Print

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

[Dominionaer]

Just read update in "Other rules clarifications" of Elder: Catacombs don't add 6 cards to hand because the first 3 get discarded due to second option. My question is why is that? Better phrased why do the first 3 not stay in hand, when my understanding was, the first 3 cards get discarded from look-at area (not from hand). So using both options of Elder-ed Catacombs the first 3 cards get moved out of look-at-area and therefore Stop Moving Rule should prevent their discarding because not in expected location, before second option starts execution. Where is my error?

[Karpeth]

stop moving rule. The cards are where catacombs expect them to be,

[Dominionaer]

I don't get it. Or i don' get what the definition of "effect" is.

For me Catacombs has 3 effects:

• look at top 3 cards
• move cards from look-at to hand
• discards cards from look-at (and draw next 3)

So when the middle effect happened there is nothing in look-at, so nothing to discard by last effect.

Or is the definition of "effect" for Catacombs the combination of those three parts? Is it one big moving instruction executed in steps, starting with look-at, continueing with to-hand and because Catacombs moved it there itself it "knows" the changed location aka kept track of them and therefore discards them?

[Karpeth]

I don't get it. Or i don' get what the definition of "effect" is.

For me Catacombs has 3 effects:

• look at top 3 cards
• move cards from look-at to hand
• discards cards from look-at (and draw next 3)

So when the middle effect happened there is nothing in look-at, so nothing to discard by last effect.

Or is the definition of "effect" for Catacombs the combination of those three parts? Is it one big moving instruction executed in steps, starting with look-at, continueing with to-hand and because Catacombs moved it there itself it "knows" the changed location aka kept track of them and therefore discards them?

As per ”stop moving” rule.

As catacomb Put them in the hand and nothing interjected, the Cards are able to be discarded and therefore are.

[GendoIkari]

Because it doesn't specify a location, "Discard them" doesn't mean "discard them from the look-at area". Yes, normally those cards would be there when being discarded, but the card text doesn't require that. As long as the cards are in the place that it expects them to be, they can be discarded. And because it's the same card that moved them to hand, that's where the card expects them to be.

[Dominionaer]

Because it doesn't specify a location, "Discard them" doesn't mean "discard them from the look-at area".

I disagree: "them" specifies the looked-at cards. That implies that location. Furthermore : after put in hand they are not discernable as looked-at from those in  hand before

As catacomb Put them in the hand and nothing interjected, the Cards are able to be discarded and therefore are.

And because it's the same card that moved them to hand, that's where the card expects them to be.

For that I would like a confirmation from the highest autority, that the whole set of instructions on a card (or landscape) is to understand as the thing named "effect" in the Stop-Moving rule

[Donald X.]

Because it doesn't specify a location, "Discard them" doesn't mean "discard them from the look-at area".

I disagree: "them" specifies the looked-at cards. That implies that location. Furthermore : after put in hand they are not discernable as looked-at from those in  hand before

As catacomb Put them in the hand and nothing interjected, the Cards are able to be discarded and therefore are.

And because it's the same card that moved them to hand, that's where the card expects them to be.

For that I would like a confirmation from the highest autority, that the whole set of instructions on a card (or landscape) is to understand as the thing named "effect" in the Stop-Moving rule

I don't understand your appeal; neither card says "effect."

Catacombs says: Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Choose one: Put them into your hand; or discard them and +3 Cards.
Elder says: You may play an Action card from your hand. When it gives you a choice of abilities (with “choose”) this turn, you may choose an extra (different) option.

In one's imagination, Catacombs gives you your choice of the next 3 cards, or the 3 after that, and if you used Elder on it, you'd therefore get 6 cards. That's just how it feels though; the actual text is above.

If you Elder a Catacombs, what actually happens is, you both put the cards into your hand, and then discard them and draw 3. We haven't lost track of the cards, since Catacombs itself put them into your hand. A classic internet argument about what "effect" means isn't going to change that.

[GendoIkari]

Because it doesn't specify a location, "Discard them" doesn't mean "discard them from the look-at area".

I disagree: "them" specifies the looked-at cards.

Actually, if you were going off of the literal English wording, "them" means the top 3 cards of your deck. The same thing that allows them to be discarded even though they are no longer on top of your deck is what allows them to be discarded after they are in your hand. "look at" and "put into your hand" are 2 different instructions which you performed on "the top 3 cards of your deck".

Furthermore : after put in hand they are not discernable as looked-at from those in  hand before

Yes, this is a case where the cards don't keep you honest, they don't have built-in accountability. You just have to not cheat.

[Dominionaer]

We haven't lost track of the cards, since Catacombs itself put them into your hand.

Thanks

So when explaining Elder-ed Catacombs i wouldn't be wrong by "translating" that part of the Stop-Moving rule to

Code: [Select]

An instruction of/in/from a set of instructions to move a card is executable … if a instruction of/in/from that same set of instructions put the card where it is now.

Yes, this is a case where the cards don't keep you honest, they don't have built-in accountability. You just have to not cheat.

Bah (and also Thanks!)

[Donald X.]

So when explaining Elder-ed Catacombs i wouldn't be wrong by "translating" that part of the Stop-Moving rule to

Code: [Select]

An instruction of/in/from a set of instructions to move a card is executable … if a instruction of/in/from that same set of instructions put the card where it is now.

It doesn't sound wrong, but affirming this is really beyond the scope for me.

[dane-m]

I hadn't been able to understand the OP's argument until very recently.  I think I now understand it, but I have absolutely no idea whether I think it valid.

Am I right in saying that when Elder allows one to take two choices, the choices are executed in the order in which they appear on the card?  If so, how would the arguments presented so far pan out if Catacombs said "Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Choose one: Discard them and +3 Cards; or put them into your hand"?  I suspect that the OP's reasoning would result in the discarded cards staying in the discard pile, while Gendolkari's reasoning would see them leap back out of the discard pile into hand.  That strikes me as worrying.

[Donald X.]

Am I right in saying that when Elder allows one to take two choices, the choices are executed in the order in which they appear on the card?  If so, how would the arguments presented so far pan out if Catacombs said "Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Choose one: Discard them and +3 Cards; or put them into your hand"?  I suspect that the OP's reasoning would result in the discarded cards staying in the discard pile, while Gendolkari's reasoning would see them leap back out of the discard pile into hand.  That strikes me as worrying.

When Elder does its thing, you do the choices in the order they appear on the card; that's also the case with "choose two" abilities like Pawn's.

Considering how fantasy wordings would work is beyond the scope for me as always. I think the rules are okay here, and well I'll hope they are. Obv. Catacombs / Elder disappoints people, and you could rephrase Catacombs to deal with it; I know all about it, it's in the file to consider for whenever Dark Ages next gets reprinted.

[dane-m]

you could rephrase Catacombs to deal with it; I know all about it, it's in the file to consider for whenever Dark Ages next gets reprinted.

Excellent.  I'd thought of a couple of rephrasings myself, though they also impacted how Way of the Chameleon and the -1 card token would interact with Catacombs, so I was still trying to think of other rephrasings.

[GendoIkari]

If so, how would the arguments presented so far pan out if Catacombs said "Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Choose one: Discard them and +3 Cards; or put them into your hand"?  I suspect that the OP's reasoning would result in the discarded cards staying in the discard pile, while Gendolkari's reasoning would see them leap back out of the discard pile into hand.  That strikes me as worrying.

Yes, this lines up with how I see it. Based on the ruling for real Catacombs, your version would result in getting all 6 cards because we haven't lost track of the cards when they went to discard. OP was thinking that "move them" had to mean "move them from the look-at area". But given that OPs interpretation of real Catacombs was incorrect, I'm not seeing it as worrying that their interpretation of your Catacombs would also be incorrect.

[Jeebus]

Yes, for the lose-track (stop-moving) rule it's important to define the group of instructions that a card does at a specific time. I call these abilities in my rules document. So Gondola has two abilities for example, which are unrelated.

It's abilities that track cards. When an ability refers to a card, it tracks that card as long as that ability as still "alive". If something else moves the card, the ability loses track. That's the basis for the lose-track rule.

Consider Cargo Ship. Its play ability expects the gained card to be in the "gain location" (usually your discard pile). It moves it from there to "aside". Then it moves the gained card to your hand. The second time it moves the card, it doesn't expect it to be in the "gain location". Since the ability itself moved it to "aside", that's where it expects it be.

It's the same with Catacombs with Elder. It expects the looked-at cards to be in "look at". It moves them to your hand. Then it moves them to your discard pile.

[GendoIkari]

Yes, for the lose-track (stop-moving) rule it's important to define the group of instructions that a card does at a specific time. I call these abilities in my rules document. So Gondola has two abilities for example, which are unrelated.

It's abilities that track cards. When an ability refers to a card, it tracks that card as long as that ability as still "alive". If something else moves the card, the ability loses track. That's the basis for the lose-track rule.

Consider Cargo Ship. Its play ability expects the gained card to be in the "gain location" (usually your discard pile). It moves it from there to "aside". Then it moves the gained card to your hand. The second time it moves the card, it doesn't expect it to be in the "gain location". Since the ability itself moved it to "aside", that's where it expects it be.

It's the same with Catacombs with Elder. It expects the looked-at cards to be in "look at". It moves them to your hand. Then it moves them to your discard pile.

Though as far as I can tell, the OPs original question/confusion had nothing to do with Stop Moving / Lose Track. It was all about the blue dog question, thinking that "them" specifically referred to "the cards that are currently in the look-at area". When really, "them" means "the cards that were on top of your deck".

[Jeebus]

Yes, for the lose-track (stop-moving) rule it's important to define the group of instructions that a card does at a specific time. I call these abilities in my rules document. So Gondola has two abilities for example, which are unrelated.

It's abilities that track cards. When an ability refers to a card, it tracks that card as long as that ability as still "alive". If something else moves the card, the ability loses track. That's the basis for the lose-track rule.

Consider Cargo Ship. Its play ability expects the gained card to be in the "gain location" (usually your discard pile). It moves it from there to "aside". Then it moves the gained card to your hand. The second time it moves the card, it doesn't expect it to be in the "gain location". Since the ability itself moved it to "aside", that's where it expects it be.

It's the same with Catacombs with Elder. It expects the looked-at cards to be in "look at". It moves them to your hand. Then it moves them to your discard pile.

Though as far as I can tell, the OPs original question/confusion had nothing to do with Stop Moving / Lose Track. It was all about the blue dog question, thinking that "them" specifically referred to "the cards that are currently in the look-at area". When really, "them" means "the cards that were on top of your deck".

No, they mentioned "stop moving" on the OP. Then they asked about "effects" on Catacombs, which I took as a reference to stop-moving, which mentions an "effect" moving a card. The official rule uses the word "effect" for what I call "ability". (The rulebooks are not really using consistent terms.)

[GendoIkari]

Yes, for the lose-track (stop-moving) rule it's important to define the group of instructions that a card does at a specific time. I call these abilities in my rules document. So Gondola has two abilities for example, which are unrelated.

It's abilities that track cards. When an ability refers to a card, it tracks that card as long as that ability as still "alive". If something else moves the card, the ability loses track. That's the basis for the lose-track rule.

Consider Cargo Ship. Its play ability expects the gained card to be in the "gain location" (usually your discard pile). It moves it from there to "aside". Then it moves the gained card to your hand. The second time it moves the card, it doesn't expect it to be in the "gain location". Since the ability itself moved it to "aside", that's where it expects it be.

It's the same with Catacombs with Elder. It expects the looked-at cards to be in "look at". It moves them to your hand. Then it moves them to your discard pile.

Though as far as I can tell, the OPs original question/confusion had nothing to do with Stop Moving / Lose Track. It was all about the blue dog question, thinking that "them" specifically referred to "the cards that are currently in the look-at area". When really, "them" means "the cards that were on top of your deck".

No, they mentioned "stop moving" on the OP. Then they asked about "effects" on Catacombs, which I took as a reference to stop-moving, which mentions an "effect" moving a card. The official rule uses the word "effect" for what I call "ability". (The rulebooks are not really using consistent terms.)

You're right, I was remembering a later reply when they started getting into what "them" referred to.

[dane-m]

as far as I can tell, the OPs original question/confusion had nothing to do with Stop Moving / Lose Track. It was all about the blue dog question, thinking that "them" specifically referred to "the cards that are currently in the look-at area". When really, "them" means "the cards that were on top of your deck".

No, they mentioned "stop moving" on the OP. Then they asked about "effects" on Catacombs, which I took as a reference to stop-moving, which mentions an "effect" moving a card. The official rule uses the word "effect" for what I call "ability". (The rulebooks are not really using consistent terms.)

Before I make the following comment I must emphasise that I am not trying to reopen the discussion – I'm perfectly happy that a ruling has been made – but rather attempting to help to explain why the OP came to the conclusion that they did.

Although I'd not initially understood the OP's point, I did eventually have a lot of sympathy for their notion that the stop-moving rule should apply.  That sympathy was based on the idea that in "Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Choose one: Put them into your hand; or discard them and +3 Cards." 'put' and 'discard' are instructions to move the cards from where Catacombs knows they are, namely being looked at it, into hand or onto the discard pile.  Expanding those instructions would give "Look at the top 3 cards of your deck. Choose one: move them from being-looked-at into your hand; or move them from being-looked-at to the discard pile and +3 Cards."  If one were to accept that more explicit wording, attempting to follow both of the instructions would indeed give the result that the OP had expected.

[Dominionaer]

Thanks dane-m and Gendolkari and Donald X.!

I also don't want to continue the discussion, but feel the urge to explain that dane-m's last post is correct but incomplete. I'll try to close the discussion with a summary:
Yes, i saw

• move the top-three-looked-at cards into your hand
• move the top-three-looked-at cards onto your discard and draw

as two seperate, unrelated Catacombs' effects.

The problem is, that was based on my personal instinctive-intuitive interpretation of the word "effect", since nowhere in the  Stop-Moving rule (or anywhere else in the wiki) is the word defined or at least deducable (probably my personal inability). Through the discussion here topped of by Donald X. i learned

A set of instructions is its effect.
A set of instructions keeps track where to it did move cards and although they may be unaccountable in a location (Gendolkari!), they are "known" and so are further movable.
(my interpretation, my wording!)

So Catacombs has not 2 effects (as listed above) but is 1 effect, which includes potentially multiple moves.

[Jeebus]

The problem is, that was based on my personal instinctive-intuitive interpretation of the word "effect", since nowhere in the  Stop-Moving rule (or anywhere else in the wiki) is the word defined or at least deducable (probably my personal inability). Through the discussion here topped of by Donald X. i learned

A set of instructions is its effect.
A set of instructions keeps track where to it did move cards and although they may be unaccountable in a location (Gendolkari!), they are "known" and so are further movable.
(my interpretation, my wording!)

So Catacombs has not 2 effects (as listed above) but is 1 effect, which includes potentially multiple moves.

That is the definition of "effect" in the lose-track/stop-moving rule, but be aware that the word "effect" is not always used with that meaning in the rulebooks. Sometimes it's used to mean individual instruction. The rulebooks use both the terms "effect" and "ability", but I think each instance is clear, simply because it doesn't normally matter if it's an instruction or a set of instructions on a card that does something. But of course for the lose-track rule it matters.

My own phrasing of the full lose-track rule:

An ability that refers to a card always expects that card to be in a certain location, keeping track of it until the ability is fully resolved. If the card is moved from that location by another ability, the first ability loses track of it. An ability cannot move a card if it has lost track of it.

If an ability refers to a played card, it expects the card to be in play. Note: A play ability on a card always expects the card itself to be in play. A when-discard ability expects the card to be in the discard pile. If an ability refers to a gained card, it expects the card to be where the gaining effect put it (usually in your discard pile). If an ability moves a card, it subsequently expects the card to be where it moved it.

An ability loses track of a card that is on top of your deck and gets covered up, since it’s then not on top anymore. This also happens if your deck is shuffled. A card that is moved from the expected location and then moved back again, is nevertheless lost track of.

An ability additionally cannot play a card if it has lost track of it. But there is an exception: A "throne room" (a card that can play a card multiple times) can replay a card even if it has lost track of it.