Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Rules Questions => Topic started by: LittleFish on January 05, 2019, 09:17:46 am
-
What happens when you use a throne room on Enchantress? What happens to opponents actions?
-
Only the first one is affected. You draw 4 cards next turn.
-
More exactly, the first time they play an Action card on their turn, it's affected twice over. But that effect is identical to it being affected only once.
-
More exactly, the first time they play an Action card on their turn, it's affected twice over. But that effect is identical to it being affected only once.
Actually, you could argue being affected twice would turn it into a Lost City. The second time you ignore the card's instructions, you'd still have the +1 Card +1 Action from the first time because that isn't on the card's instructions.
-
More exactly, the first time they play an Action card on their turn, it's affected twice over. But that effect is identical to it being affected only once.
Actually, you could argue being affected twice would turn it into a Lost City. The second time you ignore the card's instructions, you'd still have the +1 Card +1 Action from the first time because that isn't on the card's instructions.
That's what I was trying to find out. is it a lost city?
-
More exactly, the first time they play an Action card on their turn, it's affected twice over. But that effect is identical to it being affected only once.
Actually, you could argue being affected twice would turn it into a Lost City. The second time you ignore the card's instructions, you'd still have the +1 Card +1 Action from the first time because that isn't on the card's instructions.
That's what I was trying to find out. is it a lost city?
No.
-
Actually, you could argue being affected twice would turn it into a Lost City.
Not really. Notice the "instead".
On your turn, you play an Action card for the first time - Chancellor, for the sake of argument - while other players have two Enchantresses in play.
The first Enchantress triggers. Instead of following Chancellor's instructions, you get +1 Card, +1 Action.
Now the second Enchantress triggers. I think the most reasonable way to interpret it is that you're not now following Chancellor's instructions, so a second substitution does not occur. Alternatively, +1 Card, +1 Action is now deemed to be "its instructions" and you instead get +1 Card, +1 Action. Neither way do you end up with a Lost City.
-
Actually, you could argue being affected twice would turn it into a Lost City.
Not really. Notice the "instead".
On your turn, you play an Action card for the first time - Chancellor, for the sake of argument - while other players have two Enchantresses in play.
The first Enchantress triggers. Instead of following Chancellor's instructions, you get +1 Card, +1 Action.
Now the second Enchantress triggers. I think the most reasonable way to interpret it is that you're not now following Chancellor's instructions, so a second substitution does not occur. Alternatively, +1 Card, +1 Action is now deemed to be "its instructions" and you instead get +1 Card, +1 Action. Neither way do you end up with a Lost City.
The second interpretation isn't correct, since Royal Carriage can replay the Chancellor with its original instructions.
-
It seems to me that the clearest interpretation consistent with other Dominion rulings is that +1 Card, +1 Action should take place twice, i.e. it should act like a Lost City. (This of course is not what anyone plays.)
In fact, we don't need throne room for this. It seems that the first card that the opponent plays should cause +1 Card, +1 Action to happen n times, regardless of how many Enchantresses are in play.
-
It seems to me that the clearest interpretation consistent with other Dominion rulings is that +1 Card, +1 Action should take place twice, i.e. it should act like a Lost City. (This of course is not what anyone plays.)
Consistent with what other rulings? There are very few things in Dominion that cancel an event that's about to occur and replace it with another event. Besides Enchantress, I count Trader and Possession. (Maybe Fleet.)
After revealing Trader to replace "gaining an X" with "gaining a Silver," nobody assumes that the original "gain an X" is still occurring for the purpose of being able to reveal a Trader again to gain a second Silver (and so on, ad infinitum).
So why should it be different with Enchantress? After one Enchantress replaces "following Y's instructions" with "+1 card; +1 action," why should one assume that "following Y's instructions" is still occurring for the purpose of having a second Enchantress effect replace it?
(In M:tG, this kind of thing is called a replacement effect. You can't "double replace" an event there, either.)
-
It seems to me that the clearest interpretation consistent with other Dominion rulings is that +1 Card, +1 Action should take place twice, i.e. it should act like a Lost City. (This of course is not what anyone plays.)
Consistent with what other rulings? There are very few things in Dominion that cancel an event that's about to occur and replace it with another event. Besides Enchantress, I count Trader and Possession. (Maybe Fleet.)
After revealing Trader to replace "gaining an X" with "gaining a Silver," nobody assumes that the original "gain an X" is still occurring for the purpose of being able to reveal a Trader again to gain a second Silver (and so on, ad infinitum).
So why should it be different with Enchantress? After one Enchantress replaces "following Y's instructions" with "+1 card; +1 action," why should one assume that "following Y's instructions" is still occurring for the purpose of having a second Enchantress effect replace it?
(In M:tG, this kind of thing is called a replacement effect. You can't "double replace" an event there, either.)
"Following Y's instructions" isn't still occurring, and that's the problem. It doesn't say to "replace" Y's instructions with Z, then execute Y's now-changed instructions, it says to ignore Y's instructions entirely and do the entirely unrelated thing Z. Ignoring the instructions and getting +1 Card +1 Action are completely independent events. The former event can't stack, but the latter arguably can.
The most relevant comparison is with Swamp Hag. "Gain a Curse when you buy something" stacks, so there's no reason not to think "+1 Card and +1 Action when you play your first Action card" doesn't as well.
-
It seems to me that the clearest interpretation consistent with other Dominion rulings is that +1 Card, +1 Action should take place twice, i.e. it should act like a Lost City. (This of course is not what anyone plays.)
So why should it be different with Enchantress? After one Enchantress replaces "following Y's instructions" with "+1 card; +1 action," why should one assume that "following Y's instructions" is still occurring for the purpose of having a second Enchantress effect replace it?
(In M:tG, this kind of thing is called a replacement effect. You can't "double replace" an event there, either.)
But the +1 card, +1 action from the first Enchantress aren't Y's instructions. Enchantress could have said "replace Y's instructions with +1 card, +1 action," but does not say this.
-
"Following Y's instructions" isn't still occurring, and that's the problem. It doesn't say to "replace" Y's instructions with Z, then execute Y's now-changed instructions, it says to ignore Y's instructions entirely and do the entirely unrelated thing Z. Ignoring the instructions and getting +1 Card +1 Action are completely independent events. The former event can't stack, but the latter arguably can.
The most relevant comparison is with Swamp Hag. "Gain a Curse when you buy something" stacks, so there's no reason not to think "+1 Card and +1 Action when you play your first Action card" doesn't as well.
The two effects on Enchantress are not independent. Enchantress doesn't say "don't do X; do Y". It says "do Y instead of doing X". If Swamp Hag had said, "when you buy a card, gain a Curse instead of gaining it", it wouldn't stack.
-
"Following Y's instructions" isn't still occurring, and that's the problem. It doesn't say to "replace" Y's instructions with Z, then execute Y's now-changed instructions, it says to ignore Y's instructions entirely and do the entirely unrelated thing Z. Ignoring the instructions and getting +1 Card +1 Action are completely independent events. The former event can't stack, but the latter arguably can.
So, I wouldn't call "ignoring the instructions" an event; I'd call that, like, an event failing to occur. And I'd say the word "instead" creates a dependency between the event that would have occurred and the event that is to occur in its stead. If the first event would no longer occur, then it has no stead in which another event can occur.
(They are, of course, separate events in that, like, Ironworks doesn't think it gained a Silver when you use Trader to replace its gain.)
The most relevant comparison is with Swamp Hag. "Gain a Curse when you buy something" stacks, so there's no reason not to think "+1 Card and +1 Action when you play your first Action card" doesn't as well.
The big difference here is that Swamp Hag never uses the word "instead," so it never replaces one event with another; it just tacks on a new event after the event that triggered it.
Imagine a Bog Hag that says "the first time any other player would gain a card on their turn, they gain a Curse instead." If you played two Bog Hags and your opponent gained a card, then that effect would not stack because there's only one (first) gain event in whose stead another event could occur. (Ninja'd.)
-
The two effects on Enchantress are not independent. Enchantress doesn't say "don't do X; do Y". It says "do Y instead of doing X". If Swamp Hag had said, "when you buy a card, gain a Curse instead of gaining it", it wouldn't stack.
I fold! This is pretty logical.
-
I actually asked this very question when Empires came out (obviously not catching the logic back then)! And I was promptly told how it works: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=15393.msg599477#msg599477
The next post after that one, is Donald confirming it.