Print

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

[Awaclus]

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.

I'm willing to concede that it would be a valid interpretation of the language in a vacuum, but I don't think it can be consistent with the rules of Dominion.

[scott_pilgrim]

Here's something to consider: If you play Squeegee, then Counterfeit a Gold, then play a Gold regularly, do you get the "while Gold is in play" effect?  Haddock and SCSN would say no.  I think most people, without having put any thought into it, would say yes.

Squeegee also has an issue of, it starts happening when Gold is not in play, which is weird.  As far as I'm understanding Haddock's interpretation of Squeegee, the effect waits until Gold is in play and then triggers, then ends when Gold leaves play.  So what happens if I don't play Gold this turn?  Will it trigger next turn when I play Gold?  Or if my opponent puts Gold in play before I do, it triggers on his turn?  None of these is more intuitive to me than saying that the "while" effect lasts for the duration of the game.

Think of it this way.  Suppose I say "While I'm in the hospital, take care of my (blue) dog," but then it turns out I don't need to go to the hospital after all.  Years later, I do end up going to the hospital.  In either interpretation, you must now take care of my dog; the effect begins the next time I go to the hospital, which happened to be much later than expected.  So that's not an advantage of the Haddock interpretation over the Awaclus interpretation.  Given that it works that way, I would think it's more intuitive to say that the effect is permanent (by saying "while", I imply that it is true for every time I'm in the hospital for the rest of my life), than it is to say that it only applies the next time it happens (regardless of whether it happens when expected).

[Haddock]

So it continues.

I think it is consistent with the rules of Dominion.

No cards have "While this is in play" except below the line.  In those cases the effect always goes away entirely whenever the card leaves play, since there is no way to get that card back into play again anyway. (Except on subsequent turns, and we are agreed that the effect CANNOT carry over between turns)

Which is consistent with my interpretation.

In the imagined case of it being above the line, there is no reason the behaviour shouldn't be the same; it's an entirely new scenario, we can choose our interpretation independently of anything else.  There cannot possibly be any conflicts.

PPE:
Huh?  No.  When another Gold enters play, there's a new instance of the effect initiated, reducing costs by one. (EDIT: if your scenario is ALSO throning the Squeegee then it's by 2).

The termination problem with Squeegee is something I've already mentioned:

Yes.  Costs would be reduced by two, since there's no "while this is in play" restriction on Squeegee, it only cares whether Gold is in play.  Squeegee is basically a conditional Bridge.

In fact Squeegee would need a "This turn, While any Gold...", otherwise its effect lasts forever.

It definitely needs an "Until end of turn", because it is EXACTLY LIKE BRIDGE, and ENTIRELY UNLIKE HIGHWAY. 

[Awaclus]

In the imagined case of it being above the line, there is no reason the behaviour shouldn't be the same; it's an entirely new scenario, we can choose our interpretation independently of anything else.  There cannot possibly be any conflicts.

It's not an entirely new scenario. There are cards that set up continuous effects on-play. There are cards that have while-in-play effects. The behavior should be consistent with both existing types of cards.

[Haddock]

It's not an entirely new scenario. There are cards that set up continuous effects on-play. There are cards that have while-in-play effects. The behavior should be consistent with both existing types of cards.

There are no cards that say "While X is in play" above the line.
Are there?

[Awaclus]

It's not an entirely new scenario. There are cards that set up continuous effects on-play. There are cards that have while-in-play effects. The behavior should be consistent with both existing types of cards.

There are no cards that say "While X is in play" above the line.
Are there?

No, but there are cards that set up other continuous effects on-play. Cards that set up while-in-play effects on-play should work the same way (i.e. the continuous effect should not stop when the card leaves play).

[scott_pilgrim]

PPE:
Huh?  No.  When another Gold enters play, there's a new instance of the effect initiated, reducing costs by one. (EDIT: if your scenario is ALSO throning the Squeegee then it's by 2).

The termination problem with Squeegee is something I've already mentioned:

Yes.  Costs would be reduced by two, since there's no "while this is in play" restriction on Squeegee, it only cares whether Gold is in play.  Squeegee is basically a conditional Bridge.

In fact Squeegee would need a "This turn, While any Gold...", otherwise its effect lasts forever.

It definitely needs an "Until end of turn", because it is EXACTLY LIKE BRIDGE, and ENTIRELY UNLIKE HIGHWAY.

Right, I think we're in agreement on this.  What I'm saying is, given that it works like that, it's more intuitive to say that it should happen every future time a Gold comes into play, rather than just the first time.  This is what I was trying to illustrate with the "While I'm in the hospital" example.  If we know that it has to happen the next time I'm in the hospital, even if it's unexpectedly decades later, you would think it would happen every time I'm in the hospital, and not just that first time.  Of course you can agree with this intuition and I can't say anything about how you interpret it intuitively, but to me this feels much better than what you're saying.

I'm not sure why you keep saying there's a problem with the lack of scope on Squeegee.  Highway doesn't limit itself either, and this whole discussion is about what happens when the scope is not restricted.  Let's try adding "this turn" to Squeegee 2:

Squeegee 2
Action -
While Gold is in play, cards cost less this turn (but not less than ).

If I play Squeegee 2, then Counterfeit a Gold, then play a Gold, do I get the cost reduction?  I would say it is intuitively obvious that yes, you get the cost reduction in this situation.  But you would say you don't, right?

[Haddock]

If I play Squeegee 2, then Counterfeit a Gold, then play a Gold, do I get the cost reduction?  I would say it is intuitively obvious that yes, you get the cost reduction in this situation.  But you would say you don't, right?

Yes you do.  Of course you do.  Because there is Gold in play.  As soon as Gold enters play there is a new instance of the effect.  If you then played another one (2 in play), there is still Gold in play, that hasn't changed, costs don't go down any further.  It's a binary thing (there is either any amount of Gold in play or not).

No, but there are cards that set up other continuous effects on-play. Cards that set up while-in-play effects on-play should work the same way (i.e. the continuous effect should not stop when the card leaves play).

Why should they?  New keywords introduce new mechanics; that's how card games work.  "While X in play" is a new keyphrase, introducing a new mechanic.

[GendoIkari]

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.

I'm willing to concede that it would be a valid interpretation of the language in a vacuum, but I don't think it can be consistent with the rules of Dominion.

I agree with Haddock, and I think it not being consistent with the rules of Dominion goes back to my very first post on this subject... Dominion rules and card wordings are more about readability than technicality. Also as a reply to your last reply to my last post; I get what you're saying now. And what I was saying is that in the case of a "while this is in play" that's not below a line, the implicit "when you play this" would be ignored for the purposes of the card making sense. Note that Band of Misfits (used to) be the exact same way, until a newer ruling changed it recently. You ignored the "when you play this" part of Band of Misfits, because it didn't work with the way that card was meant to work. In the same way "when you buy this" on Nomad Camp, while not ignored, is interpreted differently than other "when you buy" cards.

[Awaclus]

Why should they?  New keywords introduce new mechanics; that's how card games work.  "While X in play" is a new keyphrase, introducing a new mechanic.

"While" is not a new keyword and doesn't introduce a new mechanic.

[Awaclus]

Note that Band of Misfits (used to) be the exact same way, until a newer ruling changed it recently. You ignored the "when you play this" part of Band of Misfits, because it didn't work with the way that card was meant to work.

Indeed, Band of Misfits used to work in a pretty crappy way. Now it works the way it always should have.

[GendoIkari]

Note that Band of Misfits (used to) be the exact same way, until a newer ruling changed it recently. You ignored the "when you play this" part of Band of Misfits, because it didn't work with the way that card was meant to work.

Indeed, Band of Misfits used to work in a pretty crappy way. Now it works the way it always should have.

But people accepted it and played it that way. More importantly, it was the exact same 99% of the time it was played. It was only different when you Throne-roomed a BoM and chose a one-shot. Now it's also different when you have bonus tokens on BoM.

If Highway had been printed without a separation line in the first place, and no cards in Dominion had a separation line, you might have complained that it's not very elegant because of the stuff you just said about how "when you play this" is implicit on most actions, but doesn't work right on Highway. But the vast majority of people playing the game wouldn't worry about it; they might question whether or not you get 2 reductions with a Throne (which they still did with the line anyway). But once they were told "no", they would understand why, and not make a big deal out of how it's technically different than the other cards.

My point being, you may be right that it's not consistent with other Dominion cards; but that's ok; people would still understand it and play it correctly.

[Haddock]

Why should they?  New keywords introduce new mechanics; that's how card games work.  "While X in play" is a new keyphrase, introducing a new mechanic.

"While" is not a new keyword and doesn't introduce a new mechanic.

False.  I have just trawled the entire cards list on the wiki.  None of them have the word "while" above the line. 

Our interpretation is consistent with while below the line, and entirely new, therefore consistent, with while above the line.

My point being, you may be right that it's not consistent with other Dominion cards; but that's ok; people would still understand it and play it correctly.

No, stick to your guns!  There's nothing for it to be inconsistent with.

[scott_pilgrim]

If I play Squeegee 2, then Counterfeit a Gold, then play a Gold, do I get the cost reduction?  I would say it is intuitively obvious that yes, you get the cost reduction in this situation.  But you would say you don't, right?

Yes you do.  Of course you do.  Because there is Gold in play.  As soon as Gold enters play there is a new instance of the effect.  If you then played another one (2 in play), there is still Gold in play, that hasn't changed, costs don't go down any further.  It's a binary thing (there is either any amount of Gold in play or not).

So what's the difference between this and Messed Up Highway?  I'm sorry if this comes off as annoying or obnoxious, I'm legitimately trying to understand your interpretation, because I thought I understood it and just disagreed with it intuitively, but now it looks like I never understood it to begin with.  Please don't just say "Highway refers to itself" or something like that, I get that.  But why do self-referential effects stop when leaving play, while effects that reference other things don't?

If I Procession Squeegee, do I still get its effect?  If I Procession Squeegee, Counterfeit Gold, then play another Gold, do I get its effect?  What combination of Squeegee/Gold have to leave play for the effect to stop working?

[Donald X.]

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.

Nevertheless, when you combine them, "when you play this, while this is in play" does not look like it sets up a rule that will re-occur later. It looks like "while this is in play" involves the "when you play this." We cannot just consider them in isolation for the case where they are not isolated.

I'm willing to concede that it would be a valid interpretation of the language in a vacuum, but I don't think it can be consistent with the rules of Dominion.

You are complaining that my interpretation of a wording a Dominion card would never have is not consistent with Dominion.

Consider a card that says "Frob the snatz." There are no rulebook rules for Dominion that say what to do if given an instruction that makes so little sense. We can't just say "you fail to do it;" the things in Dominion that you fail to do are comprehensible. Any explanation I give for what happens is doomed to be not consistent with the rules of Dominion. I can't stop people from asking that question though, from discussing it endlessly, from being dissatisfied with whatever I say about it.

[Haddock]

So what's the difference between this and Messed Up Highway?  I'm sorry if this comes off as annoying or obnoxious, I'm legitimately trying to understand your interpretation, because I thought I understood it and just disagreed with it intuitively, but now it looks like I never understood it to begin with.  Please don't just say "Highway refers to itself" or something like that, I get that.  But why do self-referential effects stop when leaving play, while effects that reference other things don't?

If I Procession Squeegee, do I still get its effect?  If I Procession Squeegee, Counterfeit Gold, then play another Gold, do I get its effect?  What combination of Squeegee/Gold have to leave play for the effect to stop working?

"While X in play" effects stop when X leaves play and start again when X reenters play (EDIT:  To clarify, this is my entire hypothesis, even though it makes no real difference to any existing Dominion cards).  Right, so if "X" is "this", then the effect stops when "this" (the card being discussed) leaves play.  If "X" is Gold, then the card in question no longer cares whether or not itself is in play, as for Bridge.  It only cares about the Gold.

Your example:
Procession Squeegee, it disappears, but its effect doesn't care whether Squeegee is in play so two copies of the effect are still floating around (like Bridge).  At first there is no cost reduction because no Gold.
Then you Counterfeit a Gold.  You put it in play, costs are reduced by 2 thanks to the 2 Squeegee effects.  Then Gold leaves play, costs go back to normal.  Then you play a Gold, which enters play and once again triggers the two floating Squeegee effects.
Overall costs decreased by two, as if you had simply processioned a bridge.

[Donald X.]

So. Games with rules on cards. They're pretty cool.

One day some people made games with rules on cards that had so many cards that vague hand-waving card texts didn't do the trick. You get card interactions you can't explain. And those games, in particular Wiz-War and Cosmic Encounter, settled for endless lists of rulings for interactions that had come up.

Magic: The Gathering is the game where people really tried to solve the problem. That problem is: you need friendly phrasings so that people can understand them, and you need precise phrasings so that you can tell how interactions work. But the friendliest phrasing isn't the most precise, and the most precise phrasing isn't the friendliest. The most precise phrasings are little computer programs and your game has no audience. The friendliest phrasings are great for games with just 10 cards; you address any interactions in the rulebook. You can't do that with Magic's endless stream of cards. But you want players.

So some people - including me - have labored over card templates. How best to phrase things, so that interactions are clear, but people don't have trouble understanding the cards. That work is not complete; it's ongoing. Magic still has poor phrasings in some cases, let me tell you. And they continue to improve their templates.

This thread is about how to interpret a poor phrasing - how do we resolve the little computer program. You can't ignore the goal of having players, of having a wording that someone could possibly parse correctly. As it happens the unfriendly phrasing in question is not sufficiently a computer program either. I can't just plug in the numbers and say "well there you go, that would suck so I would never do it but there you go." You have to guess whether the things that look related are. People always think they are so that's the way to go.

Hope this helps! If people are not having fun, let me know and I will close the thread.

[Donald X.]

Think of it this way.  Suppose I say "While I'm in the hospital, take care of my (blue) dog," but then it turns out I don't need to go to the hospital after all.  Years later, I do end up going to the hospital.  In either interpretation, you must now take care of my dog; the effect begins the next time I go to the hospital, which happened to be much later than expected.  So that's not an advantage of the Haddock interpretation over the Awaclus interpretation.  Given that it works that way, I would think it's more intuitive to say that the effect is permanent (by saying "while", I imply that it is true for every time I'm in the hospital for the rest of my life), than it is to say that it only applies the next time it happens (regardless of whether it happens when expected).

Ah, blue dogs. Here's something I know about.

Obv. any real English-speaking person who agreed to your "while I'm in the hospital, take care of my blue dog" would no longer feel any future obligation once you weren't going to the hospital after all. It's clear that you are referring only to this one expected hospital visit. There is in implicit "I'm going to the hospital now" that was clearly tied to "while I'm in the hospital."

If instead you wanted a future repeating deal, you would say "any time I'm in the hospital" or some such.

[Awaclus]

Our interpretation is consistent with while below the line, and entirely new, therefore consistent, with while above the line.

It is not consistent with both Highway and Bridge. It can be consistent with one of them, but not both.

[SCSN]

If people are not having fun, let me know and I will close the thread.

Instead of closing the thread I suggest you rename it to "Frob the snatz!" That phrase really cracked me up, and 'understanding' the thread title would be a fitting reward for those brave souls who make it all the way through.

[Haddock]

It is not consistent with both Highway and Bridge. It can be consistent with one of them, but not both.

It is consistent with Highway (note that I am not saying that it always does the same thing as Highway, just that our interpretation of the keyphrase "while" is consistent with Highway).

It is also consistent with Bridge, because it has different wording so there should be no expectation that the two behave in the same way.

[markusin]

Why should they?  New keywords introduce new mechanics; that's how card games work.  "While X in play" is a new keyphrase, introducing a new mechanic.

"While" is not a new keyword and doesn't introduce a new mechanic.

False.  I have just trawled the entire cards list on the wiki.  None of them have the word "while" above the line. 

Our interpretation is consistent with while below the line, and entirely new, therefore consistent, with while above the line.

My point being, you may be right that it's not consistent with other Dominion cards; but that's ok; people would still understand it and play it correctly.

No, stick to your guns!  There's nothing for it to be inconsistent with.

I figured the whole purpose of the dividing line is to make it clear which effects have an implicit "when you play this" and which cards don't. From the wording that currently exists, I figured it could always be inferred which effects had an implicit "when you play this" and which cards don't. I didn't originally believe that the dividing line functionally made it explicit which effects occur on play and which are continuous. 

If a while-in-play effect like that of Highway were above the line, there cannot be an implicit "when you play this" in order for it to function like the Highway we have now. The player would not necessarily be able to infer this on their own. A rules clarification would be needed to explain how "while in play" effects are removed when the card leaves play and that they cannot stack with Throne Room. In Dominion as we know it, the horizontal line provides this clarification. As I understand it, the "while in play" effect above the line which works as we know it know is inconsistent with Dominion which is why Donald says it is a hypothetical card with wording that would never exist.

In theory a fan card can be created that works like Awaclus interprets a Highway with "while in play" above the line. Hey, maybe I want to create a Super-Mega-Highway that keeps increasing the amount of cost reduction it provides every time it is played. If I wanted to create such a card, putting "while this is in play, reduce cards by $1" above the line should do the trick and be consistent with Dominion rules as we know them.

[LastFootnote]

If people are not having fun, let me know and I will close the thread.

Instead of closing the thread I suggest you rename it to "Frob the snatz!" That phrase really cracked me up, and 'understanding' the thread title would be a fitting reward for those brave souls who make it all the way through.

Somebody help me. I can't stop!

[Haddock]

I figured the whole purpose of the dividing line is to make it clear which effects have an implicit "when you play this" and which cards don't. From the wording that currently exists, I figured it could always be inferred which effects had an implicit "when you play this" and which cards don't. I didn't originally believe that the dividing line functionally made it explicit which effects occur on play and which are continuous. 

If a while-in-play effect like that of Highway were above the line, there cannot be an implicit "when you play this" in order for it to function like the Highway we have now. The player would not necessarily be able to infer this on their own. A rules clarification would be needed to explain how "while in play" effects are removed when the card leaves play and that they cannot stack with Throne Room. In Dominion as we know it, the horizontal line provides this clarification. As I understand it, the "while in play" effect above the line which works as we know it know is inconsistent with Dominion which is why Donald says it is a hypothetical card with wording that would never exist.

I would say that things have an implicit "when you play this" unless they have another timing condition on them like "while".  I agree this is ambiguous (hence why MessedUpHighway would be bad), but I don't agree that it is inconsistent with anything.  It would need clarification (to avoid this entire thread), but it wouldn't be inconsistent.  There are two possible interpretations, that's all.

In theory a fan card can be created that works like Awaclus interprets a Highway with "while in play" above the line. Hey, maybe I want to create a Super-Mega-Highway that keeps increasing the amount of cost reduction it provides every time it is played. If I wanted to create such a card, putting "while this is in play, reduce cards by $1" above the line should do the trick and be consistent with Dominion rules as we know them.

Awa's version is indeed consistent with Dominion.

I'm saying that our version is consistent as well.

This is the source of the ambiguity.  If there are two possible interpretations, both of which are consistent with other rules, then there is ambiguity.  So we would avoid the Messed Up Highway wording for that reason.

[Awaclus]

I would say that things have an implicit "when you play this" unless they have another timing condition on them like "while".

No, cards that have another timing condition on them set up an effect with that timing condition when they are played because of the implicit "when you play this". When you Throne a Bridge, costs are reduced by $2, because two "this turn" effects are set up when you play it. If it didn't have an implicit "when you play this", Throne Room would not affect it at all, but instead, cards would just cost $1 less all the time because it's always "this turn".