Print

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

[hhelibebcnofnena]

This just occurred to me.
If I were to get a Bridge in play (or any other cost reduction card), then the clause which says 'but not less than $0' to prevent cards costing negative amounts wouldn't apply to Potion or Debt costing cards (Vineyard, for example), because $-1 and Potion or $-1 and Debt are not "less than $0" or "more than $0". I would assume that there is an implicit clause preventing cards from costing negative coins and Potion (or Debt). However, strictly according to the wording, this is not the case.

Again, I am 99.99% sure that any official ruling will say that Vineyards still cost $0P, Engineers still cost $0 + 4 Debt, etc. but I haven't found one.

[GendoIkari]

I remember this being discussed a long time ago. Yes, it's an example of the wording being technically inaccurate. "But not less than " really should be "the cost in coins cannot be less than ".

[crj]

"...but at least $0" would do the trick, no?

[Donald X.]

If I were to get a Bridge in play (or any other cost reduction card), then the clause which says 'but not less than $0' to prevent cards costing negative amounts wouldn't apply to Potion or Debt costing cards (Vineyard, for example), because $-1 and Potion or $-1 and Debt are not "less than $0" or "more than $0". I would assume that there is an implicit clause preventing cards from costing negative coins and Potion (or Debt). However, strictly according to the wording, this is not the case.

Again, I am 99.99% sure that any official ruling will say that Vineyards still cost $0P, Engineers still cost $0 + 4 Debt, etc. but I haven't found one.

Bridge etc. will not lower the coin amount below $0, even on cards that also cost potions/debt.

[Asper]

I asked this a while ago and the answer was basically that I was poking at the rules for poking at the rules' sake.

Mmmm... sake. Kanpai.

[Donald X.]

I asked this a while ago and the answer was basically that I was poking at the rules for poking at the rules' sake.

- That answer is also accurate.
- It was how you said it.
- It was what you didn't say.
- hhelibebcnofnena just caught me in a good mood - I'd just found a quarter in the sofa.
- And now look at you, with nearly 5000 posts of your own. And this is the thanks I get.

[hhelibebcnofnena]

the answer was basically that I was poking at the rules for poking at the rules' sake.

- That answer is also accurate.

Guilty as charged. There was absolutely no ambiguity as to what the answer would be, and I even said so in my original post. It's kind of fun to do sometimes. I also poke to find inconsistencies in books or series I read.

[Ingix]

The point at poking at the rules is that what is today an academic discussion can be (after the next expansion)  a question that 'pops up in every second game' (think Priest/Sewers questions for a while).

For those old enough, they might remember the "Wall of Boom" in Magic. http://www.recoculous.com/2012/03/30/the-three-best-combos-that-no-longer-work

Because of old cards (Time Vault) and new cards at that time (Interdict), you could suddenly do something that generated unlimited mana between turns (and that had nothing to do with the cards mentioned for which the rules needed to be adjusted), and Magic players always find uses for unlimited mana, even if they have to use it during upkeep.

[Jeebus]

Sorry to necro this but... Isn't the Bridge text actually technically accurate? The Alchemy rulebook says that "$0" means "$0 and 0p". And "-$1 and 0p" is less than "$0 and 0p". Am I missing something here?

[Wizard_Amul]

Sorry to necro this but... Isn't the Bridge text actually technically accurate? The Alchemy rulebook says that "$0" means "$0 and 0p". And "-$1 and 0p" is less than "$0 and 0p". Am I missing something here?

You are missing something. Bridge only reduces coin cost, not potion cost, so one hypothetical scenario is playing Bridge when Transmute is in the kingdom. Transmute would then cost "-$1 and 1p." Now, you can't say that "-$1 and 1p" is "less than $0" (equal to "less than $0 0p 0d") per Bridge's restriction (because for a card to be "less than" another card in cost, it has to be "less than" in all three categories, right--coins, potions, and debt). Thus, it seems as if "-$1 and 1p" is a legal cost for Transmute to have.

Edit: I'm not sure if there's a better wording, but one way to make the wording technically correct would be something like "This turn, cards cost 1 coin less, but the coin portion of the cost cannot be less than 0 coins." Presumably everybody understands what the cost below 0 restriction means, though, since Inventor has the same "less than 0 coins" text that Bridge has.

[Donald X.]

Sorry to necro this but... Isn't the Bridge text actually technically accurate? The Alchemy rulebook says that "$0" means "$0 and 0p". And "-$1 and 0p" is less than "$0 and 0p". Am I missing something here?

I'm not sure what your question is. Nothing lowers the $ part of a cost below $0.

[GendoIkari]

Sorry to necro this but... Isn't the Bridge text actually technically accurate? The Alchemy rulebook says that "$0" means "$0 and 0p". And "-$1 and 0p" is less than "$0 and 0p". Am I missing something here?

Wizard_Amul is right, but to state it differently: You are explaining why it isn't a problem for Copper, but the original post was about how it is a problem for Vineyards / Transmute.

[Jeebus]

Thanks, I get it now. Comparing with Copper's cost was indeed not very useful.

I'm not sure what your question is. Nothing lowers the $ part of a cost below $0.

My question was how Bridge's text was inaccurate.

Of course now this is a global rule, so Bridge doesn't need to specify it anymore. And the rule, I guess, will be phrased more or less like you're saying it now: that the coin cost can't be below 0.