Print

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

[Snartleflush]

So, I was playing (an IRL game) with trader and ill-gotten gains the other day.
I rushed the IGG pile, and then bought a single trader
when it came up, I bought a silver, and then proceeded to keep revealing trader to empty the silver stack and end the game.

My question is this:
Is it legal to reveal a trader when you are gaining a silver from a trader.

[D Bo]

So you are saying you bought one silver and then revealed trader MANY times on the same turn to empty the silver pile? Unfortunately you can't do that - from the rule book: "Trader is also a reaction. When you gain a card, whether due to buying it or due to gaining it some other way, you may reveal Trader from your hand to instead gain a silver from the supply. If you do this, you gain a silver, not the card you would have gained." So I would say in this case you would gain the silver, reveal Trader, and instead of gaining a silver, you would gain the same silver. Not gain an additional silver and then multiple subsequent silvers.

[greatexpectations]

per the rules pdf, you are gaining a silver instead of another card. so, you never actually gain that first silver, you just end up gaining a silver instead. you can choose to repeatedly gain a silver instead of a silver, but this is merely an annoyance and does not truly empty the silver supply pile.

if you ever have rules questions you can also try out playing dominion on isotropic, as its interpretations of the rules are usually spot-on.

[polonkus]

Unfortunately you can't do that

I would say this is quite fortunate actually - this would be a pretty stupid exploit.

[D Bo]

I meant "unfortunately" for Snartleflush since it basically nullified the victory.

[Snartleflush]

Ok, thanks guys!

[shMerker]

More generally the reactions are all designed to work once. The ones that don't become out of reach upon revelation--by being discarded, trashed, or set aside--are worded so that revealing a second time doesn't do anything.

[Rael]

More generally the reactions are all designed to work once. The ones that don't become out of reach upon revelation--by being discarded, trashed, or set aside--are worded so that revealing a second time doesn't do anything.

This is not true. You can reveal an unlimited number of Reactions an unlimited number of times for the same event. Go try it out on Isotropic. What is true is that all Reactions except Secret Chamber are designed to have no net effect on the game beyond the first reveal. Secret Chamber is an exception in that you can reveal it to draw, for example, a Moat, reveal the Moat, and then reveal Secret Chamber again to return the Moat to the top of your deck.

[shMerker]

Right; Secret Chamber is an edge case I should have mentioned. Otherwise you're just rewording what I said.

[Donald X.]

This is not true. You can reveal an unlimited number of Reactions an unlimited number of times for the same event. Go try it out on Isotropic. What is true is that all Reactions except Secret Chamber are designed to have no net effect on the game beyond the first reveal. Secret Chamber is an exception in that you can reveal it to draw, for example, a Moat, reveal the Moat, and then reveal Secret Chamber again to return the Moat to the top of your deck.

I am flirting with changing this for goko. You have to be able to reveal that Moat that wasn't in your hand if you get it via Secret Chamber, because that's in the rulebook, but you don't have to be able to reveal the same Moat more than once - that's not in a rulebook (if it is plz find and post).

[jonts26]

I may be in the minority here, but I'm perfectly fine with implementing reactions so you can only reveal each one once. The only time it matters is in the moat/SC edge case, and I think the huge amount of simplicity you gain is worth that one in a million time when it might actually matter.

[Donald X.]

I may be in the minority here, but I'm perfectly fine with implementing reactions so you can only reveal each one once. The only time it matters is in the moat/SC edge case, and I think the huge amount of simplicity you gain is worth that one in a million time when it might actually matter.

Well and in the Moat / Secret Chamber case, it only matters in the Throne Room etc. sense - nothing is keeping you honest, but if it really mattered in say a tournament then someone could come over and watch to make sure you were honest.

Wait but there's the uh Market Square case someone pointed out. Let's see I trash Cultist to Altar, I decide to resolve Market Square first, discard it and gain Gold, then resolve Cultist and draw three cards, shuffling, and draw a Market Square. Is it the same one?

[blueblimp]

I'd be alright with rules like: you may not reveal a Moat if you are unaffected by an attack; you may not reveal a Trader if you would gain a Silver from revealing a Trader. Revealing these multiple times does nothing, and is the #1 source of reaction annoyance on iso.

For Secret Chamber, Market Square, etc., they need to be revealable multiple times for rules correctness, and they aren't annoying anyway. Well, maybe SC is a little bit annoying, but mainly because of analysis paralysis.

[DStu]

Is it the same one?

I would say yes.

[ftl]

Is it the same one?

I would say yes.

Well, you can't really know, because you shuffled, and how do you know whether you drew the same Market Square or a different one (assuming you have multiples in your deck)?

[DStu]

Is it the same one?

I would say yes.

Well, you can't really know, because you shuffled, and how do you know whether you drew the same Market Square or a different one (assuming you have multiples in your deck)?

Ok, I was in the case where it is guaranteed, so you would know in this case.
But you are right, this will even bring you in a situation where you have a card in the hand and you don't know if you are allowed to reveal it or not.  So it's not only not accouteable, but even worse.

[TrashT]

Wait, so how does this work? I can trash Cultist, discard Market Square to gain Gold, draw 3 from the Cultist while reshuffling my deck...and then, if I drew the Market Square again, I can discard it once more to gain some Gold?

Also, while we are talking about Trader: if I were to gain something and the Silver pile was empty, could I still reveal Trader to gain nothing instead?

[AJD]

Also, while we are talking about Trader: if I were to gain something and the Silver pile was empty, could I still reveal Trader to gain nothing instead?

Yes.

[GendoIkari]

Wait, so how does this work? I can trash Cultist, discard Market Square to gain Gold, draw 3 from the Cultist while reshuffling my deck...and then, if I drew the Market Square again, I can discard it once more to gain some Gold?

To clarify on why this is true... at the moment you trash Cultist, everything in the game that happens "when you trash Cultist" happens at the same time. This includes drawing 3 cards for Cultist, and discarding any Market Squares in your hand. Whenever 2 things happen to you at the same time, you get to choose the order to do them in. So, you get to either draw 3 cards and then discard a Market Square, or the other way around.

If you choose to draw 3 cards first, then there is no difference between a Market Square that was in your hand before you drew, and a Market Square that was in your hand after you drew. It is still the moment in the game that you can do anything you can do that reacts to Cultist being trashed. So if you discard a Market Square, then draw 3 cards, drawing a Market Square (whether it was the same card or a different copy), you can still discard that Market Square.

[Drab Emordnilap]

I'd be alright with rules like: you may not reveal a Moat if you are unaffected by an attack; you may not reveal a Trader if you would gain a Silver from revealing a Trader. Revealing these multiple times does nothing, and is the #1 source of reaction annoyance on iso.

I feel this is nowhere near the annoyance of people declining automatches, or disconnecting mid-game to wait for me to time them out. For what it's worth.

[LastFootnote]

I'd be alright with rules like: you may not reveal a Moat if you are unaffected by an attack; you may not reveal a Trader if you would gain a Silver from revealing a Trader. Revealing these multiple times does nothing, and is the #1 source of reaction annoyance on iso.

I assume you mean that you shouldn't be able to reveal Trader if you would gain a Silver. I would like to further amend this to say that you shouldn't be able to reveal Trader if you would gain a Silver to your discard pile. If you would gain a Silver on top of your deck or into your hand, revealing Trader still has an effect.

[AJD]

I'd be alright with rules like: you may not reveal a Moat if you are unaffected by an attack; you may not reveal a Trader if you would gain a Silver from revealing a Trader. Revealing these multiple times does nothing, and is the #1 source of reaction annoyance on iso.

I assume you mean that you shouldn't be able to reveal Trader if you would gain a Silver.

No, I think BlueBlimp means you shouldn't be able to reveal a Trader if you would gain a Silver and that Silver that you would gain is being gained because you revealed a Trader to get it.

[polonkus]

I'd be alright with rules like: you may not reveal a Moat if you are unaffected by an attack; you may not reveal a Trader if you would gain a Silver from revealing a Trader. Revealing these multiple times does nothing, and is the #1 source of reaction annoyance on iso.

I assume you mean that you shouldn't be able to reveal Trader if you would gain a Silver.

No, I think BlueBlimp means you shouldn't be able to reveal a Trader if you would gain a Silver and that Silver that you would gain is being gained because you revealed a Trader to get it.

No, pretty sure LastFootnote has it right. Blueblimp clearly misspoke, but if you're already gaining a silver, there's no reason to be able to reveal Trader. (yes, yes.. some bizarre edge case where you want your opponent to know your Trader is in hand).

[Davio]

Explorer and Mine can gain a Silver to your hand, Bureaucrat and Develop can gain a Silver on your deck.
If you would reveal Trader, the Silver would go to your discard instead and this may matter some of the time.

But revealing the same Trader multiple times after you've revealed it for the first time is pretty senseless.

Iso does it this way because it's the easiest to implement to just allow reactions 3 times.

Heck, in the old days you could reveal reactions ad infinitum until your opponent got tired or you were really really really really really sure that Iso understood you wanted to block an attack with Moat. How sure you wanted to be depended on the player. There's probably a guy around somewhere who's still clicking the button on a custom older version of Iso.

[zahlman]

... you still can.