Print

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

[AJD]

So, Dominion has several cards that can gain Treasures directly to your hand, but nothing that gains Actions directly to your hand. And I'm sure there are all kinds of card-balance reasons for such a card not to exist*. But I bet none of them is the following:

How would such a card interact with Nomad Camp, rules-wise?

Discuss.


*That said, I wouldn't be surprised if some card in the following family—which I'm certainly not the first to propose—were balanced:

Swap Meet
Action: ${A}
+1 Action
{B}
{C} a card from your hand. {D} gain a card costing {E}, putting it into your hand

...where:
{A} is 5, 4, or 3
{B} is +$2, +$1, or nothing
{C} is "trash" or "return to the supply"
{D} is "you may" or nothing
{E} is "less than it", "up to its cost", or "the same"

...but I couldn't tell you which version is the good one.

[enfynet]

I want to make it +1Card +1Action, trash a card, gain same cost. It could be useful for changing engine pieces late in the game.

[HiveMindEmulator]

How would such a card interact with Nomad Camp, rules-wise?

I think it would go on your deck. Gain to hand means:
1. Gain
2. Move from discard pile to hand
After the gain, Nomad Camp goes on top of your deck, so the card that gained it loses track. It's just like Trading Post on a Possession turn.

[NoMoreFun]

Nomad Camp always goes on top of the deck and you can't "lose track" of it from its own effect. I would then think that the subsequent "put it in your hand" would successfully move the Nomad Camp from where you'd expect it to be (top of the deck) to your hand.

This is a doozy though.

[NoMoreFun]

"The "lose track" rule is this (don't hold me to this precise wording okay): If card A is doing stuff with card B, and something other than card A moves card B somewhere else, card A can no longer keep moving card B. It "loses track" of it."

The only issue is the something other than card A is card B, and since there's nothing getting in between those 2 cards' interaction with each other, it should still go as planned.

[SirPeebles]

This has been discussed.  Donald X says he knew that he was dodging a potential rules question by having Armory gain a card to the same place Nomad Camp wants to go (rather than, say, to your hand).  He declined to make a ruling where not necessary, but conceded that probably he would have decided that you could choose which of the two places Nomad Camp went.

[SirPeebles]

How would such a card interact with Nomad Camp, rules-wise?

I think it would go on your deck. Gain to hand means:
1. Gain
2. Move from discard pile to hand
After the gain, Nomad Camp goes on top of your deck, so the card that gained it loses track. It's just like Trading Post on a Possession turn.

No, "gain to hand" means that the card goes directly to your hand. This means that if you have a Watchtower in hand when you Mine a Silver into. Cache, you are able to topdeck the Coppers and then put the Cache on top.  If Cache visited the discard pile momentarily, then the lose track rule would not allow for this topdecking configuration.

[AJD]

This has been discussed.  Donald X says he knew that he was dodging a potential rules question by having Armory gain a card to the same place Nomad Camp wants to go (rather than, say, to your hand).  He declined to make a ruling where not necessary, but conceded that probably he would have decided that you could choose which of the two places Nomad Camp went.

I'd forgotten that Donald had commented on this already. Thanks!

[AJD]

I want to make it +1Card +1Action, trash a card, gain same cost. It could be useful for changing engine pieces late in the game.

I feel like giving it +1 Card makes it too good—without +card, it's like, you gain engine flexibility but sacrifice cycling—but what do I know, I haven't playtested it.

[SirPeebles]

This has been discussed.  Donald X says he knew that he was dodging a potential rules question by having Armory gain a card to the same place Nomad Camp wants to go (rather than, say, to your hand).  He declined to make a ruling where not necessary, but conceded that probably he would have decided that you could choose which of the two places Nomad Camp went.

I'd forgotten that Donald had commented on this already. Thanks!

You're welcome.  LastFootNote pointed it out to me recently.  Donald X's post is here.

[GendoIkari]

How would such a card interact with Nomad Camp, rules-wise?

I think it would go on your deck. Gain to hand means:
1. Gain
2. Move from discard pile to hand
After the gain, Nomad Camp goes on top of your deck, so the card that gained it loses track. It's just like Trading Post on a Possession turn.

Trading Post on Possession turn doesn't have anything to do with losing track... Possession gains the silver to the discard pile of the possessor not because of lose track, but because "gain a Silver, putting it into your hand" never happend, and was replaced by "gain a Silver" (for the other player).

[NoMoreFun]

Having read this topic, I would now think that if a card instructed you to gain a Nomad Camp to hand, the Nomad Camp would replace that gaining event with it's own (from its when gain), which is gaining to the top of the deck. This is similar to how Trader does things.

Interesting though that "Gain a card. Put it in your hand." is probably different from "Gain a card, putting it in your hand". The former gains first, then moves. The latter tells you where to put the gained card as it's gained.

[GendoIkari]

Interesting though that "Gain a card. Put it in your hand." is probably different from "Gain a card, putting it in your hand". The former gains first, then moves. The latter tells you where to put the gained card as it's gained.

Ah, I had misremember Armory's text (Thought it was 'Gain a card costing up to $4. Put it on top of your deck' - similar to IW, in which case I believe it would be lose track).

Interesting point... I suppose if a card did say "Gain a card. Put it on top of your deck" then this would have different rules implications than "Gain a card, putting it on top of your deck." The first thing is 2 separate instructions, so Trader/Possession replace only the first instruction, whereas the second is all 1 instruction, so Trader/Possession replace the whole thing. Although the outcome would be the same in either case, because "Put it on top of your deck" would fail in either case, because "it" refers to "the card you gained", which no longer exists.

[AJD]

Having read this topic, I would now think that if a card instructed you to gain a Nomad Camp to hand, the Nomad Camp would replace that gaining event with it's own (from its when gain), which is gaining to the top of the deck. This is similar to how Trader does things.

I agree that, as things currently stand, Nomad Camp's (apparent) when-gain effect is more precisely describable as a when-would-gain effect, with timing like Trader's ('when you would gain this somewhere other than your deck, gain it to your deck instead'). But it's not clear that a would-gain interpretation of Nomad Camp would be maintainable if Swap Meet existed, and it's not consistent with Donald's tentative hypothetical answer to the question.