# Dominion Strategy Forum

• May 19, 2024, 04:00:23 pm
• Welcome, Guest

### News:

DominionStrategy Wiki

Pages: [1] 2 3  All

### AuthorTopic: Sorcerer attack with empty deck  (Read 3953 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Jeebus

• Margrave
• Offline
• Posts: 2531
• Respect: +1643
##### Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« on: May 23, 2022, 01:29:14 pm »
+1

Back during the previews I found on Discord that Donald tentatively ruled that with Sorcerer, if you're deck is empty, you don't gain a Curse. I wonder if this has been reversed? I'm not so sure it's right.

The card text "if wrong" must mean "if it's not the named card".

Giant says (simplified): "if it costs from \$3 to \$6, trash it; otherwise gain a Curse". If your deck is empty, you gain a Curse (per the current ruling).

What if we turn it around: "if it doesn't cost from \$3 to \$6, gain a Curse; otherwise trash it". It should work the same, you gain a Curse. Meaning, if there is no card, the card doesn't cost from \$3 to \$6.

Another interpretation would be, when there is no card, it's always "otherwise": "it" neither does nor doesn't cost anything. The problem with this is that then "otherwise" is not true either, since it directly refers to whether the card costs from \$3 to \$6. So under this interpretation, Giant would not do anything when your deck is empty.

Following the first interpretation:

Sorceress says: "if it's the named card, each other player gains a Curse". If there is no card, it can't be the named card, so no Curses.

Sorcerer says: "if it's not the named card, gain a Curse". If there is no card, it can't be the named card, so you gain a Curse.

#### Jack Rudd

• Saboteur
• Offline
• Posts: 1325
• Shuffle iT Username: Jack Rudd
• Respect: +1385
##### Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2022, 01:36:28 pm »
+1

My interpretation:

"If wrong" on Sorceror means "the card on top of your deck is a card that is not the named card".

"Otherwise" on Giant means "it is not true that the card on top of your deck costs \$3-\$6".
Logged
Centuries later, archaeologists discover the remains of your ancient civilization.

Evidence of thriving towns, Pottery, roads, and a centralized government amaze the startled scientists.

Finally, they come upon a stone tablet, which contains but one mysterious phrase!

'ISOTROPIC WILL RETURN!'

#### Jeebus

• Margrave
• Offline
• Posts: 2531
• Respect: +1643
##### Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2022, 01:55:53 pm »
0

My interpretation:

"If wrong" on Sorceror means "the card on top of your deck is a card that is not the named card".

"Otherwise" on Giant means "it is not true that the card on top of your deck costs \$3-\$6".

For Sorcerer, that's really putting more into it than the card supports. You're adding a clause that there has to be a card on top of your deck. "If wrong" means "if you named the wrong card"; that much is clear.

A) "if you named the wrong card, gain a Curse; if you didn't, don't gain a Curse"
or
B) "if you named the right card, don't gain a Curse; if you didn't, gain a Curse"

With no card, we could interpret both of these as failing, but then both clauses should be failing, so neither A nor B would give you a Curse. But then Giant should also fail and not give you a Curse.

#### GendoIkari

• Offline
• Posts: 9712
• Respect: +10774
##### Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2022, 02:23:31 pm »
0

Coming from a database background, if value is NULL, then both "value == 1" and "value != 1" are both false. Value is neither 1 nor is it not 1.

To me Sorcerer reads the same way. When there is no card on top of your deck, your guess was neither wrong nor was it not wrong. So you don't gain a Curse.

I think this is consistent with the ruling on Giant, and disagree with your interpretation of "otherwise" on Giant. Otherwise simply means "if the previous condition was not met". Same as "else" in programming. When looking at "otherwise", you don't check your condition again; you don't check to see if it cost from to again. You just care about whether the previous check was true or not.

Which means that if Giant turned the wording around like you suggest, then yes, the "otherwise" would still happen.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

#### Jeebus

• Margrave
• Offline
• Posts: 2531
• Respect: +1643
##### Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2022, 03:02:31 pm »
0

Coming from a database background, if value is NULL, then both "value == 1" and "value != 1" are both false. Value is neither 1 nor is it not 1.

To me Sorcerer reads the same way. When there is no card on top of your deck, your guess was neither wrong nor was it not wrong. So you don't gain a Curse.

I think this is consistent with the ruling on Giant, and disagree with your interpretation of "otherwise" on Giant. Otherwise simply means "if the previous condition was not met". Same as "else" in programming. When looking at "otherwise", you don't check your condition again; you don't check to see if it cost from to again. You just care about whether the previous check was true or not.

Which means that if Giant turned the wording around like you suggest, then yes, the "otherwise" would still happen.

Then these two would produce different results, which I think is weird:

A) "if you named the wrong card, gain a Curse; otherwise, don't gain a Curse"
or
B) "if you named the right card, don't gain a Curse; otherwise, gain a Curse"
« Last Edit: May 24, 2022, 03:52:51 am by Jeebus »
Logged

#### Jeebus

• Margrave
• Offline
• Posts: 2531
• Respect: +1643
##### Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2022, 03:06:43 pm »
0

Also, the point with "otherwise" isn't that you check the condition again, it's that it is only executed if the condition was untrue. Since it was neither true nor untrue, the sentence as a whole fails, including the "otherwise" clause. This is similar to "gain a card costing \$2 more than the trashed card" when there is no trashed card.
That is to say: I agree that you care about whether the previous check was true or not, but NULL is neither true nor untrue.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2022, 02:36:28 am by Jeebus »
Logged

#### GendoIkari

• Offline
• Posts: 9712
• Respect: +10774
##### Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2022, 03:35:58 pm »
0

Coming from a database background, if value is NULL, then both "value == 1" and "value != 1" are both false. Value is neither 1 nor is it not 1.

To me Sorcerer reads the same way. When there is no card on top of your deck, your guess was neither wrong nor was it not wrong. So you don't gain a Curse.

I think this is consistent with the ruling on Giant, and disagree with your interpretation of "otherwise" on Giant. Otherwise simply means "if the previous condition was not met". Same as "else" in programming. When looking at "otherwise", you don't check your condition again; you don't check to see if it cost from to again. You just care about whether the previous check was true or not.

Which means that if Giant turned the wording around like you suggest, then yes, the "otherwise" would still happen.

Then these two would produce different results, which I think is weird:

A) "if you named the wrong card, gain a Curse; otherwise, don't gain a Curse"
or
B) "if you named the right card, don't gain a Curse; otherwise, gain a Curse"

I can see why it would seem weird, but it seems right to me. In both cases you should execute the "otherwise" because what it is checking for fails. It only seems weird if you think of right vs wrong as a binary choice; the only options. But once you allow for a third option, that you guess was neither right nor wrong, it makes more sense. And that's exactly what happens when your deck was empty, your guess is neither right nor wrong.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

#### GendoIkari

• Offline
• Posts: 9712
• Respect: +10774
##### Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2022, 03:42:12 pm »
0

Also, the point with "otherwise" isn't that you check the condition again, it's that it is only executed if the condition was untrue. Since it was neither true nor untrue, the sentence as a whole fails, including the "otherwise" clause. This is similar to "gain a card costing \$2 more than the trashed card" when there is no trashed card.
That is to say: I agree that you care about whether if the previous check was true or not, but NULL is neither true nor untrue.

No, the condition was still false, but not because its opposite was true. I missed clarifying this previously, but there's a difference between:

if(value != 1)
and
if(!(value == 1))

^The above 2 ifs would usually be the same, but not in the case where value is null. In that case, both value == 1 and value != 1 are false, so the second statement would be true (a double negative).

In the case of Sorcerer with an empty deck, you have:

If guess is wrong (returns false)
If guess is right (returns false)
If guess is not wrong (returns false)
If not guess is wrong (returns true)

"Otherwise" means the last one. In the case of Giant, "otherwise" is not "if it doesn't cost from to ". Otherwise is instead "if it wasn't true that it does cost from to ".
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

#### Jeebus

• Margrave
• Offline
• Posts: 2531
• Respect: +1643
##### Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2022, 04:26:35 pm »
0

That all checks out for computer language, but not for human language. "If not your guess is wrong" doesn't exist in human language, or if it does, it means the same as "if your guess is not wrong". Or to put it another way:

If you have no dog, neither applies. You're neither sad nor happy as per this statement.

If the conditional contains a premise that is untrue ("you have a dog" or "you are looking at a card"), then you can't evaluate it, and you can't evauluate what would "otherwise" apply either. If you think about how human language works, I would think this is pretty obvious actually.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2022, 02:18:02 am by Jeebus »
Logged

#### GendoIkari

• Offline
• Posts: 9712
• Respect: +10774
##### Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2022, 09:39:25 pm »
0

While you’re correct that my analysis was focused all on how computer language works, I do think that in regular English, “otherwise” can be correctly read as “if the previous thing was not true”. And that “your guess was not wrong” doesn’t mean the same thing as “your guess was right”.  Donald’s ruling for both Sorcerer and Giant seem consistent that in both cases, if you didn’t do the “if X” thing then you instead do the “otherwise” thing.

Obviously context matters a lot with English, and I think your interpretation can also work. But the interpretation that says that you always will do either the “if” or the “otherwise” is both common and valid as well.

To change up your dog example a little, how about “if you killed your wife, you are going to jail. Otherwise, you aren’t”. Surely someone who is single will not go to jail for killing their wife, right? You don’t say that they neither go to jail nor not go to jail.. the “otherwise” applies to them just as much as it would to a married person who didn’t kill their wife.

Or “if the cheapest action costs \$3 or less, I’m buying it. Otherwise I’m buying a Silver.” Then I see the Kingdom and there are no actions at all in it. I’m still buying a Silver even though there is no “cheapest action” to find out the cost of.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2022, 09:45:43 pm by GendoIkari »
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

#### dz

• Conspirator
• Offline
• Posts: 212
• Respect: +350
##### Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2022, 02:09:16 am »
0

I don't feel any desire in participating in this conversation, but I will mention that anyone arguing that Sorcerer should match Gladiator, has conveniently forgotten that Bounty Hunter doesn't match either of them.

I have no idea why Giant is in the conversation. Sorcerer doesn't have an "otherwise," that sure seems important. Different card wordings mean that different cards work differently. And no I'm not saying "we don't need consistent rulings;" I'm saying, you should only apply the rulings from one card to another card, if they have similar wordings. (What does Barbarian do to an empty deck? Well Giant has a similar wording  and the ruling is you follow the "otherwise", so Barbarian means you should also follow the "otherwise", hooray.) Applying them to much different wordings is a pointless exercise.

I am not sympathetic to any complaints about Sorcerer's wording. Complain about how pathetic it is instead. Sorcerer is easily the weakest Wizard (considering that the other 3 are pretty good, this doesn't mean much, but still), and it's in the running for weakest card in the expansion.
Logged

#### Jeebus

• Margrave
• Offline
• Posts: 2531
• Respect: +1643
##### Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2022, 03:06:48 am »
0

And that “your guess was not wrong” doesn’t mean the same thing as “your guess was right”.
I really think that it does.

Obviously context matters a lot with English
Agreed. Which makes this tricky.

To change up your dog example a little, how about “if you killed your wife, you are going to jail. Otherwise, you aren’t”. Surely someone who is single will not go to jail for killing their wife, right? You don’t say that they neither go to jail nor not go to jail.. the “otherwise” applies to them just as much as it would to a married person who didn’t kill their wife.

In your example, "not going to jail" means not doing anything, which just happens to be the same as not following any of the options. If you don't comply with the premise, you don't follow either of the options. Not following an option doesn't mean to do the opposite of it, it means to do nothing. Not following "don't go to jail" doesn't mean "go to jail". It's like not even reading the instruction.

"if you killed your wife, you are going to jail. Otherwise, you aren’t going to jail"
If you're married (and not a killer), you need to check what it says after "otherwise". If you're unmarried, you don't need to.

Or “if the cheapest action costs \$3 or less, I’m buying it. Otherwise I’m buying a Silver.” Then I see the Kingdom and there are no actions at all in it. I’m still buying a Silver even though there is no “cheapest action” to find out the cost of.

I don't think that's necessarily true actually. To me, this is exactly like Giant.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2022, 03:08:11 am by Jeebus »
Logged

#### Jeebus

• Margrave
• Offline
• Posts: 2531
• Respect: +1643
##### Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« Reply #12 on: May 24, 2022, 03:13:38 am »
0

I don't feel any desire in participating in this conversation, but I will mention that anyone arguing that Sorcerer should match Gladiator, has conveniently forgotten that Bounty Hunter doesn't match either of them.

I don't undestand why any of those two cards are relevant?

I have no idea why Giant is in the conversation. Sorcerer doesn't have an "otherwise," that sure seems important.

Because if we turn Giant around (as in my first post), it gets a negative conditional, like Sorcerer. Of course, if we then disagree about what turned-around Giant would actually do (like me and Gendo), we're not necessarily getting anywhere anyway.

#### Jeebus

• Margrave
• Offline
• Posts: 2531
• Respect: +1643
##### Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« Reply #13 on: May 24, 2022, 03:59:48 am »
0

So I'm thinking that the only interpretation that makes complete sense, is that the whole sentence fails when the premise is wrong. Then all of these would mean that you do nothing with an empty deck, which is satisfying since they mean the same thing:
A) "if you named the wrong card, gain a Curse; otherwise, don't gain a Curse"
B) "if you named the right card, don't gain a Curse; otherwise, gain a Curse"
C) "if it's not the named card, gain a Curse".

It would also mean that Giant doesn't do anything when your deck is empty.

But since we have the ruling that Giant does do something, how does it make sense? My interpretation was: if there is no card, the card doesn't have a cost or name. This means that "if the card is" = false, and "if the card isn't" = true. Then Giant would mean the same also when we turn the wording around. It would mean that you gain a Curse from B and C, but I'm not sure about A.

I'm not sure how much that interpretation actually makes sense any more. I mean, it follows a consistent rule, but the basis for the rule is maybe just made up. I also think the same about Gendo's interpretation. But since we have the ruling on Giant, we have to have some kind of consistent rule. I guess it could be any of them.

#### dz

• Conspirator
• Offline
• Posts: 212
• Respect: +350
##### Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« Reply #14 on: May 24, 2022, 09:49:53 am »
+2

I have no idea why Giant is in the conversation. Sorcerer doesn't have an "otherwise," that sure seems important.

Because if we turn Giant around (as in my first post), it gets a negative conditional, like Sorcerer. Of course, if we then disagree about what turned-around Giant would actually do (like me and Gendo), we're not necessarily getting anywhere anyway.

I'm not seeing why turning Giant around has any hope of doing anything useful. The solution to awful hypothetical wordings is to fix the wording, not analyze them.

I don't feel any desire in participating in this conversation, but I will mention that anyone arguing that Sorcerer should match Gladiator, has conveniently forgotten that Bounty Hunter doesn't match either of them.

I don't understand why any of those two cards are relevant?

-If you reveal nothing with Gladiator, you get +\$1.
-If you trash nothing with Remodel, you don't gain a card.
-If you exile nothing with Bounty Hunter, you don't get +\$3.
-If you reveal nothing with Sorceress, you won't give out a Curse.
-If another player reveals nothing with Sorcerer, what happens?

Notice that Gladiator is the oddball. What's the difference? The other player revealing a copy is optional. It's just that they can't reveal a copy of "nothing," so they automatically fail the minigame.

Meanwhile Remodel, Sorceress and Bounty Hunter are mandatory (you can't decline to trash/exile, and you can't decline to play the guessing game), and if those cards fail to find a card they fail to do anything. Sorcerer is mandatory (they can't decline to reveal a card), which seems to match with Bounty Hunter and Sorceress instead of Gladiator.

If you really wanted to apply this to Giant, then sure you could argue that Remodel/Gladiator/Bounty Hunter/Sorceress/Sorcerer also say "otherwise, do nothing" (and they're not written on the card to avoid confusing regular humans). If those cards fail to find a card, you do the "otherwise" instead, which usually is "do nothing," but if it's Giant, then you give out a Curse.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2022, 11:53:40 am by dz »
Logged

#### GendoIkari

• Offline
• Posts: 9712
• Respect: +10774
##### Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« Reply #15 on: May 24, 2022, 11:40:16 am »
0

And that “your guess was not wrong” doesn’t mean the same thing as “your guess was right”.
I really think that it does.

Just to clarify this part... are you saying that every guess must be either "right" or "wrong", with no room for a guess being neither? if a card says "Guess the top card of your deck. Reveal the top card of your deck. If your guess was wrong, do X. If your guess was right, do Y" then you will always do either X or Y? Even if your deck is empty? Which one do you do when you have an empty deck? Was your guess wrong?
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

#### Donald X.

• Board Moderator
• Offline
• Posts: 6375
• Respect: +25741
##### Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« Reply #16 on: May 24, 2022, 04:38:58 pm »
+3

Back during the previews I found on Discord that Donald tentatively ruled that with Sorcerer, if you're deck is empty, you don't gain a Curse. I wonder if this has been reversed? I'm not so sure it's right.
I don't remember that discussion, or if anyone made some great points during it. My initial reading today of Sorcerer is, that "wrong" means "not right" and if there's no card you are not right and so gain a Curse.
Logged

#### GendoIkari

• Offline
• Posts: 9712
• Respect: +10774
##### Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« Reply #17 on: May 24, 2022, 06:12:01 pm »
0

Back during the previews I found on Discord that Donald tentatively ruled that with Sorcerer, if you're deck is empty, you don't gain a Curse. I wonder if this has been reversed? I'm not so sure it's right.
I don't remember that discussion, or if anyone made some great points during it. My initial reading today of Sorcerer is, that "wrong" means "not right" and if there's no card you are not right and so gain a Curse.

I forget, what are the rules for "name a card" again? I believe you can name basically anything, it doesn't have to be a real Dominion card, right? If that's correct, I feel like this ruling could cause rules-lawyering arguments around the table if someone names "no card" or something like that.

Come to think of it, Sorcerer is super unclear about what being "wrong" means at all. It just tells you to name a card, it never even says to name the top card of your deck, or that the card you are naming is meant as a guess for the top of your deck. Wishing Well is far more specific, asking "if you named it". Any reason Sorcerer doesn't use the same wording; "if they didn't name it"?
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

#### Jeebus

• Margrave
• Offline
• Posts: 2531
• Respect: +1643
##### Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« Reply #18 on: May 25, 2022, 02:14:44 am »
0

Back during the previews I found on Discord that Donald tentatively ruled that with Sorcerer, if you're deck is empty, you don't gain a Curse. I wonder if this has been reversed? I'm not so sure it's right.
I don't remember that discussion, or if anyone made some great points during it. My initial reading today of Sorcerer is, that "wrong" means "not right" and if there's no card you are not right and so gain a Curse.

Yeah, that's what I was saying in my first post too. But as Dz made me realize, it seems to contradict the ruling on Bounty Hunter. If there's no card you don't have a copy in Exile, so by the same token, shouldn't you get +\$3?
« Last Edit: May 25, 2022, 02:22:58 am by Jeebus »
Logged

#### Jeebus

• Margrave
• Offline
• Posts: 2531
• Respect: +1643
##### Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« Reply #19 on: May 25, 2022, 02:31:54 am »
+1

I have no idea why Giant is in the conversation. Sorcerer doesn't have an "otherwise," that sure seems important.

Because if we turn Giant around (as in my first post), it gets a negative conditional, like Sorcerer. Of course, if we then disagree about what turned-around Giant would actually do (like me and Gendo), we're not necessarily getting anywhere anyway.

I'm not seeing why turning Giant around has any hope of doing anything useful. The solution to awful hypothetical wordings is to fix the wording, not analyze them.

I don't feel any desire in participating in this conversation, but I will mention that anyone arguing that Sorcerer should match Gladiator, has conveniently forgotten that Bounty Hunter doesn't match either of them.

I don't understand why any of those two cards are relevant?

-If you reveal nothing with Gladiator, you get +\$1.
-If you trash nothing with Remodel, you don't gain a card.
-If you exile nothing with Bounty Hunter, you don't get +\$3.
-If you reveal nothing with Sorceress, you won't give out a Curse.
-If another player reveals nothing with Sorcerer, what happens?

Notice that Gladiator is the oddball. What's the difference? The other player revealing a copy is optional. It's just that they can't reveal a copy of "nothing," so they automatically fail the minigame.

Meanwhile Remodel, Sorceress and Bounty Hunter are mandatory (you can't decline to trash/exile, and you can't decline to play the guessing game), and if those cards fail to find a card they fail to do anything. Sorcerer is mandatory (they can't decline to reveal a card), which seems to match with Bounty Hunter and Sorceress instead of Gladiator.

If you really wanted to apply this to Giant, then sure you could argue that Remodel/Gladiator/Bounty Hunter/Sorceress/Sorcerer also say "otherwise, do nothing" (and they're not written on the card to avoid confusing regular humans). If those cards fail to find a card, you do the "otherwise" instead, which usually is "do nothing," but if it's Giant, then you give out a Curse.

No, the reason Gladiaor is different is not because it's optional. Notice that if we remove "may", it works exactly the same. The reason is that it's a different kind of conditional. The conditional on Gladiator ("If you don't reveal a card") doesn't have a premise that can be untrue. On Sorcerer, Giant and Bounty Hunter, the conditional assumes that there is a card, but that premise might be false, and in that case we can't evaluate the conditional. There is no assumption on Gladiator; we can always evaluete whether you revealed a card or not. If you have no cards in you're hand, it's just "you didn't reveal one", a clearly false conditional. So Gladiator is irrelevant.

Good call on Bounty Hunter though. It has a negative conditional, and so does seem to match Sorcerer, at least if we interpret Sorcerer as "if it's not the named card", or "if you didn't guess right".

Remodel doesn't even have a conditional, so is not directly comparable. But of course it does have a premise in the instruction: that there is a (trashed) card. So it tells us (as I pointed out earlier) that when the premise fails, the instruction fails. That's why it's really seeming to me like the most consistent interpretation is that the whole instruction fails on Giant, Sorcerer and Bounty Hunter when there is no card. Nothing happens.

#### Jeebus

• Margrave
• Offline
• Posts: 2531
• Respect: +1643
##### Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« Reply #20 on: May 25, 2022, 02:49:17 am »
0

And that “your guess was not wrong” doesn’t mean the same thing as “your guess was right”.
I really think that it does.

Just to clarify this part... are you saying that every guess must be either "right" or "wrong", with no room for a guess being neither? if a card says "Guess the top card of your deck. Reveal the top card of your deck. If your guess was wrong, do X. If your guess was right, do Y" then you will always do either X or Y? Even if your deck is empty? Which one do you do when you have an empty deck? Was your guess wrong?

No, I didn't mean that that every guess must be either right or wrong. If there is no card, there is no guess actually. Sure, you can name a card, but it's not a guess. It's like asking: if there is no card, was the card "the named card", "not the named card" or "neither"? That question has no answer, because there is no card. We can't even say that "the card was neither".

I just meant what I said before: "If not your guess is wrong" doesn't exist in human language, or if it does, it means the same as "if your guess is not wrong".
This means that "if your guess was wrong / otherwise" means "if your guess was wrong / if you're guess was right".
So if there is no guess (no card), you can't evaluate either of the two conditionals.

#### GendoIkari

• Offline
• Posts: 9712
• Respect: +10774
##### Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« Reply #21 on: May 25, 2022, 09:03:45 am »
0

And that “your guess was not wrong” doesn’t mean the same thing as “your guess was right”.
I really think that it does.

Just to clarify this part... are you saying that every guess must be either "right" or "wrong", with no room for a guess being neither? if a card says "Guess the top card of your deck. Reveal the top card of your deck. If your guess was wrong, do X. If your guess was right, do Y" then you will always do either X or Y? Even if your deck is empty? Which one do you do when you have an empty deck? Was your guess wrong?

No, I didn't mean that that every guess must be either right or wrong. If there is no card, there is no guess actually. Sure, you can name a card, but it's not a guess. It's like asking: if there is no card, was the card "the named card", "not the named card" or "neither"? That question has no answer, because there is no card. We can't even say that "the card was neither".

I just meant what I said before: "If not your guess is wrong" doesn't exist in human language, or if it does, it means the same as "if your guess is not wrong".
This means that "if your guess was wrong / otherwise" means "if your guess was wrong / if you're guess was right".
So if there is no guess (no card), you can't evaluate either of the two conditionals.

Doesn’t this contradict what Donald just said; and you agreeing with him? He said that wrong means “not right”, so if there is no card on top of your deck then your guess was wrong.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

#### Jeebus

• Margrave
• Offline
• Posts: 2531
• Respect: +1643
##### Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« Reply #22 on: May 25, 2022, 10:15:06 am »
+1

Doesn’t this contradict what Donald just said; and you agreeing with him? He said that wrong means “not right”, so if there is no card on top of your deck then your guess was wrong.

This thread has gotten complicated. There are several ways of looking at this. In my first post I was saying more or less what Donald said now; I called it my first interpretation - (1). I said that another interpretation could be that the conditional is neither true nor false, so then we do the "otherwise" option; this is what you have been arguing - (2). But I said that the problem with that is, if the conditional is neither true nor false, then "otherwise" fails too - (3).

Then later I wrote that I think that (3) is the only one that really makes sense. But we can't have (3), since it would contradict how Giant is supposed to work. So then it could either be (1) or (2), none of which I think makes total sense. But in my last reply to you, I was still talking about how (3) should be right.

Donald has now supported (1), which is in line with Giant, but doesn't seem to be in line with Bounty Hunter.

So, if I'm not mistaken...
(1): Giant gives Curse (as ruling), Bounty Hunter gives +\$3 (NOT as ruling), Sorcerer gives Curse (as ruling)
(2): Giant gives Curse (as ruling), Bounty Hunter gives nothing (as ruling), Sorcerer gives nothing (NOT as ruling)
(3): Giant gives nothing (NOT as ruling), Bounty Hunter gives nothing (as ruling), Sorcerer gives nothing (NOT as ruling)

Your interpretation (2) was actually in line with all three cards given Donald's first Sorcerer ruling from Discord (which you were arguing for). So I'll give you that!

#### GendoIkari

• Offline
• Posts: 9712
• Respect: +10774
##### Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« Reply #23 on: May 25, 2022, 10:51:12 am »
+1

Doesn’t this contradict what Donald just said; and you agreeing with him? He said that wrong means “not right”, so if there is no card on top of your deck then your guess was wrong.

This thread has gotten complicated. There are several ways of looking at this. In my first post I was saying more or less what Donald said now; I called it my first interpretation - (1). I said that another interpretation could be that the conditional is neither true nor false, so then we do the "otherwise" option; this is what you have been arguing - (2). But I said that the problem with that is, if the conditional is neither true nor false, then "otherwise" fails too - (3).

Then later I wrote that I think that (3) is the only one that really makes sense. But we can't have (3), since it would contradict how Giant is supposed to work. So then it could either be (1) or (2), none of which I think makes total sense. But in my last reply to you, I was still talking about how (3) should be right.

Donald has now supported (1), which is in line with Giant, but doesn't seem to be in line with Bounty Hunter.

So, if I'm not mistaken...
(1): Giant gives Curse (as ruling), Bounty Hunter gives +\$3 (NOT as ruling), Sorcerer gives Curse (as ruling)
(2): Giant gives Curse (as ruling), Bounty Hunter gives nothing (as ruling), Sorcerer gives nothing (NOT as ruling)
(3): Giant gives nothing (NOT as ruling), Bounty Hunter gives nothing (as ruling), Sorcerer gives nothing (NOT as ruling)

Your interpretation (2) was actually in line with all three cards given Donald's first Sorcerer ruling from Discord (which you were arguing for). So I'll give you that!

Thanks for all the clarification! I think 2 might work with the Sorcerer discrepancy being explained by the fact that Sorcerer uses weird wording. It doesn't say "if it was not the named card", like Sorceress or "if you didn't name it" like Wishing Well. It says "if wrong". Now, I grant that the best interpretation of "if wrong" would be either of those 2 options I just mentioned. But if instead we interpret "wrong" to simply mean "failed to name a card and then reveal a card with that name from the top of your deck", then Donald's current Sorceress ruling still works with interpretation 2. Sorceress gives a Curse because you didn't reveal a card with a matching name.

Since Donald already "ruled" that "wrong" means "not right", we can reverse that, and say that "right" means "you named a card and then revealed a card with that name from the top of your deck". You can kind of look at it similar to a card that says "reveal the top card of your deck. If you did, +". If your deck is empty, you don't get your because you failed to reveal a card.

This is a slightly modified version of my original argument for interpretation #2, because before I was saying that you are neither right nor wrong, that like you just said you never even really made a guess. But instead we're saying that you're always wrong if you did not both 1) name a card and 2) reveal that card.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2022, 10:55:08 am by GendoIkari »
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

#### Donald X.

• Board Moderator
• Offline
• Posts: 6375
• Respect: +25741
##### Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« Reply #24 on: May 25, 2022, 01:52:37 pm »
+6

Back during the previews I found on Discord that Donald tentatively ruled that with Sorcerer, if you're deck is empty, you don't gain a Curse. I wonder if this has been reversed? I'm not so sure it's right.
I don't remember that discussion, or if anyone made some great points during it. My initial reading today of Sorcerer is, that "wrong" means "not right" and if there's no card you are not right and so gain a Curse.

Yeah, that's what I was saying in my first post too. But as Dz made me realize, it seems to contradict the ruling on Bounty Hunter. If there's no card you don't have a copy in Exile, so by the same token, shouldn't you get +\$3?
I see. The key thing about Bounty Hunter is it refers to an "it" which, if there was no card, doesn't exist. "If you didn't have a copy of it in Exile, +\$3." We can't check if undefined is in Exile. Is the reasoning. And I mean, while I don't so much care how this goes in terms of power level (as usual the most important thing is making the card clear and understandable for normal use cases, not this exotic one), the idea is, you put something into Exile that wasn't there before, which requires actually putting something into Exile.

Man let's look at them all like that briefly. Intentions get you nowhere in terms of "what does this rules text do" but it's sure interesting for "how should this be phrased."
- Bounty Hunter is about exiling a new card. You have to exile a card to do that.
- Sorceress is about naming your top card. You need a top card to do that.
- Sorcerer is about the same thing; you haven't proven yourself by naming that card if there was no card. OTOH you haven't failed if we couldn't test you. It really comes down to wording.
- Giant is supposed to give you a Curse if it didn't trash something.

The ideal rulings with no card are: Bounty Hunter does not give +\$3; Sorceress fails to Curse, Sorcerer dunno; Giant Curses.

Sorceress says "if it's the named card"; Sorcerer hides the "it" (not intentionally or anything) with "if wrong."

"Each other player names a card, then reveals the top card of their deck. If wrong, they gain a Curse."
"Each other player names a card, then reveals the top card of their deck. If it's not the named card, they gain a Curse."

Giant says "If it's face up, +\$5, and each other player reveals the top card of his deck, trashes it if it costs from \$3 to \$6, and otherwise discards it and gains a Curse." Man, "his"? Ah, a mistake in the wiki, it doesn't have the current text in the corner there.

Bounty Hunter's "undefined" thing here produces: Bounty Hunter does not give +\$3; Sorceress fails to Curse; Sorcerer does not Curse; Giant does not Curse. That's not so bad.

The wordings the cards would get if I valued "having the card text make these rulings clear" more than everything else I actually value more, would be:
- "If you Exiled a card you didn't have a copy of in Exile, +\$3.
- "If you revealed the named card, each other player gains a Curse."
- Either "If they didn't reveal the named card, they gain a Curse" or "If they revealed a card they didn't name, they gain a Curse."
- "...from \$3 to \$6, and otherwise discards it. If they didn't trash a card, they gain a Curse."

Those wordings are not actually so bad, except Giant's. It's not like I have to be attached to Giant Cursing in the ubiquitous no-card case though. "...from \$3 to \$6. If it doesn't, they discard it and gain a Curse." No, that returns you to Bounty Hunter territory. Plus Giant is tiny text already.  "...from \$3 to \$6, and otherwise discards it. If they discarded it, they gain a Curse." I mean that's not great.

Time does not permit working more on this today.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  All

Page created in 1.402 seconds with 21 queries.