Print

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

[Asper]

If i overpay $5 for Stonemason, can i gain two Knights even though the first covers the second? I would assume yes, as i have to gain the two cards in sequence.

[GendoIkari]

Yes: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14698.msg565583#msg565583

[Asper]

Yes: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=14698.msg565583#msg565583

Man, i even posted in that thread... Thanks.

[Deadlock39]

As long as the second one doesn't end up being Sir Martin.

[werothegreat]

However, Talisman does not work with Knights.

[GendoIkari]

However, Talisman does not work with Knights.

Well if you want to get technical, Talisman works, but the card you tried to buy doesn't.

[Asper]

The question came up yesterday when we had my fan card, Meadow, on a board with Castles. Meadow is a VP card costing $6 that reads "When you gain this, gain 2 differently named Victory cards costing less than this.". The question was whether you could gain 2 of the < $6 Castles. It is actually more restrictive than Stonemason, asking for differently named cards, but as the gains are sequential, i conclude it still works. Probably the confusion came up because "differently named" sounds like a comparison that needs "access" to both cards at once - if that makes sense. Is there an official card that tells you to gain several differently named cards? I can only think of Pilgrimage, but that seems rather different, as the cards you have are different, and you just gain copies of those.

[Deadlock39]

Is there an official card that tells you to gain several differently named cards?

Charm.

This interaction exists with Charm and Knights. Because of the way Charm is worded, I don't think you can use it to gain two Knights. "the next time you buy a card this turn, you may also gain a differently named card with the same cost." Since it happens on Buy, the other Knight wouldn't be uncovered yet. Your fan card would depend on the wording I suppose.  You could make it possible explicitly by using Remake's "Do this twice" wording.

Edit: Okay, so after going through that, it doesn't quite address your situation, so it wasn't helpful. My interpretation of "Gain 2 cards costing less than this" would be to gain one, then the other, so I would say it works.

[GendoIkari]

I can only think of Pilgrimage, but that seems rather different, as the cards you have are different, and you just gain copies of those.

I think it actually is different, because Pilgrimage has you "choose 3 differently named cards" and THEN "gain a copy of each". I can even think of a case where it matters...

You have Death Cart and something like a Shanty Town in play. You want a Ruined Market for the buy, but the top Ruins is not one. You want to gain a Death Cart, and then IF you get a Ruined Market from Death Cart, you want another Shanty Town because you plan to keep the Ruins so you need to be able to play more terminals. But if you don't get a Ruined Market, you will just trash whatever ruins you get, so you don't want another Shanty Town. But you can't do that. You must choose the cards to gain first before gaining any.

But with your card, I don't really see a reason that you couldn't do what you want. Although, I wonder if Donald saw some ambiguity in the wording that made him go with "Choose, then gain" instead of just "gain" for Pilgrimage.

[singletee]

Is there an official card that tells you to gain several differently named cards?

Charm.

This interaction exists with Charm and Knights. Because of the way Charm is worded, I don't think you can use it to gain two Knights. "the next time you buy a card this turn, you may also gain a differently named card with the same cost." Since it happens on Buy, the other Knight wouldn't be uncovered yet. Your fan card would depend on the wording I suppose.  You could make it possible explicitly by using Remake's "Do this twice" wording.

Edit: Okay, so after going through that, it doesn't quite address your situation, so it wasn't helpful. My interpretation of "Gain 2 cards costing less than this" would be to gain one, then the other, so I would say it works.

So in the Charm scenario you describe, it's unclear what card you are buying. With 2 Charms in play, you couldn't buy Dame Anna, gaining Sir Michael and Sir Vander, because Dame Anna is still there until you gain her. But you could buy Duchy, gaining Dame Anna and Sir Michael.

[GendoIkari]

Is there an official card that tells you to gain several differently named cards?

Charm.

This interaction exists with Charm and Knights. Because of the way Charm is worded, I don't think you can use it to gain two Knights. "the next time you buy a card this turn, you may also gain a differently named card with the same cost." Since it happens on Buy, the other Knight wouldn't be uncovered yet. Your fan card would depend on the wording I suppose.  You could make it possible explicitly by using Remake's "Do this twice" wording.

Edit: Okay, so after going through that, it doesn't quite address your situation, so it wasn't helpful. My interpretation of "Gain 2 cards costing less than this" would be to gain one, then the other, so I would say it works.

So in the Charm scenario you describe, it's unclear what card you are buying. With 2 Charms in play, you couldn't buy Dame Anna, gaining Sir Michael and Sir Vander, because Dame Anna is still there until you gain her. But you could buy Duchy, gaining Dame Anna and Sir Michael.

It's still not quite the same though, because "differently named" in this case means other than the one you are buying. With 2 Charms, you could gain 2 of the same card. The root of Asper's question is whether the instruction "gain 2 differently named cards" requires you to choose both before gaining 1, because if you don't, then gaining the first card is sort of awkward in that you are ignoring the "differently named" part of the instruction, and only looking at it when you gain the second one. Seems this might be why Pilgrimage has choose then gain.

Imagine you are in a scenario where the Supply is completely emptied except for Copper (because Celestial Chameleon was there). You play a card which instructs you to gain 2 differently named cards. First instinct would be that you gain a Copper and nothing else, because of the "do as much as you can" rule. But was that Copper gain really legal? The instruction was that it must be "differently named" from the other card you gained. If there was no other card, then there was no reference point for "differently named". Kind of like how you can't gain a card costing "up to $2 more" if there was no other card to get the cost for.

[AdrianHealey]

My interpretation of meadow has always been: choose, gain, choose, gain. So two castles would definitely work.

[singletee]

Is there an official card that tells you to gain several differently named cards?

Charm.

This interaction exists with Charm and Knights. Because of the way Charm is worded, I don't think you can use it to gain two Knights. "the next time you buy a card this turn, you may also gain a differently named card with the same cost." Since it happens on Buy, the other Knight wouldn't be uncovered yet. Your fan card would depend on the wording I suppose.  You could make it possible explicitly by using Remake's "Do this twice" wording.

Edit: Okay, so after going through that, it doesn't quite address your situation, so it wasn't helpful. My interpretation of "Gain 2 cards costing less than this" would be to gain one, then the other, so I would say it works.

So in the Charm scenario you describe, it's unclear what card you are buying. With 2 Charms in play, you couldn't buy Dame Anna, gaining Sir Michael and Sir Vander, because Dame Anna is still there until you gain her. But you could buy Duchy, gaining Dame Anna and Sir Michael.

It's still not quite the same though, because "differently named" in this case means other than the one you are buying. With 2 Charms, you could gain 2 of the same card. The root of Asper's question is whether the instruction "gain 2 differently named cards" requires you to choose both before gaining 1, because if you don't, then gaining the first card is sort of awkward in that you are ignoring the "differently named" part of the instruction, and only looking at it when you gain the second one. Seems this might be why Pilgrimage has choose then gain.

Imagine you are in a scenario where the Supply is completely emptied except for Copper (because Celestial Chameleon was there). You play a card which instructs you to gain 2 differently named cards. First instinct would be that you gain a Copper and nothing else, because of the "do as much as you can" rule. But was that Copper gain really legal? The instruction was that it must be "differently named" from the other card you gained. If there was no other card, then there was no reference point for "differently named". Kind of like how you can't gain a card costing "up to $2 more" if there was no other card to get the cost for.

I think it's fine to choose-gain-choose-gain. The key thing is that we are checking membership in a set (of card names) that may be empty, instead of comparing to a single name that has failed to exist. Empty sets are okay (hi Forge!), null references are not.

A little maybe more detailed reasoning behind this is that when you check for membership in a set, you compare the new thing to each existing member. If there are no members, you just don't have any checking to do and you succeed trivially.

[GendoIkari]

Is there an official card that tells you to gain several differently named cards?

Charm.

This interaction exists with Charm and Knights. Because of the way Charm is worded, I don't think you can use it to gain two Knights. "the next time you buy a card this turn, you may also gain a differently named card with the same cost." Since it happens on Buy, the other Knight wouldn't be uncovered yet. Your fan card would depend on the wording I suppose.  You could make it possible explicitly by using Remake's "Do this twice" wording.

Edit: Okay, so after going through that, it doesn't quite address your situation, so it wasn't helpful. My interpretation of "Gain 2 cards costing less than this" would be to gain one, then the other, so I would say it works.

So in the Charm scenario you describe, it's unclear what card you are buying. With 2 Charms in play, you couldn't buy Dame Anna, gaining Sir Michael and Sir Vander, because Dame Anna is still there until you gain her. But you could buy Duchy, gaining Dame Anna and Sir Michael.

It's still not quite the same though, because "differently named" in this case means other than the one you are buying. With 2 Charms, you could gain 2 of the same card. The root of Asper's question is whether the instruction "gain 2 differently named cards" requires you to choose both before gaining 1, because if you don't, then gaining the first card is sort of awkward in that you are ignoring the "differently named" part of the instruction, and only looking at it when you gain the second one. Seems this might be why Pilgrimage has choose then gain.

Imagine you are in a scenario where the Supply is completely emptied except for Copper (because Celestial Chameleon was there). You play a card which instructs you to gain 2 differently named cards. First instinct would be that you gain a Copper and nothing else, because of the "do as much as you can" rule. But was that Copper gain really legal? The instruction was that it must be "differently named" from the other card you gained. If there was no other card, then there was no reference point for "differently named". Kind of like how you can't gain a card costing "up to $2 more" if there was no other card to get the cost for.

I think it's fine to choose-gain-choose-gain. The key thing is that we are checking membership in a set (of card names) that may be empty, instead of comparing to a single name that has failed to exist. Empty sets are okay (hi Forge!), null references are not.

A little maybe more detailed reasoning behind this is that when you check for membership in a set, you compare the new thing to each existing member. If there are no members, you just don't have any checking to do and you succeed trivially.

I agree with this; and it's definitely how I'd interpret the card. I just think there's a valid argument to be made for the other interpretation.

[Asper]

Thank you all for your thoughtful posts, despite Meadow not even being a real card
We decided to go with the sequential ruling, which i guess is the one that works best with how Dominion goes. Also, this implies that if you buy Meadow and Duchies are out (and Meadow is the only alt VP), you will gain an Estate only.

[AdrianHealey]

Thank you all for your thoughtful posts, despite Meadow not even being a real card
We decided to go with the sequential ruling, which i guess is the one that works best with how Dominion goes. Also, this implies that if you buy Meadow and Duchies are out (and Meadow is the only alt VP), you will gain an Estate only.

This makes the most sense imo.