Print

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

[scott_pilgrim]

Surely the point of *every* card is to do something the rules don't otherwise let you do? "Can I draw some cards in the middle of my turn? No? But I just played Smithy that says I can." "Can I buy that Grand Market? No, because it says I can't because of the Coppers I played."

I'm sure that everyone who is arguing against the original wording understands and agrees with this.  That's not the point.  Clearly card instructions trump general rules.  The problem is that there's no way to know which card instructions to listen to when two cards tell you to do conflicting things.  What if I upgrade a $5 card with a Metropolis in play when the Gold pile is empty?  Upgrade is trying to get me to gain a Metropolis, but Metropolis insists that I can't gain it; how do I know who to listen to?  You can't say it's clear or obvious, because it's not; there's no reason to think that Metropolis has any more say in the matter than Upgrade.

Anyway, at the very least it would need to be clarified in the rules.  Maybe that would be sufficient, but I would feel better about just having a more precise wording on the card itself.

[AJD]

Clearly card instructions trump general rules.  The problem is that there's no way to know which card instructions to listen to when two cards tell you to do conflicting things.

On the other hand, if Militia is telling me one thing, and Moat is telling me something else, we all understand that Moat is the one I listen to.

[florrat]

If I were to change it, I would say "When you gain this, if you have any Metropolises in play, return this to the supply."

This wouldn't work as you're intending to. Suppose you have Watchtower in hand or Royal Seal in play, you can topdeck this card before returning it. Even a when would gain clause, like other people are suggesting, wouldn't work, because then you can still reveal trader to gain a silver instead (before resolving the would-gain clause of this card). I think your current wording is fine as is (when a example of gaining some card with - for example - upgrade is added to a hypothetical FAQ).

[eHalcyon]

Maybe you could say:

"While this card is in play, the Metropolis pile is not part of the Supply."

That seems to shut down buying and gaining without causing contradictions.  Although it does have some further consequences, like you can't return one via Ambassador and if the Metropolis were empty it wouldn't count toward activating Cities.  You would still be able to recover them from the trash with Graverobber or Rogue, but I think you could live with that.

I think this is the best solution.  It retains the simplicity of the original but also avoids the conflict that can occur with other cards.  An alternative wording would be:

(While a Metropolis is in play, this is not in the Supply.)

The format follows the wording for other non-Supply cards like the prizes and Madman, except this one has a condition tacked onto the front.

[Mown]

I would have assumed that can't beats can like in every other card game I can think of, although surprisingly, there's no mention of it in the base rules. Outpost sort of has it inherently though, but I'm impressed that I can't find any other similar conflicts.