Recommend
36 
 Thumb up
 Hide
220 Posts
[1]  Prev «  5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9  | 

Dominion: Hinterlands» Forums » Rules

Subject: Ironworks and Trader rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Donald X.
United States
flag msg tools
designer
Tall_Walt wrote:
"If you [react with Trader], you gain a Silver, not the card you would have gained; if something would have happened due to gaining the other card, it does not happen because you did not gain it. ... However, if something happens when you buy a card, that will still happen if you replace gaining the [other] card with gaining Silver. [example of gaining a card due to buying Farmland being changed to gaining a Silver]"

The Trader language seems to say that everything should happen as if you bought or otherwise gained a Silver to begin with. Trader is not gaining you a Silver, it is changing what you would have gained into a Silver. This would tend to support the B interpretation, getting a +$1 from Ironworks in its second stage. The rules seem to say, it's as if you played Ironworks and picked up a Silver initially. I suspect most people not reading this thread will play it that way.
As has been repeated many times in this thread, Trader does not "change the card you would have gained to Silver," it "replaces you gaining a card with a new event that happens to be gaining a Silver." Ironworks does not care about cards you gain other than specifically via its ability.

You still do things that happen due to buying a card, because you still bought the card. You paid for a Mint, but it was never delivered. In fact any when-buy effects have already completely resolved before you even reveal Trader.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walt
United States
Orange County
California
flag msg tools
Please don't go. The drones need you. They look up to you.
badge
Please contact me about board gaming in Orange County.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
donaldx wrote:
You still do things that happen due to buying a card, because you still bought the card. You paid for a Mint, but it was never delivered. In fact any when-buy effects have already completely resolved before you even reveal Trader.
Not having played Hinterlands yet, I'm not thinking too much about when-buy effects. From the rules, those seem clear. Just to be clear about Mint, you trash your money because you did buy it, but you don't get any effects from gaining it (like triggering Ironworks); what happens is the effect of gaining a silver (if that's anything at all).

Thanks for your time and patience, Donald.


LastFootnote wrote:
When I first asked this question, I didn't anticipate this much contention. And to think that the game isn't even widely available yet!
Discussion is not contention. The purpose of discussion is to understand or to learn, not to win.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt E
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tall_Walt wrote:
Discussion is not contention. The purpose of discussion is to understand or to learn, not to win.
Is that your contention?
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Colburn
United Kingdom
Glasgow
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Tall_Walt wrote:
"If you [react with Trader], you gain a Silver, not the card you would have gained; if something would have happened due to gaining the other card, it does not happen because you did not gain it."

[...]

The Trader language seems to say that everything should happen as if you bought or otherwise gained a Silver to begin with.
I don't see how you get to this conclusion from that passage of the rules. You Ironworks a Gardens, but then Trader to gain a Silver instead. Would something have happened due to gaining the other card (in this case, Gardens)? Yes: you'd get +1 Card. But, as per the rules, it doesn't happen -- because you didn't gain it. But it *doesn't* say 'if something would've happened due to gaining the other card, it happens but as if you'd originally gained silver'. Not that. What it says is that it doesn't happen.

I get the intuition: Ironworks is, as it were, waiting to see what ends up on top of your discard pile, ready to give you a reward depending on what shows up. Only that intuition is a mistake: it's not the card you gain, but the card that Ironworks makes you gain that is relevant (as, I hope, the Border Village example shows). Ironworks doesn't make you gain the Silver in this example; Trader does.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick Knutsen
Norway
Oslo
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
EDIT: I completely missed the next page (page 9) when I wrote this.

Tall_Walt wrote:
The line of reasoning for Watchtower that "I did gain an action card but then it was trashed" would seem to be analogous to "I did gain a Great Hall but then it was changed into a Silver." The trash isn't mine any more than the tableau is mine--in both cases a reaction made a gain ephemeral. I cannot find a ruling on Ironworks/Watchtower interaction.
Everything you said has already been covered previously in this long thread. As Donald said, Trader happens directly prior to gaining the card, because it has the "would gain" wording. Watchtower happens when you gain the card. The FAQ for Watchtower also explicitly says that you do gain the card, you just immediately trash it. Trader says that something else happens instead.

Another importaing thing that's been said several times, which you seem to have missed, is that Trader doesn't change the card you would have gained to a Silver. Rather it cancels the gaining of the card, replacing it with something else, which in theory could have been anything, like "trash a card from your hand", but in actually is "gain a Silver". It's just incidental that both the instruction being replaced and the one replacing it involves gaining. As far as following the next instruction on Watchtower, the gaining didn't happen, end of story.

I do think the card itself isn't entirely clear on this though. It says "When you would gain a card ... instead, gain a Silver." Just from the card, it could either mean that "a Silver" is instead of "a card", or that "gain a Silver" is instead of "gain a card". The latter is the correct interpretation; Donald has stated this. The FAQ for Trader implies this also, but doesn't say it outright.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Latto
United States
Foxboro
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Tall_Walt wrote:


The Trader language seems to say that everything should happen as if you bought or otherwise gained a Silver to begin with.
No it doesn't. It says you gain a silver. It also says you don't gain the card you would have gained. It says nothing abut everything happening as if you had gained a Silver to begin with. In particular, if the original gain was a "gain and put this on top of your deck", the Silver gained with Trader is not put on top of the deck.

Imagine a card like Trader, except that instead of saying "instead, gain a silver" it said "Instead, gain a Silver on top of your deck, a copper at the bottom of your deck, a Gold in your discard pile, and a VP token". Now which one would be the card that "replaces" the original draw?

Your talk of "net gain" sounds to me as though you are interpreting "gain" as its ordinary English meaning of "to have more of than you started with", rather than it's meaning as a technical term in Dominion of "follow an instruction in the rules or on a card to gain a card". If I remodel a Province to a Province, there is no "net gain" of a Province in the ordinary english meaning of the word "gain", but you followed a "gain" instruction, so anything triggered by a gain would be triggered. And when someone passes you a Curse with Masquerade, even if you don't pass anything away, that would not trigger anything that triggers on gaining a Curse, because the keyword "gain" is not used.
Quote:
The rules seem to say, it's as if you played Ironworks and picked up a Silver initially.
No they don't. They say "instead, gain a silver"
Quote:

In parallel, if someone plays Mountebank and you change the Curse and Copper to Silvers, the following player can use Smuggler to get Silver.
Yes, because the Trader made you gain a Silver. But the Mountebank didn't make you gain the Silver; the Trader did. The Smuggler could also gain a copper or a Curse, because the Mountebank made you gain a curse.(Edit: Wrong; the gain did not take place).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Goldfarb
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
andylatto wrote:
Tall_Walt wrote:

In parallel, if someone plays Mountebank and you change the Curse and Copper to Silvers, the following player can use Smuggler to get Silver.
Yes, because the Trader made you gain a Silver. the Smuggler could also gain a copper or a Curse, because the Mountebank made you gain a curse.
No they couldn't: as you yourself argued, you didn't gain the Copper or Curse, those gains were cancelled, and you gained Silvers instead.

Of course, the only way I can see that Smuggler could gain something given out by Mountebank anyway, would be if the Mountebank was played during a Possession turn, by the same player who had the Smuggler.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick Knutsen
Norway
Oslo
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
David Goldfarb wrote:
Of course, the only way I can see that Smuggler could gain something given out by Mountebank anyway, would be if the Mountebank was played during a Possession turn, by the same player who had the Smuggler.
Uhm... more than two players?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas Brendel
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
But the issue is that Smuggler can only gain a card that was gained by the player on your right "on his last turn," and there's no way for someone else to play a Mountebank during your turn. Possession doesn't change that, since the card is quite specific that the extra turn is the possessed player's turn.
1 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walt
United States
Orange County
California
flag msg tools
Please don't go. The drones need you. They look up to you.
badge
Please contact me about board gaming in Orange County.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Squidd wrote:
But the issue is that Smuggler can only gain a card that was gained by the player on your right "on his last turn," and there's no way for someone else to play a Mountebank during your turn. Possession doesn't change that, since the card is quite specific that the extra turn is the possessed player's turn.
Absolutely right. Duh.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randall Bart
United States
Winnetka
California
flag msg tools
designer
Baseball been bery bery good to me
badge
This is a picture of a published game designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
donaldx wrote:
If I say, "feed the blue dog, then take it for a walk," "it" refers to the blue dog, including its blueness, but "it" does not mean "the dog you fed."
This is utter nonsense. If I feed the blue dog, and the feeding causes the dog to turn orange, "it" refers to the dog which was fed, absent its blueness which has now departed.

Suppose we have two dogs, Joe and Fred, who are of a breed which turns blue when they are hungry. You say "feed the blue dog, then take it for a walk." Joe is blue, Fred is orange, so I feed Joe. Joe turns orange while eating, meanwhile Fred sees Joe eating and turns blue. "It" does not create a thunk where I reevaluate the conditional "blue" and now walk Fred. "It" means the dog previously identified, Joe, the one who was fed.
4 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Compulsive Completist
United States
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Of all the threads on BGG this is the one I missed most.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt E
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Barticus88 wrote:
donaldx wrote:
If I say, "feed the blue dog, then take it for a walk," "it" refers to the blue dog, including its blueness, but "it" does not mean "the dog you fed."
This is utter nonsense. If I feed the blue dog, and the feeding causes the dog to turn orange, "it" refers to the dog which was fed, absent its blueness which has now departed.

Suppose we have two dogs, Joe and Fred, who are of a breed which turns blue when they are hungry. You say "feed the blue dog, then take it for a walk." Joe is blue, Fred is orange, so I feed Joe. Joe turns orange while eating, meanwhile Fred sees Joe eating and turns blue. "It" does not create a thunk where I reevaluate the conditional "blue" and now walk Fred. "It" means the dog previously identified, Joe, the one who was fed.

This is all true, but doesn't really pertain to the issue at hand. If I choose to gain a Great Hall with Ironworks, but then reveal a Trader to gain a Silver instead, the Great Hall did not "become" the Silver. They're two different cards.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick Knutsen
Norway
Oslo
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Barticus88 wrote:
donaldx wrote:
If I say, "feed the blue dog, then take it for a walk," "it" refers to the blue dog, including its blueness, but "it" does not mean "the dog you fed."
This is utter nonsense. If I feed the blue dog, and the feeding causes the dog to turn orange, "it" refers to the dog which was fed, absent its blueness which has now departed.

Suppose we have two dogs, Joe and Fred, who are of a breed which turns blue when they are hungry. You say "feed the blue dog, then take it for a walk." Joe is blue, Fred is orange, so I feed Joe. Joe turns orange while eating, meanwhile Fred sees Joe eating and turns blue. "It" does not create a thunk where I reevaluate the conditional "blue" and now walk Fred. "It" means the dog previously identified, Joe, the one who was fed.
Also, why are you even arguing against this? If you read the whole thread, you'll see that Donald abandoned that way of reasoning because the analogy would not be "the blue dog", but rather "a blue dog". So he changed his conclusion after the post you quoted.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Biodiesel
United States
Manassas
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb


Love it. zombie
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt E
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've never understood the taboo against thread necromancy. If you have a question or comment about a topic that already has a thread, isn't it better to post in that thread rather than clutter the forum with new threads?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald X.
United States
flag msg tools
designer
LastFootnote wrote:
I've never understood the taboo against thread necromancy. If you have a question or comment about a topic that already has a thread, isn't it better to post in that thread rather than clutter the forum with new threads?
If you look at threads sorted by activity, it's more clutter to necro a thread than to start a new one. It's the same number of new threads, but the non-necro'd thread is shorter, you don't find yourself looking at old posts wondering what's going on.

I think what has happened over time is, sometimes someone new bumps ten old threads, and people are mad because it looks like there are new conversations but there aren't, plus actual new conversations are pushed down. So then some forums ban necro-ing, and so then at other forums where it's allowed, like BGG, it still ends up with a bad rap, it's that thing that could get you banned elsewhere.

This particular instance is a classic, "here's something I can reply to and hey what are the odds that someone covered this ground in the next 7 pages, nil, nil I say."
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
[1]  Prev «  5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9  |