Print

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

[AJD]

Band of Misfits : Border Village :: Throne Room : Talisman?

[NoMoreFun]

The procession ruling makes sense to me. It plays the action as seen, and trashes the card it sees (triggering the when trash effects of the card it sees), but when it's in the trash (or in your hand in the case of a fortress impersonation), it's no longer in play, so it's back to being a band of thieves. So when the procession looks to the card that it "trashed", it sees the band of thieves, and thus gains a $6 action. The lose track rule doesn't apply because the card is not anywhere it isn't meant to be; it just has a different identity.

The thing I like most is it should work out better for procession, but since most boards don't have a $6 action, it usually means you'll trash your band of misfits and gain nothing. On boards with Fortress and $6 action though, it will be truly devastating (gain as many $6 actions as you have processions, and I'm sure there's some watchtower shenanigans to make it even more ridiculous).

[RiemannZetaJones]

The procession ruling makes sense to me. It plays the action as seen, and trashes the card it sees (triggering the when trash effects of the card it sees), but when it's in the trash (or in your hand in the case of a fortress impersonation), it's no longer in play, so it's back to being a band of thieves. So when the procession looks to the card that it "trashed", it sees the band of thieves, and thus gains a $6 action. The lose track rule doesn't apply because the card is not anywhere it isn't meant to be; it just has a different identity.

The thing I like most is it should work out better for procession, but since most boards don't have a $6 action, it usually means you'll trash your band of misfits and gain nothing. On boards with Fortress and $6 action though, it will be truly devastating (gain as many $6 actions as you have processions, and I'm sure there's some watchtower shenanigans to make it even more ridiculous).

The card (in the case of BoM-as-Fortress) is somewhere it isn't meant to be (viz. in hand, not in the trash), but that's ok, because the lose-track rule applies only to moving cards, not reading them.

[engineer]

I believe I have a much simpler question that will shed some light on the TR-BoM[Feast] issue:

Why do you gain a card when you play Feast?

There are two possible answers:

(1) I trash the feast, then I read the second instruction on the card, and gain a $5.  In other words, the feast can still dictate my activity from the trash.

(2) I read all the instructions on the Feast, and then I perform them one by one (as much as possible), regardless of the fate of the card itself.

The answer to this question is crucial, and all current rulings lead toward choosing (2) as the proper interpretation. 

If I accept (1) as my answer, then a BoM can never truly be a feast in the first place.  Once I follow the first instruction on the BoM, it is in the trash, where it is no longer a Feast, so I don't gain a card.

Donald's "burn-feast" example strongly implies that he intends (2) to be the correct answer.  This means that the instructions on the feast must be "loaded up" into the gamespace and executed to the extent possible, no matter the fate of the card.  In this case, the TR works the same way: pick a card, "load up" its instructions, execute them twice to the extent possible.  This is why TR-Feast gets you two cards, even though the feast is gone after the first play.  This would also explain why the TR-BoM[Feast] works exactly the same as TR-Feast: once the TR is played and the other action is chosen, the fate of that other action card is irrelevant to the execution of the game activities.

Think of it this way: when playing just a feast, the fact that it ends up in the trash after the first step is irrelevant, because it already gave you its instructions.  When playing a TR-BoM[Feast], you read the feast instructions and execute them twice to the extent possible.  The changing identity of the BoM once it hits the trash has no effect on this execution.

To everybody who mentions their confusion about the TR having "memory": it has nothing to do with TR.  The game itself has memory, and it always has.  The game has to have this memory in order to execute a simple Feast on its own.  The TR just manipulates the game memory -- it doesn't create its own.

[NoMoreFun]

The procession ruling makes sense to me. It plays the action as seen, and trashes the card it sees (triggering the when trash effects of the card it sees), but when it's in the trash (or in your hand in the case of a fortress impersonation), it's no longer in play, so it's back to being a band of thieves. So when the procession looks to the card that it "trashed", it sees the band of thieves, and thus gains a $6 action. The lose track rule doesn't apply because the card is not anywhere it isn't meant to be; it just has a different identity.

The thing I like most is it should work out better for procession, but since most boards don't have a $6 action, it usually means you'll trash your band of misfits and gain nothing. On boards with Fortress and $6 action though, it will be truly devastating (gain as many $6 actions as you have processions, and I'm sure there's some watchtower shenanigans to make it even more ridiculous).

The card (in the case of BoM-as-Fortress) is somewhere it isn't meant to be (viz. in hand, not in the trash), but that's ok, because the lose-track rule applies only to moving cards, not reading them.

There's an understanding between the trasher and the Fortress that it will end up in the players hand rather than the trash pile when it's trashed.

I've found that personifying cards is the best way to understand the lose track rule.

[blueblimp]

I believe I have a much simpler question that will shed some light on the TR-BoM[Feast] issue:

Why do you gain a card when you play Feast?

There are two possible answers:

(1) I trash the feast, then I read the second instruction on the card, and gain a $5.  In other words, the feast can still dictate my activity from the trash.

(2) I read all the instructions on the Feast, and then I perform them one by one (as much as possible), regardless of the fate of the card itself.

The answer to this question is crucial, and all current rulings lead toward choosing (2) as the proper interpretation. 

If I accept (1) as my answer, then a BoM can never truly be a feast in the first place.  Once I follow the first instruction on the BoM, it is in the trash, where it is no longer a Feast, so I don't gain a card.

Donald's "burn-feast" example strongly implies that he intends (2) to be the correct answer.  This means that the instructions on the feast must be "loaded up" into the gamespace and executed to the extent possible, no matter the fate of the card.  In this case, the TR works the same way: pick a card, "load up" its instructions, execute them twice to the extent possible.  This is why TR-Feast gets you two cards, even though the feast is gone after the first play.  This would also explain why the TR-BoM[Feast] works exactly the same as TR-Feast: once the TR is played and the other action is chosen, the fate of that other action card is irrelevant to the execution of the game activities.

Think of it this way: when playing just a feast, the fact that it ends up in the trash after the first step is irrelevant, because it already gave you its instructions.  When playing a TR-BoM[Feast], you read the feast instructions and execute them twice to the extent possible.  The changing identity of the BoM once it hits the trash has no effect on this execution.

To everybody who mentions their confusion about the TR having "memory": it has nothing to do with TR.  The game itself has memory, and it always has.  The game has to have this memory in order to execute a simple Feast on its own.  The TR just manipulates the game memory -- it doesn't create its own.

(2) is obviously correct, but the real question is whether the instructions are "loaded up" each time the card is played, or only once for TR/KC. The way TR is worded, it seems to me that "play it" should happen twice, so the instructions are loaded twice, because that is consistent with how cards are normally played.

[RiemannZetaJones]

The procession ruling makes sense to me. It plays the action as seen, and trashes the card it sees (triggering the when trash effects of the card it sees), but when it's in the trash (or in your hand in the case of a fortress impersonation), it's no longer in play, so it's back to being a band of thieves. So when the procession looks to the card that it "trashed", it sees the band of thieves, and thus gains a $6 action. The lose track rule doesn't apply because the card is not anywhere it isn't meant to be; it just has a different identity.

The thing I like most is it should work out better for procession, but since most boards don't have a $6 action, it usually means you'll trash your band of misfits and gain nothing. On boards with Fortress and $6 action though, it will be truly devastating (gain as many $6 actions as you have processions, and I'm sure there's some watchtower shenanigans to make it even more ridiculous).

The card (in the case of BoM-as-Fortress) is somewhere it isn't meant to be (viz. in hand, not in the trash), but that's ok, because the lose-track rule applies only to moving cards, not reading them.

There's an understanding between the trasher and the Fortress that it will end up in the players hand rather than the trash pile when it's trashed.

I've found that personifying cards is the best way to understand the lose track rule.

This is not compatible with Donald's ruling earlier in this thread that Procession would fail if it tried to move the Fortress (instead of gaining a card costing $1 more).

[NoMoreFun]

The procession ruling makes sense to me. It plays the action as seen, and trashes the card it sees (triggering the when trash effects of the card it sees), but when it's in the trash (or in your hand in the case of a fortress impersonation), it's no longer in play, so it's back to being a band of thieves. So when the procession looks to the card that it "trashed", it sees the band of thieves, and thus gains a $6 action. The lose track rule doesn't apply because the card is not anywhere it isn't meant to be; it just has a different identity.

The thing I like most is it should work out better for procession, but since most boards don't have a $6 action, it usually means you'll trash your band of misfits and gain nothing. On boards with Fortress and $6 action though, it will be truly devastating (gain as many $6 actions as you have processions, and I'm sure there's some watchtower shenanigans to make it even more ridiculous).

The card (in the case of BoM-as-Fortress) is somewhere it isn't meant to be (viz. in hand, not in the trash), but that's ok, because the lose-track rule applies only to moving cards, not reading them.

There's an understanding between the trasher and the Fortress that it will end up in the players hand rather than the trash pile when it's trashed.

I've found that personifying cards is the best way to understand the lose track rule.

This is not compatible with Donald's ruling earlier in this thread that Procession would fail if it tried to move the Fortress (instead of gaining a card costing $1 more).

It sees the trashed card exactly where it knows it's supposed to be, and gains a card costing $1 more than it... right?

[RiemannZetaJones]

The procession ruling makes sense to me. It plays the action as seen, and trashes the card it sees (triggering the when trash effects of the card it sees), but when it's in the trash (or in your hand in the case of a fortress impersonation), it's no longer in play, so it's back to being a band of thieves. So when the procession looks to the card that it "trashed", it sees the band of thieves, and thus gains a $6 action. The lose track rule doesn't apply because the card is not anywhere it isn't meant to be; it just has a different identity.

The thing I like most is it should work out better for procession, but since most boards don't have a $6 action, it usually means you'll trash your band of misfits and gain nothing. On boards with Fortress and $6 action though, it will be truly devastating (gain as many $6 actions as you have processions, and I'm sure there's some watchtower shenanigans to make it even more ridiculous).

The card (in the case of BoM-as-Fortress) is somewhere it isn't meant to be (viz. in hand, not in the trash), but that's ok, because the lose-track rule applies only to moving cards, not reading them.

There's an understanding between the trasher and the Fortress that it will end up in the players hand rather than the trash pile when it's trashed.

I've found that personifying cards is the best way to understand the lose track rule.

This is not compatible with Donald's ruling earlier in this thread that Procession would fail if it tried to move the Fortress (instead of gaining a card costing $1 more).

It sees the trashed card exactly where it knows it's supposed to be, and gains a card costing $1 more than it... right?

Whatever it does, it would fail if instead of saying 'gain a card costing $1 more', Procession said 'return it to the supply'. So for some purposes, card A (here Procession) is capable of knowing where card B (here Fortress) is, even if card B was moved to that location by an ability not on card A, but for the purposes of card movement, a movement of card B prompted by an ability not on card A causes card A to lose track of card B and not to be able to move it any further.

[Beyond Awesome]

A 10 page thread regarding the ruling on how a card works. Craziness.

[mischiefmaker]

If I have a BoM and a Cultist in hand, I can play BoM-as-a-Cultist and then Cultist, but not the other way around, right?

[ftl]

[edit]Right, what mischiefmaker said[/edit]

[blueblimp]

If I have a BoM and a Cultist in hand, I can play BoM-as-a-Cultist and then Cultist, but not the other way around, right?

Cultist is $5, so you can't BoM it.

[Grujah]

Can BoM copy Knight Martin if he is on top of the Knight Pile?

[mnavratil]

I'd imagine so! Good interaction there.

[engineer]

I believe I have a much simpler question that will shed some light on the TR-BoM[Feast] issue:

Why do you gain a card when you play Feast?

There are two possible answers:

(1) I trash the feast, then I read the second instruction on the card, and gain a $5.  In other words, the feast can still dictate my activity from the trash.

(2) I read all the instructions on the Feast, and then I perform them one by one (as much as possible), regardless of the fate of the card itself.

The answer to this question is crucial, and all current rulings lead toward choosing (2) as the proper interpretation. 

If I accept (1) as my answer, then a BoM can never truly be a feast in the first place.  Once I follow the first instruction on the BoM, it is in the trash, where it is no longer a Feast, so I don't gain a card.

Donald's "burn-feast" example strongly implies that he intends (2) to be the correct answer.  This means that the instructions on the feast must be "loaded up" into the gamespace and executed to the extent possible, no matter the fate of the card.  In this case, the TR works the same way: pick a card, "load up" its instructions, execute them twice to the extent possible.  This is why TR-Feast gets you two cards, even though the feast is gone after the first play.  This would also explain why the TR-BoM[Feast] works exactly the same as TR-Feast: once the TR is played and the other action is chosen, the fate of that other action card is irrelevant to the execution of the game activities.

Think of it this way: when playing just a feast, the fact that it ends up in the trash after the first step is irrelevant, because it already gave you its instructions.  When playing a TR-BoM[Feast], you read the feast instructions and execute them twice to the extent possible.  The changing identity of the BoM once it hits the trash has no effect on this execution.

To everybody who mentions their confusion about the TR having "memory": it has nothing to do with TR.  The game itself has memory, and it always has.  The game has to have this memory in order to execute a simple Feast on its own.  The TR just manipulates the game memory -- it doesn't create its own.

(2) is obviously correct, but the real question is whether the instructions are "loaded up" each time the card is played, or only once for TR/KC. The way TR is worded, it seems to me that "play it" should happen twice, so the instructions are loaded twice, because that is consistent with how cards are normally played.

If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, then TR-Feast should only provide one card.  Once the feast is trashed, how could it be "loaded up" again?  Or to use Donald's more extreme burn-feast example, that would definitely only provide one card.

I agree that this could be a legitimate way to interpret the wording on the card, but there is already a clear ruling on TR-Feast: you get two cards.  Since this is the case, I don't think you should "load up" the feast instructions in two separate steps -- all of the "loading" occurs when you play the TR and select the feast.

[blueblimp]

I believe I have a much simpler question that will shed some light on the TR-BoM[Feast] issue:

Why do you gain a card when you play Feast?

There are two possible answers:

(1) I trash the feast, then I read the second instruction on the card, and gain a $5.  In other words, the feast can still dictate my activity from the trash.

(2) I read all the instructions on the Feast, and then I perform them one by one (as much as possible), regardless of the fate of the card itself.

The answer to this question is crucial, and all current rulings lead toward choosing (2) as the proper interpretation. 

If I accept (1) as my answer, then a BoM can never truly be a feast in the first place.  Once I follow the first instruction on the BoM, it is in the trash, where it is no longer a Feast, so I don't gain a card.

Donald's "burn-feast" example strongly implies that he intends (2) to be the correct answer.  This means that the instructions on the feast must be "loaded up" into the gamespace and executed to the extent possible, no matter the fate of the card.  In this case, the TR works the same way: pick a card, "load up" its instructions, execute them twice to the extent possible.  This is why TR-Feast gets you two cards, even though the feast is gone after the first play.  This would also explain why the TR-BoM[Feast] works exactly the same as TR-Feast: once the TR is played and the other action is chosen, the fate of that other action card is irrelevant to the execution of the game activities.

Think of it this way: when playing just a feast, the fact that it ends up in the trash after the first step is irrelevant, because it already gave you its instructions.  When playing a TR-BoM[Feast], you read the feast instructions and execute them twice to the extent possible.  The changing identity of the BoM once it hits the trash has no effect on this execution.

To everybody who mentions their confusion about the TR having "memory": it has nothing to do with TR.  The game itself has memory, and it always has.  The game has to have this memory in order to execute a simple Feast on its own.  The TR just manipulates the game memory -- it doesn't create its own.

(2) is obviously correct, but the real question is whether the instructions are "loaded up" each time the card is played, or only once for TR/KC. The way TR is worded, it seems to me that "play it" should happen twice, so the instructions are loaded twice, because that is consistent with how cards are normally played.

If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, then TR-Feast should only provide one card.  Once the feast is trashed, how could it be "loaded up" again?  Or to use Donald's more extreme burn-feast example, that would definitely only provide one card.

I agree that this could be a legitimate way to interpret the wording on the card, but there is already a clear ruling on TR-Feast: you get two cards.  Since this is the case, I don't think you should "load up" the feast instructions in two separate steps -- all of the "loading" occurs when you play the TR and select the feast.

The physical location/condition of a card is not an obstacle to reading its data. Throne Room has no problem reading a Feast card's data, no matter where the physical card may be. The "lose track" rule only applies when you try to move the card. As Donald X posted earlier in the thread:

Fair enough, but it is surprising to me that the Procession knows where to look for the card it played in order to determine its cost, even though it tried to trash it;

It put it there! "Lose track" only applies when some other thing moves the card; a card keeps track of cards it moves itself, which is essential so that for example Procession can find the card in play in order to trash it (since it moved from your hand). And of course "lose track" only prevents moving, not information-getting.

Edit: Also, I don't see why the physical condition of the card (including possibly being burned to ashes) should prevent information-getting, either. In some sense, the card is still "trying" to show you the information, but it's having a harder time than usual.

[eHalcyon]

I believe engineer's suggestion is that TR does not "read the cards data" the second time.  That is, it does not have a problem reading it whatever its location, because it doesn't have to -- it loaded it up for the first play and is reusing that data.

[blueblimp]

I believe engineer's suggestion is that TR does not "read the cards data" the second time.  That is, it does not have a problem reading it whatever its location, because it doesn't have to -- it loaded it up for the first play and is reusing that data.

Yeah, I understand that much, but I thought he was also saying that if Throne Room had to read twice, then the current TR-Feast behaviour wouldn't be possible. But I think that's wrong. TR-Feast would work the same way whether TR reads once or twice.

[agrajag]

Here's how I see it:

Both Procession and Throne Room refer to picking an "Action card" and both later use "it".

Given Donald's earlier ruling, for Procession "it" clearly refers to the physical card itself and not the action that was played. If "it" referred to the action and not to the physical card, then you wouldn't gain a card costing $6 when using BoM because Procession would have instead remembered that the action you played costed less than $5. So clearly "it" means the the card.

Therefore it would make sense to assume that the "it" on Throne Room also refers to the physical card. However the difference is here that Throne Room only checks what the card ("it") is once, whereas Procession checks several times. So at the time that Throne Room checks what the card is (the point at which you read the word "it") if the card is BoM Throne Room sees whatever BoM is pretending to be. Later on, if BoM self-trashed when it was played, it might no longer be the same card anymore (since it has left play), but Throne Room does not check again, it just assumes it is still the same card.

I think the answer would be different if Throne Room read "Pick an Action Card. Play it. Play it again." In that case, Throne Room would have checked what the card was a second time after it had been played. But as written it does not (which is a good thing, because otherwise BoM might get "stuck" as a different card, having been played but never actually entering the play area and thus never leaving play).

Edit: As a side note, I think BoM reverting to itself "when not in play" as opposed to "when leaving play" might have been safer and more clear from a rules perspective, but I don't think it actually matters in this case.

[RiemannZetaJones]

I believe I have a much simpler question that will shed some light on the TR-BoM[Feast] issue:

Why do you gain a card when you play Feast?

There are two possible answers:

(1) I trash the feast, then I read the second instruction on the card, and gain a $5.  In other words, the feast can still dictate my activity from the trash.

(2) I read all the instructions on the Feast, and then I perform them one by one (as much as possible), regardless of the fate of the card itself.

The answer to this question is crucial, and all current rulings lead toward choosing (2) as the proper interpretation. 

If I accept (1) as my answer, then a BoM can never truly be a feast in the first place.  Once I follow the first instruction on the BoM, it is in the trash, where it is no longer a Feast, so I don't gain a card.

Donald's "burn-feast" example strongly implies that he intends (2) to be the correct answer.  This means that the instructions on the feast must be "loaded up" into the gamespace and executed to the extent possible, no matter the fate of the card.  In this case, the TR works the same way: pick a card, "load up" its instructions, execute them twice to the extent possible.  This is why TR-Feast gets you two cards, even though the feast is gone after the first play.  This would also explain why the TR-BoM[Feast] works exactly the same as TR-Feast: once the TR is played and the other action is chosen, the fate of that other action card is irrelevant to the execution of the game activities.

Think of it this way: when playing just a feast, the fact that it ends up in the trash after the first step is irrelevant, because it already gave you its instructions.  When playing a TR-BoM[Feast], you read the feast instructions and execute them twice to the extent possible.  The changing identity of the BoM once it hits the trash has no effect on this execution.

To everybody who mentions their confusion about the TR having "memory": it has nothing to do with TR.  The game itself has memory, and it always has.  The game has to have this memory in order to execute a simple Feast on its own.  The TR just manipulates the game memory -- it doesn't create its own.

(2) is obviously correct, but the real question is whether the instructions are "loaded up" each time the card is played, or only once for TR/KC. The way TR is worded, it seems to me that "play it" should happen twice, so the instructions are loaded twice, because that is consistent with how cards are normally played.

If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, then TR-Feast should only provide one card.  Once the feast is trashed, how could it be "loaded up" again?  Or to use Donald's more extreme burn-feast example, that would definitely only provide one card.

I agree that this could be a legitimate way to interpret the wording on the card, but there is already a clear ruling on TR-Feast: you get two cards.  Since this is the case, I don't think you should "load up" the feast instructions in two separate steps -- all of the "loading" occurs when you play the TR and select the feast.

The physical location/condition of a card is not an obstacle to reading its data. Throne Room has no problem reading a Feast card's data, no matter where the physical card may be. The "lose track" rule only applies when you try to move the card. As Donald X posted earlier in the thread:

Fair enough, but it is surprising to me that the Procession knows where to look for the card it played in order to determine its cost, even though it tried to trash it;

It put it there! "Lose track" only applies when some other thing moves the card; a card keeps track of cards it moves itself, which is essential so that for example Procession can find the card in play in order to trash it (since it moved from your hand). And of course "lose track" only prevents moving, not information-getting.

Edit: Also, I don't see why the physical condition of the card (including possibly being burned to ashes) should prevent information-getting, either. In some sense, the card is still "trying" to show you the information, but it's having a harder time than usual.

Either I'm a bit confused about something or Donald X. is, because as far as I can tell, the Procession did not put the BoM in hand, it tried to put it in the trash, and the BoM (as Fortress) put itself in hand. But maybe that's really the Procession putting the BoM in hand.

[AJD]

I believe I have a much simpler question that will shed some light on the TR-BoM[Feast] issue:

Why do you gain a card when you play Feast?

There are two possible answers:

(1) I trash the feast, then I read the second instruction on the card, and gain a $5.  In other words, the feast can still dictate my activity from the trash.

(2) I read all the instructions on the Feast, and then I perform them one by one (as much as possible), regardless of the fate of the card itself.

The answer to this question is crucial, and all current rulings lead toward choosing (2) as the proper interpretation. 

If I accept (1) as my answer, then a BoM can never truly be a feast in the first place.  Once I follow the first instruction on the BoM, it is in the trash, where it is no longer a Feast, so I don't gain a card.

Donald's "burn-feast" example strongly implies that he intends (2) to be the correct answer.  This means that the instructions on the feast must be "loaded up" into the gamespace and executed to the extent possible, no matter the fate of the card.  In this case, the TR works the same way: pick a card, "load up" its instructions, execute them twice to the extent possible.  This is why TR-Feast gets you two cards, even though the feast is gone after the first play.  This would also explain why the TR-BoM[Feast] works exactly the same as TR-Feast: once the TR is played and the other action is chosen, the fate of that other action card is irrelevant to the execution of the game activities.

Think of it this way: when playing just a feast, the fact that it ends up in the trash after the first step is irrelevant, because it already gave you its instructions.  When playing a TR-BoM[Feast], you read the feast instructions and execute them twice to the extent possible.  The changing identity of the BoM once it hits the trash has no effect on this execution.

To everybody who mentions their confusion about the TR having "memory": it has nothing to do with TR.  The game itself has memory, and it always has.  The game has to have this memory in order to execute a simple Feast on its own.  The TR just manipulates the game memory -- it doesn't create its own.

(2) is obviously correct, but the real question is whether the instructions are "loaded up" each time the card is played, or only once for TR/KC. The way TR is worded, it seems to me that "play it" should happen twice, so the instructions are loaded twice, because that is consistent with how cards are normally played.

If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, then TR-Feast should only provide one card.  Once the feast is trashed, how could it be "loaded up" again?  Or to use Donald's more extreme burn-feast example, that would definitely only provide one card.

I agree that this could be a legitimate way to interpret the wording on the card, but there is already a clear ruling on TR-Feast: you get two cards.  Since this is the case, I don't think you should "load up" the feast instructions in two separate steps -- all of the "loading" occurs when you play the TR and select the feast.

The physical location/condition of a card is not an obstacle to reading its data. Throne Room has no problem reading a Feast card's data, no matter where the physical card may be. The "lose track" rule only applies when you try to move the card. As Donald X posted earlier in the thread:

Fair enough, but it is surprising to me that the Procession knows where to look for the card it played in order to determine its cost, even though it tried to trash it;

It put it there! "Lose track" only applies when some other thing moves the card; a card keeps track of cards it moves itself, which is essential so that for example Procession can find the card in play in order to trash it (since it moved from your hand). And of course "lose track" only prevents moving, not information-getting.

Edit: Also, I don't see why the physical condition of the card (including possibly being burned to ashes) should prevent information-getting, either. In some sense, the card is still "trying" to show you the information, but it's having a harder time than usual.

Either I'm a bit confused about something or Donald X. is, because as far as I can tell, the Procession did not put the BoM in hand, it tried to put it in the trash, and the BoM (as Fortress) put itself in hand. But maybe that's really the Procession putting the BoM in hand.

The BoM/Fortress put itself in hand. But the Lose Track rule doesn't apply because Procession isn't trying to move it anywhere else from there.

[Donald X.]

Either I'm a bit confused about something or Donald X. is, because as far as I can tell, the Procession did not put the BoM in hand, it tried to put it in the trash, and the BoM (as Fortress) put itself in hand. But maybe that's really the Procession putting the BoM in hand.

The bit I was replying to wasn't specific to Fortress - "it is surprising to me that the Procession knows where to look for the card it played." When you Procession a card, you play it twice, then trash it. If it mattered (which it doesn't), Procession "knows" where that card is now, because Procession put it in the trash. (This is not the case for Fortress - Procession "loses track" of Fortress since Fortress moves itself and Procession only tracks Procession moving cards).

[blueblimp]

Either I'm a bit confused about something or Donald X. is, because as far as I can tell, the Procession did not put the BoM in hand, it tried to put it in the trash, and the BoM (as Fortress) put itself in hand. But maybe that's really the Procession putting the BoM in hand.

The bit I was replying to wasn't specific to Fortress - "it is surprising to me that the Procession knows where to look for the card it played." When you Procession a card, you play it twice, then trash it. If it mattered (which it doesn't), Procession "knows" where that card is now, because Procession put it in the trash. (This is not the case for Fortress - Procession "loses track" of Fortress since Fortress moves itself and Procession only tracks Procession moving cards).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but although it doesn't matter that Procession knows where the target card goes after the target card is trashed, it does matter that Procession knows where the target card is after it has been moved from hand to play. (Which it does, because Procession put it there.)

[RiemannZetaJones]

Either I'm a bit confused about something or Donald X. is, because as far as I can tell, the Procession did not put the BoM in hand, it tried to put it in the trash, and the BoM (as Fortress) put itself in hand. But maybe that's really the Procession putting the BoM in hand.

The bit I was replying to wasn't specific to Fortress - "it is surprising to me that the Procession knows where to look for the card it played." When you Procession a card, you play it twice, then trash it. If it mattered (which it doesn't), Procession "knows" where that card is now, because Procession put it in the trash. (This is not the case for Fortress - Procession "loses track" of Fortress since Fortress moves itself and Procession only tracks Procession moving cards).

Ah! But I thought I was clearly talking about the specific Procession-BoM-Fortress situation; you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I certainly accept that the Procession knows where the card is in the usual case.

edit: Just to be absolutely clear, the ruling that I was talking about was, in re Procession being played on BoM which is then declared to be a Fortress:

This one is in the FAQ, hooray. BoM goes back to your hand and you gain an action card costing $6. At the point at which you trashed it, it had an ability that returned it to your hand if it was trashed; at the point at which we need to know its cost, it's back to $5.

At some later point in what is now an overly-long discussion of something that is in the FAQ already, I think Donald X. said something (that the card is in the trash) which suggested that he had not understood what I was asking, which is probably my fault.

Ultimately what I have learned from this discussion is that the 'lose track' rule applies only when cards are being moved. For the purposes of reading the text on the card, the card could have been moved to Mars for all we care, it's still something that Procession (or any other card) can do.