Print

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

[SCSN]

Then why isn't the Regular Highway like this?

Code: [Select]

AtTheStartOfTheGame:
    this.CostReduction = 1
OnEnteringPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(this.CostReduction)
OnLeavingPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(-this.CostReduction)
    this.CostReduction = 0

Why would it be? Each time Highway enters play a new promise is made, and each time it leaves play that promise is done and dusted, see my code above for the implementation.

[Awaclus]

Then why isn't the Regular Highway like this?

Code: [Select]

AtTheStartOfTheGame:
    this.CostReduction = 1
OnEnteringPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(this.CostReduction)
OnLeavingPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(-this.CostReduction)
    this.CostReduction = 0

Why would it be? Each time Highway enters play a new promise is made, and each time it leaves play that promise is done and dusted, see my code above for the implementation.

Well, that's an incredibly convoluted way to put it, but if that's how you want to interpret Regular Highway, then Altered Highway will also create new abilities promises for each "while this is in play" effect that it has previously set up every time it enters play. There should be essentially no difference between "When you play this, while this is in play, cards cost $1 less" and "When you play this, this card gains 'while this is in play, cards cost $1 less' below a dividing line".

[GendoIkari]

If I understand you right, you keep asking for an ending time for the ability to expire, as in an "until" clause. We're saying that 'while this is in play" has an implied "until this leaves play" built in.

[Awaclus]

If I understand you right, you keep asking for an ending time for the ability to expire, as in an "until" clause. We're saying that 'while this is in play" has an implied "until this leaves play" built in.

No, that's not what you're saying. You're saying that it has it built in when it's above a dividing line, but not when it's below one.

[ehunt]

Then you should agree with Awaclus about what messed-up highway does. If you procession messed-up highway, but manage to get it back into play (ignoring tracking issues which are why this should never be a card), what happens? Three "while this is in play" effects have been created, and "this" is indeed in play.

No.  Your example is completely unrelated, since Squeegee does not have a "while this is in play" clause.  It has a "while there is Gold in play" clause.  Two completely different issues.  One card is self-referencing, the other is not.

It is true that one card is self-referencing and the other is not, but this is a distinction without a difference.  Which of the following steps do you disagree with (I think you disagree with 2, but your disagreement with 2 is inconsistent with your interpretation of Squeegee).

1. When messed-up highway is played, an effect is created. That effect says, "While this is in play, cards cost one less, but not less than 0."
2. When messed-highway leaves play, the effect still exists, but it doesn't do anything. (there's some effect out there saying "if this highway is in play, cards cost one less", but the antecedent of that effect, "this highway is in play", is not satisfied). [I think your interpretation is, once the messed-up highway leaves play, there's literally nothing else it's doing, there's no effect out there. But this is inconsistent with your treatment of squeegee.]
3. If messed-up highway re-enters play, then, because the effect still exists, and because the second play of messed-up highway creates a new effect, costs go down by 2.

For the record, I really do think all of this is an argument about made-up cards, because existent cards have lines on them and the line rule takes care of this problem. It's just frustrating that so many people are acting like Awaclus is totally insane when in fact his argument makes perfect sense.

[GendoIkari]

If I understand you right, you keep asking for an ending time for the ability to expire, as in an "until" clause. We're saying that 'while this is in play" has an implied "until this leaves play" built in.

No, that's not what you're saying. You're saying that it has it built in when it's above a dividing line, but not when it's below one.

Then let me be clear... I'm saying that it's built in in both cases.

[SCSN]

Then why isn't the Regular Highway like this?

[...]

Why would it be? Each time Highway enters play a new promise is made, and each time it leaves play that promise is done and dusted, see my code above for the implementation.

Well, that's an incredibly convoluted way to put it, but if that's how you want to interpret Regular Highway, then Altered Highway will also create new abilities promises for each "while this is in play" effect that it has previously set up every time it enters play. There should be essentially no difference between "When you play this, while this is in play, cards cost $1 less" and "When you play this, this card gains 'while this is in play, cards cost $1 less' below a dividing line".

You have to be clearer because I don't understand a word of that post.

Both cards create new promises (H when it enters play, AH when it's played—the difference between these points of creation is due to AH having an implicit "when you play this" clause) but none of those stack between turns because all promises end and die forever when the cards leave play, so each turn is started with a perfectly clean sheet for both cards, as if the game had just started.

[GendoIkari]

Then you should agree with Awaclus about what messed-up highway does. If you procession messed-up highway, but manage to get it back into play (ignoring tracking issues which are why this should never be a card), what happens? Three "while this is in play" effects have been created, and "this" is indeed in play.

No.  Your example is completely unrelated, since Squeegee does not have a "while this is in play" clause.  It has a "while there is Gold in play" clause.  Two completely different issues.  One card is self-referencing, the other is not.

It is true that one card is self-referencing and the other is not, but this is a distinction without a difference.  Which of the following steps do you disagree with (I think you disagree with 2, but your disagreement with 2 is inconsistent with your interpretation of Squeegee).

1. When messed-up highway is played, an effect is created. That effect says, "While this is in play, cards cost one less, but not less than 0."
2. When messed-highway leaves play, the effect still exists, but it doesn't do anything. (there's some effect out there saying "if this highway is in play, cards cost one less", but the antecedent of that effect, "this highway is in play", is not satisfied). [I think your interpretation is, once the messed-up highway leaves play, there's literally nothing else it's doing, there's no effect out there. But this is inconsistent with your treatment of squeegee.]
3. If messed-up highway re-enters play, then, because the effect still exists, and because the second play of messed-up highway creates a new effect, costs go down by 2.

For the record, I really do think all of this is an argument about made-up cards, because existent cards have lines on them and the line rule takes care of this problem. It's just frustrating that so many people are acting like Awaclus is totally insane when in fact his argument makes perfect sense.

I disagree with step 2, and I do think it's different than Squeegee because "while this is in play" is a wording that implies "until this leaves play".

[Awaclus]

Then let me be clear... I'm saying that it's built in in both cases.

If "while this is in play" has the same amount of implicit stuff built in regardless of if it's below a horizontal line or above one, then it needs to work the exact same way in both cases. Either it works like this in both cases:

Code: [Select]

OnEnteringPlay:
    For Each ability In abilities
        gameState.ReduceCosts(1)
OnLeavingPlay:
    For Each ability In abilities
        gameState.ReduceCosts(-1)
Or it works like this in both cases:

Code: [Select]

OnEnteringPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(this.CostReduction)
OnLeavingPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(-this.CostReduction)
    this.CostReduction = 0
You can't say that one of these is used for the "while in play" part of "when you play this, while in play, x" and the other is used for the "while in play" part of "while in play, x" while also claiming that the "while in play" in both "when you play this, while in play, x" and "while in play, x" means the same thing.

[Awaclus]

because all promises end and die forever when the cards leave play

This is not true. Bridge's promise doesn't end and die forever when the card leaves play.

[ehunt]

I disagree with step 2, and I do think it's different than Squeegee because "while this is in play" is a wording that implies "until this leaves play".

I agree that "while this is in play" implies "until this leaves play."

You agree that playing cards can create conditions: While x, do z until end of turn. (for instance, squeegee).

You agree that "conditions" are created until some unspecified end-time, and that, even if a Squeegee is Processioned, one is still allowed to check "does x hold" after the Squeegee leaves play.

You agree that the antecedent x can be "this" is in play.

Where you disagree is that you then assert that if a card conditions itself on being in play, then the existence of the condition itself disappears when the card leaves play, rather than simply the antecedent of the condition ("this" is in play) becoming false. I disagree that this follows from the meaning of the English word "while" or the ordinary rules of Dominion; I claim this needs the "line" rule to be justified.

My argument can be summarized as follows: playing the card causes an x--->y conditional to happen. Removing the card from play does not change the fact that the conditional x--->y is out there; it only changes the truth value of x, and these two things are different, absent a specific rule that removes the conditional. If x somehow becomes true again, the conditional is still "out there" looking for it, and so y happens.

[GendoIkari]

because all promises end and die forever when the cards leave play

This is not true. Bridge's promise doesn't end and die forever when the card leaves play.

Because Bridge doesn't specify "while this is in play". Pretty sure when he says "the cards" he means "the cards that say 'while this is in play'".

OnEnteringPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(1)
OnLeavingPlay:
    gameState.ReduceCosts(-1)

I think this is how I'm saying messed-up-highway works. Regular highway would be the same, except it has an implicit "when you play this"; but the "when you play this" has no effect on how you would interpret the card.

[SCSN]

because all promises end and die forever when the cards leave play

This is not true. Bridge's promise doesn't end and die forever when the card leaves play.

...

Don't be a dick.

I was obviously refering to all promises made by the two cards we were discussing and you know this full well. Bridge doesn't have a "while this is in play" thing going on so it leaving play has no effect whatsoever.

[Awaclus]

Because Bridge doesn't specify "while this is in play". Pretty sure when he says "the cards" he means "the cards that say 'while this is in play'".

The relevant part of Altered Highway is not "while this is in play", it's "when you play this". "When you play this" effects aren't undone when the card leaves play, therefore, there will continue to be a "while this is in play, cards cost $1 less" for all eternity.

[GendoIkari]

Because Bridge doesn't specify "while this is in play". Pretty sure when he says "the cards" he means "the cards that say 'while this is in play'".

The relevant part of Altered Highway is not "while this is in play", it's "when you play this". "When you play this" effects aren't undone when the card leaves play, therefore, there will continue to be a "while this is in play, cards cost $1 less" for all eternity.

And I'm saying that although normal "when you play this" effects aren't undone when the card leaves play, they ARE in the case when the effect in question includes "while this is in play". In other words, I'm interpreting "while this is in play" as "until this leaves play" which is the same wording as "until the end of turn". Bridge ends at the end of turn, so messed-up-highway would end when it leaves play.

[Awaclus]

And I'm saying that although normal "when you play this" effects aren't undone when the card leaves play, they ARE in the case when the effect in question includes "while this is in play". In other words, I'm interpreting "while this is in play" as "until this leaves play" which is the same wording as "until the end of turn". Bridge ends at the end of turn, so messed-up-highway would end when it leaves play.

Ah, so you are saying that the difference is that "while this is in play" above the dividing line also has an implicit "undo the continuous effects of this card when it leaves play", and that the "while this is in play" below the dividing line doesn't.

That's completely arbitrary.

[GendoIkari]

And I'm saying that although normal "when you play this" effects aren't undone when the card leaves play, they ARE in the case when the effect in question includes "while this is in play". In other words, I'm interpreting "while this is in play" as "until this leaves play" which is the same wording as "until the end of turn". Bridge ends at the end of turn, so messed-up-highway would end when it leaves play.

Ah, so you are saying that the difference is that "while this is in play" above the dividing line also has an implicit "undo the continuous effects of this card when it leaves play", and that the "while this is in play" below the dividing line doesn't.

That's completely arbitrary.

No... I'm saying both cards would play out the exact same way. In both cases, it provides a time at which the ability stops.

[Awaclus]

No... I'm saying both cards would play out the exact same way. In both cases, it provides a time at which the ability stops.

Yeah, in both cases, it provides a time at which the cost reduction stops happening. It does not provide a time at which the ability stops existing. If you want to argue that Regular Highway's ability stops existing while it's not in play, then fine, all of Altered Highway's while-in-play abilities that have accumulated over time also stop existing while it's not in play, but just like Regular Highway's ability starts existing again when it enters play again, so will all of Altered Highway's abilities. The part that disappears while the card is not in play is just the part which follows "while this is in play", not the "while this is in play" itself.

[Haddock]

It is true that one card is self-referencing and the other is not, but this is a distinction without a difference.  Which of the following steps do you disagree with (I think you disagree with 2, but your disagreement with 2 is inconsistent with your interpretation of Squeegee).

1. When messed-up highway is played, an effect is created. That effect says, "While this is in play, cards cost one less, but not less than 0."
2. When messed-highway leaves play, the effect still exists, but it doesn't do anything. (there's some effect out there saying "if this highway is in play, cards cost one less", but the antecedent of that effect, "this highway is in play", is not satisfied). [I think your interpretation is, once the messed-up highway leaves play, there's literally nothing else it's doing, there's no effect out there. But this is inconsistent with your treatment of squeegee.]
3. If messed-up highway re-enters play, then, because the effect still exists, and because the second play of messed-up highway creates a new effect, costs go down by 2.

For the record, I really do think all of this is an argument about made-up cards, because existent cards have lines on them and the line rule takes care of this problem. It's just frustrating that so many people are acting like Awaclus is totally insane when in fact his argument makes perfect sense.

You're right.  I disagree with 2.  When the Messed-Highway leaves play, its effect is dead, busted, gone away.  When it reenters play it creates a new effect.
This is not inconsistent with Squeegee.  Your Squeegee does not say "While this is in play...", so when it leaves play its effect is not deleted.
If Squeegee read "While this is in play, while there is Gold in play..." then I would be interpreting it like Messed-Highway.  It doesn't say that.

We're not acting like Awaclus is totally insane.  This argument has just gone on for too long and both sides are getting frustrated, as tends to happen in internet arguments.

We are also flouting the unwritten law: "What DXV says, goes."  I think the nervous tension of doing so is getting everyone's backs up.

[Awaclus]

You're right.  I disagree with 2.  When the Messed-Highway leaves play, its effect is dead, busted, gone away.  When it reenters play it creates a new effect.
This is not inconsistent with Squeegee.  Your Squeegee does not say "While this is in play...", so when it leaves play its effect is not deleted.
If Squeegee read "While this is in play, while there is Gold in play..." then I would be interpreting it like Messed-Highway.  It doesn't say that.

"While" also needs to mean the same thing across all the cards it appears in — "while X" should mean the same thing no matter what X is. If "when you play this, while this is in play" disappears when the while condition is no longer met, "when you play this, while a Gold is in play" should also disappear when the while condition is no longer met. Except that they shouldn't, because regular "while X" effects don't disappear either (just their effects do).

[GendoIkari]

No... I'm saying both cards would play out the exact same way. In both cases, it provides a time at which the ability stops.

Yeah, in both cases, it provides a time at which the cost reduction stops happening. It does not provide a time at which the ability stops existing. If you want to argue that Regular Highway's ability stops existing while it's not in play, then fine, all of Altered Highway's while-in-play abilities that have accumulated over time also stop existing while it's not in play, but just like Regular Highway's ability starts existing again when it enters play again, so will all of Altered Highway's abilities. The part that disappears while the card is not in play is just the part which follows "while this is in play", not the "while this is in play" itself.

This is very hard to follow for me. The only ability I'm talking about is the cost reduction. The "while this is in play" is a restriction on when the ability applies.

[Haddock]

"While" also needs to mean the same thing across all the cards it appears in — "while X" should mean the same thing no matter what X is. If "when you play this, while this is in play" disappears when the while condition is no longer met, "when you play this, while a Gold is in play" should also disappear when the while condition is no longer met. Except that they shouldn't, because regular "while X" effects don't disappear either (just their effects do).

Huh? 
But the condition IS met, when the Gold enters play.  Then would disappear if the Gold left play.  Do you seriously not see that the Squeegee example and the Messed Up Highway example are utterly different?  (Unless it's the GOLD entering and leaving play, which wasn't the example being given)

[Awaclus]

No... I'm saying both cards would play out the exact same way. In both cases, it provides a time at which the ability stops.

Yeah, in both cases, it provides a time at which the cost reduction stops happening. It does not provide a time at which the ability stops existing. If you want to argue that Regular Highway's ability stops existing while it's not in play, then fine, all of Altered Highway's while-in-play abilities that have accumulated over time also stop existing while it's not in play, but just like Regular Highway's ability starts existing again when it enters play again, so will all of Altered Highway's abilities. The part that disappears while the card is not in play is just the part which follows "while this is in play", not the "while this is in play" itself.

This is very hard to follow for me. The only ability I'm talking about is the cost reduction. The "while this is in play" is a restriction on when the ability applies.

I'll try to explain it as clearly as I possibly can then.

A card with "while this is in play, X" does X continuously whenever it is in play. When it's not in play, it does not do X, but when it enters play again after leaving play, it does X again.

A card with "when you play this, Y" does Y whenever you play it. It does not undo Y when it leaves play. Whenever you play it, you get Y again in addition to the Ys that you've gotten previously from playing the card earlier. It does not matter what Y is, "when you play this, Y" always does the same thing for all different values of Y.

Smithy, for example, has a "when you play this, Y" ability where Y is +3 cards. You get +3 cards whenever you play it, it does not undo the +3 cards when it leaves play, and whenever you play it, you get +3 cards in addition to the +3 cards that you've gotten from it in the past.

In the case of Altered Highway, Y is "while this is in play, reduce costs". It does "while this is in play, reduce costs" whenever you play it. It does not undo "while this is in play, reduce costs" when it leaves play. Whenever you play it, you get "while this is in play, reduce costs" again in addition to the "while this is in play, reduce costs"s that you've gotten previously from playing the card earlier.

That Y is a "while this is in play, X" where X is "reduce costs". Therefore, whenever you play Altered Highway, you get a new "reduces costs continuously whenever it is in play. When it's not in play, it does not reduce costs, but when it enters play again after leaving play, it reduces costs again" in addition to those that you had from before, and if there are multiple, then costs will be reduced multiple times.

[Haddock]

This really isn't getting us anywhere.

I completely understand Awaclus's point of view.  I am more than happy to concede that it is a valid interpretation of English.

I find mine and SCSN's interpretation more natural, but realistically it's a completely subjective thing.  I hope Awa understands where SCSN and I are coming from.  We also understand his interpretation, I think, and they're both valid.  They also can both me made internally consistent and consistent with the rules of Dominion.

Assuming Awa is willing to concede that ours is also a valid interpretation, this is all completely intellectual.

[LastFootnote]

I'll try to explain it as clearly as I possibly can then.

A card with "while this is in play, X" does X continuously whenever it is in play. When it's not in play, it does not do X, but when it enters play again after leaving play, it does X again.

A card with "when you play this, Y" does Y whenever you play it. It does not undo Y when it leaves play. Whenever you play it, you get Y again in addition to the Ys that you've gotten previously from playing the card earlier. It does not matter what Y is, "when you play this, Y" always does the same thing for all different values of Y.

Smithy, for example, has a "when you play this, Y" ability where Y is +3 cards. You get +3 cards whenever you play it, it does not undo the +3 cards when it leaves play, and whenever you play it, you get +3 cards in addition to the +3 cards that you've gotten from it in the past.

In the case of Altered Highway, Y is "while this is in play, reduce costs". It does "while this is in play, reduce costs" whenever you play it. It does not undo "while this is in play, reduce costs" when it leaves play. Whenever you play it, you get "while this is in play, reduce costs" again in addition to the "while this is in play, reduce costs"s that you've gotten previously from playing the card earlier.

That Y is a "while this is in play, X" where X is "reduce costs". Therefore, whenever you play Altered Highway, you get a new "reduces costs continuously whenever it is in play. When it's not in play, it does not reduce costs, but when it enters play again after leaving play, it reduces costs again" in addition to those that you had from before, and if there are multiple, then costs will be reduced multiple times.

But again, as an addendum to this, it's nigh impossible to track each individual copy of a card in Dominion. So a "When you play this, while this is in play" effect like the one described here is impractical.