Print

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

[LastFootnote]

Diviner
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. +1 Buy.
While this is in play, when you buy a card, reveal the top 2 cards of your deck, discard any number, and put the rest back on top in any order.

Even before we get to playtesting, there's an issue I have with this card. It's how the card stacks.

Let's say you have 3 of these in play. Even if you only buy 2 cards, that means you're revealing the top 2 cards of your deck six times. That's going to get old fast, and furthermore it's likely to stop doing anything for you after the first few times. Here is my proposed solution:

Diviner
Types: Action
Cost: $?
+2 Cards. +1 Buy.
When you buy a card, look at 2 cards from your deck per Diviner you have in play. Discard any number of them and put the rest back in any order.

This way you only do the effect once per card you buy, but it still gets more effective when stacked.

Ideally, I'd like to see the effect on this card instead, but it's more of a departure from the original card:

????
Types: Action
Cost: $4
+1 Card. +2 Actions.
When you buy a card, look at 1 card from your deck per ???? you have in play. Discard any number of them and put the rest back in any order.

Hinterlands could use another cheap village anyway and this way it's easy to stack them. In order to get the effect multiple times, you need a different source of +Buy.

[Robz888]

I definitely like your first improved version. The latter one just strikes me as too different, though.

[cluckyb]

One possible issue with the second version is that it that if you have say, four in play, drawing eight cards will likely trigger a reshuffle that you don't want. Or maybe one you do want. But it makes it riskier to play a bunch of diviners because then whatever card you buy will miss a shuffle.

[LastFootnote]

One possible issue with the second version is that it that if you have say, four in play, drawing eight cards will likely trigger a reshuffle that you don't want. Or maybe one you do want. But it makes it riskier to play a bunch of diviners because then whatever card you buy will miss a shuffle.

Hmm, that's fair. The benefit probably outweighs the detriment, though.

[GendoIkari]

I don't think your fix works. If you have 3 in play, you still have 3 separate cards with the same instruction, so you would still need to do it 3 times. But now it would be looking at the top 6 cards 3 times in a row.

[scott_pilgrim]

I don't think your fix works. If you have 3 in play, you still have 3 separate cards with the same instruction, so you would still need to do it 3 times. But now it would be looking at the top 6 cards 3 times in a row.

In general in Dominion, below-the-line text doesn't trigger when you play the card; it's just something that's always true whenever that card is in the kingdom.  So the second/third versions work.

[Schneau]

I like your first improvement ok (though it's definitely stronger), but I actually don't think there's anything wrong with the original. The fact that it stacks is part of the reason I voted for it. I don't think it's a problem that you'll just put back the same cards at some point -- at that point, you can stop revealing and putting back, no one is going to ask you to do it 5 extra times when you don't need to.

[GendoIkari]

I don't think your fix works. If you have 3 in play, you still have 3 separate cards with the same instruction, so you would still need to do it 3 times. But now it would be looking at the top 6 cards 3 times in a row.

In general in Dominion, below-the-line text doesn't trigger when you play the card; it's just something that's always true whenever that card is in the kingdom.  So the second/third versions work.

What cards show this to be true? The line has always been just for easy reading/clarification, not introducing any new rule. I think you have to say "in games using this" like Duchess does if you want them to behave that way.

[cluckyb]

One possible issue with the second version is that it that if you have say, four in play, drawing eight cards will likely trigger a reshuffle that you don't want. Or maybe one you do want. But it makes it riskier to play a bunch of diviners because then whatever card you buy will miss a shuffle.

Hmm, that's fair. The benefit probably outweighs the detriment, though.

Does revealing eight cards really take that much less time than revealing two cards four times? Or is the concern just that benefit gets lost because you have two cards you want sitting on top of your deck?

[LastFootnote]

I don't think your fix works. If you have 3 in play, you still have 3 separate cards with the same instruction, so you would still need to do it 3 times. But now it would be looking at the top 6 cards 3 times in a row.

In general in Dominion, below-the-line text doesn't trigger when you play the card; it's just something that's always true whenever that card is in the kingdom.  So the second/third versions work.

Correct. Since the card doesn't say, "While this is in play", it's a global instruction. I think Embargo is the best analogous example among published cards.

[GendoIkari]

I don't think your fix works. If you have 3 in play, you still have 3 separate cards with the same instruction, so you would still need to do it 3 times. But now it would be looking at the top 6 cards 3 times in a row.

In general in Dominion, below-the-line text doesn't trigger when you play the card; it's just something that's always true whenever that card is in the kingdom.  So the second/third versions work.

Correct. Since the card doesn't say, "While this is in play", it's a global instruction. I think Embargo is the best analogous example among published cards.

Embargo is a good point. I think Duchess is a better example though, and I would add "in games using this." I thought it had been generally agreed that Embargo "should" have an "in games using this" clause, because as worded, it does not play strictly by the rules. And I think Embargo is the only card like that.

[LastFootnote]

One possible issue with the second version is that it that if you have say, four in play, drawing eight cards will likely trigger a reshuffle that you don't want. Or maybe one you do want. But it makes it riskier to play a bunch of diviners because then whatever card you buy will miss a shuffle.

Hmm, that's fair. The benefit probably outweighs the detriment, though.

Does revealing eight cards really take that much less time than revealing two cards four times? Or is the concern just that benefit gets lost because you have two cards you want sitting on top of your deck?

It's both. Revealing eight cards is faster than revealing two, putting them back, revealing two again, putting them back, revealing two again, putting them back, and revealing two again.

[LastFootnote]

I don't think your fix works. If you have 3 in play, you still have 3 separate cards with the same instruction, so you would still need to do it 3 times. But now it would be looking at the top 6 cards 3 times in a row.

In general in Dominion, below-the-line text doesn't trigger when you play the card; it's just something that's always true whenever that card is in the kingdom.  So the second/third versions work.

Correct. Since the card doesn't say, "While this is in play", it's a global instruction. I think Embargo is the best analogous example among published cards.

Embargo is a good point. I think Duchess is a better example though, and I would add "in games using this." I thought it had been generally agreed that Embargo "should" have an "in games using this" clause, because as worded, it does not play strictly by the rules. And I think Embargo is the only card like that.

Nope. Embargo's rule applies to all games with or without Embargo in them. It's just that you can't get Embargo tokens without Embargo itself. Likewise Diviner's rule can apply to all games with or without Diviner. It just only matters when Diviners are in play.

In games without a Duchess pile, you may not choose to gain a Duchess when you gain a Duchy. That's why it has "In games using this".

[AJD]

I don't think your fix works. If you have 3 in play, you still have 3 separate cards with the same instruction, so you would still need to do it 3 times. But now it would be looking at the top 6 cards 3 times in a row.

In general in Dominion, below-the-line text doesn't trigger when you play the card; it's just something that's always true whenever that card is in the kingdom.  So the second/third versions work.

Correct. Since the card doesn't say, "While this is in play", it's a global instruction. I think Embargo is the best analogous example among published cards.

Embargo is a good point. I think Duchess is a better example though, and I would add "in games using this." I thought it had been generally agreed that Embargo "should" have an "in games using this" clause, because as worded, it does not play strictly by the rules. And I think Embargo is the only card like that.

Alternatively, "in games using this" is redundant and unnecessary on Duchess.

[scott_pilgrim]

Is there any reason that we have "reveal" rather than "look at"?  I think all official Dominion cards have "look at" whenever the revealing is not necessary and the wording is equally simple.

[GendoIkari]

I don't think your fix works. If you have 3 in play, you still have 3 separate cards with the same instruction, so you would still need to do it 3 times. But now it would be looking at the top 6 cards 3 times in a row.

In general in Dominion, below-the-line text doesn't trigger when you play the card; it's just something that's always true whenever that card is in the kingdom.  So the second/third versions work.

Correct. Since the card doesn't say, "While this is in play", it's a global instruction. I think Embargo is the best analogous example among published cards.

Embargo is a good point. I think Duchess is a better example though, and I would add "in games using this." I thought it had been generally agreed that Embargo "should" have an "in games using this" clause, because as worded, it does not play strictly by the rules. And I think Embargo is the only card like that.

Nope. Embargo's rule applies to all games with or without Embargo in them. It's just that you can't get Embargo tokens without Embargo itself. Likewise Diviner's rule can apply to all games with or without Diviner. It just only matters when Diviners are in play.

In games without a Duchess pile, you may not choose to gain a Duchess when you gain a Duchy. That's why it has "In games using this".

I'm sure there was a long discussion about Embargo here somewhere, in which it was agreed that, like Pirate Ship/Coin Tokens, and Nomad Camp not being an on-buy event, Embargo was a situation where the card is not worded completely correctly as to obey the normal rules of the game. Donald said that with Embargo, it just seems obvious enough that it works how it works. I'm not sure the same can be said for Diviner, because you are dealing with a number of cards in play. One could reasonably expect to get the effect from each Diviner he plays. Seems at least safer to use "In games using this"; I can't think of a downside to it.

[Polk5440]

Um, what is the intent of the card? My impression is that the horizontal line is a mistake. If there is no horizontal line, the effect stacks fine as originally written. It is tedious in a SC kind of way, though, which is why I didn't care much for the card. Edit: Sir Peebles makes a good point: you just stop when they are two cards you want.

[AJD]

Diviner
Types: Action
Cost: $3
+2 Cards. +1 Buy.
While this is in play, when you buy a card, reveal the top 2 cards of your deck, discard any number, and put the rest back on top in any order.

Even before we get to playtesting, there's an issue I have with this card. It's how the card stacks.

Let's say you have 3 of these in play. Even if you only buy 2 cards, that means you're revealing the top 2 cards of your deck six times. That's going to get old fast, and furthermore it's likely to stop doing anything for you after the first few times.

What if we just add "you may"?

[LastFootnote]

I don't think your fix works. If you have 3 in play, you still have 3 separate cards with the same instruction, so you would still need to do it 3 times. But now it would be looking at the top 6 cards 3 times in a row.

In general in Dominion, below-the-line text doesn't trigger when you play the card; it's just something that's always true whenever that card is in the kingdom.  So the second/third versions work.

Correct. Since the card doesn't say, "While this is in play", it's a global instruction. I think Embargo is the best analogous example among published cards.

Embargo is a good point. I think Duchess is a better example though, and I would add "in games using this." I thought it had been generally agreed that Embargo "should" have an "in games using this" clause, because as worded, it does not play strictly by the rules. And I think Embargo is the only card like that.

Nope. Embargo's rule applies to all games with or without Embargo in them. It's just that you can't get Embargo tokens without Embargo itself. Likewise Diviner's rule can apply to all games with or without Diviner. It just only matters when Diviners are in play.

In games without a Duchess pile, you may not choose to gain a Duchess when you gain a Duchy. That's why it has "In games using this".

I'm sure there was a long discussion about Embargo here somewhere, in which it was agreed that, like Pirate Ship/Coin Tokens, and Nomad Camp not being an on-buy event, Embargo was a situation where the card is not worded completely correctly as to obey the normal rules of the game. Donald said that with Embargo, it just seems obvious enough that it works how it works. I'm not sure the same can be said for Diviner, because you are dealing with a number of cards in play. One could reasonably expect to get the effect from each Diviner he plays. Seems at least safer to use "In games using this"; I can't think of a downside to it.

There are two downsides. The first is unnecessary card text. The second is that the card won't work when bought from the Black Market deck.

Duchess says: "In games using this". Looking at the FAQ, that means, "In games with Duchess in the Supply". In games where Duchess is not in the Supply, you cannot choose to gain a Duchess when you gain a Duchy. Sure, you'd fail to gain that Duchess anyway, but the "In games using this" avoids a meaningless decision.

Conversely, if Embargo and Diviner had "In games using this, their underline text would fail to function when the cards were bought from the Black Market deck.

[SirPeebles]

I don't see why the original card needs that tweak.  Once you decide not to discard cards, then you'll just stop looking at the cards.  The same way as with Spy, when you just tell everyone to leave their Curse on top as you continue along with your turn playing additional Spies.

[AJD]

Duchess says: "In games using this". Looking at the FAQ, that means, "In games with Duchess in the Supply". In games where Duchess is not in the Supply, you cannot choose to gain a Duchess when you gain a Duchy. Sure, you'd fail to gain that Duchess anyway, but the "In games using this" avoids a meaningless decision.

Conversely, if Embargo and Diviner had "In games using this, their underline text would fail to function when the cards were bought from the Black Market deck.

I think that's a perverse interpretation of "in games using this". The job of the FAQ for Duchess is to clarify what Duchess does, not what the terms used on the card mean in general.

I'm getting more convinced that Duchess would behave the exact same way if it didn't say "in games using this".

[GendoIkari]

I don't think your fix works. If you have 3 in play, you still have 3 separate cards with the same instruction, so you would still need to do it 3 times. But now it would be looking at the top 6 cards 3 times in a row.

In general in Dominion, below-the-line text doesn't trigger when you play the card; it's just something that's always true whenever that card is in the kingdom.  So the second/third versions work.

Correct. Since the card doesn't say, "While this is in play", it's a global instruction. I think Embargo is the best analogous example among published cards.

Embargo is a good point. I think Duchess is a better example though, and I would add "in games using this." I thought it had been generally agreed that Embargo "should" have an "in games using this" clause, because as worded, it does not play strictly by the rules. And I think Embargo is the only card like that.

Nope. Embargo's rule applies to all games with or without Embargo in them. It's just that you can't get Embargo tokens without Embargo itself. Likewise Diviner's rule can apply to all games with or without Diviner. It just only matters when Diviners are in play.

In games without a Duchess pile, you may not choose to gain a Duchess when you gain a Duchy. That's why it has "In games using this".

I'm sure there was a long discussion about Embargo here somewhere, in which it was agreed that, like Pirate Ship/Coin Tokens, and Nomad Camp not being an on-buy event, Embargo was a situation where the card is not worded completely correctly as to obey the normal rules of the game. Donald said that with Embargo, it just seems obvious enough that it works how it works. I'm not sure the same can be said for Diviner, because you are dealing with a number of cards in play. One could reasonably expect to get the effect from each Diviner he plays. Seems at least safer to use "In games using this"; I can't think of a downside to it.

There are two downsides. The first is unnecessary card text. The second is that the card won't work when bought from the Black Market deck.

Duchess says: "In games using this". Looking at the FAQ, that means, "In games with Duchess in the Supply". In games where Duchess is not in the Supply, you cannot choose to gain a Duchess when you gain a Duchy. Sure, you'd fail to gain that Duchess anyway, but the "In games using this" avoids a meaningless decision.

Conversely, if Embargo and Diviner had "In games using this, their underline text would fail to function when the cards were bought from the Black Market deck.

Good point. I guess "In games using this" isn't an option. I still do think that just borrowing from Embargo here would lead to confusion, as Embargo itself has been questioned in terms of why it works with the rules. At least with Embargo it's extremely obvious, because the rule isn't tied to having played an Embargo that turn in any way. The text pretty clearly just defines what an "embargo token" does.

In this case, the text is tied to having Diviner in play, because it references the number you have in play and does nothing if it's not in play. This makes it much less obvious than Embargo that it's adding a general rule to the entire game as opposed to describing what the card does. I still believe that there's no rule in Dominion at all that says that the horizontal line means anything. If I remember correctly, different translations of the game don't use the line consistently. It's just there as a helpful reminder, not as any rule. So how is a player to know that the "when you buy a card" isn't attached to the Diviner that they just played?

[LastFootnote]

Duchess says: "In games using this". Looking at the FAQ, that means, "In games with Duchess in the Supply". In games where Duchess is not in the Supply, you cannot choose to gain a Duchess when you gain a Duchy. Sure, you'd fail to gain that Duchess anyway, but the "In games using this" avoids a meaningless decision.

Conversely, if Embargo and Diviner had "In games using this, their underline text would fail to function when the cards were bought from the Black Market deck.

I think that's a perverse interpretation of "in games using this". The job of the FAQ for Duchess is to clarify what Duchess does, not what the terms used on the card mean in general.

I'm getting more convinced that Duchess would behave the exact same way if it didn't say "in games using this".

Sure, because the decision would me meaningless. You could decide to gain a Duchess, but you would fail to do so.

However, lets say you have another card that changes the rules of the game when its Supply pile is out. Maybe when a certain Supply pile is out, the game doesn't end when the Provinces are exhausted. How would you phrase that text? "When this card's Supply pile is in the Supply?" Yuck. Would that cease to function when they were bought out? No, you'd use "In games using this".

[scott_pilgrim]

I still believe that there's no rule in Dominion at all that says that the horizontal line means anything. If I remember correctly, different translations of the game don't use the line consistently. It's just there as a helpful reminder, not as any rule.

It is not in the rules, but Donald X. has talked about it before: http://boardgamegeek.com/article/8150227#8150227.

[LastFootnote]

Good point. I guess "In games using this" isn't an option. I still do think that just borrowing from Embargo here would lead to confusion, as Embargo itself has been questioned in terms of why it works with the rules. At least with Embargo it's extremely obvious, because the rule isn't tied to having played an Embargo that turn in any way. The text pretty clearly just defines what an "embargo token" does.

In this case, the text is tied to having Diviner in play, because it references the number you have in play and does nothing if it's not in play. This makes it much less obvious than Embargo that it's adding a general rule to the entire game as opposed to describing what the card does. I still believe that there's no rule in Dominion at all that says that the horizontal line means anything. If I remember correctly, different translations of the game don't use the line consistently. It's just there as a helpful reminder, not as any rule. So how is a player to know that the "when you buy a card" isn't attached to the Diviner that they just played?

Hmm, that's a valid point. It doesn't say "this turn", that's part of it.

I can't think of a better way to word such an effect, though.