Recommend
36 
 Thumb up
 Hide
220 Posts
[1]  Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [9] | 

Dominion: Hinterlands» Forums » Rules

Subject: Ironworks and Trader rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Matt E
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Not that it matters, but it kind of works thematically the way it's ruled. Your Ironworks is creating a Great Hall/Island/Nobles, so you derive any benefit from having created it, but then you're immediately trading it to the Trader for a Silver.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate S
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
UnknownParkerBrother wrote:
I never gained a Great Hall, so how the heck can Ironworks give me stuff for cards I didn't gain?
Because "it" in the 2nd sentence is meant to refer to the card you chose for gaining, whether or not it was actually gained. If instead of "it" Ironworks said "the gained card" (like Remodel says "the trashed card") the answer would be C.

I did think Donald's posts provided clear reasoning.


edit: oops new page whistle
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martín Borda
Argentina
San Nicolás de los Arroyos
Buenos Aires
flag msg tools
Club de Juegos SN
badge
San Nicolás de los Arroyos, Bs.As., AR
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just to think further, and regarding this new understanding of winning the bonus although not gaining the card...

Could I choose with Ironworks a card that is not left in the supply, and gain anyway the bonus?

Quote:
Ironworks - The card you gain must be from the Supply and is put into your discard pile. You get a bonus depending on what type of card you gained. A card with 2 types gives you both bonuses; if you use Ironworks to gain a Great Hall, you will then draw a card (because Great Hall is a Victory card) and may play another Action (because Great Hall is an Action card). Costs of cards are affected by Bridge.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marvin Peers
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Here's my take, three key things to note/define.

1) We have always been told to complete everything on the card, "from top to bottom", and to the fullest extent possible, and to finish each step before moving on to the next.

2) Gain, as defined in rule book: "When a player gains a card, he takes the gained card (usually from the Supply) and puts it in his Discard pile (unlesss the card says specifically to put it elsewhere)."

And, summarized on the side in grey: "Gain: the player takes a card and puts it in his Discard pile". The act of Gaining a card begins with taking the card from the Supply, and ends with it in the Discard Pile.

3) would, as defined by Merriam-webster.com : "2c - used in auxiliary function to express plan or intention. ". This means that as soon as you intend to gain a card (you go to complete the 1st instruction on Ironworks, gain a card, you may reveal Trader and, instead of a card you chose, gain a Silver.)

The final answer all comes from how we look at "If it is..." Many are arguing that "it" refers to the card chosen, but Ironworks doesn't instruct us to chose a card, but to Gain a card (and imposes a restriction on the cost of said card). Naturally, it is implied that a card is chosen before it is gained, but the instruction is to gain a card.

And all the talk of "it", we forget about "is". Since we complete one instruction before moving on to the next, "is" must refer to a present condition - what the gained card is - and not what the card was going to be, or what card was chosen.

Here's how Ironworks normally goes:

Ironworks is played
-1st instruction instructs you to gain a card.
*Player choses a card to gain as per rules of card.
*The player gains the chosen card = The player takes the chosen card from supply and places in Discard pile.
-1st instruction complete.
-2nd instuction instructs you to gain a reward based on what "it is".
-This card now gained, it rewards the player based on what the card is.

And how I see things with Trader involved:
Ironworks is played
-1st instruction instructs you to gain a card.
(in either order,
*player choses a card to gain as per rules of card
*player reveals Trader, since intention to gain a card has been established)
*Trader instructs player to gain a Silver instead of the card instructed by Ironworks.
*Player now gains a Silver = Player takes Silver from supply and places in Discard pile.
-1st instruction complete.
-2nd instruction (Ironworks) instructs you to gain a reward based on what "it is".
* this card now gained, it rewards the player based on what the card is (a silver)

Just my 2 cents. Hopefully, not a day late and a dollar short (of buying a province). Please be gentle if I've misunderstood anything.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate S
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
QuadAces wrote:
-2nd instruction (Ironworks) instructs you to gain a reward based on what "it is".
* this card now gained, it rewards the player based on what the card is (a silver)
Ironworks is not imbued with the power to know that some other card made you gain a Silver. Ironworks only gives bonuses based on the cards that Ironworks itself makes you gain (or at least try to gain, by the now-official ruling on the subject).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate S
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mborda wrote:
Could I choose with Ironworks a card that is not left in the supply, and gain anyway the bonus?
No. You have to choose a card you can actually gain. You can't pick an empty supply pile any more than you can pick Great Hall when it was never in the Kingdom to start with. There are many cards that work this way, instructing you to do something such that you must pick a legal target for that thing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Theorel Masheriel
United States
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmb
Although Donald has already stated that the answer he feels should be A...
He did offer us the opportunity to talk him out of it. I'm agreeing with Marvin (who posted a few spots above me)...and then disagreeing based on the FAQ and further thinking.
C has to be the right answer...even though it intuitively feels wrong.

----
If I told you to feed a Blue Dog, and walk it, then "it" clearly refers to the blue dog. Regardless (as mentioned) of any city ordinance saying that when you are about to feed a blue dog, feed a pink elephant instead. But that's not what Ironworks says...

Ironworks says: "Gain a card costing less than 4, if it is..."
"it" is clearly the card you gained. A card which is only determined by gaining it. Trader says, "when you would gain a card...instead, gain a silver." Thus "it" is changed into a silver.

So, Blue Dog example:
I tell you, "feed an animal, then walk it." You decide to go feed a blue dog, but on the way, end up feeding a pink elephant instead, never feeding a blue dog. What is the "it" needing walked in the sentence above? Pretty clearly (to me anyways) you'd best walk the pink elephant.

Now, this is absent of FAQ and Donald rulings, of course. But as far as parsing the English goes, the problem with the initial Blue Dog explanation, is that it's not a blue dog until you feed it (in the context of Iron Works).

----
Now, with the FAQ, Traders says you do not execute the effects of gaining any card because you didn't gain it. This seems silly to me from a language parsing perspective, but that suggests that you shouldn't act on the silver either.

It's like if I tell you to feed an animal that's smaller than a car, and then walk it. You head out to feed a blue dog, but that city ordinance says that whenever you would feed a blue dog, you can feed a pink elephant. Well, you say to yourself "I'd rather feed a pink elephant, than a blue dog" so, you do. well, you don't need to walk it, I guess, seeing as it isn't smaller than a car.

Basically (if you bought what I said before about Ironworks executing off of the silver, then change it to a gold, and Ironworks pretty clearly doesn't execute, because you didn't "gain a card costing less than 4" so "it" has nothing to refer to.

EXAMPLE
Supposing Traders* gave a gold, it works like this:
Ironworks says: "gain a card costing less than 4, if it is a..."
Now, you choose to gain Great Hall, reveal Traders*, and gain a Gold instead. What card costing less than 4 did you gain? not a Great Hall(it wasn't gained), not a Gold(it's not less than 4), so "it" refers to nothing. This isn't because of an "if you do" statement, but simply because "it" necessarily refers to a gained card costing less than 4.

Actually, by the same argument Ironworks should not activate on Possessed turns, by a strict parsing, since no card is gained by the player of the card.

Note: this is all pedantism...if Donald wants it to work as A, it works as A. I'm just presenting why C seems most logical to me.


EDIT: in fact, I'm really uncomfortable with that hypothetical ruling on Upgrade. I can just see it:
-"I trash a King's Court, but then discard this card from hand instead...now I gain a province."
-"But, you didn't trash a card!?!"
-"Sure I did, the King's court"
-"But...you didn't trash it"
-"Well, I chose to trash it, isn't that the same thing?"

I mean, it's the same interaction, if no card is trashed, the pronoun it has nothing to refer to...it's exactly like if you (somehow) had no cards in hand...no card is trashed so no card can be gained, because there is no "it".
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate S
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
By strict parsing, Trader creates a paradox when combined with Ironworks, since the Ironworks text admits no possibility that the card chosen will not be gained. So obviously we can't parse strictly and must ferret out the intended referent of the word "it": Is it the card chosen or the card gained (if any)? I find both interpretations imminently reasonable, and the designer has chosen one of them for us, so as far as I'm concerned that's the end of the story.

The only time "it" fails to refer to anything is when there are no legal targets for gaining with Ironworks (because all <=$4 piles are empty - you must have had a pretty crazy turn so far, huh?).

What I don't think is reasonable is your idea that "it" can possibly refer to a card you gained from some other effect outside of Ironworks. "It" can only conceivably refer to something else that happened as a direct result of playing Ironworks - in this case, choosing a card to gain.


One more reason to prefer Donald's official ruling:

1. I play Quarry on Black Market.
2. I play Ironworks, gaining a Mandarin.
3. Mandarin causes Quarry to be removed from play.

Are you really proposing that I now do not get +1 Action? The bonus should be inexorably determined by the choice of card to gain upon playing Ironworks, or we risk all kinds of nasty scenarios requiring us to go back and re-evaluate the first sentence of the card at the end of a chain of subsequent effects.

edit: Also, I don't think there's any special difficulty with Possession (in the absence of Trader). It's admittedly possible to parse Ironworks with the interpretation that "it" must apply only to a card that was actually gained. But in this case the card was gained, so it's going way out on a limb to say Ironworks's "it" loses its desired referent because it peeks over at other card effects and sees that it was somebody else who gained the card. I don't think it's remotely possible to conclude that the Possessed player doesn't get the bonus unless you mentally insert an "If you do" clause (with emphasis on "you") that simply isn't there.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marvin Peers
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
ghorsche wrote:
QuadAces wrote:
-2nd instruction (Ironworks) instructs you to gain a reward based on what "it is".
* this card now gained, it rewards the player based on what the card is (a silver)
Ironworks is not imbued with the power to know that some other card made you gain a Silver. Ironworks only gives bonuses based on the cards that Ironworks itself makes you gain (or at least try to gain, by the now-official ruling on the subject).
Fair enough, I always enjoy having official rulings from designers; it's what makes BGG a great place. But usually that ruling comes in crystal clear form. Donald X. made the unfortunate mistake of thinking out loud and using blue dogs in situations where it's probably not necessary to use analogy (I would say it was a "pet" peeve of mine, using analogyshake), leaving ample room for further discussion. But to be clear, it is an official ruling and until Donald changes his mind again, the answer is A.

Another problem I see is with combining the first and second sentence of Ironworks into one large action. They appear to me to be two separate actions since there is space between the two parts. As I read the cards, Ironworks instructs you to gain a card. Trader reacts and changes which card you gain before you gain the one you chose (you gain Silver instead). Then the second action occurs, as from the rules for Ironworks, "you get a bonus depending on what type of card you gained." It doesn't matter if Ironworks doesn't know another card made it Silver. Ironworks gives you a reward based on the card you did gain. Ironworks still made you gain a card; it was Trader that you chose to use to ensure it was a Silver.

ghorsche wrote:
since the Ironworks text admits no possibility that the card chosen will not be gained.
The text also does not specify to chose a card, it is implied. All it tells you to do is gain a card. The act of gaining cares not if it is chosen, although you will naturally chose one in this case.

ghorsche wrote:
What I don't think is reasonable is your idea that "it" can possibly refer to a card you gained from some other effect outside of Ironworks. "It" can only conceivably refer to something else that happened as a direct result of playing Ironworks - in this case, choosing a card to gain.

Not outside Ironworks, but inside. This is a Reaction card, after all. And it reacts to the intention to gain a card ("When you would gain a card, reveal this card...").
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ghorsche wrote:
One more reason to prefer Donald's official ruling:

1. I play Quarry on Black Market.
2. I play Ironworks, gaining a Mandarin.
3. Mandarin causes Quarry to be removed from play.

Are you really proposing that I now do not get +1 Action?

I don't follow this. Who's saying you wouldn't get +1 action? Options B and C would give you action, just as A does.

You gained a Mandarin, it cost $4 or less, it's sitting in your discard pile. Of course you would get the action. The fact that the price rose afterwards is irrelevant, you legally gained a card, and can consult the table of rewards.

If the price rose to more than $4 because of various card effects in the middle of handling everything and I never gained the Mandarin, should I get +1 action? That's what Donald's ruling would allow. Which makes no sense to me.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald X.
United States
flag msg tools
designer
Again to me the entire question is, what does that "it" mean, and it seems to me that the normal thing that "it" means there, in English sentences, is, "the card," rather than, "the card you gained" or "the card, provided that you gained it." "It" means "that thing I was talking about," and that thing I was talking about was a card. It happens to be a card I was gaining, but "it" normally does not include such things unless specified in adjectival form ("it" includes blueness for "the blue dog," but in order to include the fact that you fed it, it would be "the blue dog you fed," rather than "feed the blue dog").

With Upgrade, "a card from your hand" seems more forceful than "a card costing up to $4;" it reinforces the idea that you picked a card, and we know what that card is regardless of whether or not things that were supposed to happen happened. But we also pick the card costing up to $4 for Ironworks.

Another way to look at it is, if I had known about this issue and phrased the card to make it clear, how I would I have phrased it for each result? For A I would have said, "Choose a card in the supply costing up to $4. Gain it." For C I would have said, "Gain a card costing up to $4. If you did, ..." That "if you did" is a very specific thing in Dominion which does not actually appear here. Given that it doesn't appear the text seems way more like the A version.
11 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate S
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
QuadAces wrote:
Ironworks still made you gain a card; it was Trader that you chose to use to ensure it was a Silver.
This is exactly wrong, though. Ironworks tried and failed to make you gain a card. Trader made you gain a Silver, given an opportunity that was created by Ironworks.

Ironworks can't look at effects of other cards and know the details of how its plans were foiled and what alternate plans were laid in their place. OTOH, it could know the bare fact that its plans had been foiled somehow if that was the intent of the card design. An "If you do" clause could accomplish that, or the ambiguous "if it is" wording could have been meant as a back-door "If you do" clause... though Donald has decided it shouldn't be read that way.


QuadAces wrote:
Not outside Ironworks, but inside.
Trader is a different card from Ironworks, and so Ironworks doesn't have the "smarts" to understand how Trader works. You could imagine a game where cards have the ability to reason out long chains of effect based on card combinations, but Dominion rules and rulings have consistently shunned that sort of thorny interaction in favor of a cleaner system where you follow instructions strictly one-at-a-time without any sort of look-ahead mechanisms. There are "interrupts" (most obviously, reaction cards), but they occur at well-defined points in time without creating any sort of backward causation.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate S
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
UnknownParkerBrother wrote:
ghorsche wrote:
One more reason to prefer Donald's official ruling:

1. I play Quarry on Black Market.
2. I play Ironworks, gaining a Mandarin.
3. Mandarin causes Quarry to be removed from play.

Are you really proposing that I now do not get +1 Action?

I don't follow this. Who's saying you wouldn't get +1 action?
Read the argument I was responding to carefully. Nicholas posited that the "it is" wording can only refer to a card costing up to $4 that was actually gained. When we get to reading the words "it is", Mandarin costs more than $4, so it doesn't fit the description, and we don't get a bonus. I pointed out the example because I think this conclusion is clearly not what could ever have been intended.

...and further, unless you think this Mandarin example really gives no bonus, it's awfully difficult to argue that the card granting the bonus can cost more than $4 but still must actually have been gained. What special standing does gaining have in that first sentence that we must we go back and ask "did we actually gain the card we're talking about?" while being absolved from going back and asking "does the card we gained actually cost $4 or less?"


edit: Donald obviously doesn't need my help to justify his rulings, so I'm gonna abdicate any further responsibility for doing that ITT
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Latto
United States
Foxboro
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
I think Donald's interpretation is correct, based on how pronoun reference works.

If I say "Feed the blue dog, and walk it", and I feed it some magical color-changing food, which causes it to turn yellow, and causes a nearby red dog to turn blue, I still walk the dog I fed, even though it would now not be referred to as "the blue dog". "It" doesn't mean "the object to which te original noun phrase would now refer"; it means "The object to which the noun phrase referred to". So "It" means te card you chose to gain, not some different card, even if that card, like the newly-blue dog, would now be the one referred to by the phrase "the card you gained".
21 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Clague
New Zealand
Hamilton
Waikato
flag msg tools
badge
I can see my house from here!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
andylatto wrote:
I think Donald's interpretation is correct, based on how pronoun reference works.

If I say "Feed the blue dog, and walk it", and I feed it some magical color-changing food, which causes it to turn yellow, and causes a nearby red dog to turn blue, I still walk the dog I fed, even though it would now not be referred to as "the blue dog". "It" doesn't mean "the object to which te original noun phrase would now refer"; it means "The object to which the noun phrase referred to". So "It" means te card you chose to gain, not some different card, even if that card, like the newly-blue dog, would now be the one referred to by the phrase "the card you gained".

Wow. That makes all that blue dog stuff actually make sense. Well done! thumbsup
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Theorel Masheriel
United States
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmb
@Nate S
But, while Quarry is in play, the card does not cost more than $4...so you "gained a card costing less than $4" (Mandarin). Thus, "it" is Mandarin.

---
I understand Donald's argument, I just don't find it convincing

Basically, "it" to me must refer to "A card you gained". For the same reason that "it" must refer to "An animal you fed". Take any sentence with a direct object determined by an action...if you can tell me that the direct object is determined in some magical pre-action state, I'll take it.

The problem with the "blue dog" analogy is that you keep using "the". You're specifying which blue dog independent of feeding it. If you can make the same statement work with "feed a blue dog" then you'll have me convinced. EDIT: Also in the argument a couple posts above, the dog changes color. Trader is more like switching to a pink dog instead of a blue dog. with "the" it sounds like you should still walk the blue dog. With "a" it's ambiguous, since no blue dog was defined.

Since Donald mentioned a few things cards could have said...
Ironworks does not say:
"Choose a card from the supply costing less than 4. Gain it. If it is..." (even in the faq)

Trader does not say:
"return the card to the supply, and gain a silver" (for good reason, because then all on-gain effects would happen)

Note: in the same fashion, Possession does not say, "after they gain the card, put it in your discard pile"

The problem with these 2 cards (Trader and Possession...potentially others). Is that they interrupt the process of gaining. The other problem is that "choosing" is not a part of the process of gaining (anymore than it's part of the process of discarding, trashing, or many other active verbs, excepting choosing)

In fact, since I mentioned it, let's look at the Ironworks FAQ(obviously a good place to look...maybe I should have looked there before? Edit: Looks like Marvin did, he just didn't call it out.).
it says "you get a bonus depending on what type of card you gained." So, here we have the FAQ carefully spelling out what "it" is. "it" is the card you gained. It doesn't say the card you intended to gain, it doesn't say the card you chose, is says the card you gained.

---
Full argument in brief:
Ironwork FAQ spells out "it" to be "the card you gained".

Trader: "when you would gain a card...instead, gain a silver."
Thus, the card you would have gained through Ironworks is not gained. In effect, Ironworks didn't cause you to gain a card, so "the card you gained" is undefined, so you don't know what bonus to use.

Possession: "any cards he would gain on that turn, you gain instead".
Thus, the card you would have gained, the player on your left gains instead. Ironworks didn't cause you to gain a card, so "the card you gained" is undefined. Once again, by the FAQ you don't know which bonus to use.

---
Just for completeness:
Upgrade states in it's FAQ: "gain a card costing exactly 1 more than the trashed card".

So essentially, although Donald did not write "the card which you gained/trashed" on the card, he did write it in the FAQ, in order to clarify what "it" means. If you'd said "chosen card" in the FAQ then I'd take it. Of course, you're saying that's what "it" means now, but you did leave the door open for argument.


---
EDIT:
One other comment on the upgrade thing:
You mentioned that a card from hand is stronger than the card up to $4. Actually though, it gets a little tricky here. If there were some card that says "whenever you are about to trash a card, discard this card instead." Note that the card you were going to trash with upgrade isn't even revealed. I would have no way of knowing whether you actually had a King's Court in hand. Even if we accept that choosing is part of the trashing, you "choose" the King's court in hand, and then instead of trashing it discard some other hypothetical card. I have no way of knowing (as another player) what card you were actually going to trash...even though you presumably picked it out in your mind before revealing and discarding the other card...even pointed to it in your hand and said, "yeah, this is a King's Court". You didn't trash it, you weren't told to reveal it... This is completely beside the point, but it is an example of an unenforceable rule.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Theorel Masheriel
United States
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmb
Double-post...
I thought some more about this and wanted to share some of those thoughts, since they approach the problem from a different direction. Also, I wanted to say something about my decision:
When I first read this post, I was like "ah, it's A" then I read the first page of arguments, and I was like, "I dunno, I'll wait until Donald tells us". Then I read Donald's arguments and I was decided, yep A, kind of like I thought. Then I read Marvin's argument, and I said, "sorry Marvin it's A...well, wait. Maybe...okay it's B. I think it could be explained a bit better" Then I wrote my explanation, and about half-way through I read the Trader's FAQ, thought some more and then said, "Nope, it's C". Since then I read the Possession FAQ, the Ironworks FAQ, the Upgrade FAQ, read the responses, and thought about it some more. It's still C.

Okay, anyways, that was just to let you know that I have actually considered all the different points of view. And even changed my mind over the course of a Forum conversation. I'm open to changing it again, and of course I'll play it as Donald says regardless. Especially, as I'm about to explain, I feel like his argument actually got stronger since I thought about it periodically over the last few hours.
---

Okay, I'm going to recap the three main points of view, in a different way then I've been expressing them. In question and answer form.
We read Ironworks: "gain a card...if it is..." and we say, "What is it?" (well we don't actually say that until something makes us reconsider the effects, then we try to analyze what reasoning we're applying to interpret the language on the card).
So, in conversation form:
-"What is it?"
-"The card"
-"Which card?"
-now we have 2 branches:
1. "The card specified by the first half of the action" (this seems to be Donald's reasoning)
2. "The card you gained" (this is what is stated in the FAQ)

If we follow line 1, we get A, we're done. It's easy, and a reasonable interpretation of English. It's not the only interpretation(as seen by 2), and unfortunately it's not the one taken in the FAQ. (actually it may be fortunate that it's not the one taken in the FAQ, as it's actually harder to clarify later.)

If we follow line 2 we could get A, B, or C. So, let's continue that line.

-"Okay, so I revealed traders and gained a silver...so "the card I gained" is a silver, that means +$1?"
-now we get 3 branches:
1. "No, it's really the card you were going to gain"
2. "Yes, because that's the card you gained."
3. "No, because Ironworks didn't cause you to gain the Silver".

These are A, B, and C options in order. 1. here sounds really weak, to me. 2 and 3 both sound pretty reasonable, so I check the Traders' FAQ.
Traders says that I shouldn't act on any effects that would normally have come from gaining the original card, or literally "if something would have happened due to gaining the other card, it does not happen, because you did not gain it". This doesn't actually shut out 2 as a possibility...but as other people have said Ironworks should only act on Ironworks, it doesn't "know" you gained a silver instead, it only "knows" that you didn't gain the card you intended. So, from that logic we're left with 1 or 3.

As I said, I'm inclined towards 3. It makes the most sense, and jives with the idea that if Ironworks couldn't gain a card at all (somehow*), you can't choose one and not gain it.

*by this I mean that no card is an option, rather than trying to choose an ineligible card. Choosing an ineligible card when there are other options is made illegal by the rule that you must complete as much of the card as you are able. However, choosing an ineligible card when no cards are ineligible seems totally legit by option 1. i.e. "it's the card I would have gained, if I were able to gain anything".

---
EDIT: A bit more on the C over B argument: If you're still convinced that B is really reasonable, this might help.
After reading the Trader's FAQ I wasn't convinced that it should be C. It wasn't until I thought about the example I mentioned before of a Traders that gains a Gold. The reason it's ambiguous, to me, is that Silver is still a card you gained costing less than 4. Thus, "it" could still conceivably refer to the Silver in this one special case. But if we change it to a Gold, then it's clear that "it" ("A card costing less than 4") cannot refer to the Gold (excepting special cases like Bridge/Highway). Thus it seems clear that the general case should not accept any card not gained from Ironworks as being the card the Ironworks refers to when it says "it"...so finally "it" isn't the Silver gained from Traders...
Anyways, that's what made it clear to me, so maybe it will help you to?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald X.
United States
flag msg tools
designer
Theorel wrote:
The problem with the "blue dog" analogy is that you keep using "the". You're specifying which blue dog independent of feeding it.
Okay I am switching to C on the strength of the "a" vs. "the" argument.

I have been saying "feed the blue dog" but of course the analogous thing would be "feed a blue dog." "The" makes "it" refer to a specific blue dog we already had in mind, but "a" leaves "it" being defined by the action - it means, the blue dog you fed. I can't argue with that.

Ironworks says "gain a card..." so "it" refers to that card. If you fail to gain a card (which you do when you use Trader, since Trader creates its own new card-gaining), then you don't get any bonus.

Ironworks does not say "if you do," but neither do Remodel, Salvager, etc. It's implicit, since the second part of those cards is undefined without a trashed card. For Ironworks, with "it" meaning "the card costing up to $4 that you gained above," the second part again implicitly requires that the first part succeeded.

Sadly this must also apply to Possession. "Gain a card" has an implicit "you;" "it" means "the card you gained," not "the card someone gained." So if you make someone Ironworks a Great Hall via a Possession, you don't get anything.

I prefer A for the better Possession case and well you can try to argue me back into it, preferably with very short posts that include elephant jokes.

I would not expect a change in isotropic functionality here ever, and certainly not soon.

I would not lean heavily on the FAQs for arguments. Of course the FAQs say "the gained card" or whatever; they have to be readable.
18 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Newton
United Kingdom
Wiltshire
flag msg tools
badge
In the interest of giving credit where credit is due, my avatar is a scan of a hand-drawn caricature by cartoonist Jim Naylor which was done at my company's 20th anniversary dinner.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
donaldx wrote:
Sadly this must also apply to Possession. "Gain a card" has an implicit "you;" "it" means "the card you gained," not "the card someone gained." So if you make someone Ironworks a Great Hall via a Possession, you don't get anything.
Thinking about it, this raises a related question for Possession and on-gain effects in Hinterlands.

Border Village, Cache, Emabassy, Ill-Gotten Gains, Inn and Mandarin all have a "When you gain this ..." for something. So what actually happens when a possessed player is made to gain one of these cards?

One viewpoint is that "you" means the person whose turn it is (and who caused the gain to happen). In this scenario, as with Ironworks, that player does not gain the card and so the "when you gain" effect does not happen (e.g. no-one gets Curses when Ill-Gotten Gains is gained).

The alternative view is best illustrated by considering the Duchess, which has the "When you gain a Duchy ..." clause. Here, because the effect is not triggered by anyone doing anything with Duchess, we would be more likely to interpret this as "any player" (as the FAQ does, which may or may not mean anything), in which case a possessing player gaining a Duchy gets a Duchess - but in that case do the other "you"s refer to the actual gainer of the card, in which case a possessed gain of an Ill-Gotten Gains would mean every player other than the possessor gains a Curse (including the Possessed player).

So there are three options (call them X, Y and Z to avoid confusion with A, B and C from earlier discussions).

X. "You" means the player whose turn it is.
No-one gets Curses from possessed gaining of Ill-Gotten Gains; no-one gains a Duchess from possessed gaining of a Duchy.

Y. "You" means the person gaining the card.
Ill-Gotten Gains gives curses to everyone other than the possessor; the possessor gains a Duchess with every Duchy.

Z. "You" means the person causing the interaction - Duchess is a special case because it's effect is general and not linked to what is happening to it.
No-one gets curses from possessed gaining of Ill-Gotten Gains, but the possessor does get a Duchess with every Duchy.

Now I'm more confused than an elephant surrounded by mice on every path. ninja
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald X.
United States
flag msg tools
designer
churchmouse wrote:
Border Village, Cache, Emabassy, Ill-Gotten Gains, Inn and Mandarin all have a "When you gain this ..." for something. So what actually happens when a possessed player is made to gain one of these cards?
The person who actually gains the card, in this case the person who played Possession, is the one who does the when-gain ability.

The person who bought the card, in this case the person being possessed, still does when-buy abilities (Farmland, Noble Brigand).
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas Brendel
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Although in the case of Ill-Gotten Gains in a Possession turn, we have:

- Possessed player is made to buy IGG
- Possessor gains it instead
- All players except the possessor gain Curses, BUT...
- Possessor gains the Curse that the possessed player would have gained

Probably not worth it.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Wolfe
United States
Columbus
Ohio
flag msg tools
Zendo fan, Columbus Blue Jackets fan, Dominion Fan.
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I tried to come up with an analogy to support "A", and I seem to have wound up with one that supports "C".

You're running a pet grooming service out of your basement. One afternoon, you leave the following instructions for your assistant:

Wash a blue dog. If it's...
a shih tzu, get a small cage
a great dane, get a large cage
a dachshund, get a long cage

If you would wash a dog, you may instead wash the pet dog Rover.

If she washed Rover, does she get a cage? Doesn't seem likely.

The requisite elephant joke:
After washing Rover, your assistant, an elephant, goes out and sits on the patio chaise longue. What time is it?
Spoiler (click to reveal)
Time to get a new chaise longue.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew Spencer
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jeffwolfe wrote:
Wash a blue dog. If it's...
a shih tzu, get a small cage
a great dane, get a large cage
a dachshund, get a long cage

If you would wash a dog, you may instead wash the pet dog Rover.

To make this fully applicable, you'd have to specify that Rover is a blue great dane. Now what do you get?

Unfortunately, the analogy is so close that I am just as clueless as I am toward the original question.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate S
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
donaldx wrote:
Okay I am switching to C on the strength of the "a" vs. "the" argument.

[also, Possession]
Oh my, what a massive can of worms surprise If you want to be talked out of Possession, well, the word "you" doesn't appear anywhere, and the card referred to was gained (even if not by the player who played Ironworks).

Also, can you rule on the Black Market/Quarry/Ironworks/Mandarin case? If you can't feed the a blue dog you didn't actually wash, I don't see how you can be allowed to feed a pink dog (the now-$5 Mandarin) even if you did wash it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald X.
United States
flag msg tools
designer
ghorsche wrote:
Oh my, what a massive can of worms :surprise: If you want to be talked out of Possession, well, the word "you" doesn't appear anywhere, and the card referred to was gained (even if not by the player who played Ironworks).

Also, can you rule on the Black Market/Quarry/Ironworks/Mandarin case? If you can't feed the a blue dog you didn't actually wash, I don't see how you can be allowed to feed a pink dog (the now-$5 Mandarin) even if you did wash it.
"You" is implicit in "gain a card." You are the one being addressed.

There is no problem with Quarry / Mandarin / Ironworks. The card doesn't have to stay at a cost of $4 in order to be what "it" refers to.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
[1]  Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [9] |