Print

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

[trivialknot]

Does it ever make a difference that "other card" means "other than Wayfarer"?

I would think so.  If you gain Village, followed by a Wayfarer (or two?), and then put Ferry on Village, then the cost would behave differently depending on whether it's tracking Village or Wayfarer.

[michaeljb]

Fun synergy I just spotted: having played Stonemason and chosen your first Action card to gain, your second choice can always be Wayfarer.

This works for both playing and overpaying for Stonemason, right?

Oh dang, that's true. Trash an Estate for a Copper and a Wayfarer. I think I'd take that deal.

Wait, how does trashing a Wayfarer with Stonemason work?

1. Play Stonemason, trash a $6 Wayfarer
2. ... gain a $3 Silver

Now Wayfarer costs $3. Do I gain a card costing less than $6, the cost of the card when I trashed it (hey look I could gain a Wayfarer), or do I gain a card costing less than $3, the current cost of the card I trashed?

[Jeebus]

Does cost reduction apply to Wayfarer’s changed cost? Or does Wayfarer’s text set exactly what the cost now is?

If during a turn nothing was gained yet, or only Wayfarers were gained, cost reducers behave as normal and apply to the $6 cost of Wayfarer.

If a non-Wayfarer card was gained, then the cost of that card is calculated (taking cost reducers into account), and it becomes the new cost for Wayfarer (which doesn't apply cost reducers in addition). The cost of the gained card is continuously monitored, and if it changes (say Canal was bought), so changes the cost of Wayfarer.

Of course, everything resets when the next turn comes around.

Ok, so Quarry will have no effect on Wayfarer’s cost if a treasure was the last card gained then. It’s not the way I would have intuitively read the text; but I suppose it was necessary to avoid a single Bridge having a double effect on the cost.

Part of it is just a MTG background and the fact that it works differently there... if something sets a creature’s power to 3, and something else gives creatures +1 power, the creature will end up with power 4, because the +1 is calculated after the setting to 3.

Yes, I agree that this is not intuitive. If Wayfarer has an alternate cost, it's still Wayfarer's cost, so there's no reason that it wouldn't be reduced by for instance Quarry. But it's an extra rule outside the card that presumably was created to avoid some bad scenario. I'm not sure if it's easier to play with this rule or without it; with cost reducers it seems comlicated both ways.

[Jeebus]

Does it ever make a difference that "other card" means "other than Wayfarer"?

I would think so.  If you gain Village, followed by a Wayfarer (or two?), and then put Ferry on Village, then the cost would behave differently depending on whether it's tracking Village or Wayfarer.

You're right of course. It would make a difference. But I was more interested in whether it would create scenarios where the cost of several Wayfarers would refer to each other. And as Faust pointed out, it does!

[Violet CLM]

Do I gain a card costing less than $6, the cost of the card when I trashed it (hey look I could gain a Wayfarer), or do I gain a card costing less than $3, the current cost of the card I trashed?

Probably the latter? By the same token, if you Develop a Wayfarer, the second card you gain would cost the same amount the Wayfarer did when you trashed it.

[Jeebus]

Wait, how does trashing a Wayfarer with Stonemason work?

1. Play Stonemason, trash a $6 Wayfarer
2. ... gain a $3 Silver

Now Wayfarer costs $3. Do I gain a card costing less than $6, the cost of the card when I trashed it (hey look I could gain a Wayfarer), or do I gain a card costing less than $3, the current cost of the card I trashed?

Good question. It's definitely not the cost right before you trashed it. We know from old Inheritance that the cost could change after it was trashed, and then we would look at that cost. But this is different, since the cost of the card actually changes between the two gain effects.

I would think it's like this: You're triggering two effects at once, both being "gain a card costing less than the trashed card." We resolve those sequentially. Each time we look at the cost of the trashed card. So that would mean the second card costs less than $3.

[ben_king]

Wait, how does trashing a Wayfarer with Stonemason work?

1. Play Stonemason, trash a $6 Wayfarer
2. ... gain a $3 Silver

Now Wayfarer costs $3. Do I gain a card costing less than $6, the cost of the card when I trashed it (hey look I could gain a Wayfarer), or do I gain a card costing less than $3, the current cost of the card I trashed?

Good question. It's definitely not the cost right before you trashed it. We know from old Inheritance that the cost could change after it was trashed, and then we would look at that cost. But this is different, since the cost of the card actually changes between the two gain effects.

I would think it's like this: You're triggering two effects at once, both being "gain a card costing less than the trashed card." We resolve those sequentially. Each time we look at the cost of the trashed card. So that would mean the second card costs less than $3.

This is correct.  This question also just came up on the discord at about the same time.

[michaeljb]

Wait, how does trashing a Wayfarer with Stonemason work?

1. Play Stonemason, trash a $6 Wayfarer
2. ... gain a $3 Silver

Now Wayfarer costs $3. Do I gain a card costing less than $6, the cost of the card when I trashed it (hey look I could gain a Wayfarer), or do I gain a card costing less than $3, the current cost of the card I trashed?

Good question. It's definitely not the cost right before you trashed it. We know from old Inheritance that the cost could change after it was trashed, and then we would look at that cost. But this is different, since the cost of the card actually changes between the two gain effects.

I would think it's like this: You're triggering two effects at once, both being "gain a card costing less than the trashed card." We resolve those sequentially. Each time we look at the cost of the trashed card. So that would mean the second card costs less than $3.

I thought I had heard of the idea of trashing something and its cost changing--I should have known to look at Inheritance 

[mxdata]

Achievement I want to unlock:

Gain Platinum, buy Farmland, trash Wayfarer, gain Colony.

Wait, wouldn't the last gained card in that case be the Farmland itself, or am I confused?

[mxdata]

Achievement I want to unlock:

Gain Platinum, buy Farmland, trash Wayfarer, gain Colony.

Wait, wouldn't the last gained card in that case be the Farmland itself, or am I confused?

Oh, wait, never mind.  I keep forgetting that buying and gaining are separate events.  Farmland triggers on buying, not gaining, so at the time its ability triggers, the last gained card is still the Platinum

[Willvon]

Thanks again, Donald for providing more of this great game. My wife and I are looking forward to putting it to the test soon once my preorder ships.

With extra plus buy available for purchase right away, those Wayfarer piles are going to empty out fast and really change the normal early game scenarios.

[p90puma]

The cards will continue to be playable online through the weekend

How do you enable them online?

[mxdata]

The cards will continue to be playable online through the weekend

How do you enable them online?

When you create a table, choose "Menagerie previews" under Advanced Options

[FemurLemur]

Assuming I'm not misinterpreting the card, I think I can help illustrate how people are overthinking Wayfarer's Cost clause:

Imagine a card with bottom text which reads "this costs $2". You play a Bridge, and for an infinitesimal moment, the card would cost $1, but then you look at the card, and it says "No, I cost $2, remember?" Cost reductions may try to affect the card, but since its effect is persistent (doesn't matter if it's in play or not), it will always instantly reset itself to $2.

The difference between that card and WF? Well, sometimes WF says it costs $2, sometimes it says it costs $3, sometimes it says it costs $8, but whatever the case is, it always* explicitly says that it costs something. If it's telling you "I cost as much as that Estate you gained earlier", the Estate could be impacted by Bridges, but WF itself cannot, because every time you try to change its cost, it politely declines, "No, good sir, I keep telling you, I cost what that Estate you gained earlier cost".

In essence, one of the effects is going to have to fail since they're in conflict. Either Bridge tries to lower WF's cost, but can't, or WF tries to cost what the last gained card cost, but can't. The reason the former is more intuitive to me is because while both cards are trying to mess with WF's cost, bridge is doing so less precisely (it doesn't care what the card will actually cost, so long as it's non-negative), whereas WF has a precise number it's telling you it should cost, even if that number will change as your most recently gained card changes. At any point in time, WF has one specific number in mind.

*There is still the scenario where no cards have been gained this turn (or only Wayfarers have been), in which case I see no reason why Bridge couldn't reduce WF's cost. If no cards have been gained, WF's cost-locking effect isn't activated yet.

[GendoIkari]

In essence, one of the effects is going to have to fail since they're in conflict. Either Bridge tries to lower WF's cost, but can't, or WF tries to cost what the last gained card cost, but can't. The reason the former is more intuitive to me is because while both cards are trying to mess with WF's cost, bridge is doing so less precisely (it doesn't care what the card will actually cost, so long as it's non-negative), whereas WF has a precise number it's telling you it should cost, even if that number will change as your most recently gained card changes. At any point in time, WF has one specific number in mind.

But to me, the fact that WF sets a specific number, while Bridge just says "1 less", leads me to the exact opposite intuition. When I see that specific number, I read it the same way I read the number printed in the lower-left of every card. Smithy says "this costs ", it just does so using standard icons rather than words. Yet even though Smithy says it costs , we can change that cost with Bridge.

In fact, I feel like Peddler uses the exact same wording, yet has the opposite rule. Peddler says "this costs less..."; so it should cost if you have 1 action card in play. But that could be reduced by Bridge to cost . So in that case, we apply Peddler's wording first, and then Bridge's wording.* When I read Peddler's "this costs less..." while 1 action card is in play, I have always read that as saying "this costs ". But now we know that Peddler cannot be interpreted to say "this costs ", because if it did say that, it really would be just like WF, and Bridge wouldn't work with it.

I suppose the standard rule that could apply correctly to both Peddler and WF would be "abilities on cards that sets its own price always happen after all cost reduction has been applied".

*Edit - I was wrong there; with Peddler it wouldn't matter which order you applied the wording; as long as when Peddler says "less" it means "less than the current cost" rather than "less than the normal cost of ".

[mxdata]

Assuming I'm not misinterpreting the card, I think I can help illustrate how people are overthinking Wayfarer's Cost clause:

Imagine a card with bottom text which reads "this costs $2". You play a Bridge, and for an infinitesimal moment, the card would cost $1, but then you look at the card, and it says "No, I cost $2, remember?" Cost reductions may try to affect the card, but since its effect is persistent (doesn't matter if it's in play or not), it will always instantly reset itself to $2.

The difference between that card and WF? Well, sometimes WF says it costs $2, sometimes it says it costs $3, sometimes it says it costs $8, but whatever the case is, it always* explicitly says that it costs something. If it's telling you "I cost as much as that Estate you gained earlier", the Estate could be impacted by Bridges, but WF itself cannot, because every time you try to change its cost, it politely declines, "No, good sir, I keep telling you, I cost what that Estate you gained earlier cost".

In essence, one of the effects is going to have to fail since they're in conflict. Either Bridge tries to lower WF's cost, but can't, or WF tries to cost what the last gained card cost, but can't. The reason the former is more intuitive to me is because while both cards are trying to mess with WF's cost, bridge is doing so less precisely (it doesn't care what the card will actually cost, so long as it's non-negative), whereas WF has a precise number it's telling you it should cost, even if that number will change as your most recently gained card changes. At any point in time, WF has one specific number in mind.

*There is still the scenario where no cards have been gained this turn (or only Wayfarers have been), in which case I see no reason why Bridge couldn't reduce WF's cost. If no cards have been gained, WF's cost-locking effect isn't activated yet.

There is a difference between those two scenarios you mentioned, however, in cases where the cost-reduction doesn't affect all cards.  As mentioned previously, suppose you have Quarry in play.  That reduces the cost of Action cards, but not Treasure or Victory cards.  Suppose the last-gained card was a Silver.  Now, if the cost-reduction applied directly to Wayfarer, then Wayfarer's cost would now be $1 ($3 being the cost of the Silver itself, minus $2 from Quarry).  However, if the cost-reduction instead is indirect, affecting WF by changing the cost of what it's being compared to, then its cost is $3 (since Silver's cost is not reduced by Quarry).  It's been confirmed previously that the second scenario is the case.  And, of course, if Peddler was the last-gained card, then it has its own Peddler-specific cost-reduction in play, which can, theoretically, even change.  For example, play a Village, then Kiln, then Peddler, using Kiln's ability to gain a copy of Peddler, and let's assume that's the only Actions you've played.  During your Action phase, Peddler is worth $8, so the gained card was worth $8 at the time it was gained.  However, since there are 3 Action cards, when you go into your Buy phase, Peddler's cost is now $2 (assuming no Quarry in play).  How much does Wayfarer cost?  As confirmed previously, its cost is now $2.  It looks at the cost of the last-gained card as it stands at the time you're buying Wayfarer, not what it cost at the time that card was gained.  So, it's actually quite simple.  When you decide to buy Wayfarer, you say "What was the last card gained this turn, if any?" you identify that card (or answer "no card has been gained", in which case you stop there and treat it like a normal $6 Action card), then you ask "How much would it cost to buy that card right now?" (one slight weirdness here - it might not even be possible to buy that card if the pile is empty, but of course the price you'd pay if it were available is still defined), and then that's the cost of Wayfarer

[Jeebus]

Yeah, the Peddler comparison is direct evidence that the rule for Wayfarer cost reduction contradicts what the card actually says. Wayfarer and Peddler have the same kind of self-cost-modification but works differently with other cost reduction.

Mxdata, I think maybe you misunderstood what GendoIkari said? He was not talking about an interaction between Wayfarer and Peddler.

[mxdata]

I suppose the standard rule that could apply correctly to both Peddler and WF would be "abilities on cards that sets its own price always happen after all cost reduction has been applied".

Yeah, for Peddler it doesn't really make a practical difference which order you apply the cost reduction.  Is it "$8 - 2*Actions - other reductions" or is it "$8 - other reductions - 2*Actions"?

But for WF it is relevant.  So, it's:

• This card costs $6
• If there's any cost-reduction, lower the price by the amount of reduction, but not below $0
• If any other cards have been gained this turn, replace the cost obtained in step 2 with the cost of that card

For Peddler it's

• This card costs $8
• If there's any cost-reduction, lower the price by the amount of reduction, but not below $0
• Subtract $2 per Action card played this turn from the result of step 2, but not below $0

Until Wayfarer came out, you could've swapped the order of steps 2 and 3 without any practical difference, but now it would be inconsistent with WF to do so, although it would still have no actual impact on Peddler's cost

EDIT: A general principle for variable-cost cards:

• Set a base price
• Apply any ordinary cost reductions (e.g., Quarry, Bridge, etc.)
• Apply card-specific cost changes
• In all cases, costs can never be negative

So far, we only have Peddler, Wayfarer, and Animal Fair in that category, but presumably any additional cards in that category will follow the same principle

[mxdata]

Yeah, the Peddler comparison is direct evidence that the rule for Wayfarer cost reduction contradicts what the card actually says. Wayfarer and Peddler have the same kind of self-cost-modification but works differently with other cost reduction.

Mxdata, I think maybe you misunderstood what GendoIkari said? He was not talking about an interaction between Wayfarer and Peddler.

I wasn't replying to GendoIkari there, I was replying to the OP.  I don't see how there's a contradiction with the card text, it's just a matter of what order you apply those effects.  Does cost reduction happen first, then WF's cost clause, or does WF's cost clause happen first then cost reduction?

[scolapasta]

In essence, one of the effects is going to have to fail since they're in conflict. Either Bridge tries to lower WF's cost, but can't, or WF tries to cost what the last gained card cost, but can't. The reason the former is more intuitive to me is because while both cards are trying to mess with WF's cost, bridge is doing so less precisely (it doesn't care what the card will actually cost, so long as it's non-negative), whereas WF has a precise number it's telling you it should cost, even if that number will change as your most recently gained card changes. At any point in time, WF has one specific number in mind.

But to me, the fact that WF sets a specific number, while Bridge just says "1 less", leads me to the exact opposite intuition. When I see that specific number, I read it the same way I read the number printed in the lower-left of every card. Smithy says "this costs ", it just does so using standard icons rather than words. Yet even though Smithy says it costs , we can change that cost with Bridge.

In fact, I feel like Peddler uses the exact same wording, yet has the opposite rule. Peddler says "this costs less..."; so it should cost if you have 1 action card in play. But that could be reduced by Bridge to cost . So in that case, we apply Peddler's wording first, and then Bridge's wording. When I read Peddler's "this costs less..." while 1 action card is in play, I have always read that as saying "this costs ". But now we know that Peddler cannot be interpreted to say "this costs ", because if it did say that, it really would be just like WF, and Bridge wouldn't work with it.

I suppose the standard rule that could apply correctly to both Peddler and WF would be "abilities on cards that sets its own price always happen after all cost reduction has been applied".

Right, and Peddlers text has to come after Bridges reduce it (barring Capitalism) since it says "during your buy phase".

 I think the key difference is that Wayfarer says this costs X (which, of course is variable, but defined), where Peddler says this costs 2 less. (if it said "this costs 6 with 1 action in play, 4 with 2 in play, 2 with 3 in play, and 0 with  4 or more in play" then bridges' effect would be overridden.

[GendoIkari]

Right, and Peddlers text has to come after Bridges reduce it (barring Capitalism) since it says "during your buy phase".

That's making an assumption that it matters how long the effect has been in play; rather than all effects being re-evaluated at all times. Just because the Bridge has been around longer than Peddler's text doesn't necessarily mean they are applied in that order.

I think the key difference is that Wayfarer says this costs X (which, of course is variable, but defined), where Peddler says this costs 2 less. (if it said "this costs 6 with 1 action in play, 4 with 2 in play, 2 with 3 in play, and 0 with  4 or more in play" then bridges' effect would be overridden.

I think you're right here... it hinges on the edit to my other post; that "less" doesn't mean "less than ."

[Donald X.]

In essence, one of the effects is going to have to fail since they're in conflict. Either Bridge tries to lower WF's cost, but can't, or WF tries to cost what the last gained card cost, but can't.

Yes, that's how I think of it. And the ruling is that Wayfarer overrides the other things (after looking at how it could work back when).

As always long arguments about these things may gain some tiny amount from actually having the rulebook.

[GendoIkari]

In essence, one of the effects is going to have to fail since they're in conflict. Either Bridge tries to lower WF's cost, but can't, or WF tries to cost what the last gained card cost, but can't.

Yes, that's how I think of it. And the ruling is that Wayfarer overrides the other things (after looking at how it could work back when).

As always long arguments about these things may gain some tiny amount from actually having the rulebook.

Rulings are great, but even better what backed by rules. Is there a general rule you can say that makes Wayfarer work that way; other than "Wayfarer is a special case"? Something like "abilities that set card costs to a specific value override cost reduction abilities". (In which case if you ever made a card with "while this is in play, all cards cost ", Bridge couldn't lower that cost).

Or, "Abilities on cards that change their own price are always evaluated after cost reduction". Or something.

[Titandrake]

Wayfarer is a brave soul in the shrinking realm of big-money enablers

Obviously it depends on the kingdom, but it's felt better in engines than big-money to me. With +Buy you can pick up your +Cards for cheap (this is normally the expensive part of your build), and you can focus on trashing down, using the free Silver gain to add payload when you want it. Silver isn't the best payoff, but when it comes for free and you can choose when to gain it, it gets better.

Mastermind is just straight busted.

[FemurLemur]

It looks at the cost of the last-gained card as it stands at the time you're buying Wayfarer, not what it cost at the time that card was gained.  So, it's actually quite simple.  When you decide to buy Wayfarer, you say "What was the last card gained this turn, if any?" you identify that card (or answer "no card has been gained", in which case you stop there and treat it like a normal $6 Action card), then you ask "How much would it cost to buy that card right now?" (one slight weirdness here - it might not even be possible to buy that card if the pile is empty, but of course the price you'd pay if it were available is still defined), and then that's the cost of Wayfarer

Yeah I totally agree, although I don't think that's in conflict with what I said, is it? Bridge lowers the Estate, but not also the Wayfarer. So Wayfarer then costs $1, not $0.

I think we're in total agreement