Print

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

[Infthitbox]

I'm not sure how you are getting Harems to cost $2.5.

[Davio]

I'm not sure how you are getting Harems to cost $2.5.

Up to is not equal to.

So you can get Harems costing $2 and get 2 for $4 which is up to $5.

[Haddock]

I don't know whether this works, but if we're still worried about gaining negative-cost stuff being technically an option you could put in a "..., gaining the cheaper card first."  The point being that if you can't gain the cheaper card (negative cost) it's implicit that you can't carry on to gain the Province or whatever.

At least that's how I'd read that clause, but it is slightly interpretable - has gain-order restriction ever been used officially?  Can't think of anything off the top of my head.

[singletee]

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

You can't do that. Let's use Workshop as a simpler example. If Estates are gone (and, say, Coppers are not) then you can't choose to gain an Estate and fail to get it. As long as there is a card costing up to $4 in the Supply, you must choose one. The only way Workshop fails to gain something (barring Trader) is if there are no cards costing up to $4 in the supply.

"Gain a card" is shorthand for "Choose a card and gain it". When you choose a card, you are choosing a literal physical card, not the name of a card.

[LastFootnote]

I was also disappointed that Bailiff which is one of our favourite Season cards got so little positive feedback

Cards with penalties—and perceived penalties—are in general going to be less popular than cards without. Trade Port has this, but is more elegant? And Trade Port seems less crazy early on. Bailiff seems insane during the Spring and Summer.

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

Yes, that is what I'd suggest, except you have to specify "in the Supply". "Choose a Victory card and a Treasure from the Supply with a total cost of up to $5. Gain them in either order."

[GeneralRamos]

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

Yes, that is what I'd suggest, except you have to specify "in the Supply". "Choose a Victory card and a Treasure from the Supply with a total cost of up to $5. Gain them in either order."

Yeah, this seems to me the easiest solution to the perceived problem. And specifying that they must be cards in the supply further mitigates the problem of hypothetical negative-point cards, since none will ever be present in the supply.

That said, I still don't really perceive this as a problem. I put a "gain two cards costing up to $x" card in my Holy Order set which I suppose could raise similar questions. But I never supposed negative cost cards within the realm of possibility. Because, well, when in the world do things cost a negative amount? We don't conceive of economic transactions in such terms, and though theoretically applicable in the game world, it hardly seems natural to do so. We could have saved lots of breath and card space if there were simply a rule in the book that card costs can never be reduced below $0. There's always the option of dealing with as FAQ.

[GendoIkari]

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.

This is definitely wrong. If it worked this way, then buying a card with Royal Seal Talisman in place would never get you 2 cards. Choosing a card means choosing a particular card name from a particular pile, not choosing an exact copy of a card.

[GendoIkari]

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.

If it helps, I was never suggesting that the wording would allow you to gain an $8 and a -$3. I was using that as an example of why the interpretation of "you can gain a $5 treasure then fail to gain a $0 victory because there are none", is wrong.

[LastFootnote]

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.

This is definitely wrong. If it worked this way, then buying a card with Royal Seal in place would never get you 2 cards. Choosing a card means choosing a particular card name from a particular pile, not choosing an exact copy of a card.

I think you mean Talisman instead of Royal Seal.

I agree with your general point, but I believe it actually means choosing a particular card name, from the Supply as a whole. If there were somehow the same card on multiple piles, you could choose at the time of each gain which copy you wanted to gain. That's my interpretation of the ruling, anyway.

[eHalcyon]

@Gendo, you mean Talisman.

@Cookie, I think people mostly understand the intent of the card, no misinterpretation, but we're considering inconsistencies in intended effect vs. wording.  This kind of feedback isn't negative (unless you are totally attached to your original wording and not just its effect); if anything, it shows people are interested in talking about it.  The only negative feedback I recall was my own feeling of disjointedness between the effects.  I don't recall anyone else criticizing that so it may just be me.

@Fragasnap I missed that the mini- Forge was "up to".  That makes it easier to use in the late game, but I still think having to trash exactly 3 cards gates it plenty.  Late game cannibalizing of your deck with, say, Remodel is one thing, but doing it 3 cards at a time I'd a tough price to pay.  It still seems to me like the mini-Forge would work fine as a single non-seasonal card.

PPE: ninjas!

[spiralstaircase]

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.

Thank you for the explanation.

[GendoIkari]

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.

Thank you for the explanation.

No, that explanation is wrong. Talisman should be sufficient proof. You never choose an exact card, you only choose cards by name.

[singletee]

I remember having a thread about this before. It turns out I misremembered from that thread, as DXV confirms that when you buy a card, you are buying a card with a specific name, not a specific instance of a card:

If I buy a card, do I buy a specific instance of a card, or just whatever is on top of the pile I selected?
(this could be relevant if a card is removed from the pile due to on-buy triggers. This could empty the pile, or maybe the pile isn't uniform, or maybe I just lose track.)

You name what you're buying, and then gain it from the supply if it's available. Black Market modifies where the card can come from.

As has been pointed out, Talisman means you can't be buying a specific card instance.

When exactly in the process do I lose money?
(I don't think there is any card that makes this a relevant question; still I'd like to know)

Name a card you can afford, lose $ equal to its cost, when-buy effects trigger, gain it.

As noted overpay means losing the $ has to come ahead of when-buy triggers.

See
Insight about buying, derived from Talisman,
Talisman + Sir Martin, and
buying a card.

[scott_pilgrim]

Okay, yeah so what I said is wrong.  But here is why I assumed it would work that way.  If it didn't, you would then be required to know things about cards you can't see.  I don't think any current cards in Dominion require that, so that's one potential issue with Bailiff if you're allowed to do this.  I have to know the name of the Treasure-Knight, and how much it costs, without being able to see it.  That's what I meant when I said you run into problems with knights if it works the other way.  It also means we need a resolution if I name the wrong card.  If I can name a card I can't see, nothing can stop me from naming the Ace of Spades; no one can prove it's not in the kingdom.  But now I have a workaround if I want to just gain a Duchy without Copper.  No one can prove to me that the Ace of Spades doesn't cost $0, so I'll just try to gain Duchy and Ace of Spades, and when I go to gain the Ace of Spades, I fail on that part since it doesn't happen to be there.

[GendoIkari]

Okay, yeah so what I said is wrong.  But here is why I assumed it would work that way.  If it didn't, you would then be required to know things about cards you can't see.  I don't think any current cards in Dominion require that, so that's one potential issue with Bailiff if you're allowed to do this.  I have to know the name of the Treasure-Knight, and how much it costs, without being able to see it.  That's what I meant when I said you run into problems with knights if it works the other way.  It also means we need a resolution if I name the wrong card.  If I can name a card I can't see, nothing can stop me from naming the Ace of Spades; no one can prove it's not in the kingdom.  But now I have a workaround if I want to just gain a Duchy without Copper.  No one can prove to me that the Ace of Spades doesn't cost $0, so I'll just try to gain Duchy and Ace of Spades, and when I go to gain the Ace of Spades, I fail on that part since it doesn't happen to be there.

No, I don't think it causes these issues. If treasure-knight is not on top, then it's not an option for gaining a card. It's a 2 step process. 1) "Choose a card name of a card that's on top of a supply pile". 2) "Gain a card with the name you chose from the top of a supply pile". If you see Harem on top of a supply pile, and you are told to gain 2 cards, you can gain "Harem and Harem".

Actually, I think this situation already exists... Stonemason. "Gain 2 Action cards each costing the amount you overpaid". If you overpaid by $6, and Nobles is sitting there, you can gain "Nobles and Nobles ".

If there is only 1 Noble left, I'm actually not completely sure if you are allowed to try to gain 2 Nobles and fail, only gaining 1, or if you must also gain a Goons or something. I'll ask that one in the rules thread.

[scott_pilgrim]

Okay, yeah so what I said is wrong.  But here is why I assumed it would work that way.  If it didn't, you would then be required to know things about cards you can't see.  I don't think any current cards in Dominion require that, so that's one potential issue with Bailiff if you're allowed to do this.  I have to know the name of the Treasure-Knight, and how much it costs, without being able to see it.  That's what I meant when I said you run into problems with knights if it works the other way.  It also means we need a resolution if I name the wrong card.  If I can name a card I can't see, nothing can stop me from naming the Ace of Spades; no one can prove it's not in the kingdom.  But now I have a workaround if I want to just gain a Duchy without Copper.  No one can prove to me that the Ace of Spades doesn't cost $0, so I'll just try to gain Duchy and Ace of Spades, and when I go to gain the Ace of Spades, I fail on that part since it doesn't happen to be there.

No, I don't think it causes these issues. If treasure-knight is not on top, then it's not an option for gaining a card. It's a 2 step process. 1) "Choose a card name of a card that's on top of a supply pile". 2) "Gain a card with the name you chose from the top of a supply pile". If you see Harem on top of a supply pile, and you are told to gain 2 cards, you can gain "Harem and Harem".

Actually, I think this situation already exists... Stonemason. "Gain 2 Action cards each costing the amount you overpaid". If you overpaid by $6, and Nobles is sitting there, you can gain "Nobles and Nobles ".

If there is only 1 Noble left, I'm actually not completely sure if you are allowed to try to gain 2 Nobles and fail, only gaining 1, or if you must also gain a Goons or something. I'll ask that one in the rules thread.

Yeah I think that works.  I think I was responding to this:

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

[singletee]

Okay, yeah so what I said is wrong.  But here is why I assumed it would work that way.  If it didn't, you would then be required to know things about cards you can't see.  I don't think any current cards in Dominion require that, so that's one potential issue with Bailiff if you're allowed to do this.  I have to know the name of the Treasure-Knight, and how much it costs, without being able to see it.  That's what I meant when I said you run into problems with knights if it works the other way.  It also means we need a resolution if I name the wrong card.  If I can name a card I can't see, nothing can stop me from naming the Ace of Spades; no one can prove it's not in the kingdom.  But now I have a workaround if I want to just gain a Duchy without Copper.  No one can prove to me that the Ace of Spades doesn't cost $0, so I'll just try to gain Duchy and Ace of Spades, and when I go to gain the Ace of Spades, I fail on that part since it doesn't happen to be there.

No, I don't think it causes these issues. If treasure-knight is not on top, then it's not an option for gaining a card. It's a 2 step process. 1) "Choose a card name of a card that's on top of a supply pile". 2) "Gain a card with the name you chose from the top of a supply pile". If you see Harem on top of a supply pile, and you are told to gain 2 cards, you can gain "Harem and Harem".

Actually, I think this situation already exists... Stonemason. "Gain 2 Action cards each costing the amount you overpaid". If you overpaid by $6, and Nobles is sitting there, you can gain "Nobles and Nobles ".

If there is only 1 Noble left, I'm actually not completely sure if you are allowed to try to gain 2 Nobles and fail, only gaining 1, or if you must also gain a Goons or something. I'll ask that one in the rules thread.

With Stonemason the choice itself is sequential. You choose, then gain, then choose, then gain. Evidence for this is that you can gain 2 Knights in this way. So to your question you'd have to gain the Goons (the horror!).

[GendoIkari]

Okay, yeah so what I said is wrong.  But here is why I assumed it would work that way.  If it didn't, you would then be required to know things about cards you can't see.  I don't think any current cards in Dominion require that, so that's one potential issue with Bailiff if you're allowed to do this.  I have to know the name of the Treasure-Knight, and how much it costs, without being able to see it.  That's what I meant when I said you run into problems with knights if it works the other way.  It also means we need a resolution if I name the wrong card.  If I can name a card I can't see, nothing can stop me from naming the Ace of Spades; no one can prove it's not in the kingdom.  But now I have a workaround if I want to just gain a Duchy without Copper.  No one can prove to me that the Ace of Spades doesn't cost $0, so I'll just try to gain Duchy and Ace of Spades, and when I go to gain the Ace of Spades, I fail on that part since it doesn't happen to be there.

No, I don't think it causes these issues. If treasure-knight is not on top, then it's not an option for gaining a card. It's a 2 step process. 1) "Choose a card name of a card that's on top of a supply pile". 2) "Gain a card with the name you chose from the top of a supply pile". If you see Harem on top of a supply pile, and you are told to gain 2 cards, you can gain "Harem and Harem".

Actually, I think this situation already exists... Stonemason. "Gain 2 Action cards each costing the amount you overpaid". If you overpaid by $6, and Nobles is sitting there, you can gain "Nobles and Nobles ".

If there is only 1 Noble left, I'm actually not completely sure if you are allowed to try to gain 2 Nobles and fail, only gaining 1, or if you must also gain a Goons or something. I'll ask that one in the rules thread.

With Stonemason the choice itself is sequential. You choose, then gain, then choose, then gain. Evidence for this is that you can gain 2 Knights in this way. So to your question you'd have to gain the Goons (the horror!).

Do we know this? I asked this in the rules forum... the instructions are "gain 2 cards". Does this mean the same as "do this twice: gain a card"? I don't know the answer... but Bailiff should work exactly the same. Which means if you're right about Stonemason (I suspect you are), then with Bailiff you first gain a Harm. Then you gain a Harem assuming there's still another one. No different; same basic wording.

[GendoIkari]

Wait, I'm wrong. If indeed Stonemason does work that way, then it's still confusing how Bailiff would work... because it can't really work the same way, as you have to add up the costs before doing any gaining with Bailiff. With Bailiff, it seems clear that you must first add up the costs (choose 2 visible, legal cards, costing up to a sum of $5), and then do your gaining. Meaning you couldn't gain 2 different $2 treasure/victory Knights.

[scott_pilgrim]

Right, Bailiff can't be choose gain choose gain, because then you could get Province/nothing.  It has to be choose choose gain gain.  But I'm wondering now why you think your explanation was wrong.  As long as you can only choose visible cards, and as long as all same-named cards are identical to each other, you can still put in an order for two Harems, and then gain them both.  The only slight issue is that it allows you to put in an order for two Harems, even if there is only one left, in which case you'd just end up with one Harem.  But this trick doesn't let you gain a Province or anything like that.  It just means you can sometimes gain one fewer card than expected, if you really don't want to use the second gain for some reason and there's only one card left in a pile which costs $2 or less.

[GendoIkari]

Right, Bailiff can't be choose gain choose gain, because then you could get Province/nothing.  It has to be choose choose gain gain.  But I'm wondering now why you think your explanation was wrong.  As long as you can only choose visible cards, and as long as all same-named cards are identical to each other, you can still put in an order for two Harems, and then gain them both.  The only slight issue is that it allows you to put in an order for two Harems, even if there is only one left, in which case you'd just end up with one Harem.  But this trick doesn't let you gain a Province or anything like that.  It just means you can sometimes gain one fewer card than expected, if you really don't want to use the second gain for some reason and there's only one card left in a pile which costs $2 or less.

No, I don't think my explanation was wrong; just that I was wrong in saying that it would be the same as Stonemason (if Stonemason turns out to be choose gain choose gain).

[LastFootnote]

I think Bailiff could totally be choose-gain-choose-gain. You can't choose Province as your first card because it costs more than the total amount. This can be spelled out in a FAQ, but I think it's reasonable to expect some common sense from players.

[GendoIkari]

I think Bailiff could totally be choose-gain-choose-gain. You can't choose Province as your first card because it costs more than the total amount. This can be spelled out in a FAQ, but I think it's reasonable to expect some common sense from players.

I don't agree; because I don't think it's a reasonable interpretation that you can gain a Counterfeit and a nothing.

[Co0kieL0rd]

@Cookie, I think people mostly understand the intent of the card, no misinterpretation, but we're considering inconsistencies in intended effect vs. wording.  This kind of feedback isn't negative (unless you are totally attached to your original wording and not just its effect); if anything, it shows people are interested in talking about it.  The only negative feedback I recall was my own feeling of disjointedness between the effects.  I don't recall anyone else criticizing that so it may just be me.

You're right, I shouldn't have taken the criticism to heart so much. Bailiff does a new thing that is tricky to spell out correctly with all Dominion mechanics in mind. Balancing-wise we're quite happy with it and we don't think its two effects would be interesting enough as solitary effects on individual cards. We also like that they support very different strategies and make the card more versatile as a whole but also trickier to use. We'd like to read some more criticism on the card's effects.

I think Bailiff could totally be choose-gain-choose-gain. You can't choose Province as your first card because it costs more than the total amount. This can be spelled out in a FAQ, but I think it's reasonable to expect some common sense from players.

I don't agree; because I don't think it's a reasonable interpretation that you can gain a Counterfeit and a nothing.

You can only gain Counterfeit and nothing if there is no Victory card in the Supply costing $5 or less. If there is one you have to gain that first and then a Treasure costing at most $5 minus the cost of the previously gained card.

I absolutely agree with LFN we should expect common sense from players. Anyway, we might change Bailiff's wording eventually. Asper and I will talk about it. Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity. Now since the discussion is going in circles it might be time to publish the next card. It's going to be far simpler but we're totally insecure about it.

[GendoIkari]

I think Bailiff could totally be choose-gain-choose-gain. You can't choose Province as your first card because it costs more than the total amount. This can be spelled out in a FAQ, but I think it's reasonable to expect some common sense from players.

I don't agree; because I don't think it's a reasonable interpretation that you can gain a Counterfeit and a nothing.

You can only gain Counterfeit and nothing if there is no Victory card in the Supply costing $5 or less. If there is one you have to gain that first and then a Treasure costing at most $5 minus the cost of the previously gained card.

I absolutely agree with LFN we should expect common sense from players. Anyway, we might change Bailiff's wording eventually. Asper and I will talk about it. Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity. Now since the discussion is going in circles it might be time to publish the next card. It's going to be far simpler but we're totally insecure about it.

Sorry to not be clearer; we've been discussing the "gain a treasure card and a victory card costing up to $5" version; where you would pick the order. With the wording you released, I still think that it is impossible to ever gain exactly 1 card with it; you would have to gain 2 cards, except when there's no legal combination, then you gain nothing. The only difference in functionality would be that you can't choose the order.