Print

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

[TheOthin]

Would you? A plausible reading could have it as saying that if you have a five-card hand including Dignitary and Fortress and trash the Fortress, Dignitary could consider its effect fulfilled and stop checking your hand size. This would also mean that even if you had a Dignitary and five Fortresses, you could trash the Dignitary and a Fortress and end up down to four, so you'd need six Fortresses to actually get stuck.

Of course none of that would stop you from revealing Dignitary again, which I guess is probably what you meant in the first place?

[scott_pilgrim]

You only need one fortress if you're stubborn... and if I'm losing, I very well might be stubborn!

When you're losing, you can already reveal Secret Chamber and rearrange the top of your deck indefinitely.  There's no design rule that says a player can't delay the game forever if they want to, because no one wants to do that.

The case in which you're forced to do something repeatedly forever would be problematic.  Wait, can that situation even happen?  You can always just choose not to reveal Dignitary, right?  I guess it would be a problem in an online implementation, but IRL, you can just say "whoops, I didn't mean to reveal Dignitary", and if you're playing with reasonable opponents, you can just not do the reaction (and if you're playing with unreasonable opponents you can show them your hand of five fortresses and sit there until they resign).

[popsofctown]

Fortress-Dignitary reads the same as Secret Chamber to me too.  The way it's written there is no handsize check at all.  Militia and Ghost Ship have an implicit handsize checking loop to them because they say "down to" or "until", but the Dignitary I see in OP says "all but".  Which means, select your entire hand, then deselect four of those cards, then trash all selected cards at once, you're done. If they come back somehow you still trashed the set of cards you were supposed to, there is no concern for a special result or goal like "down to" would imply.

[LastFootnote]

Fortress-Dignitary reads the same as Secret Chamber to me too.  The way it's written there is no handsize check at all.  Militia and Ghost Ship have an implicit handsize checking loop to them because they say "down to" or "until", but the Dignitary I see in OP says "all but".  Which means, select your entire hand, then deselect four of those cards, then trash all selected cards at once, you're done. If they come back somehow you still trashed the set of cards you were supposed to, there is no concern for a special result or goal like "down to" would imply.

Right, but the conversation is about reverting to a "down to" wording, which is easier to parse.

[popsofctown]

Secret Chamber is a Good Thing.  Recursion is a Bad Thing.

[LastFootnote]

Secret Chamber is a Good Thing.  Recursion is a Bad Thing.

Could you please Elaborate?

[liopoil]

You only need one fortress if you're stubborn... and if I'm losing, I very well might be stubborn!

When you're losing, you can already reveal Secret Chamber and rearrange the top of your deck indefinitely.  There's no design rule that says a player can't delay the game forever if they want to, because no one wants to do that.

The case in which you're forced to do something repeatedly forever would be problematic.  Wait, can that situation even happen?  You can always just choose not to reveal Dignitary, right?  I guess it would be a problem in an online implementation, but IRL, you can just say "whoops, I didn't mean to reveal Dignitary", and if you're playing with reasonable opponents, you can just not do the reaction (and if you're playing with unreasonable opponents you can show them your hand of five fortresses and sit there until they resign).

I don't know about you, but I've been revealing the same moat since 2011. Good point.

[pacovf]

We could also apply maths*

Nowhere does it say in the rulebook that modifying the game state has to take a strictly positive amount of time. Furthermore, I do not think it is implled that fortress has to physically leave your hand when trashed, since the gamestate is not modified by that event (barring market square), and doing it in real life would be really annoying ("I KC-bishop, trashing fortress, waaait as I reeeach for the traaaaash pile ok now wait as I reaaaaach for the traaaash piiiile agaaaaaain to put it back in my hand..."). Actually, depending on how "when you [...], do [...]" timing works, the second clause I mentioned might not even be needed.

What does this mean? It means that you can trash and recover fortress an infinity of times in zero seconds. So even if dignitary sets up a loop that translates into "trash fortress an infinity of times", this event can still be resolved in zero seconds.

Now the extra ruling needed would be whether you have to trash your dignitary too if you have 5 fortress or more in hand.

Would this interpretation of infinite while loops break any current interaction?

*or something that looks vaguely like it?

[Co0kieL0rd]

Nowhere does it say in the rulebook that modifying the game state has to take a strictly positive amount of time. Furthermore, I do not think it is implled that fortress has to physically leave your hand when trashed, since the gamestate is not modified by that event (barring market square), and doing it in real life would be really annoying ("I KC-bishop, trashing fortress, waaait as I reeeach for the traaaaash pile ok now wait as I reaaaaach for the traaaash piiiile agaaaaaain to put it back in my hand..."). Actually, depending on how "when you [...], do [...]" timing works, the second clause I mentioned might not even be needed.

What does this mean? It means that you can trash and recover fortress an infinity of times in zero seconds. So even if dignitary sets up a loop that translates into "trash fortress an infinity of times", this event can still be resolved in zero seconds.

I love dat s**t I would say this all boils down to if you're playing with reasonable opponents. I've never ever shown a newbie Dominion without having to explain the effect of Secret Chamber, or Minion, or Procession (...) at least once. I'd be fine clarifying that Dignitary does trash all chosen (or unchosen) cards at once and on-trash effects are triggered afterwards.

If there ever was an online-implementation of Enterprise, you could make such an infinite loop impossible very easily while the wording remain the same. Goko doesn't give you the option of infinitely revealing a reaction to the same card, does it?

Now the extra ruling needed would be whether you have to trash your dignitary too if you have 5 fortress or more in hand.

Would this interpretation of infinite while loops break any current interaction?

The number of Fortresses in your hand doesn't make a difference since you trash all of them at once, and only once per revelation of Dignitary.

Now seriously, stop that Fortress edge-case gobbledygook! I still think Dignitary is as clear as possible/necessary and there'll always be some explanation to do but that should be only once per group of people you play with.

[liopoil]

We could also apply maths*

Nowhere does it say in the rulebook that modifying the game state has to take a strictly positive amount of time. Furthermore, I do not think it is implled that fortress has to physically leave your hand when trashed, since the gamestate is not modified by that event (barring market square), and doing it in real life would be really annoying ("I KC-bishop, trashing fortress, waaait as I reeeach for the traaaaash pile ok now wait as I reaaaaach for the traaaash piiiile agaaaaaain to put it back in my hand..."). Actually, depending on how "when you [...], do [...]" timing works, the second clause I mentioned might not even be needed.

What does this mean? It means that you can trash and recover fortress an infinity of times in zero seconds. So even if dignitary sets up a loop that translates into "trash fortress an infinity of times", this event can still be resolved in zero seconds.

Now the extra ruling needed would be whether you have to trash your dignitary too if you have 5 fortress or more in hand.

Would this interpretation of infinite while loops break any current interaction?

*or something that looks vaguely like it?

This works if the loop happened any finite number of times, but the whole point is that it never terminates... so I don't see how this interpretation can work.

[pacovf]

We could also apply maths*

Nowhere does it say in the rulebook that modifying the game state has to take a strictly positive amount of time. Furthermore, I do not think it is implled that fortress has to physically leave your hand when trashed, since the gamestate is not modified by that event (barring market square), and doing it in real life would be really annoying ("I KC-bishop, trashing fortress, waaait as I reeeach for the traaaaash pile ok now wait as I reaaaaach for the traaaash piiiile agaaaaaain to put it back in my hand..."). Actually, depending on how "when you [...], do [...]" timing works, the second clause I mentioned might not even be needed.

What does this mean? It means that you can trash and recover fortress an infinity of times in zero seconds. So even if dignitary sets up a loop that translates into "trash fortress an infinity of times", this event can still be resolved in zero seconds.

Now the extra ruling needed would be whether you have to trash your dignitary too if you have 5 fortress or more in hand.

Would this interpretation of infinite while loops break any current interaction?

*or something that looks vaguely like it?

This works if the loop happened any finite number of times, but the whole point is that it never terminates... so I don't see how this interpretation can work.

Because you are confusing the variable "time" with the variable "number of passes through the loop".

I'll give another example: imagine that trashing a fortress which then stays in your hand takes 1 second. Imagine that each time you repeat the process, it takes half the time it took last time. Then in two seconds, you will have trashed fortress an infinite amount of times. Not an arbitrarily large number of times, but an infinite amount of times.

Here, I am just assuming that trashing a fortress takes zero seconds, to speed it up a little.

I am aware that you have to squint a bit to accept this argument. 

[popsofctown]

Secret Chamber is a Good Thing.  Recursion is a Bad Thing.

Could you please Elaborate?

Recursion leads to slower computer implementations.  It can also lead to more confusions, bad interactions, and open questions in general.  In Hearthstone I am infuriated by the interaction between the Fatigue rule and "draw until you have 3 cards in your hand.", the Fatigue rule is that if your deck is empty and you would try to draw a card, instead you take 1 damage.  My interpretation is that a player with 2 cards in hand and an empty deck should take infinite damage, enough of the Hearthstone design team, and a decent number of board game players if you polled them I would guess, would say you should take damage twice and give up.  "Draw a 3 cards, minus 1 for each card in your hand" reconciles all possible interpretations rather simply.

Recursion in general can cause problems.  It's not even obvious how the game should handle infinite damage if you made it a thing.

It's best to avoid recursion if possible

[LastFootnote]

Two games of Enterprise last night, testing some new cards like Bookkeeper from the other thread.

• Floodgate is a nice combo with Workshop-style cards. Play the Workshop and save the rest of your hand for next turn. Floodgate continues to be great at $3.
• Refurbish maybe needs a buff. It just takes so much work to make it good.
• I have played 3 games now with Profiteer and nobody has ever bought it and won. And I'm not even sure it's the Curses it's giving out, because there have been relatively few of those. The Conscripts could be Silvers and it might still be too weak. I'm trying to think of a nice simple buff other than +$1. I'll keep trying it as-is for now, but am looking toward the future. The other advantage of giving it a buff is that it would look more appealing to players leery of giving out Conscripts.
• I tried new card called Vendor: the Peddler that allows you to pay a token to look through your discard pile and fish out a card. My wife thought it was lame that she could only do it once, but she bought one and used it to pull her Profiteer out of the discard. I got one too; can't remember what I pulled with it. I plan to change it so that you can look through your discard pile before deciding whether to pay a token. I'm not sure whether that's more or less AP. Time will tell.
• Jubilee, Barracks, Conclave, and Craftsman all continue to play well. I hadn't played with Craftsman as much recently, but it still seems solid. We used them to pick up Barracks and Conclaves, then later Duchies.
• Dignitary wasn't bought.

EDIT: I guess Profiteer could gain each player a Conscripts, including you. That would imply that "Gain a Gold on your deck" is a $4 effect. I wonder.

[Co0kieL0rd]

I guess Profiteer could gain each player a Conscripts, including you. That would imply that "Gain a Gold on your deck" is a $4 effect. I wonder.

I like that idea and recommend you give it a shot! Because when me and 1 or 2 friends played a game with Profiteer, no one bought it either. If there are strong Attack cards on the board you certainly don't want it. If there are non, however, I think the fear of getting Conscripts-attacked after playing some Profiteers is partly unfounded. How likely is your opponent to collide two of them if they're not implementing Conscripts/other Attacks into their strategy? For most deck types, obviously excluding engines that can easily draw your deck, they are rather a liability similar to (or even more so than) the Silver from Embassy.

[LastFootnote]

I guess Profiteer could gain each player a Conscripts, including you. That would imply that "Gain a Gold on your deck" is a $4 effect. I wonder.

I like that idea and recommend you give it a shot! Because when me and 1 or 2 friends played a game with Profiteer, no one bought it either. If there are strong Attack cards on the board you certainly don't want it. If there are non, however, I think the fear of getting Conscripts-attacked after playing some Profiteers is partly unfounded. How likely is your opponent to collide two of them if they're not implementing Conscripts/other Attacks into their strategy? For most deck types, obviously excluding engines that can easily draw your deck, they are rather a liability similar to (or even more so than) the Silver from Embassy.

I hear you. Yet at that point the Conscripts would be a wash, and [Gain a Gold on your deck] seems really strong. Compare it to Armory. Sure it's less flexible, but man. Seems really strong. I guess you could gain a Gold on your deck and a Silver, or just two Golds in your discard pile. Or each player gets a Conscripts and you also get a Gold, but not on top of your deck. Hmm.

[pst]

As for infinite loops I think that the FAQ for Star Wars: The Card Game is interesting:

If it is possible, with certain card combinations, to create an “infinite loop,” then when executing an infinite loop the resolving player must follow these two steps:

1. Clearly display the infinite loop to the opponent (and tournament judge, if the opponent requires it). Thus, the player must display, using all cards involved, one full cycle of the infinite loop.

2. State how many times he or she wishes to execute this loop. For example, the player could say “I will now execute this loop seventeen million times.” Then resolve the loop that many times instantly. If the execution of this loop causes the player to win the game, the game is over and the executing player wins.

Infinite loops should never be abused to cause the game to stal

If applied to Dominion you could for example say "now I will reveal this moat seventeen million times", and get it over with.

[LastFootnote]

First game with Cathedral today. It's the version that gains you a Trade token whenever you buy a card you don't have a copy of in play. Terrace was also in the game and there were comments that Cathedral getting tokens for Terrace seemed strong. Yet I used up almost all my tokens on Cathedral's trashing, so I'm not sure there's much to that. Anyway, it seemed maybe OK. If it's too strong, I could try the version that only activates on Victory cards.

[Asper]

There is a difference between revealing Moat infinite times and resolving Dignitary, at least under certain conditions. You can always choose not to reveal Moat, but if you reveal Dignitary with 5 Fortresses in hand (whyever you would do that), you are automatically trapped in a neverending state of trying to apply a mandatory instruction. You can never stop, even if you wanted to. There are quite some ways to artificially stretch out the game, and you can technically achieve it even by mundane things as not to do anything at all for 20 minutes. That's entirely different from Dignitary's unescapable loop where choice doesn't matter (once it's started).

Edit: I should probably clarify that i'm talking about the hypothetical "down to 4" wording, not the card as it is currently, to avoid confusion.

[XerxesPraelor]

So I played a game with Gambler and Terrace - Gambler didn't work out for me, but I got it too late, and Terrace was fun to choose when to use the power.

I also did an Enterprise/Progress game with Clerk, Jubilee, Floodgates, Refurbish, Vendor, Fund, and Superstitious Village, Innovator, Congress, Caravel.

I erroneously bought a village early in the game even though there was no terminal draw in the kingdom, but I eventually got a Clerk / Vendor engine going with Innovator as the payload. I ended up winning by a point despite my mistake by using Floodgates to save up an innovator and a Fund up for a double province at the end after many turns of PPR. In retrospect, a simple BM+ Fund+Innovator probably would have best, but I was tempted by all the new cards.

I like Clerk a lot better than I expecting to, and I think it could definitely cost $3 instead. You already have two other $2 cards, and Clerk is useful in almost all kingdoms with weak trashing, it seems. Jubilee wasn't useful here because we didn't need actions, so I can't comment on it. My opponent got Refurbish, but it nombod with Clerk and Vendor, so it although it seems pretty powerful at $3, I think that's a reasonable cost. Fund and Floodgates were really fun - floodgate is a keeper for sure. Vendor feels really similar to Spice Merchant, especially at the same cost. It was fun, but kind of confusing.

[GendoIkari]

Why can't dignitary just set itself aside and go back to you hand next turn like Horse Traders? Then it could just say "trash a card." Doesn't this solve everything?

[LastFootnote]

Why can't dignitary just set itself aside and go back to you hand next turn like Horse Traders? Then it could just say "trash a card." Doesn't this solve everything?

Yes, but it is also crazy wordy. I mean the current wording in the OP is fine, too. It's just wordier than "trash down to 4 cards in hand". Discarding the Dignitary would be way less wordy, but it would probably have to have some other benefit as well to avoid being super weak.

[LastFootnote]

In other news, I don't like Cathedral as it stands. You may or may not have noticed that it took forever for me to finally get around to even testing it. For a long time I thought I needed a card with "+3 Cards", which is why I have tried so many such cards in the set. I am coming around to the idea that I have enough card drawing in the set, though, what with Clerk, Convoy, Conclave, Wheelwright, and to a much lesser extent, Gambler and Floodgate.

But I would like to have more Trade token cards and tokens-for-trashing doesn't seem like a terrible idea, so I may just turn Cathedral into a card that gives +$ instead of +Cards. Or something.

[pacovf]

Why can't dignitary just set itself aside and go back to you hand next turn like Horse Traders? Then it could just say "trash a card." Doesn't this solve everything?

I think the problem with that version is that it is wordier? Compare the current version:

"When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, trash all but 4 cards from your hand."

With the Horse Traders version:

"When another player plays an Attack card, you may set this aside from your hand. If you do, trash a card from your hand, and at the start of your next turn, return this to your hand."

Which, if you take into account that the top part of the card is already quite wordy, can be problematic.

EDIT: bah, ninja'd. You could always cycle the dignitary though:

"When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, +1 card and trash a card from your hand."

[XerxesPraelor]

In other news, I don't like Cathedral as it stands. You may or may not have noticed that it took forever for me to finally get around to even testing it. For a long time I thought I needed a card with "+3 Cards", which is why I have tried so many such cards in the set. I am coming around to the idea that I have enough card drawing in the set, though, what with Clerk, Convoy, Conclave, Wheelwright, and to a much lesser extent, Gambler and Floodgate.

But I would like to have more Trade token cards and tokens-for-trashing doesn't seem like a terrible idea, so I may just turn Cathedral into a card that gives +$ instead of +Cards. Or something.

You have enough card draw, but most of it is lab-based - convoy might be enough, but I agree with your past self that you need some sort of big terminal draw to make fun village-smithy like engines. Just my two non-playtested cents.

[LastFootnote]

You could always cycle the dignitary though:

"When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, +1 card and trash a card from your hand."

This is perhaps worth trying. The reason I hadn't tried it yet is because I assumed there was a reason it hadn't been done on published cards. That reason was redrawing it and using it again. So, another player plays an Attack. You discard Dignitary and trash a card from your hand, then draw a card. Say that makes you shuffle and you redraw your Dignitary. Then you can do it again, and so on. But really the chance that you're going to keep drawing more Dignitaries is slim. And even if you do, so what? Causing a reshuffle is a logistics issue, but attacks and Secret Chamber already do that. So, yeah, maybe it's worthwhile. I'd probably try:

When another player plays an Attack card, you may discard this. If you do, trash a card from your hand, then draw 2 cards.

Maybe drawing 2 cards is a bit much, but I'd probably try that first. Again, you've got crazy Fortress stuff where you could potentially keep increasing your handsize by trashing Fortresses, but that's not likely to work. And if you do pull it off, woohoo!