Print

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

[Asper]

BTW sorry if i'm keeping things a bit short here right now - tests are approaching, and i decided to give that a bit more priority (not that i really succeed going with what i decided, but that's another story). Either way, i speak for both CL and me when i say we really appreciate all this feedback and are grateful for it. I guess by now you noticed not all cards are as super-flashed out as, let's say, Ballroom, Snow Witch or Sanitarium, and for those that aren't we are especially happy to get that many ideas and thoughts thrown at us.

That said, sorry, i'll be off a few days. I plan on posting the next reveal in time, but don't be disappointed if i don't, okay? I mean, you guys got Empires to talk about, so that's something.

[GendoIkari]

I'm confused about why it has "then". What's wrong with "Gain a Victory card and a Treasure card with a total cost up to ."? That would feel more natural and obvious in meaning to me. By saying "then", it feels like you first gain a Victory card (any Victory card), then you gain a Treasure card and deal with cost requirements.

The reason was to avoid players gaining a $5 Treasure card like IGG or Counterfeit, and then failing to gain a VP card that went with it. So we wanted the VP card to go first. But i see where the confusion lies.

It's possible I'm wrong, but I don't see that as how the card would work with that wording. The very first requirement in "gain a Victory card and a Treasure card" would be that you MUST gain both a victory card and a treasure card, so long as some combination of both exists that costs up to $5.

In a simpler example, if a card said "Gain 2 cards with a total cost of $4", I don't think it would allow you to gain just a Silver, and then fail to gain a $1. It says to gain 2 cards, so you must gain 2 cards, so long as it is possible to do so.

If you WERE allowed to gain a $3 and then fail to gain a $1, then nothing would really be different about gaining a $8 and failing to gain a -$4.

[Co0kieL0rd]

Bailiff in Fall and Winter does no more and no less than what he's supposed to do because this second effect is supposed to be a counterweight to the powerful first part. It may cost $3 or $4 but either cost would be fine for what it does. There is no need to raise the total cost to $6 or $7 as that would only buff the card in certain kingdoms. You have to gain a Victory card first to avoid a case where you might interpret the order in which you gain the 2 cards as arbitrary (compare to Develop in which the order explicitly doesn't matter). Here it does matter, because you cannot gain 2 cards (or do anything in Dominion) simulateously and since the 2 cards have different types, the order has to be declared somehow. So if you chose the order and gained a Venture first, you'd fail to gain a Victory card costing $0 which would make Bailiff to good in that case. So you gain the Victory card first. Period.

And I'll be so bold to say that if anyone plays Bailiff and wants to gain a Province with it (without cost reduction) they deliberately misinterpreted the card. There is no way anyone who played a few games of Dominion with more than the base set would honestly misunderstand its concept this way.

[GendoIkari]

So if you chose the order and gained a Venture first, you'd fail to gain a Victory card costing $0 which would make Bailiff to good in that case. So you gain the Victory card first. Period.

And I'll be so bold to say that if anyone plays Bailiff and wants to gain a Province with it (without cost reduction) they deliberately misinterpreted the card. There is no way anyone who played a few games of Dominion with more than the base set would honestly misunderstand its concept this way.

And I'll be so bold to say that if anyone plays Bailiff (the version without a defined order) and wants to gain a Venture with it, they deliberately misinterpreted the card. You can't just gain a card costing $5 and then fail to gain a card costing $0. You must choose 2 cards that have a sum of $5, and then gain them in either order.

[Co0kieL0rd]

So if you chose the order and gained a Venture first, you'd fail to gain a Victory card costing $0 which would make Bailiff to good in that case. So you gain the Victory card first. Period.

And I'll be so bold to say that if anyone plays Bailiff and wants to gain a Province with it (without cost reduction) they deliberately misinterpreted the card. There is no way anyone who played a few games of Dominion with more than the base set would honestly misunderstand its concept this way.

And I'll be so bold to say that if anyone plays Bailiff (the version without a defined order) and wants to gain a Venture with it, they deliberately misinterpreted the card. You can't just gain a card costing $5 and then fail to gain a card costing $0. You must choose 2 cards that have a sum of $5, and then gain them in either order.

Since there's no precedent for a card that gains 2 cards with a total cost of $X and (more importantly) since 2 things cannot happen simultaneously in Dominion, there absolutely has to be an order. And when there's an order, there's going to be cases where someone might fail to gain something (like in a 3-player game with Witch and Moat). Even if that wasn't the case, we want to be absolutely sure no one misunderstands it and are willing to accept some redundancy (it's only one word more, similar to Chancellor's "immediately").

[scott_pilgrim]

I don't see how gaining a Province and then failing to gain a card costing up to $-3 is any different from gaining a Duchy and then failing to gain a card costing up to $0 (when the Coppers are out).  They both don't do exactly what the card tells you to do, so if the Province situation is "deliberately misinterpreting the card", then so is the Duchy situation.

Really what it comes down to is how smart Dominion cards are.  If the card is smart enough to know that there's nothing that can be paired with Province, while there are cards that can be paired with Duchy, then it would try to stop you from doing that.  (I think you'd still run into weirdness after the Coppers/Silvers run out in that case though, because then there'd be no legal combinations of cards to gain.)  But the thing is, I don't think Dominion cards can keep track of information like that moving between two separate instructions, and if they could, then you certainly wouldn't be allowed to gain a Duchy with no Copper after the Coppers run out, given that another combination is still available (like Estate/Silver).

If you make the gains as simultaneous as GendoIkari is suggesting then I think it works, but I would share your same concerns that that's never been done before.  The most precise way of wording it would probably be "Choose a treasure card and a victory card with a total cost of up to $5.  Gain them in any order."  But that's probably more words than you want.

[Co0kieL0rd]

If you make the gains as simultaneous as GendoIkari is suggesting then I think it works, but I would share your same concerns that that's never been done before.  The most precise way of wording it would probably be "Choose a treasure card and a victory card with a total cost of up to $5.  Gain them in any order."  But that's probably more words than you want.

It's okay considering number of words but it doesn't do the thing we want it to do (gain a Victory card first). Admitted, you're right that "Dominion cards [cannot] keep track of information like that moving between two separate instructions", still I think it makes no sense to assume someone would try to gain a Province with it because cards in Dominion cannot cost less than $0. Also most players can probably think a little for themselves and aren't intentionally looking for loop holes in fan cards that could be graciously overlooked as it clearly goes against all reason to assume you can gain Provinces with Bailiff even if it's technically possible.

[scott_pilgrim]

If you make the gains as simultaneous as GendoIkari is suggesting then I think it works, but I would share your same concerns that that's never been done before.  The most precise way of wording it would probably be "Choose a treasure card and a victory card with a total cost of up to $5.  Gain them in any order."  But that's probably more words than you want.

It's okay considering number of words but it doesn't do the thing we want it to do (gain a Victory card first). Admitted, you're right that "Dominion cards [cannot] keep track of information like that moving between two separate instructions", still I think it makes no sense to assume someone would try to gain a Province with it because cards in Dominion cannot cost less than $0. Also most players can probably think a little for themselves and aren't intentionally looking for loop holes in fan cards that could be graciously overlooked as it clearly goes against all reason to assume you can gain Provinces with Bailiff even if it's technically possible.

Well, I think you can probably get away with the current wording, as long as you're willing to say that players can't gain Duchies after the Copper runs out.  My main point is that if you rule that that is allowed, then it's inconsistent to prohibit the gaining of Provinces.

[eHalcyon]

For the record, some things do happen simultaneously in Dominion.  Chapel, for example, trashes up to 4 cards simultaneously.  And Durations can cause different effects to happen "simultaneously" at the start of your next turn (though you have to choose the order to resolve them).  I agree with the others that having the simultaneous gain (or simultaneous choice of gain targets) is simplest and clearest.  I don't see a good reason not to do that.

If there is a good reason to avoid that wording, specifying cost (up to $5, then up to $5 minus cost of gained Victory card) is clearest but possibly not best.  Dominion cards aren't always perfectly literal; sometimes they go for simpler wording because it's sufficient outside of edge cases.  But GendoIkari's wording works just fine.

[GendoIkari]

So if you chose the order and gained a Venture first, you'd fail to gain a Victory card costing $0 which would make Bailiff to good in that case. So you gain the Victory card first. Period.

And I'll be so bold to say that if anyone plays Bailiff and wants to gain a Province with it (without cost reduction) they deliberately misinterpreted the card. There is no way anyone who played a few games of Dominion with more than the base set would honestly misunderstand its concept this way.

And I'll be so bold to say that if anyone plays Bailiff (the version without a defined order) and wants to gain a Venture with it, they deliberately misinterpreted the card. You can't just gain a card costing $5 and then fail to gain a card costing $0. You must choose 2 cards that have a sum of $5, and then gain them in either order.

Since there's no precedent for a card that gains 2 cards with a total cost of $X and (more importantly) since 2 things cannot happen simultaneously in Dominion, there absolutely has to be an order. And when there's an order, there's going to be cases where someone might fail to gain something (like in a 3-player game with Witch and Moat). Even if that wasn't the case, we want to be absolutely sure no one misunderstands it and are willing to accept some redundancy (it's only one word more, similar to Chancellor's "immediately").

I'm not suggesting simultaneous gains. I'm suggesting that you would get to choose the order of the gains. And that no matter which order you choose, you would end up having to gain 2 total cards, and the total cost of them must be $5. The only exception would be when no combination of cards exists that sums to $5.

[eHalcyon]

I'm not suggesting simultaneous gains. I'm suggesting that you would get to choose the order of the gains. And that no matter which order you choose, you would end up having to gain 2 total cards, and the total cost of them must be $5. The only exception would be when no combination of cards exists that sums to $5.

In which case you can't gain anything, right?

Essentially, this is simultaneously choosing two cards to gain, then gaining them in either order.  It shouldn't matter at that point, though it can (e.g. play Highway, play Bailiff, choose Feodum+Silver, gain Feodum first and trash it to Watchtower, emptying the Silver pile).

[LibraryAdventurer]

wow...
This is a case of people's brains working differently. To some, the wording & rules work one way, to others, it works a different way. To both groups, their view seems obviously 'true'.
My solution: It's a fan card. Don't worry about it. It doesn't really matter that much.

I happen to agree with Cookielord on this.

[eHalcyon]

wow...
This is a case of people's brains working differently. To some, the wording & rules work one way, to others, it works a different way. To both groups, their view seems obviously 'true'.
My solution: It's a fan card. Don't worry about it. It doesn't really matter that much.

I happen to agree with Cookielord on this.

This is also a discussion about how the rules themselves work, and I'm sure Asper and Cookie aspire to do the best they can.  "It's just a fan card, don't worry about it" isn't conducive to that.  It's not like the discussion is even slightly angry or heated.  What's the harm in discussing text phrasing?

[Fragasnap]

I suggest that it is weaker later because you have to trash exactly 3 cards, which makes it less flexible and much trickier to use than Forge.

In case you missed it: Bailiff gains a card costing "up to" the total cost in coins of the trashed cards, not "exactly" like Forge does. That effect never turns weak.

[Co0kieL0rd]

wow...
This is a case of people's brains working differently. To some, the wording & rules work one way, to others, it works a different way. To both groups, their view seems obviously 'true'.
My solution: It's a fan card. Don't worry about it. It doesn't really matter that much.

I happen to agree with Cookielord on this.

This is also a discussion about how the rules themselves work, and I'm sure Asper and Cookie aspire to do the best they can.  "It's just a fan card, don't worry about it" isn't conducive to that.  It's not like the discussion is even slightly angry or heated.  What's the harm in discussing text phrasing?

Well; I was basically saying "It's just a fan card, give us a break" because I was a little irritated the other day that people kept misinterpreting Bailiff in a way that seems nonsensical to me. I was also disappointed that Bailiff which is one of our favourite Season cards got so little positive feedback and I'm frustrated that there seems to be no clear and elegant wording which says exactly what Bailiff is supposed to do. The best thing that was suggested here implies that you actually choose the two cards you want to gain simultaneously but gain them consecutively. In that case the order wouldn't matter. But no other card works like this so how do we know this isn't causing confusion as well?

"Choose a Victory and a Treasure card with a total cost of up to $5. Gain them in either order." Does this work?

The other suggestion "Gain a Victory card costing up to $5. Gain a Treasure card costing up to $5 minus the cost of the Victory card you gained." is clunky and a lot of text. I hope we don't have to resort to this.

[pst]

I'm frustrated that there seems to be no clear and elegant wording which says exactly what Bailiff is supposed to do. The best thing that was suggested here implies that you actually choose the two cards you want to gain simultaneously but gain them consecutively. In that case the order wouldn't matter. But no other card works like this so how do we know this isn't causing confusion as well?

"Choose a Victory and a Treasure card with a total cost of up to $5. Gain them in either order." Does this work?

Yes, but it's probably not exactly what you meant, in that you wouldn't be able to select two cards from the same pile (like for example two Harems, given enough cost reduction), as you would with sequential gaining.

The other suggestion "Gain a Victory card costing up to $5. Gain a Treasure card costing up to $5 minus the cost of the Victory card you gained." is clunky and a lot of text. I hope we don't have to resort to this.

That was never a suggestion on what to put on a card. That was my attempt to understand what the card was supposed to do.

And by the way, my guess on what you actually meant was evidently correct, so I was not misinterpreting Bailiff, and if you get irritated if people help you because "it's just a fan card" then you should just play with it yourselves, but not publicize it.

[Davio]

I don't find the wording on Bailiff confusing at all.

Just break it down into 2 separate steps that have to be performed sequentially (not in parallel):
Step 1: Gain a Victory card costing up to $5
Step 2: Gain a Treasure card costing up to $5 - the cost of the Victory card

So without cost reduction:
Duchy first is always Copper next. If there are no Coppers, you do as much as you can, gain a VP card costing up to $5, this succeeds; you try to gain a Copper because you must, this fails.
Estate first means you can get a Silver

[spiralstaircase]

Yes, but it's probably not exactly what you meant, in that you wouldn't be able to select two cards from the same pile (like for example two Harems, given enough cost reduction), as you would with sequential gaining.

I don't understand why not - if Pawn has to specify that your choices must be different, then not specifying that on "Choose a victory and a treasure card" suggests to me that I could choose Harem and Harem.

[scott_pilgrim]

Yes, but it's probably not exactly what you meant, in that you wouldn't be able to select two cards from the same pile (like for example two Harems, given enough cost reduction), as you would with sequential gaining.

I don't understand why not - if Pawn has to specify that your choices must be different, then not specifying that on "Choose a victory and a treasure card" suggests to me that I could choose Harem and Harem.

Well I think his issue is that you can only choose the top Harem when you're making the choice, but it will be gone after you've gained it the first time and since you didn't choose the Harem under it, you can't gain that one.  Obviously this is very counterintuitive, but I think it has to be ruled that way, or else you run into problems with piles like Knights that have different cards in them.

[Davio]

You can gain 2 Harems, right?

1. Gain a VP card: Harem
2. Gain a Treasure card: Harem

I don't see any problem with this.

[scott_pilgrim]

You can gain 2 Harems, right?

1. Gain a VP card: Harem
2. Gain a Treasure card: Harem

I don't see any problem with this.

We're talking about this wording:

"Choose a Victory and a Treasure card with a total cost of up to $5. Gain them in either order."

...which would not allow it.  Choose Harem and Harem (assuming you've played enough Highways), both the top card of the Harem pile.  Gain the top Harem first.  Now when you go to gain the other Harem, it's not there; a different Harem is there instead.  It's not the Harem you chose to gain, so you can't gain it.  And you can't choose to gain the top two Harems in the pile, because you can't be sure the second card from the top of the pile will really be a Harem until you see it.

[AdrianHealey]

"Choose a pure victory and a pure tresure card with a total cost up to 5. Gain them. If you don't gain a victory and a treasure card, put the card you do get back on the supply."

'Pure' = only one tag on the bottom.

[Davio]

Why so? There is no specific mention that you can only choose cards you can see right now: the top card.
Just that you have to choose a card, not a specific copy of said card.
At this point it doesn't even matter whether that card exists or not.
You can choose "gain a Curse" for Torturer when there are no more Curses.

It would resolve like this:

1. Choose 2 cards: Harem + Harem
2. Gain them in either order:
 a) Top Harem
 b) (second, now on top) Harem

Voilá, 2 Harems gained.

Let's say there was a Treasure-Knight: Sir Davio, you could do this:
1. Choose 2 cards: Dame Josephine + Sir Davio
2. Gain them in either order:
 a) Josephine is on top, so we'll gain that first
 b) Now the second card may or may not be Sir Davio;
   b-I) If it is Sir Davio, gain it
   b-II) If it's not Sir Davio, don't gain anything

If Duchies and Coppers are both gone, it would be allowed to pick both Duchy and Copper and not gain anything.

There are 3 separate events:
1. Choose a Victory and Treasure card with a total cost of up to $5 (piles don't matter at this point, just the total cost of the two cards)
--> Gain them in either order --> Make a choice between card A and card B
2. Gain either card A or B (whichever you chose to gain first)
3. Gain either card A or B (whichever you chose to gain second)

3 only happens after 2 is completely resolved. So when 3 happens, it only matters whether a copy of the chosen card is available to gain (i.e. on top).

If the text was shortened to:
Choose a Victory and a Treasure card with a total cost of up to $5. Gain them.

It would have this implication based on Mountebank's rules clarification: A player hit by Mountebank gains the Curse first, and then the Copper., where Mountebank says ...gains a Curse and a Copper.
In this case that would mean you always gain the Victory card first and the Treasure card second.

[Co0kieL0rd]

And by the way, my guess on what you actually meant was evidently correct, so I was not misinterpreting Bailiff, and if you get irritated if people help you because "it's just a fan card" then you should just play with it yourselves, but not publicize it.

I don't remember you misinterpreting Bailiff, either. I was talking about the attempt to gain Provinces and negative $3-cost cards with it that has been suggested earlier. But it seems like there's not much agreement on what Bailiff is capable of doing in general. At first I thought, yes, it can gain two Harems in a specific case. But actually, if you choose two cards simultaneously, this can't be okay. You're not "naming" cards (in which case you can name anything you want) but "choosing" them and the way I understand it is you can only choose cards existing cards (so not "Sir Davio"). Of course then we'd need to specify you have to choose cards from the supply.

The point is, Bailiff is not supposed to give you the option of choosing, and then failing to gain, non-existent cards or cards costing more than $5. And with the current wording it can gain two Harems.

[Davio]

You could just simplify it to say: Gain a Duchy and a Copper.