Print

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

[TrashT]

First question pertains to rule 19.4:

When an ability or several abilities happen at the same time to different players, the abilities are resolved in turn order starting with the current player. Between turns, the player who last had a turn is considered to be the current player. When several abilities happen at the same time to the same player, he chooses the order of the abilities.

So let's say you buy a Noble Brigand and that supply pile has an Embargo token. I read that you would gain the Curse before resolving the on-buy ability of Noble Brigand, because it happens to the opponent. But by what logic doesn't it just happen to everyone, including you? After all, you gain some cards as well. This always made sense to me with on-gain effects while gaining a Province and the opponent has Fool's Gold in his hand - all "my" on-gain triggers would resolve before he has to decide whether to trash his Fool's Gold (or so I think.)

Second question is about Hermit. If I discard him from play, and didn't buy anything this turn. I gain a Madman. Can I reveal a Watchtower from my hand to topdeck the Madman? I would think not, since the rulebook just states "discard all cards from play and your hand", which implies that you do it all at the same time. It seems similar to discarding Watchtower and Tunnel to Minion - you cannot reveal that Watchtower to topdeck the Gold, since you discard everything, THEN reveal Tunnel and gain a Gold, THEN draw 4. So far so good - but if that is how Hermit/Watchtower interact, how does Herbalist even work at all? Seems to me like it should be worded similarly to Scheme (At the beginning of your cleanup step, if Herbalist is in play, you may choose a Treasure card in play. When that card is discarded from play this turn, put it on top of your deck.)

So, would anyone please be so kind as to shed some light on all this?

[shMerker]

As far as the Hermit question is concerned, clean-up happens in whatever order you like. That is, you actually discard each card one after the other, choosing them as you go. In most cases this effectively all happens at once because the order doesn't affect anything. But in the case you listed you could decide to clean up Hermit before discarding your hand, which would leave your Watchtower in place to be revealed when you gain your Madman.

I don't really understand what you are asking with the Noble Brigand question. In the scenario you described you gain a curse and a Noble Brigand and also attack the other players who may gain copper or trash treasures or possibly just flip two cards. The order doesn't really matter unless some other thing gets triggered--like maybe you have a Watchtower or someone else has a Market Square. But I have no idea what "after all, you gain some cards as well" is even in reference to, since you are the only player who is definitely gaining anything. I don't really know what you expect to be happening to everyone. No one else is getting a curse if that's what you mean.

[TrashT]

The "as well" was a bit misleading, sorry about that. My point is: I think it could be relevant in which order those two effects happen. In that case, I was told the Embargo effect would resolve first, because it affects me, whereas the Noble Brigand effect affects my opponent. Given the nature of Noble Brigand's effect though, I don't see the logic behind this - why does it count as affecting my opponent, but not me? Or was I told wrong in the first place?

[TrashT]

Oh and thanks for clearing up the Hermit/Watchtower issue :-)

[Kirian]

As far as the Hermit question is concerned, clean-up happens in whatever order you like. That is, you actually discard each card one after the other, choosing them as you go.

This part is incorrect.  The cards are discarded all at once; you can choose which goes on top:  http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1004.msg15441#msg15441

However, I don't know if there is a standard for whether cards in front of you are cleaned up first, or cards in your hand are cleaned up first.

[yudantaiteki]

However, I don't know if there is a standard for whether cards in front of you are cleaned up first, or cards in your hand are cleaned up first.

I have a vague recollection that Donald X once addressed this issue on BGG, with respect to a fan card, but sadly I don't remember what the response was.

[Donald X.]

So let's say you buy a Noble Brigand and that supply pile has an Embargo token. I read that you would gain the Curse before resolving the on-buy ability of Noble Brigand, because it happens to the opponent. But by what logic doesn't it just happen to everyone, including you? After all, you gain some cards as well. This always made sense to me with on-gain effects while gaining a Province and the opponent has Fool's Gold in his hand - all "my" on-gain triggers would resolve before he has to decide whether to trash his Fool's Gold (or so I think.)

When Noble Brigand attacks, it makes each other player reveal cards and so on. That involves you. But it's not like we can resolve your part of that first - we have to see what cards they reveal to know if you get any. We reveal cards in turn order. The turn order timing rule handles this.

When you buy Noble Brigand, two things trigger on that buying. You pick the order - gain a Curse first, or first resolve the rest of what Noble Brigand says (which turns out to involve the other players in turn order).

Second question is about Hermit. If I discard him from play, and didn't buy anything this turn. I gain a Madman. Can I reveal a Watchtower from my hand to topdeck the Madman? I would think not, since the rulebook just states "discard all cards from play and your hand", which implies that you do it all at the same time.

From the Alchemy rulebook, you discard cards from play in the order you choose, and resolve the effects as they come up. This is different from discarding from your hand, where you discard everything before resolving Tunnel. The reason for the difference is wanting to not bog things down with showing people every card you Cellar.

More explanation for Hermit/Market Square: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/851691/hermit-and-market-square

Edit: Oh and so the answer is yes you can Watchtower the Madman.

[TrashT]

Makes perfect sense, thanks a lot!

[AJD]

When Noble Brigand attacks, it makes each other player reveal cards and so on. That involves you. But it's not like we can resolve your part of that first - we have to see what cards they reveal to know if you get any. We reveal cards in turn order. The turn order timing rule handles this.

When you buy Noble Brigand, two things trigger on that buying. You pick the order - gain a Curse first, or first resolve the rest of what Noble Brigand says (which turns out to involve the other players in turn order).

...So to my surprise, the different rule booklets actually seem to contradict each other on this. For instance, the Seaside rules say:

If multiple cards resolve at the same time on your turn... you choose what order to resolve them. A card that affects multiple players during your turn still resolves in player order, affecting you first if it affects all players and then proceeding clockwise.

But the Hinterlands rules say:

When two things happen to a player at the same time, that player picks the order to do them.... When two things happen to different players at the same time, they happen in turn order, starting with the player whose turn it is.

Donald's ruling above is consistent with the way the timing rules are stated in the Seaside booklet (Embargo and Noble Brigand are two different cards resolving at the same time, so the active player chooses which one resolves first; the go-in-turn-order rule only applies to effects of a single card), but not with the way the rules are stated in the Hinterlands booklet (Embargo and Noble Brigand are triggered at the same time, so the one that affects the current player is resolved first; whether simultaneous effects are triggered by multiple cards or a single card is irrelevant to the rule).

Should we take this as meaning that, of these two contradictory formulations of the rule, it's the Seaside one that we should take as correct?

[AJD]

If multiple cards resolve at the same time on your turn... you choose what order to resolve them.

No but wait... multiple opponents' Secret Chambers are multiple cards resolving at the same time on your turn, but obviously you don't choose the order to resolve them in. Aaargh. Now I'm all confused.

[AJD]

If multiple cards resolve at the same time on your turn... you choose what order to resolve them.

No but wait... multiple opponents' Secret Chambers are multiple cards resolving at the same time on your turn, but obviously you don't choose the order to resolve them in. Aaargh. Now I'm all confused.

(Or a less obviously-wrong issue regarding the same timing problem: can I wait to see if opponents have Moats / Secret Chambers / Horse Traders / Beggars to reveal before I decide whether I want to trash my Urchin for a Mercenary? Or do I have to trash Urchin or decide not to before everyone else gets a chance to reveal their Reactions? I have no idea now.)

[ehunt]

If multiple cards resolve at the same time on your turn... you choose what order to resolve them.

No but wait... multiple opponents' Secret Chambers are multiple cards resolving at the same time on your turn, but obviously you don't choose the order to resolve them in. Aaargh. Now I'm all confused.

(Or a less obviously-wrong issue regarding the same timing problem: can I wait to see if opponents have Moats / Secret Chambers / Horse Traders / Beggars to reveal before I decide whether I want to trash my Urchin for a Mercenary? Or do I have to trash Urchin or decide not to before everyone else gets a chance to reveal their Reactions? I have no idea now.)

In the second example, you must wait, right? The reactions are all revealed upon play of the attack. Urchin's ability is triggered after play.

[AJD]

If multiple cards resolve at the same time on your turn... you choose what order to resolve them.

No but wait... multiple opponents' Secret Chambers are multiple cards resolving at the same time on your turn, but obviously you don't choose the order to resolve them in. Aaargh. Now I'm all confused.

(Or a less obviously-wrong issue regarding the same timing problem: can I wait to see if opponents have Moats / Secret Chambers / Horse Traders / Beggars to reveal before I decide whether I want to trash my Urchin for a Mercenary? Or do I have to trash Urchin or decide not to before everyone else gets a chance to reveal their Reactions? I have no idea now.)

In the second example, you must wait, right? The reactions are all revealed upon play of the attack. Urchin's ability is triggered after play.

Urchin is "When you play another Attack card with this in play, you may trash this." That's the same timing as Secret Chamber's "When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal this."

[shMerker]

Yeah I think the Urchin upgrade would resolve before other players have the opportunity to react since it affects the player whose turn it is.

[Donald X.]

Donald's ruling above is consistent with the way the timing rules are stated in the Seaside booklet (Embargo and Noble Brigand are two different cards resolving at the same time, so the active player chooses which one resolves first; the go-in-turn-order rule only applies to effects of a single card), but not with the way the rules are stated in the Hinterlands booklet (Embargo and Noble Brigand are triggered at the same time, so the one that affects the current player is resolved first; whether simultaneous effects are triggered by multiple cards or a single card is irrelevant to the rule).

The issue here is just "does Noble Brigand affect the current player." Does it count as one of the things where we use turn order timing. When it says "each other player," it's timed in turn order; when it says "when you buy this," that's you, buying something, and we have you order that vs. other things like that.

[Donald X.]

Yeah I think the Urchin upgrade would resolve before other players have the opportunity to react since it affects the player whose turn it is.

Urchin is trashed before Moats.

[Jeebus]

Hmm, I see I need to reword the FAQ that was quoted in the original post. This isn't quite as straight forward as I thought it was.

[Dulkal]

Urchin is trashed before Moats.

Because of turn order, or because the players can choose to reveal the moat last?

[Donald X.]

Because of turn order, or because the players can choose to reveal the moat last?

Turn order-based timing.

[Dulkal]

Turn order-based timing.

And this is different from the Noble Brigand case where you could choose between simultanous triggers, one of which affected others, because the trigger for Moat is not a card that 'belongs' to you?

So, each time a trigger happens, you resolve any effects that relate to you (such as the urchin trashing or the embargo token cursing), then each other player in turn resolve any effects that relate to them (such as reactions). But because 'resolve the when-gain effect of the card you just bought' is considered to relate to the buyer, the buyer of an embargoed Noble Brigand can choose to resolve that effect first. Did I get that right?

[Donald X.]

And this is different from the Noble Brigand case where you could choose between simultanous triggers, one of which affected others, because the trigger for Moat is not a card that 'belongs' to you?

So, each time a trigger happens, you resolve any effects that relate to you (such as the urchin trashing or the embargo token cursing), then each other player in turn resolve any effects that relate to them (such as reactions). But because 'resolve the when-gain effect of the card you just bought' is considered to relate to the buyer, the buyer of an embargoed Noble Brigand can choose to resolve that effect first. Did I get that right?

I don't want to just say yes because I want to be accurate and don't want to have to focus too much on your exact words. Someone complained once about me not just saying "yes" and well there's my explanation for not doing so.

When two things happen to you at once, you pick the order. When two things happen to different players at once, they go in turn order. That's the basic rule.

For Urchin / Moat, Urchin is "when you play an attack" and Moat is "when someone else plays an attack." They both trigger on the same event. We have to have an order for people to show their Moats, and it's turn order. You could consider this an extension of the original rule - getting to decide whether or not to reveal your Moat is "something happening to you." I am not sure if a rulebook flatly states this. Once you have this then of course Urchin goes first - same trigger, different player, use turn order.

For Embargo / Noble Brigand, two things happen when you buy a card. This creates the question, "does Noble Brigand count as happening to you or what," and my ruling is, yes, just the "when you" part by itself is enough to involve you in it.

[Dulkal]

...
For Embargo / Noble Brigand, two things happen when you buy a card. This creates the question, "does Noble Brigand count as happening to you or what," and my ruling is, yes, just the "when you" part by itself is enough to involve you in it.

Makes sense. Thank you!

[Jeebus]

I'm necroing this thread because I'm really confused by this ruling, after trying to make sense of it. I thought I got it, but now I realize I never did.

The bottom line was that when Alice plays Urchin and Bob has a Moat, Alice has to trash Urchin before Bob reveals the Moat.
But: When Alice buys an Embargoed Noble Brigand, she can choose to resolve Noble Brigand before Embargo.

The reasoning is that Noble Brigand ("when you buy this") affects Alice, but Bob's Moat doesn't. If his Moat affected her too, she would get to choose which should be resolved first (Moat's or Urchin's when-play ability).

But why is Noble Brigand different from Moat?

For Moat, Donald said: Getting to decide whether or not to reveal your Moat is "something happening to you." The idea is that it's happening to Bob, not to Alice.

But that's not the trigger. This is the trigger:
Noble Brigand says "when you buy this". -- "You" in this case is Alice.
Moat says "when another player plays an Attack card". -- "Another player" in this case is Alice.
In both cases the trigger is Alice (not Bob) actively doing something.

So what about "deciding whether or not to reveal your Moat". That's part of resolving the ability.
Noble Brigand: "each other player reveals the top 2 cards of his deck..." -- This means Bob.
Moat: "you may reveal this from your hand." -- This means Bob.
In both cases Bob does something as part of the resolution, so it seems that both cards entail "something happening" to Bob.

I can only see these two differences:
1) Moat entails a choice for Bob, Noble Brigand doesn't. But nowhere, in the rulebooks or in this thread, is choice mentioned as a distinguishing factor. (Edit: This turned out to be the answer!)
2) The Moat card belongs to Bob, the Noble Brigand card doesn't. But the Noble Brigand doesn't belong to Alice either, not yet.

What am I missing?

[Donald X.]

What am I missing?

I'm not sure and can't focus on the words, but here are two things that conceivably clarify things.

We only care about the trigger, not what it does. When Alice buys Embargo'd Noble Brigand, she has two "When you buy this, black box" triggers. We need to know what order to do them and the rule is Alice picks.

The general rule "when things happen to different players at the same time, go in turn order" is supposed to cover revealing Moat (plus the other things it covers). I see how you can say "that isn't happening to different players" - there are two "When I play this attack" triggers, and one of them is your optional thing (Urchin) and another is another player's optional thing (Moat). But the intention is that those decisions are made in turn order. If it helps you you can add "when multiple players need to make decisions at once, go in turn order."

[Jeebus]

We only care about the trigger, not what it does. When Alice buys Embargo'd Noble Brigand, she has two "When you buy this, black box" triggers. We need to know what order to do them and the rule is Alice picks.

The general rule "when things happen to different players at the same time, go in turn order" is supposed to cover revealing Moat (plus the other things it covers). I see how you can say "that isn't happening to different players" - there are two "When I play this attack" triggers, and one of them is your optional thing (Urchin) and another is another player's optional thing (Moat). But the intention is that those decisions are made in turn order. If it helps you you can add "when multiple players need to make decisions at once, go in turn order."

Ok, I understand the intention. But I don't think I can find the logic that would apply for both these examples and any others that might show up.

If we only care about the trigger, that works for Noble Brigand/Embargo, but as you note, for Moat and Urchin the trigger is just "when I play an Attack, black box". To even know if Alice can choose the order of Moat and Urchin -- to find out if there are decisions that go in turn order -- we have to look in the black box. To me this means that we don't only care about the trigger. (The same is true if Bob has a Moat and a Secret Chamber: He should decide the order to resolve them, not Alice.)

If there was a Noble Torturer -- "when you buy this, each other player discards 2 cards or gains a Curse" -- and Alice buys an Embargo'd Noble Torturer, what's the order? Does she have to gain the Curse first, and then the other players make the decision in turn order?