another card.

[silverspawn]

play procession, play any 5$, gain border village, gain another card. doesn't seem complicated. am I misunderstanding this somehow? do you have to gain cards before the card that you play is resolving?

In this case, you gain Border Village due to Procession but there's another card (the $5 card) that you must resolve in between Procession and gaining the 2 cards, thus you are not immediately gaining 2 cards due to playing the Procession and this does not answer the question. (It was hard to word it to avoid this case.)

well the card that I meant here is not procession, it's the 5$. I play the 5$, and gain 2 cards immediately afterwards.

[Pneumatiker]

...upon playing a card, you immediately gain 2 cards where the cost of the second card is not specified other than that it must cost less than the first.

Is the cost of the second card noch specified in your riddle or in the situation in the game? In the second case gaining a duchy (via count, tournament, any tfb, ...) with duchess in the kingdom would be a solution.

[GeoLib]

...upon playing a card, you immediately gain 2 cards where the cost of the second card is not specified other than that it must cost less than the first.

Is the cost of the second card noch specified in your riddle or in the situation in the game? In the second case gaining a duchy (via count, tournament, any tfb, ...) with duchess in the kingdom would be a solution.

Ah, but then the cost of the second card is too specified.

[SpinBlack]

play procession, play any 5$, gain border village, gain another card. doesn't seem complicated. am I misunderstanding this somehow? do you have to gain cards before the card that you play is resolving?

In this case, you gain Border Village due to Procession but there's another card (the $5 card) that you must resolve in between Procession and gaining the 2 cards, thus you are not immediately gaining 2 cards due to playing the Procession and this does not answer the question. (It was hard to word it to avoid this case.)

well the card that I meant here is not procession, it's the 5$. I play the 5$, and gain 2 cards immediately afterwards.

I suppose you're right.

Sorry for all the confusion, maybe someone could help me word this riddle better. Maybe include something like "the cards you gain are due to the last card you played."

Anyway, the answer was Counterfeiting a Horn of Plenty (the first HoP you've played this turn) to get 6 unique cards played. Gain $6 alt-VP, trash HoP, gain Duchy (or some other $5).

[Awaclus]

Anyway, the answer was Counterfeiting a Horn of Plenty (the first HoP you've played this turn) to get 6 unique cards played. Gain $6 alt-VP, trash HoP, gain Duchy (or some other $5).

And it's technically wrong because you don't immediately gain two cards upon playing any single card there.

I can't think of a simple enough wording which makes your actual scenario a valid answer while ruling out all of the edge cases presented in this thread. A shame, since otherwise it would have been a nice puzzle.

[KingZog3]

A card causes you to gain a card, and then gain a second who's cost is not specified other than it must cost less than the first gained card.

[ephesos]

Interestingly enough, HoP specifies that you should count itself when counting cards in play. A case could be made that since the card specifically asks you to count it, you should count it, even when it's not in play.
E.g. I play an action, non-Treasure card saying "Count all Treasures you have in play, counting this." The card has a false assumption in its wording, but shouldn't you still follow the card anyway, the text superseding the other rules of the game?

[eHalcyon]

Anyway, the answer was Counterfeiting a Horn of Plenty (the first HoP you've played this turn) to get 6 unique cards played. Gain $6 alt-VP, trash HoP, gain Duchy (or some other $5).

And it's technically wrong because you don't immediately gain two cards upon playing any single card there.

I can't think of a simple enough wording which makes your actual scenario a valid answer while ruling out all of the edge cases presented in this thread. A shame, since otherwise it would have been a nice puzzle.

To clarify this, it's technically wrong because HoP only gains one card when it is played.  The second gain comes from playing HoP a second time.

Interestingly enough, HoP specifies that you should count itself when counting cards in play. A case could be made that since the card specifically asks you to count it, you should count it, even when it's not in play.
E.g. I play an action, non-Treasure card saying "Count all Treasures you have in play, counting this." The card has a false assumption in its wording, but shouldn't you still follow the card anyway, the text superseding the other rules of the game?

If you argue that you should count it even when it is no longer in play because it says "counting this", then you'd logically also have to count HoP when it is not a differently named card.  It says to count itself, so you should do that even if it's the second or third HoP you've played, right?  But no, that's not how it works.  The parenthetical is simply a reminder that, yes, you also get to count HoP because it is in play as well.  Yes, the text assumes that it is in play when that isn't necessarily the case, but this card came out before Counterfeit and the assumption stands most of the time.