Print

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

[Jeebus]

I'm trying hard to figure out how I would program "lose track" as a general procedure so it functions across all possible scenarios. It's much harder than I thought.

In the process I asked myself if an ability can ever lose track of a card that it itself moves?

Magic Mirror (Treasure):
When you play this, you may trash a Treasure from play. If you do, put this into your hand.

What if you use Magic Mirror to trash itself? Can you pick it up out of the trash, or did it lose track of itself? Obviously, if is said "you may trash this from play", it wouldn't lose track. But since it says "a Treasure", I wonder if it does.

(Btw, I think this should cost $4 and produce $1 when it's played.)

[AdrianHealey]

Intuitively, I'd say it looses trck: the second clause ('put this in your hand') presumes, implicitly, it finds itself in play.

[dane-m]

Magic Mirror (Treasure):
When you play this, you may trash a Treasure from play. If you do, put this into your hand.

What if you use Magic Mirror to trash itself? Can you pick it up out of the trash, or did it lose track of itself? Obviously, if is said "you may trash this from play", it wouldn't lose track. But since it says "a Treasure", I wonder if it does.

I'd vote for it losing track of itself, but I'm far from sure that I can coherently explain why I think that should be the case.

In this particular example it would be unfortunate if the card didn't lose track of itself as it would then be possible to play the same card an infinite number of times.

[Jeebus]

In this particular example it would be unfortunate if the card didn't lose track of itself as it would then be possible to play the same card an infinite number of times.

Yes, in that case it would have to read "you may trash a another Treasure from play" in order to work properly.

[Seprix]

I don't think it loses track. You still have to resolve the effect, it is not resolved. If you trash Mining Village on play, you still get that $2. If you trash Feast on play, you get that super nice $5 cost.

This would be a bad card anyways, infinite money as it currently stands.

[Beyond Awesome]

It loses track because it can't find itself where it expects to be found. Imagine instead if the card said shuffle a treasure into your deck. Should you then be able to return it to your hand? Having a card in the trash is no different.

[GendoIkari]

I don't think it loses track. You still have to resolve the effect, it is not resolved. If you trash Mining Village on play, you still get that $2. If you trash Feast on play, you get that super nice $5 cost.

No, you're misunderstanding what Lose-track is... Lose-track never stops you from executing the instructions on a card. It only stops you from moving a card.

[GendoIkari]

It loses track because it can't find itself where it expects to be found. Imagine instead if fth card said shuffle a treasure into your deck. Should you then be able to return it to your hand? Having a card in the trash is no different.

I think this is a great analogy. The only problem is what if the card said "you may shuffle this into your deck. If you do, return this to your hand". In that case, does lose-track still apply? If it does, then wouldn't you have to say that it also applies with "trash this. If you do, return this to your hand".

*Edit* Given the rule that I quote below; I think the answer to my question there is "such a card would fail because of bad card design, not because of lose-track".

[Seprix]

What are the rules for Lose Track?

[GendoIkari]

What are the rules for Lose Track?

My own summary: If a card effect says to move a card, but that card is not where the effect expects it to be, or it has been covered up, then the move doesn't happen.

[GendoIkari]

Looking at the official rules from the Wiki, I think the question is answered actually...

"Cards do not lose track of cards that they move, only cards that other cards move."

So no, the card in the OP would NOT lose track. It moved the card, so it doesn't lose track of it.

[Jeebus]

It loses track because it can't find itself where it expects to be found. Imagine instead if fth card said shuffle a treasure into your deck. Should you then be able to return it to your hand? Having a card in the trash is no different.

I think this is a great analogy. The only problem is what if the card said "you may shuffle this into your deck. If you do, return this to your hand". In that case, does lose-track still apply? If it does, then wouldn't you have to say that it also applies with "trash this. If you do, return this to your hand".

Yes, which is why the analogy doesn't work. Shuffling a card into the deck causes it to be lost track of no matter what.

What are the rules for Lose Track?

My own summary: If a card effect says to move a card, but that card is not where the effect expects it to be, or it has been covered up, then the move doesn't happen.

It's more like: If an ability says to move a card, but that card has moved from where the ability expects it to be, then it can't move the card. (It could theoretically have moved and then moved back. I assume covering a card means it moved, since it's no longer on top.)

[Jeebus]

Looking at the official rules from the Wiki, I think the question is answered actually...

"Cards do not lose track of cards that they move, only cards that other cards move."

So no, the card in the OP would NOT lose track. It moved the card, so it doesn't lose track of it.

Obviously, only accounting for current cards, that's true. And you're right, that has been one official way of describing it. I'm just not sure if it applies in this case. If it doesn't though, even the definition I use for lose-track in my rules document is wrong. 

[GendoIkari]

What are the rules for Lose Track?

My own summary: If a card effect says to move a card, but that card is not where the effect expects it to be, or it has been covered up, then the move doesn't happen.

It's more like: If an ability says to move a card, but that card has moved from where the ability expects it to be, then it can't move the card. (It could theoretically have moved and then moved back. I assume covering a card means it moved, since it's no longer on top.)

No, the lose-track rules do say that if a card is covered up and then un-covered, it is still lost track of. I assume this would apply the same way to moved and moved back.

[Jeebus]

No, the lose-track rules do say that if a card is covered up and then un-covered, it is still lost track of. I assume this would apply the same way to moved and moved back.

Yep, that's what I tried to say, but maybe I was unclear.
1) If it has moved, it's lost track of (even if it moved back).
2) Getting covered means it moved (uncovered = moved back). So lost track of.

[pacovf]

I would say that a card is always lost track of, no matter what, if it's been covered/shuffled. While it's only lost track of if it's been moved by something else than the card currently trying to move it.

[Donald X.]

Magic Mirror (Treasure):
When you play this, you may trash a Treasure from play. If you do, put this into your hand.

What if you use Magic Mirror to trash itself? Can you pick it up out of the trash, or did it lose track of itself? Obviously, if is said "you may trash this from play", it wouldn't lose track. But since it says "a Treasure", I wonder if it does.

Since it would confuse people, I would not use that wording. There's no way it would even return to your hand; outside of combos I don't need to support that rely on the card in your hand or that trigger on playing treasures, it's just letting you replay it, and I don't want to let you replay it an unbounded number of times, or make you replay it as a confusing way of trashing more than one thing. So it would be, "When you play this, trash any number of Treasures you have in play." Early versions of Loan were similar but only trashed one Treasure.

It's no good saying, "how would this confusing wording work." Confusing wordings are mistakes. When they go out and have rulings, the rulings are unsatisfying and poor. Ultimately "how would this poor wording a card should never have be interpreted" is so not relevant to how the rules work.

[Cuzz]

Barber (Action):
Gain a copy of each card in the supply which does not mention gaining a copy of itself.

Really gonna need a ruling on this too while we're at it.

[Jeebus]

Since it would confuse people, I would not use that wording. There's no way it would even return to your hand; outside of combos I don't need to support that rely on the card in your hand or that trigger on playing treasures, it's just letting you replay it, and I don't want to let you replay it an unbounded number of times, or make you replay it as a confusing way of trashing more than one thing. So it would be, "When you play this, trash any number of Treasures you have in play." Early versions of Loan were similar but only trashed one Treasure.

It's no good saying, "how would this confusing wording work." Confusing wordings are mistakes. When they go out and have rulings, the rulings are unsatisfying and poor. Ultimately "how would this poor wording a card should never have be interpreted" is so not relevant to how the rules work.

Okay, thanks. The specifics of the card, letting it return to your hand etc, were not really important. It could've been "when you gain this, you may trash the top card of your deck. If you do, put this into your hand." And let's say something gains it to your deck. Does it lose track of itself? But I take it you're saying that any such card would be too confusing, so it would never exist.

[Donald X.]

Okay, thanks. The specifics of the card, letting it return to your hand etc, were not really important. It could've been "when you gain this, you may trash the top card of your deck. If you do, put this into your hand." And let's say something gains it to your deck. Does it lose track of itself? But I take it you're saying that any such card would be too confusing, so it would never exist.

For the most part a card would not move itself without referring to itself, because that would be confusing. Scheme is an example of a card that can do it though.

Cards do not lose track of cards they move, except when those cards would otherwise be lost track of, e.g. shuffled into your deck.

In general I do not answer rules questions about hypothetical cards, because that's not the life I want.

[Donald X.]

Barber (Action):
Gain a copy of each card in the supply which does not mention gaining a copy of itself.

Really gonna need a ruling on this too while we're at it.

Player: Reaction, -$1
This turn, your Estates are also Buy phases, in which you can overpay with Actions (not Action cards). For each Action you overpay, gain a card costing between P and 3D, shuffling it into your VP tokens.

[Seprix]

We need a random Dominion card generator.

[singletee]

We need a random Dominion card generator.

Have fun.

[Seprix]

We need a random Dominion card generator.

Have fun.

Yes, I remember that thread.