Print

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

[werothegreat]

I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this, but I just want to clarify: you can't buy cards from the Black Market on a Mission turn, right?

[Limetime]

Yes.

[Davio]

Note that the Black Market "phase" is not an extra buy phase, hence Peddler always costs $8 in the BM.
But you are buying cards, you're just buying them during your action phase.

Mission specifies that you can't buy cards, it doesn't mention a phase, so it holds up for BM purchases.

[majiponi]

I am not sure. The problem is not the phase I am in.
Mission says "you can't", BM says "you may".
Which wins? I thought the latter does, because it's a "new instruction".

Normal "Buy" doesn't have this problem. Its right is to buy "something", not only a card. It does not conflict.

I think we should reconsider what "you can't" phrase means in Dominion.

Edit: Only Mission and Contraband have "you can't" phrase.

[Chris is me]

If "can't" doesn't trump "may", "can't" is basically meaningless. I don't see how you can argue that May trumps can't.

[Davio]

Too many recently elected heads of state in that sentence. 

[ThetaSigma12]

If "can't" doesn't trump "may", "can't" is basically meaningless. I don't see how you can argue that May trumps can't.

You can't play Treasures during your Action phase, but Storyteller lets you. Often cards will let you tump normal rules, like BM even though you can't buy during your Action phase.

[Donald X.]

You can't buy cards from the Black Market on a Mission turn. "Can't" wins.

It's not the case that Black Market fails to do anything due to the rules being "you can't buy cards then." First, the rules aren't like that; the rules give you permission to do certain things at certain times, and you can't do other things by virtue of not having been given permission. Second, Black Market would get to overturn such a rule anyway; cards get to contradict rules.

People in general find this very intuitive. Black Market would be meaningless if it didn't actually succeed at letting you buy a card; that would make no sense and so must not be the case. Mission would be meaningless if it didn't actually stop cards from being bought; it must actually work.

Mission could be phrased so as to not have a contradiction. It's a classic issue that I always think of in terms of the interaction in Magic between "Destroy target land" and "Enchanted land can't be destroyed" (Stone Rain / Consecrate Land). You instead say "When enchanted land would be destroyed, it isn't," and now everything (that did not actually confuse people) is clear (as it happens, these days they have a new game-defined term, indestructible, that gets used in this specific case).

However in general those phrasings that get rid of the non-confusion are super-confusing. The two "replacements" that Dominion has (Trader and Possession) are super-confusing and mistakes. So there was no pull towards Mission saying "That turn, when you would be able to buy a card, instead, you can't."

[GendoIkari]

You can't buy cards from the Black Market on a Mission turn. "Can't" wins.

It's not the case that Black Market fails to do anything due to the rules being "you can't buy cards then." First, the rules aren't like that; the rules give you permission to do certain things at certain times, and you can't do other things by virtue of not having been given permission. Second, Black Market would get to overturn such a rule anyway; cards get to contradict rules.

People in general find this very intuitive. Black Market would be meaningless if it didn't actually succeed at letting you buy a card; that would make no sense and so must not be the case. Mission would be meaningless if it didn't actually stop cards from being bought; it must actually work.

Mission could be phrased so as to not have a contradiction. It's a classic issue that I always think of in terms of the interaction in Magic between "Destroy target land" and "Enchanted land can't be destroyed" (Stone Rain / Consecrate Land). You instead say "When enchanted land would be destroyed, it isn't," and now everything (that did not actually confuse people) is clear (as it happens, these days they have a new game-defined term, indestructible, that gets used in this specific case).

However in general those phrasings that get rid of the non-confusion are super-confusing. The two "replacements" that Dominion has (Trader and Possession) are super-confusing and mistakes. So there was no pull towards Mission saying "That turn, when you would be able to buy a card, instead, you can't."

Does this mean that Magic's golden rule number 2 also exists as a rule in Dominion?

101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence.

Interestingly, we already know that all the other golden rules do exist as rules in Dominion.

[Donald X.]

Does this mean that Magic's golden rule number 2 also exists as a rule in Dominion?

101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence.

I don't want to think about it or commit to anything I don't have to; I was prepared to say "this is how it works" but not in the face of "really?" I don't think anyone is confused here either; everyone gets that it would make no sense to print cards that pretended to have effects they didn't actually have.

Interestingly, we already know that all the other golden rules do exist as rules in Dominion.

I don't think you know any such thing. At best you have an unjustified true belief.

I have argued that the "golden rule" (this is the first I've heard that there's more than one) is unnecessary in Magic. At best it just reminds people that yes this really is a game with rules on cards. Again when you phrase Consecrate Land appropriately, there is no contradiction.

[GendoIkari]

I don't think you know any such thing. At best you have an unjustified true belief.

I have argued that the "golden rule" (this is the first I've heard that there's more than one) is unnecessary in Magic. At best it just reminds people that yes this really is a game with rules on cards. Again when you phrase Consecrate Land appropriately, there is no contradiction.

There's 4 golden rules as defined in the comprehensive rules #101:

101.1 says that when card text contradicts the usual rules from the rulebook, the card text wins. (Cards get to override rules.)

101.2 is the can't vs can thing.

101.3 says that if an instruction is impossible to perform, you ignore that part of the instruction. Generally referred to in Dominion as the "do as much as you can" rule.

101.4 says that when multiple players are instructed to do things or make choices at the same time, they do so in player order starting with the player whose turn it currently is. Also in the Dominion rules somewhere.

[Donald X.]

101.1 says that when card text contradicts the usual rules from the rulebook, the card text wins. (Cards get to override rules.)

I can see why they thought this was important to say in 1993; it has never seemed necessary to say it for Dominion. People who have never played Magic still fail to think "this card may not do what it says."

101.2 is the can't vs can thing.

This seems weird to put in a "golden rules" section; to me it's more of an "understanding card templates" thing. I mean there are more of those rules.

101.3 says that if an instruction is impossible to perform, you ignore that part of the instruction. Generally referred to in Dominion as the "do as much as you can" rule.

Dominion does say "do as much as you can." I don't know if they're technically identical.

101.4 says that when multiple players are instructed to do things or make choices at the same time, they do so in player order starting with the player whose turn it currently is. Also in the Dominion rules somewhere.

It seems odd that they would say that, and not in the same place go on to say what to do if one player is told to do two things at once. Also it's a timing question and so again weird as a "golden rule." But yes, I have that rule.

[AJD]

101.1 says that when card text contradicts the usual rules from the rulebook, the card text wins. (Cards get to override rules.)

I can see why they thought this was important to say in 1993; it has never seemed necessary to say it for Dominion. People who have never played Magic still fail to think "this card may not do what it says."

I dunno, people do occasionally sometimes ask things like "If I play Avanto and then have no actions left, that means I can't still play a Sauna, right?" Which seems to be a special case of this particular confusion.

[GendoIkari]

It seems odd that they would say that, and not in the same place go on to say what to do if one player is told to do two things at once. Also it's a timing question and so again weird as a "golden rule." But yes, I have that rule.

That's down in 101.4c, I just didn't quote the full thing.

[GendoIkari]

101.1 says that when card text contradicts the usual rules from the rulebook, the card text wins. (Cards get to override rules.)

I can see why they thought this was important to say in 1993; it has never seemed necessary to say it for Dominion. People who have never played Magic still fail to think "this card may not do what it says."

I dunno, people do occasionally sometimes ask things like "If I play Avanto and then have no actions left, that means I can't still play a Sauna, right?" Which seems to be a special case of this particular confusion.

Right, in those cases I think it's because the card is allowing you to do something that the game rules already allowed you to do; just in a slightly different way. (The rules already allow you to play a Sauna after playing an Avanto; but require you to have and spend an action to do so. Avanto allows you to play a Sauna after playing an Avanto, and doesn't require you to have or spend an action.)