Print

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

[Jeebus]

There are several Golds in the trash. Alice plays Noble Brigand. Bob reveals a Gold and trashes it. Carl doesn't reveal any Treasures and gains a Copper. Carl reacts with a Sheepdog, using Way of the Mouse to play Vassal + Graverobber and taking a Gold from the deck. Then Alice should gain the Gold that Bob trashed. But if it was the Gold that Carl took, she can't (since the Noble Brigand has lost track if it). How do we know if it was that Gold?

It has been discussed whether cards in the trash are unknown or not. Thief and Noble Brigand certainly can never lose track of the cards they trashed, and so their identities can't be unknown either.

I think Graverobber is different. It did not put the card in the trash, so there is no way of knowing the identity of the card it gains - no matter if it was trashed by another card just now or at any previous time in the game. This means we cannot know whether Carl gained "Alice's" Gold.

Since we don't know, we have to consider it as a different Gold. Alice gains her Gold no problem. But what if that was the only Gold in the trash? Shouldn't the identity of the Graverobbered Gold still be unknown? That would mean that Alice should gain a Gold that isn't there. This is impossible.

Does it make sense to say that, since we don't know, we consider it as the same Gold? Then Alice can't gain her Gold, no matter how many are in the trash.

[Jeebus]

I think Graverobber is different. It did not put the card in the trash, so there is now way of knowing the identity of the card it gains - no matter if it was trashed by another card just now or at any previous time in the game. This means we cannot know whether Carl gained "Alice's" Gold.

I think this is supported by Donald's rule: "In the circumstance where you can no longer move a card, it's also no longer "that card" for effects that track a specific card." (See the first post in the old thread.)

[segura]

Noble Brigand could just as easily set aside the cards, put it in limbo or whatever. I'd definitely not allow graverobbing if that funky edge case should ever arise in a real game as the thieving dude seems not like the kinda fella who would allow the graverobbing dude to take his loot.

Put that's just me valuing theme and common sense more than reading rules more literally than they were ever intended.

[sudgy]

I would lean towards the Brigand gaining the Gold if there are more Golds and it not gaining if there are no Golds.

I could also see the Graverobber player being able to choose which Gold they gain, giving the choice to stop the Brigand or not, but this does seem iffy given previous discussions.  In this particular case it seems like the simplest resolution.

[hhelibebcnofnena]

I would lean towards the Brigand gaining the Gold if there are more Golds and it not gaining if there are no Golds.

I could also see the Graverobber player being able to choose which Gold they gain, giving the choice to stop the Brigand or not, but this does seem iffy given previous discussions.  In this particular case it seems like the simplest resolution.

I agree with leaning towards the Brigand gaining the Gold if there are more.

[Donald X.]

Noble Brigand doesn't mind if there are other Golds in the trash, but can't gain the Gold if it left the trash (even if it returns somehow).

In practice irl it's no problem knowing if it's the Gold; just say "I take the Gold that Noble Brigand hit" or "not that one." If someone thinks it's hilarious to shuffle the trash, it doesn't matter, any Gold can be our "the one that Noble Brigand trashed."

[Jeebus]

Noble Brigand doesn't mind if there are other Golds in the trash, but can't gain the Gold if it left the trash (even if it returns somehow).

In practice irl it's no problem knowing if it's the Gold; just say "I take the Gold that Noble Brigand hit" or "not that one." If someone thinks it's hilarious to shuffle the trash, it doesn't matter, any Gold can be our "the one that Noble Brigand trashed."

But doesn't this contradict the rule I quoted? "In the circumstance where you can no longer move a card, it's also no longer "that card" for effects that track a specific card."
I'm pretty sure this rule was supposed to mean that an ability that is not tracking a card (according to "lose track"/"stop moving"), can't identify that card. Graverobber can't specifically identify the Gold that was trashed by Noble Brigand. So how can the player say that they take that one?

[X-tra]

This is the way I see it:


If we go by these 2 official rules about the trash:

The Trash pile is on the Trash mat, face up; players may look through the Trash at any time.

The order of the Trash pile does not matter; players can reorder it.

Then we conclude that the trash mat can be shuffled and messed with at any time without interfering with any other game mechanics. The trash is basically just a display of cards that are in it; said cards aren't stored in some kind of precise array. They are only stored in a pile not because of their trashed order, but because it's more convenient to have them that way. But the trash could very well be cards put next to each other*. The fact that the trash can be moved around at "any time" means precisely that. A player could pick up the trash and shuffle it midway through a played card being currently resolved; in fact, the turn doesn't even have to be yours for you to do that. Again, this is because you're doing that at "any time".

Going by that logic, then before the Noble Brigand finishes being resolved, a player could look through a trash pile with, say, 10 cards in it, including a Gold that was just trashed by that Noble Brigand. They could then shuffle that pile behind their back and put it back on the mat. The active player who played the Noble Brigand would then finish what the card says by gaining the trashed Gold from that pile. Since the deck was shuffled, oops, nobody knows where the exact trashed Gold is anymore! Especially if there are more than 1 Gold in that trash.

Yet as mentioned earlier, the 2 rules above states that checking and reordering the trash pile has no effect whatsoever on the Gameplay. It's a passive rule. Therefore, it should not affect the gameplay in this situation either; so it won't. If that rule was not enforced, then Noble Brigand (and cards like Thief), no matter what situation, could always break since any player at any time can mess up the trash pile. Any Noble Brigand played would be met with another player swiftly putting the Gold that was just trashed under the trash pile (because, again, the may do so at "any time") before whoever played the Brigand gets to pick it back up.

Thus by that logic and to avoid fundamental contradictions, the Noble Brigand can pick up any Gold in trash since it does not have to remember which one they put there in the first place. Whether it's "that card" or not is irrelevant, because if "that card" had to be it, then Noble Brigand would never work anyway.


Here's another situation to highlight the absurdity of Noble Brigand being unable to pick up a Gold it just trashed because it doesn't remember which one it is.

3-player game. You play a Noble Brigand. The player to your left trashes a Silver. The player to your right trashes a Gold. Now you do the bottom clause of Noble Brigand: gaining the trashed Treasures. You try to pick up the trashed Silver. Oops! It isn't on top of the trash pile (the Gold is). You've lost track of the trashed Silver! Now you can't gain it.
Or, you know, just move the Gold out and pick up the Silver. Or gain the Gold first. Whatever. In the end, it's all the same.



*The only subtlty in storing the trashed cards is to have them face up, for the sake of Necromancer. But that's it.

[Jeebus]

Thus by that logic and to avoid fundamental contradictions, the Noble Brigand can pick up any Gold in trash since it does not have to remember which one they put there in the first place. Whether it's "that card" or not is irrelevant, because if "that card" had to be it, then Noble Brigand would never work anyway.

Hmm, I don't think I agree.

Noble Brigand tracks the card it trashed, that's why it can pick it up as long as it's still in the trash. As you point out, we can reorder the trash without interfering with this, since the trash pile is unordered. Noble Brigand trashed a Gold and it can only gain "that" Gold, and it knows which Gold it is. The players might not know which Gold it is physically, but it doesn't matter. We take any Gold and say it's "that" Gold. That is the effect of the rule that reordering the trash doesn't interfere with gameplay.

But if "that" Gold is removed from the trash, Noble Brigand can't gain it. Now it matters which Gold was removed, and it has nothing to do with the rule about reordering the trash. If Graverobber can't target a specific card in the trash, then there is no way for it to gain "that" Gold, even if the Golds in the trash had been placed neatly and visibly so that everone knew which was "that" Gold. Conversely, if Graverobber can target a specific card in the trash, it can gain "that" Gold even if the trash pile had been shuffled.

[X-tra]

lol, I actually tried this situation in Dominion Online.

There was no Gold in the trash until H's Noble Brigand hits.



Says X (me) gained the lone trashed Gold onto my drawpile, but then H gained the same Gold from... the trash (). In the end, X did not have the Gold onto their draw pile and H did gain that Gold. So even the online implementation of this is a little confused. These kind of situation are funny.

[Donald X.]

Noble Brigand doesn't mind if there are other Golds in the trash, but can't gain the Gold if it left the trash (even if it returns somehow).

In practice irl it's no problem knowing if it's the Gold; just say "I take the Gold that Noble Brigand hit" or "not that one." If someone thinks it's hilarious to shuffle the trash, it doesn't matter, any Gold can be our "the one that Noble Brigand trashed."

But doesn't this contradict the rule I quoted? "In the circumstance where you can no longer move a card, it's also no longer "that card" for effects that track a specific card."
I'm pretty sure this rule was supposed to mean that an ability that is not tracking a card (according to "lose track"/"stop moving"), can't identify that card. Graverobber can't specifically identify the Gold that was trashed by Noble Brigand. So how can the player say that they take that one?

Noble Brigand tracks the Gold. The players track the Gold; they're the ones doing the actual tracking. Graverobber doesn't know anything about it; it's not tracking anything. But when I use Graverobber, I can pick the one Noble Brigand is tracking. That's not giving Graverobber any powers; I am not seeing that angle. One of them is that Gold; I'm picking it or I'm not. I know whether I am or not.

[Jeebus]

Noble Brigand doesn't mind if there are other Golds in the trash, but can't gain the Gold if it left the trash (even if it returns somehow).

In practice irl it's no problem knowing if it's the Gold; just say "I take the Gold that Noble Brigand hit" or "not that one." If someone thinks it's hilarious to shuffle the trash, it doesn't matter, any Gold can be our "the one that Noble Brigand trashed."

But doesn't this contradict the rule I quoted? "In the circumstance where you can no longer move a card, it's also no longer "that card" for effects that track a specific card."
I'm pretty sure this rule was supposed to mean that an ability that is not tracking a card (according to "lose track"/"stop moving"), can't identify that card. Graverobber can't specifically identify the Gold that was trashed by Noble Brigand. So how can the player say that they take that one?

Noble Brigand tracks the Gold. The players track the Gold; they're the ones doing the actual tracking. Graverobber doesn't know anything about it; it's not tracking anything. But when I use Graverobber, I can pick the one Noble Brigand is tracking. That's not giving Graverobber any powers; I am not seeing that angle. One of them is that Gold; I'm picking it or I'm not. I know whether I am or not.

Let's go back to the scenarios that this rule was created to address (back in February).

1) Play Merchant Ship, buy Bonfire and Villa. Graverobber the Merchant Ship onto your deck, play it with Vassal.

2) Capitalism: Play Counterfeit + Merchant Ship, the Merchant Ship is trashed. Graverobber it onto your deck, play it with Vassal.

3) Capitalism: Play Throne Room + Merchant Ship. Gain Mandarin, the Merchant Ship is topdecked, play it with Vassal.

According to the February rule, the Merchant Ship is not "that card". (This means that the Vassal doesn't stay out. Otherwise it would, since it caused a Duration to be played an extra time, just like Royal Carriage and Scepter do.)

How is the current scenario different from these?

Or are you saying that you're dropping the February rule? In the last post in the old thread, you did say that you were considering my earlier suggestion of making Throne Room variants special instead.

[Donald X.]

Let's go back to the scenarios that this rule was created to address (back in February).

1) Play Merchant Ship, buy Bonfire and Villa. Graverobber the Merchant Ship onto your deck, play it with Vassal.

2) Capitalism: Play Counterfeit + Merchant Ship, the Merchant Ship is trashed. Graverobber it onto your deck, play it with Vassal.

3) Capitalism: Play Throne Room + Merchant Ship. Gain Mandarin, the Merchant Ship is topdecked, play it with Vassal.

According to the February rule, the Merchant Ship is not "that card". (This means that the Vassal doesn't stay out. Otherwise it would, since it caused a Duration to be played an extra time, just like Royal Carriage and Scepter do.)

How is the current scenario different from these?

Or are you saying that you're dropping the February rule? In the last post in the old thread, you did say that you were considering my earlier suggestion of making Throne Room variants special instead.

Aside from anything else you're asking, I did go with what I said in that last post in that thread; the relevant conversations are all on discord and hard to search but probably the online version does it correctly. Vassal doesn't stay out with a Duration because it doesn't play a card multiple times and doesn't replay a card, and those are the cards that stay out. The latest rulebook rules just refer to playing a card multiple times, leaving it to the Royal Carriage FAQs to cover themselves.

[Jeebus]

Aside from anything else you're asking, I did go with what I said in that last post in that thread

OK. As I was saying then, I do think that's the best way to handle the Duration scenarios.

the relevant conversations are all on discord and hard to search

Which is why Discord is a bad place for those discussions. At least I think rulings should also be published here or on BGG.

but probably the online version does it correctly

Probably, but it doesn't make a difference - and is not visible - which of the two rules is used online (for the Duration scenarios). I assume it was "hard-coded" for Throne room/Royal Carriage variants from the beginning though, and is therefore correct. We can see in this thread though, that when it comes to picking cards from the trash, it's not implemented correctly according to any rule.

[hhelibebcnofnena]

Am I getting this right?

The difference between the two scenarios is that in February's scenario, the Vassal will ask you whether to play the card, but not which card to play. The Vassal picked the card, so whether it is "that card" (and subsequently whether Vassal stays in play) depends on whether Vassal tracked it. Which it didn't. Graverobber, however, lets the player pick the card they gain. The player picked the card, so whether it is "that card" (and subsequently whether Noble Brigand can gain the Gold) depends on whether the player tracked it. Which they did.

[Jeebus]

Am I getting this right?

The difference between the two scenarios is that in February's scenario, the Vassal will ask you whether to play the card, but not which card to play. The Vassal picked the card, so whether it is "that card" (and subsequently whether Vassal stays in play) depends on whether Vassal tracked it. Which it didn't. Graverobber, however, lets the player pick the card they gain. The player picked the card, so whether it is "that card" (and subsequently whether Noble Brigand can gain the Gold) depends on whether the player tracked it. Which they did.

To me that difference doesn't make any sense. But no, it turns out that the February rule is dropped and none of these scenarios have anything to do with tracking. The Duration scenarios now follow the rule that specifically only TR variants cause Durations to stay. I wrote it here and suggested a phrasing.