Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Rules Questions => Topic started by: AJD on March 18, 2020, 01:13:03 pm
-
If I play Necropolis according to the Way of the Mouse, and the way of the mouse is to play, say, Fishing Village, does the Necropolis stay in play through the next turn?
-
If I play Necropolis according to the Way of the Mouse, and the way of the mouse is to play, say, Fishing Village, does the Necropolis stay in play through the next turn?
This should work just like Band of Misfits playing a Duration; in other words, yes.
-
Hmm. I wonder why Way of the Mouse doesn't say "non-Duration"?
-
If I play Necropolis according to the Way of the Mouse, and the way of the mouse is to play, say, Fishing Village, does the Necropolis stay in play through the next turn?
This should work just like Band of Misfits playing a Duration; in other words, yes.
No, because Band of Misfits is a Command card; and Command cards have special rules dealing with how to handle them playing Durations.
Way of the Mouse playing a Duration seems more like Vassal playing a Duration, so it wouldn't stay in play.
*Edit* Crossing that out because it's bad to have false info in a rules thread. The staying out rule applies not just to Command, but to cards that play cards while leaving them there.
-
If I play Necropolis according to the Way of the Mouse, and the way of the mouse is to play, say, Fishing Village, does the Necropolis stay in play through the next turn?
This should work just like Band of Misfits playing a Duration; in other words, yes.
No, because Band of Misfits is a Command card; and Command cards have special rules dealing with how to handle them playing Durations.
Way of the Mouse playing a Duration seems more like Vassal playing a Duration, so it wouldn't stay in play.
The "leaving it there" clause is what led me to believe it would behave like BoM (and other Command cards that can play Duration cards). That that rule exists for tracking purposes, so would apply here. While on the other hand, Vassal doesn't have this tracking issue as it puts the card into play (i.e. the played card tracks itself).
Also, the alternative would lead to some weird cases: If I play BoM as Way of the Mouse, since it has the Command type, it would stay out.
-
If I play Necropolis according to the Way of the Mouse, and the way of the mouse is to play, say, Fishing Village, does the Necropolis stay in play through the next turn?
This should work just like Band of Misfits playing a Duration; in other words, yes.
No, because Band of Misfits is a Command card; and Command cards have special rules dealing with how to handle them playing Durations.
Way of the Mouse playing a Duration seems more like Vassal playing a Duration, so it wouldn't stay in play.
The "leaving it there" clause is what led me to believe it would behave like BoM (and other Command cards that can play Duration cards). That that rule exists for tracking purposes, so would apply here. While on the other hand, Vassal doesn't have this tracking issue as it puts the card into play (i.e. the played card tracks itself).
Also, the alternative would lead to some weird cases: If I play BoM as Way of the Mouse, since it has the Command type, it would stay out.
I was wrong; in errata thread Donald said "These rules apply to all of the cards that play cards without putting them into play", which includes Necromancer and Inherited Estates; which aren't command cards.
So yes, if Mouse plays a Duration card, the card that was Mouse'd should stay in play until the Duration would normally be discarded.
-
Hmm, I'm starting to wonder if this is really true. You didn't use Necropolis's ability to play Fishing Village. In other words, playing Necropolis didn't cause the Fishing Village to be played. Way of the Mouse is what caused it. It's like when you play a Smithy after having played Kiln: The Kiln triggers. You played Smithy but it was the Kiln that caused you to gain another Smithy.
Compare with Enchantress. When you play an Enchanted Necropolis, it's not Necropolis that gives you +1 Card/+1 Action. If it were Necropolis, a Way could still be used. For instance, Way of the Chameleon could replace it with +$1/+1 Action. That doesn't happen, because we're not following Necropolis's ability.
EDIT: Also, the Menagerie rulebook doesn't have this rule. Donald has said it would be included in future rulebooks for BoM, Overlord, Inheritance and Necromancer.
-
Hmm, I'm starting to wonder if this is really true. You didn't use Necropolis's ability to play Fishing Village. In other words, playing Necropolis didn't cause the Fishing Village to be played. Way of the Mouse is what caused it. It's like when you play a Smithy after having played Kiln: The Kiln triggers. You played Smithy but it was the Kiln that caused you to gain another Smithy.
I don't think this interpretation is really how ways work. Ways are not things that are played by other Actions - ways are a, uh, way you can play an action. If you play a Necropolis using a Way ability, it is Necropolis doing the effects outlined on the Way, not some abstract summoned non-card. Ways aren't a "thing", they're more or less a rule change - this is one of the things that playing an action can do this game.
-
Compare with Enchantress. When you play an Enchanted Necropolis, it's not Necropolis that gives you +1 Card/+1 Action. If it were Necropolis, a Way could still be used. For instance, Way of the Chameleon could replace it with +$1/+1 Action. That doesn't happen, because we're not following Necropolis's ability.
Is the underlined sentence intended or just not proper formulated? For me it suggests an enchanted Action can't use a Way. Or is my learning of Way as escape instead Enchantress wrong?
-
Compare with Enchantress. When you play an Enchanted Necropolis, it's not Necropolis that gives you +1 Card/+1 Action. If it were Necropolis, a Way could still be used. For instance, Way of the Chameleon could replace it with +$1/+1 Action. That doesn't happen, because we're not following Necropolis's ability.
Is the underlined sentence intended or just not proper formulated? For me it suggests an enchanted Action can't use a Way. Or is my learning of Way as escape instead Enchantress wrong?
I'm pretty sure it's correct. The thing is you can't choose to apply Enchantress and then apply a Way (like in the example I gave with Chameleon). Likewise you can't choose to apply a Way and then apply Enchantress. If you apply one first, the other doesn't work. That's how you can "use a Way instead of being Enchanted". Donald explains it here. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20142.msg828497#msg828497)
-
Hmm, I'm starting to wonder if this is really true. You didn't use Necropolis's ability to play Fishing Village. In other words, playing Necropolis didn't cause the Fishing Village to be played. Way of the Mouse is what caused it. It's like when you play a Smithy after having played Kiln: The Kiln triggers. You played Smithy but it was the Kiln that caused you to gain another Smithy.
I don't think this interpretation is really how ways work. Ways are not things that are played by other Actions - ways are a, uh, way you can play an action. If you play a Necropolis using a Way ability, it is Necropolis doing the effects outlined on the Way, not some abstract summoned non-card. Ways aren't a "thing", they're more or less a rule change - this is one of the things that playing an action can do this game.
Well, we know that Ways work exactly like Enchantress. Certainly the Action card doesn't play the Enchantress, and it doesn't play the Way, that much is clear. But that doesn't mean that the card is the thing doing the Enchantress effects or the Way effects. Remember that the card does not "shapeshift" - its play ability doesn't change. Playing a card with Enchantress or a Way doesn't change whether it's a Treasure for Capitalism for instance. Also see my example with Enchantress and Way of the Chameleon, which is relevant precisely because Ways work exactly like Enchantress.
-
Compare with Enchantress. When you play an Enchanted Necropolis, it's not Necropolis that gives you +1 Card/+1 Action. If it were Necropolis, a Way could still be used. For instance, Way of the Chameleon could replace it with +$1/+1 Action. That doesn't happen, because we're not following Necropolis's ability.
Is the underlined sentence intended or just not proper formulated? For me it suggests an enchanted Action can't use a Way. Or is my learning of Way as escape instead Enchantress wrong?
I'm pretty sure it's correct. The thing is you can't choose to apply Enchantress and then apply a Way (like in the example I gave with Chameleon). Likewise you can't choose to apply a Way and then apply Enchantress. If you apply one first, the other doesn't work. That's how you can "use a Way instead of being Enchanted". Donald explains it here. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20142.msg828497#msg828497)
As written it sounded like you were saying that if your opponent had played Enchantress; then you couldn't play Necropolis using a Way instead of getting +1 card +1 action.
-
As written it sounded like you were saying that if your opponent had played Enchantress; then you couldn't play Necropolis using a Way instead of getting +1 card +1 action.
I meant if you apply "+1 Card/+1 Action" from Enchantress. In that case it's not Necropolis that gives you "+1 Card/+1 Action", so you can't use a Way to replace that, such as Way of the Chameleon. If you instead choose to apply a Way, well then Enchantress never does anything. The "pig" symbol in Dominion Online is helpful, but it's a bit misleading for understanding how the timing actually works: if you apply a Way first, no card is ever Enchanted.
-
Ok, here's another way of saying it.
(1) When you play an Action card, play the set-aside Duration before resolving the played card. (Diplomat, Kiln...)
(2) When you play an Action card, play the set-aside Duration instead of resolving the played card. (Way of the Mouse, Enchantress...)
(3) When you play an Action card, play the set-aside Duration after resolving the played card. (Royal Carriage, Citadel...)
Obviously (1) and (3) wouldn't cause the Action card to stay in play. Why does (2)?
-
Ok, here's another way of saying it.
(1) When you play an Action card, play the set-aside Duration before resolving the played card. (Diplomat, Kiln...)
(2) When you play an Action card, play the set-aside Duration instead of resolving the played card. (Way of the Mouse, Enchantress...)
(3) When you play an Action card, play the set-aside Duration after resolving the played card. (Royal Carriage, Citadel...)
Obviously (1) and (3) wouldn't cause the Action card to stay in play. Why does (2)?
Because I don't think #2 is "instead of resolving the played card". I think it's "the played card is resolved in this way instead".
Now that might go against your instinct of why you can't use both Enchantress and Chameleon; but isn't that resolved by a simple rule saying that a card's play effects can't be modified again after they've already been modified? That sounds like the best explanation to me as to why you can't use both Enchantress and Chameleon.
-
Ok, here's another way of saying it.
(1) When you play an Action card, play the set-aside Duration before resolving the played card. (Diplomat, Kiln...)
(2) When you play an Action card, play the set-aside Duration instead of resolving the played card. (Way of the Mouse, Enchantress...)
(3) When you play an Action card, play the set-aside Duration after resolving the played card. (Royal Carriage, Citadel...)
Obviously (1) and (3) wouldn't cause the Action card to stay in play. Why does (2)?
Because I don't think #2 is "instead of resolving the played card". I think it's "the played card is resolved in this way instead".
Now that might go against your instinct of why you can't use both Enchantress and Chameleon; but isn't that resolved by a simple rule saying that a card's play effects can't be modified again after they've already been modified? That sounds like the best explanation to me as to why you can't use both Enchantress and Chameleon.
So you're suggesting that resolving the Enchantress/Way effects counts as resolving the card's effects. Yeah, like you said, if that were the case you could replace those effects again (and Enchantress/Chameleon would not work as intended). I guess that special rule would fix it, but no such rule has ever been stated, and Donald's explanation doesn't seem to support it. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20142.msg828497#msg828497)
Now, if you really wanted Way of the Mouse to behave this way, you could make a special rule for Way of the Mouse and Durations. But again, if this was the intended behavior, why isn't it mentioned in the Menagerie rulebook, as it apparently will be for Band of Misfits and those other cards?
-
Jeebus wrote:
But that doesn't mean that the card is the thing doing the Enchantress effects or the Way effects.
In my opinion this is exactly what happens. The card is doing the thing it normally doesn't. It doesn't change (gain/loose abilities), but the rules allow it to do things it noromally doesn't.
-
Way of the Chameleon specifically says "Follow this card's instructions"; the reason you can't chameleonize the enchantment of an enchanted card is because the +1 card / +1 action isn't "this card's instructions". Playing the enchanted card is what gives you +1 card / +1 action, but it's not part of the card's instructions.
-
Jeebus wrote:
But that doesn't mean that the card is the thing doing the Enchantress effects or the Way effects.
In my opinion this is exactly what happens. The card is doing the thing it normally doesn't. It doesn't change (gain/loose abilities), but the rules allow it to do things it noromally doesn't.
To me that's a contradiction: A card's ability is what it does. It's like saying a card costs $3 without changing its cost. Maybe you can explain more what you mean. Remember that cards that change what they do, like old Inheritance, refer to abilities and are shapeshifters.
-
Way of the Chameleon specifically says "Follow this card's instructions"; the reason you can't chameleonize the enchantment of an enchanted card is because the +1 card / +1 action isn't "this card's instructions". Playing the enchanted card is what gives you +1 card / +1 action, but it's not part of the card's instructions.
The last sentence is what I don't agree with. Yes, it happens as a result of playing the card, but so does Kiln and Royal Carriage. You'd have to address what I've written about that.
-
Hopefully Donald will chime in at some point and tell us the intended behavior, so at least we don't have to speculate about that. The lack of this rule in the rulebook makes me think that it's not supposed to cover Way of the Mouse.
-
Hopefully Donald will chime in at some point and tell us the intended behavior, so at least we don't have to speculate about that. The lack of this rule in the rulebook makes me think that it's not supposed to cover Way of the Mouse.
I always hope it will somehow all resolve with me, maybe by Ingix saying what I've said somewhere.
The idea is to track effects that happen next turn, via cards in play. This is an excerpt from the current Dark Ages FAQ for Band of Misfits:
"Normally that means you'll discard it that turn, but if a Band of Misfits plays a Duration card (Duration cards are in other expansions), it will stay out like the Duration card would have, and if Band of Misfits plays a card like Throne Room that plays a Duration card twice, it will stay out in the same way the Throne Room would have."
Way of the Mouse should work the same way - if you play a Necropolis and use Way of the Mouse which plays Lighthouse, you should leave out the Necropolis, to track that something's supposed to happen next turn. We'll know what, there's nothing else it can be. The rulebook doesn't cover this because the rulebooks aren't perfect and also are snapshots of points in time.
-
Each Way gives Action cards an additional option: you can play the Action for what it normally does, or play it to do what the Way says to do.
Emphasis mine, page 3 of the Menagerie rulebook. The card does what they Ways says.
-
Each Way gives Action cards an additional option: you can play the Action for what it normally does, or play it to do what the Way says to do.
Emphasis mine, page 3 of the Menagerie rulebook. The card does what they Ways says.
As I'm sure you know, the rulebooks don't generally contain language that is precise enough to be helpful in parsing this kind of thing.
-
I always hope it will somehow all resolve with me, maybe by Ingix saying what I've said somewhere.
The idea is to track effects that happen next turn, via cards in play. This is an excerpt from the current Dark Ages FAQ for Band of Misfits:
"Normally that means you'll discard it that turn, but if a Band of Misfits plays a Duration card (Duration cards are in other expansions), it will stay out like the Duration card would have, and if Band of Misfits plays a card like Throne Room that plays a Duration card twice, it will stay out in the same way the Throne Room would have."
Way of the Mouse should work the same way - if you play a Necropolis and use Way of the Mouse which plays Lighthouse, you should leave out the Necropolis, to track that something's supposed to happen next turn. We'll know what, there's nothing else it can be. The rulebook doesn't cover this because the rulebooks aren't perfect and also are snapshots of points in time.
Thanks for saying the intended behavior. I thought the Menagerie rulebook was written after the 2019 errata, so that's why I really expected Way of the Mouse to include this like BoM will.
In any case, you haven't addressed the issue of how this behavior is possible of course, and I don't expect that you will. I've been taught by Dominion to read what the cards say and follow the rules, and that's what I'm doing. (Of course when it comes to certain interactions, the card texts sometimes don't describe exactly how the card technically works.) In this case I don't see how this Mouse behavior is consistent with an Enchanted and Chameleon'ed card not giving you +$1/+1 Action. So far nobody has made a convincing description of how it can be possible (except GendoIkari by including an extra, general rule which doesn't seem to exist). I guess for now we can say that it's a special ruling for Way of the Mouse in order to facilitate tracking.
-
Way of the Chameleon specifically says "Follow this card's instructions"; the reason you can't chameleonize the enchantment of an enchanted card is because the +1 card / +1 action isn't "this card's instructions". Playing the enchanted card is what gives you +1 card / +1 action, but it's not part of the card's instructions.
The last sentence is what I don't agree with. Yes, it happens as a result of playing the card, but so does Kiln and Royal Carriage. You'd have to address what I've written about that.
It seems like the part of that sentence you don't agree with is "playing the enchanted card is what gives you +1 card / +1 action". Do you also disagree with "it's not part of the card's instructions"?
-
Way of the Chameleon specifically says "Follow this card's instructions"; the reason you can't chameleonize the enchantment of an enchanted card is because the +1 card / +1 action isn't "this card's instructions". Playing the enchanted card is what gives you +1 card / +1 action, but it's not part of the card's instructions.
The last sentence is what I don't agree with. Yes, it happens as a result of playing the card, but so does Kiln and Royal Carriage. You'd have to address what I've written about that.
It seems like the part of that sentence you don't agree with is "playing the enchanted card is what gives you +1 card / +1 action". Do you also disagree with "it's not part of the card's instructions"?
Right, that's the part. I agree with "it's not part of the card's instructions".
-
Way of the Chameleon specifically says "Follow this card's instructions"; the reason you can't chameleonize the enchantment of an enchanted card is because the +1 card / +1 action isn't "this card's instructions". Playing the enchanted card is what gives you +1 card / +1 action, but it's not part of the card's instructions.
The last sentence is what I don't agree with. Yes, it happens as a result of playing the card, but so does Kiln and Royal Carriage. You'd have to address what I've written about that.
It seems like the part of that sentence you don't agree with is "playing the enchanted card is what gives you +1 card / +1 action". Do you also disagree with "it's not part of the card's instructions"?
Right, that's the part. I agree with "it's not part of the card's instructions".
Okay, so given that +1 card / +1 action is not part of the card's instructions, there's no way Way of the Chameleon could convert that to +$1 / +1 action, since Way of the Chameleon specifically acts upon a card's "instructions". So Way of the Chameleon is a red herring, irrelevant to the issue of the Durable Mouse.
-
Okay, so given that +1 card / +1 action is not part of the card's instructions, there's no way Way of the Chameleon could convert that to +$1 / +1 action, since Way of the Chameleon specifically acts upon a card's "instructions". So Way of the Chameleon is a red herring, irrelevant to the issue of the Durable Mouse.
Agree with everything again, except that it's irrelevant. The point of Enchantress + Way of the Chameleon is not Chameleon, it's Enchantress. Exactly as you're describing, we're not following the card's instructions. And Ways work the same way.
-
Okay, so given that +1 card / +1 action is not part of the card's instructions, there's no way Way of the Chameleon could convert that to +$1 / +1 action, since Way of the Chameleon specifically acts upon a card's "instructions". So Way of the Chameleon is a red herring, irrelevant to the issue of the Durable Mouse.
Agree with everything again, except that it's irrelevant. The point of Enchantress + Way of the Chameleon is not Chameleon, it's Enchantress. Exactly as you're describing, we're not following the card's instructions. And Ways work the same way.
What does this have to do with the Durable Mouse issue?
-
Okay, so given that +1 card / +1 action is not part of the card's instructions, there's no way Way of the Chameleon could convert that to +$1 / +1 action, since Way of the Chameleon specifically acts upon a card's "instructions". So Way of the Chameleon is a red herring, irrelevant to the issue of the Durable Mouse.
Agree with everything again, except that it's irrelevant. The point of Enchantress + Way of the Chameleon is not Chameleon, it's Enchantress. Exactly as you're describing, we're not following the card's instructions. And Ways work the same way.
What does this have to do with the Durable Mouse issue?
It's what I've been saying from my first post. It's not the Action card's effects that make us play the Duration, it's Way of the Mouse's.
-
Thanks for saying the intended behavior. I thought the Menagerie rulebook was written after the 2019 errata, so that's why I really expected Way of the Mouse to include this like BoM will.
In any case, you haven't addressed the issue of how this behavior is possible of course, and I don't expect that you will. I've been taught by Dominion to read what the cards say and follow the rules, and that's what I'm doing. (Of course when it comes to certain interactions, the card texts sometimes don't describe exactly how the card technically works.) In this case I don't see how this Mouse behavior is consistent with an Enchanted and Chameleon'ed card not giving you +$1/+1 Action. So far nobody has made a convincing description of how it can be possible (except GendoIkari by including an extra, general rule which doesn't seem to exist). I guess for now we can say that it's a special ruling for Way of the Mouse in order to facilitate tracking.
The timing of the Menagerie rulebook being finalized meant it could have had that; it didn't manage to though.
It's a special ruling for Way of the Mouse tracking, like the rule for Band of Misfits. There's no general rule for either case; my memory is that that was too tricky, and also not going to matter except for these specific cards, so I didn't want to just throw it at people in Seaside.
I'm not sure how further to clarify it for you. It's possible because it's a ruling for how Way of the Mouse handles tracking. Ways don't edit text, don't change card instructions, hence "follow this card's instructions" on Chameleon can't change what Way of the Mule or Enchantress does; that doesn't feel related to me. You don't "play" Ways, they aren't cards. You play an Action card, and instead of doing what it normally does when played, you do the Way.
-
Okay, so given that +1 card / +1 action is not part of the card's instructions, there's no way Way of the Chameleon could convert that to +$1 / +1 action, since Way of the Chameleon specifically acts upon a card's "instructions". So Way of the Chameleon is a red herring, irrelevant to the issue of the Durable Mouse.
Agree with everything again, except that it's irrelevant. The point of Enchantress + Way of the Chameleon is not Chameleon, it's Enchantress. Exactly as you're describing, we're not following the card's instructions. And Ways work the same way.
What does this have to do with the Durable Mouse issue?
It's what I've been saying from my first post. It's not the Action card's effects that make us play the Duration, it's Way of the Mouse's.
It's not the Action card's instructions that make us play the Duration. But it is the Action card's effect.
As Donald says above, a Way is something an Action card can do when played. Ingix quoted you the text from the rule book that implies this and you dismissed it out of hand for no readily apparent reason.
Compare the interpretation of the word "this" on a Way. "Return this to its pile" on Way of the Horse doesn't mean you return Way of the Horse to its pile.
-
The timing of the Menagerie rulebook being finalized meant it could have had that; it didn't manage to though.
It's a special ruling for Way of the Mouse tracking, like the rule for Band of Misfits. There's no general rule for either case; my memory is that that was too tricky, and also not going to matter except for these specific cards, so I didn't want to just throw it at people in Seaside.
I'm not sure how further to clarify it for you. It's possible because it's a ruling for how Way of the Mouse handles tracking. Ways don't edit text, don't change card instructions, hence "follow this card's instructions" on Chameleon can't change what Way of the Mule or Enchantress does; that doesn't feel related to me. You don't "play" Ways, they aren't cards. You play an Action card, and instead of doing what it normally does when played, you do the Way.
Thanks, no need for further clarification; that's all how I have understood Ways to work. I was following the 2019 rules update ("2. Tracking for the former shapeshifters"), which to me read as a general rule for all cards that plays a card that isn't put into play. That rule is what made everybody assume that it applied to Way of the Mouse too. But what I've been saying here is that given that Ways work exactly like you said now, I don't see how that rule can apply to the Action card you play to use Way of the Mouse. But okay, you're saying that there's also a ruling for Mouse to handle the same tracking situations.
-
The timing of the Menagerie rulebook being finalized meant it could have had that; it didn't manage to though.
It's a special ruling for Way of the Mouse tracking, like the rule for Band of Misfits. There's no general rule for either case; my memory is that that was too tricky, and also not going to matter except for these specific cards, so I didn't want to just throw it at people in Seaside.
I'm not sure how further to clarify it for you. It's possible because it's a ruling for how Way of the Mouse handles tracking. Ways don't edit text, don't change card instructions, hence "follow this card's instructions" on Chameleon can't change what Way of the Mule or Enchantress does; that doesn't feel related to me. You don't "play" Ways, they aren't cards. You play an Action card, and instead of doing what it normally does when played, you do the Way.
Thanks, no need for further clarification; that's all how I have understood Ways to work. I was following the 2019 rules update ("2. Tracking for the former shapeshifters"), which to me read as a general rule for all cards that plays a card that isn't put into play. That rule is what made everybody assume that it applied to Way of the Mouse too. But what I've been saying here is that given that Ways work exactly like you said now, I don't see how that rule can apply to the Action card you play to use Way of the Mouse. But okay, you're saying that there's also a ruling for Mouse to handle the same tracking situations.
I don't understand your reasoning here at all. Given that Ways work exactly as Donald said now, that means that the "Tracking for the former shapeshifters" rule applies to the Action card played according to the Way of the Mouse. I play Necropolis, Necropolis plays Fishing Village, and so Necropolis stays in play.
-
It's not the Action card's instructions that make us play the Duration. But it is the Action card's effect.
Semantics discussion are never helpful. A card has effects when played, these are given in the form of instructions. I like to call the whole set of instructions that happen when you play a card (or at other times, like Reaction instructions) for the card's ability (which is also used in several rulebooks). As such, Diplomat has two abilities, each consisting of several effects/instructions. If you want to use other terminology, fine, but then explain it to me, and then explain what you mean by differentiating between instructions and effects.
As Donald says above, a Way is something an Action card can do when played.
Donald just said you do what the Way says instead of what the Action says, which is the same phrasing that exists in the game (rulebooks, Enchantress's card text). It doesn't say that the Action card's effects, ability or instructions have now changed.
Ingix quoted you the text from the rule book that implies this and you dismissed it out of hand for no readily apparent reason.
I wrote why I dismissed it. Have you missed all those times people have asked why something in a rulebook isn't describing some corner case in a technically accurate way? Donald always answers that the rulebooks are written to be understandable by humans for the general cases. "Play it do what the Way says" is not specific and doesn't tell us one way or the other. You play the Action card, and as a result of that you do the Way, and that's what it says in short form.
Compare the interpretation of the word "this" on a Way. "Return this to its pile" on Way of the Horse doesn't mean you return Way of the Horse to its pile.
True, and this is why that is not accurate without a special rule. You need a rule to say that it actually applies to the Action card, not the Way card. On all other cards, including Landmarks, "this" means the card itself.
I don't understand your reasoning here at all. Given that Ways work exactly as Donald said now, that means that the "Tracking for the former shapeshifters" rule applies to the Action card played according to the Way of the Mouse. I play Necropolis, Necropolis plays Fishing Village, and so Necropolis stays in play.
I think I replied to this above in this post. Also, I think it would be helpful if you instead went back in the thread and replied to the arguments I made (or my responses to the people disagreeing), so I don't have to keep repeating this stuff.
-
I realized that this is not only a problem of Way of the Mouse and Durations. It's also about Way of the Chameleon and Durations. So a special rule about Way of the Mouse doesn't cut it. With Way of the Chameleon you can play Durations (or Throne Rooms on Durations) without following any of the card's instructions that make it stay in play, but it still stays in play.
So this is a more general inconsistency with Ways and Durations. It seems like we must somehow say that Ways/Enchantress make us follow the card's instructions in one way (for Duration rules) but not in another way (for Ways/Enchantress rules). Other posters have suggested something like this before. I'll start with some definitions.
The card's play ability (PA): the effects you follow when you play it
Effect: individual instruction ("+1 Action", "trash a card", "gain a card", etc.)
Can we say that resolving an Enchanted/Wayed card entails resolving Duration effects and at the same time say that it does not entail resolving the PA's effects?
The card's PA contains a number of (printed) effects, but you can end up resolving only some of those effects. For instance with Snowy Village, or your -1 Card token, or Trader(1E)/Possession.
Let's say it still counts as resolving the card's PA even if some or all of its effects are not resolved.
With Ways/Enchantress we know that all the effects are canceled. We also know that you are following the Way's/Enchantress's effects, not the effects of the card's PA. We know this since Ways/Enchantress would work if you were still following the card's effects, and they don't. (That is, you can't apply a Way/Enchantress on a card when you're already applying one.) So you're resolving an empty shell of a PA, containing no effects. You do resolve effects in the middle of resolving the PA, but they are not (cannot be) the PA's effects.
The rules say that a card can stay in play in Clean-up either for being a Duration that sets up a future ability, or (according to some specifications) for playing a Duration. In both cases we're talking about effects of the card's PA.
How can it be the card's PA that causes these effects when they are not part of the card's PA?
We can look at Lantern, which triggers when we are resolving Border Guard's "reveal" and "discard" effects. Even with Way of the Chameleon resolving the exact same effects that are printed on Border Guard, Lantern doesn't trigger. They're not Border Guard's effects anymore.
We can also compare with playing Ironworks, choosing an Estate, and using Trader(1E)/Possession to instead gain a Silver. "Gain a Silver" does not insert itself as an effect in Ironworks's PA. The "gain a card costing up to $4" effect is just canceled. (Otherwise Ironworks would give you +$1.)
Can we say that resolving the card's PA now entails resolving the other (the Way's/Enchantress's) effects? (This way at least the card's PA as a whole somehow causes the Duration effect.) But what does this really mean? If resolving the PA consists of resolving the other effects, this would - per definition of what "play ability" means - mean that the PA consists of the other effects. This is exactly what we can't have.
The answer to my original question has to be no. We can't say that resolving the card's PA entails resolving Duration effects and at the same time say that it does not entail resolving the PA's effects.
We could say that a Duration stays if a future ability is set up during the resolution of its PA. It would not be the resolution of the PA that sets anything up, but something else that happens during it. This would solve the inconsistency, but is an extremely unsatisfactory re-interpretation of the Duration rules. It would be a rule that is at odds with how interrupting effects normally work in Dominion (as in the Lantern and the Trader example).
It would be better to say that there is a special rule about Durations for Ways. (Enchantress doesn't need it.) When a Way resolves an effect that would cause it to stay in play, the played card stays instead. (The special Way of the Mouse rule would then not be needed in addition.)
At least I can't find any way to solve this inconsistency without a rule like that.
-
Can you state your question in a simple form, where it's, this is the situation in a game, what happens? My brain refuses to read all that cryptic text. I've given it a few tries.
-
Can you state your question in a simple form, where it's, this is the situation in a game, what happens? My brain refuses to read all that cryptic text. I've given it a few tries.
It was not a question about what happens, since I already know:
Play a Wharf using Way of the Chameleon: The Wharf stays in play.
(Or play a Throne Room using Way of the Chameleon and play a Wharf: The TR stays.)
You're Enchanted. Play a Chapel using Way of the Chameleon: You can't choose to get +$1 and +1 Action.
(Or play a Chapel using both Otter and Chameleon: You can't choose to get +$2.)
That what just me trying to figure out how both of those things can be consistent. In the first case, the effects are still done by the Wharf. But in the second case, the effects are not done by the Chapel. The only way I could make it make sense, is with a special rule about Ways and Durations.
-
But in the second case, the effects are not done by the Chapel.
This is the part where I don't feel it's right. When your opponent played Enchantress; playing Chapel is still what caused you to get +1 card +1 action. I'm not sure Dominion ever makes a clear rules distinction between "playing card X causes Y to happen" and "card X is the thing that is doing thing Y".
-
But in the second case, the effects are not done by the Chapel.
This is the part where I don't feel it's right. When your opponent played Enchantress; playing Chapel is still what caused you to get +1 card +1 action. I'm not sure Dominion ever makes a clear rules distinction between "playing card X causes Y to happen" and "card X is the thing that is doing thing Y".
Yes, it does. See my Kiln and Royal Carriage examples. Both those are caused by playing the card. This is why we have to look at the effects of the play ability of the card (not just the effects of playing the card) to arrive at anything useful here. Hence my long post. I actually started off in my reasoning trying to arrive at a conclusion like the one you're advocating, but I was not able to reach one that makes sense.
EDIT: Maybe you could challenge the parts of my long post where you think I'm mistaken.
-
I think I agree with what AJD was saying, and disagree with your definition of "effect".
It's not the Action card's instructions that make us play the Duration. But it is the Action card's effect.
Effect: individual instruction ("+1 Action", "trash a card", "gain a card", etc.)
I think normally the effects that a card has are the same as that card's instructions. But when using Enchantress or Ways, the effects are a different set of instructions instead. So normally you play Chapel, and it causes you follow its own instructions. But if you play Chapel with Enchantress, then it causes you to follow Enchantress's instructions instead. If you play Wharf with Chameleon; playing Wharf causes you to follow Chameleon's instructions.
-
I think I agree with what AJD was saying, and disagree with your definition of "effect".
It's not the Action card's instructions that make us play the Duration. But it is the Action card's effect.
Effect: individual instruction ("+1 Action", "trash a card", "gain a card", etc.)
I think normally the effects that a card has are the same as that card's instructions. But when using Enchantress or Ways, the effects are a different set of instructions instead. So normally you play Chapel, and it causes you follow its own instructions. But if you play Chapel with Enchantress, then it causes you to follow Enchantress's instructions instead. If you play Wharf with Chameleon; playing Wharf causes you to follow Chameleon's instructions.
Yes, I'm using effect as synonymous to instruction: You can substitute "instruction" for "effect" in my post. As I said to him, you can use other definitions if that is more useful to you. But of course it complicates stuff. It sounds like you're introducing a new concept which you call "effect".
I guess you're saying that Enchantress/Ways substitute the card's effects while leaving its instructions intact? But you haven't defined exactly what an effect is. You need to define exactly what is the difference between your concepts of "instruction" and "effect". It sounds like you're saying that the card has two play abilities (sets of instructions), one that can't be replaced by Enchantress/Way, and one that can. To me this is a very strange concept that I see no basis for. Also if the card has "effects" that can be changed but still counts as the card's effects, this seems an awful lot like shape-shifting.
But okay, let's say that the card has two play abilities: I (instructions) and E (effects). Per default they are the same. But then Way/Enchantress replaces E on the card, but keeps I intact. Duration rules follow E, so that works as we want. But what about Ways/Enchantress applied on a Wayed/Enchanted card? They simply replace E. Why wouldn't they work now?
Also, the card says that Enchantress replaces the instructions, not the effects, so this terminology seems confusing.
-
I think I agree with what AJD was saying, and disagree with your definition of "effect".
It's not the Action card's instructions that make us play the Duration. But it is the Action card's effect.
Effect: individual instruction ("+1 Action", "trash a card", "gain a card", etc.)
I think normally the effects that a card has are the same as that card's instructions. But when using Enchantress or Ways, the effects are a different set of instructions instead. So normally you play Chapel, and it causes you follow its own instructions. But if you play Chapel with Enchantress, then it causes you to follow Enchantress's instructions instead. If you play Wharf with Chameleon; playing Wharf causes you to follow Chameleon's instructions.
Yes, I'm using effect as synonymous to instruction: You can substitute "instruction" for "effect" in my post. As I said to him, you can use other definitions if that is more useful to you. But of course it complicates stuff. It sounds like you're introducing a new concept which you call "effect".
I guess you're saying that Enchantress/Ways substitute the card's effects while leaving its instructions intact? But you haven't defined exactly what an effect is. You need to define exactly what is the difference between your concepts of "instruction" and "effect". It sounds like you're saying that the card has two play abilities (sets of instructions), one that can't be replaced by Enchantress/Way, and one that can. To me this is a very strange concept that I see no basis for. Also if the card has "effects" that can be changed but still counts as the card's effects, this seems an awful lot like shape-shifting.
But okay, let's say that the card has two play abilities: I (instructions) and E (effects). Per default they are the same. But then Way/Enchantress replaces E on the card, but keeps I intact. Duration rules follow E, so that works as we want. But what about Ways/Enchantress applied on a Wayed/Enchanted card? They simply replace E. Why wouldn't they work now?
Also, the card says that Enchantress replaces the instructions, not the effects, so this terminology seems confusing.
I would define "effect" as "the list of things you do when you play a card". Normally, a card's "effect" is "follow this card's instructions. But in the case of Enchantress, the "effect" instead becomes "follow that instruction from Enchantress".
-
I would define "effect" as "the list of things you do when you play a card". Normally, a card's "effect" is "follow this card's instructions. But in the case of Enchantress, the "effect" instead becomes "follow that instruction from Enchantress".
Well, then it's a semantics thing. This is exactly what I call "play ability". So the simplest is that we go back to the definitions I used, and you can just think that "play ability" (PA) is what you call "effect", and "effect" is what you call "instruction". You could read my long post based on that.
So then this is what you wrote:
I think normally the PA that a card has is the same as that card's effects. But when using Enchantress or Ways, the PA is a different set of effects instead. So normally you play Chapel, and it causes you follow its own effects. But if you play Chapel with Enchantress, then it causes you to follow Enchantress's effects instead. If you play Wharf with Chameleon; playing Wharf causes you to follow Chameleon's effects.
So you're saying that when you're following Enchantress effects, those effects are now the card's PA. As I said in my previous post, this works well for Duration rules, but not for Way applied on Enchanted card. If the effects of the PA are now changed but still in the card's PA, why can't they be changed again? That's exactly what Way/Enchantress change: the effects of the card's PA. (Also, the concept seems like shape-shifting.)
Note that the above paragraph is exactly what I said in my previous post, then using your terms, which you didn't reply to.
-
They can’t be changed again because enchantress/ways can only happen when you are following a card's instructions, and once you invoke Enchantress/ways, you are no longer following the card's instructions.
This follows the basic replacement effect concept from MTG. Once you replace an event, it no longer happens, so you can’t replace it again. Enchantress replaces following a card’s instructions, so you can only use it when you would otherwise be following a card's instructions.
Edit to pre-empt your likely next question... you can’t use Enchantress/Ways when doing Chameleon's “follow this card's instructions” text because both Enchantress/Ways only apply to the “normal” instruction-following that happens as a result of playing a card. Enchantress covers this by saying that it applies to “the first time each other player plays an action card” and it’s covered by Ways simply by the rule of when you can use a Way (whether explicitly written in the rulebook or derived from the Chameleon+another way ruling). You can’t use them any time you are following instructions, you can only use them if following instruction as the normal, result of playing a card.
I believe I said all that same stuff before in another thread; don’t remember where it went.
-
They can’t be changed again because enchantress/ways can only happen when you are following a card's instructions, and once you invoke Enchantress/ways, you are no longer following the card's instructions.
This follows the basic replacement effect concept from MTG. Once you replace an event, it no longer happens, so you can’t replace it again. Enchantress replaces following a card’s instructions, so you can only use it when you would otherwise be following a card's instructions.
Edit to pre-empt your likely next question... you can’t use Enchantress/Ways when doing Chameleon's “follow this card's instructions” text because both Enchantress/Ways only apply to the “normal” instruction-following that happens as a result of playing a card. Enchantress covers this by saying that it applies to “the first time each other player plays an action card” and it’s covered by Ways simply by the rule of when you can use a Way (whether explicitly written in the rulebook or derived from the Chameleon+another way ruling). You can’t use them any time you are following instructions, you can only use them if following instruction as the normal, result of playing a card.
I believe I said all that same stuff before in another thread; don’t remember where it went.
I think we have to keep to the same terms here, or it's not going anywhere. With Enchantress/Ways, you are no longer following the card's effects, but you are following the card's PA, right? So what are Enchantress/Ways replacing? Isn't it the effects in the card's PA? This is going in circles unless you start responding to this.
But you are saying "normal" instructions/effects. So I think you are now again saying that there are two PAs. One "normal" (N) and one that can be replaced (R). If Enchantress/Ways replace R, they could replace R again. The only way it can work is if Enchantress/Ways actually compare R with N, and only replace R if R=N.
Despite what you say, this is not suggested by any card text or rule. "The first time" on Enchantress only means that it doesn't apply to the next Action card played. That could be the same card or another card. What you're saying about Chameleon is a circular argument. EDIT: Also, to be clear, you can use them at any time you're following a PA, but they will sometimes fail. The question is why they fail.
The problem with this is twofold:
1) The card's PA can change without it being shape-shifting. This goes against all precedent, compare with Lantern and the Trader(1E) examples.
2) The card has two PAs at all times.
The rules simply say to follow other effects INSTEAD OF the card's effects. It does not say that these other effects are now the card's effects at the same time as the card's "normal" effects are somehow preserved.
-
Found my other post I was thinking of: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20228.msg828643#msg828643
Anyway..
With Enchantress/Ways, you are no longer following the card's effects, but you are following the card's PA, right? So what are Enchantress/Ways replacing? Isn't it the effects in the card's PA? This is going in circles unless you start responding to this.
You are following the cards PA in a modified way. The normal effects are still there but you aren’t following them like you normally would. You are following a different set of effects instead. I guess this is the same thing as saying that the effects have been replaced, yes.
But you are saying "normal" instructions/effects. So I think you are now again saying that there are two PAs. One "normal" (N) and one that can be replaced (R). If Enchantress/Ways replace R, they could replace R again. The only way it can work is if Enchantress/Ways actually compare R with N, and only replace R if R=N.
I’m not sure if I’m understanding you here. I’m just referring to the “normal PA” as the thing that exists due to the base game rulebook. The thing that says that when you play a card, you follow its instructions. Enchantress overrides that rule with a new rule. So “N” doesn’t matter anymore, only “R” is in effect. I don’t think there’s any comparing R to N here; I’m stating flat-out that Enchantress and Ways only affect N.
Despite what you say, this is not suggested by any card text or rule.
This may be the core of our disagreement. I think it is suggested both by the rules wording where Enchantress and Ways both refer to them applying at a time that you are playing a card (which I am taking to mean the initial act of playing the card; not the entire window of time that the card is being played), and also deriving it from Donald's rulings on not being allowed to use multiple Ways.
It may be circular, but I’m starting with the assumption that Donald's rulings are correct, and coming up with what I see as a consistent explanation as to why. Yes the text could be interpreted differently, to conclude that you can apply multiple Ways to a single play of a card. But we’ve been told that such an interpretation is incorrect.
The card's PA can change without it being shape-shifting. This goes against all precedent, compare with Lantern and the Trader(1E) examples.
I can’t see any possible interpretation of a Way that doesn’t involve a card's PA changing. The rules tell of very clearly that a card's PA is to follow its instructions, and yet the Menagerie rules tell of very clearly that if you choose to use a Way, then that isn’t the PA that happens. So of course the PA has to change. How do you avoid following a card's instructions without saying that the PA has changed?
Lantern was discussed at length separately, and I’m still pretty convinced that Lantern 2e doesn’t solve the problem Donald was trying to solve; it only works because it’s been ruled that it does.
-
I think we have to keep to the same terms here, or it's not going anywhere.
This is true; in that case, please use the term "instructions" in the way Gendo and I have been using it, since that term is actually used in-game.
-
I think we have to keep to the same terms here, or it's not going anywhere.
This is true; in that case, please use the term "instructions" in the way Gendo and I have been using it, since that term is actually used in-game.
This is a good point; Enchantress specifically says “instead of following its instructions”, not “instead of receiving its effects”.
-
I think we have to keep to the same terms here, or it's not going anywhere.
This is true; in that case, please use the term "instructions" in the way Gendo and I have been using it, since that term is actually used in-game.
The rulebooks use instructions, effects and abilities. "Instruction" is mostly only used when it talks about following something. It doesn't say things like "when an instruction plays a card", but rather "when an effect plays a card". It sometimes says "a card's effects", sometimes "a card's effect", sometimes "a card's ability". I'm trying to find good and consistent terms. Since the normal way of referring to what cards do is "ability" (like "on-play ability", "next turn ability", "Reaction abiltiy") I find it better to use "effect" for the individual parts. "Instruction" works too, but "effect" works better overall, in all kinds of sentences. The thing here was just, I already wrote the whole long post, I thought it was better to follow that going forward. We can use "instruction" and "effect" interchangably without a problem though. Just avoid calling an ability an "effect".
-
You are following the cards PA in a modified way. The normal effects are still there but you aren’t following them like you normally would. You are following a different set of effects instead. I guess this is the same thing as saying that the effects have been replaced, yes.
I’m not sure if I’m understanding you here. I’m just referring to the “normal PA” as the thing that exists due to the base game rulebook. The thing that says that when you play a card, you follow its instructions. Enchantress overrides that rule with a new rule. So “N” doesn’t matter anymore, only “R” is in effect. I don’t think there’s any comparing R to N here; I’m stating flat-out that Enchantress and Ways only affect N.
Wait - they only affect N? So N is now changed. But how does the next Way know this without comparing to what N used to be? You're saying that Ways/Enchantress only works on the "normal PA", but how can we know what the "normal PA" is if it's not there anymore?
This may be the core of our disagreement. I think it is suggested both by the rules wording where Enchantress and Ways both refer to them applying at a time that you are playing a card (which I am taking to mean the initial act of playing the card; not the entire window of time that the card is being played), and also deriving it from Donald's rulings on not being allowed to use multiple Ways.
Not sure if this is relevant, but Enchantress and Ways don't trigger when you announce the card (the initial act of playing it). The first thing that happens (after that act) is "first" abilities (Reactions/Urchin/Kiln). Then Ways and Enchantress trigger.
It may be circular, but I’m starting with the assumption that Donald's rulings are correct, and coming up with what I see as a consistent explanation as to why. Yes the text could be interpreted differently, to conclude that you can apply multiple Ways to a single play of a card. But we’ve been told that such an interpretation is incorrect.
Yes, there are rules we can introduce to make it consistent. I stated two in my long post (the first of which I think is pretty bad). I think you're ultimately suggesting a rule that you also did in another post: that a PA can't be replaced twice. But this is a new rule, since cards don't normally have memories of that stuff. It would be like a cost reducer that only worked on the printed cost: It would mean that both "current cost" and "printed cost" are there at the same time.
The card's PA can change without it being shape-shifting. This goes against all precedent, compare with Lantern and the Trader(1E) examples.
I can’t see any possible interpretation of a Way that doesn’t involve a card's PA changing. The rules tell of very clearly that a card's PA is to follow its instructions, and yet the Menagerie rules tell of very clearly that if you choose to use a Way, then that isn’t the PA that happens. So of course the PA has to change. How do you avoid following a card's instructions without saying that the PA has changed?
Lantern was discussed at length separately, and I’m still pretty convinced that Lantern 2e doesn’t solve the problem Donald was trying to solve; it only works because it’s been ruled that it does.
The interpretation would be that you simply do something else instead of following it. This is exactly how Trader(1E) and Possession work, and how Lantern(2E) works. (It's also how Snowy Village works, except nothing is happening "instead" there, you simply cancel the effect as it's about to happen.) If the "gain a Silver" effect were a change in the Ironwork's PA, it would give +$1. Donald actually specifically referred to this interaction when explaining Ways/Enchantress. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20142.msg828668#msg828668) (But of course I'm just repeating.)
In any case, Donald has been very clear that it's not shape-shifting.
-
I think we have to keep to the same terms here, or it's not going anywhere.
This is true; in that case, please use the term "instructions" in the way Gendo and I have been using it, since that term is actually used in-game.
The rulebooks use instructions, effects and abilities. "Instruction" is mostly only used when it talks about following something. It doesn't say things like "when an instruction plays a card", but rather "when an effect plays a card". It sometimes says "a card's effects", sometimes "a card's effect", sometimes "a card's ability". I'm trying to find good and consistent terms. Since the normal way of referring to what cards do is "ability" (like "on-play ability", "next turn ability", "Reaction abiltiy") I find it better to use "effect" for the individual parts. "Instruction" works too, but "effect" works better overall, in all kinds of sentences. The thing here was just, I already wrote the whole long post, I thought it was better to follow that going forward. We can use "instruction" and "effect" interchangably without a problem though. Just avoid calling an ability an "effect".
Since one of the issues here is the interpretation of Way of the Chameleon, we can't proceed without having a clear understanding of the term "instructions", which is used on Way of the Chameleon. I couldn't understand your long post at all, in part because you're trying to interpret Chameleon without making it clear what you believe the term "instructions" refers to.
I don't want to use "instruction" and "effect" interchangeably. They don't mean the same thing.
So here is how we should use the terms, based on the meanings of the English words. This is, I think, a different way of breaking down these terms than your taxonomy.
A card(-shaped thing)'s instructions are the text printed on the card(-shaped thing). Now that there's no more Band-of-Misfits–style shapeshifting, a card's instructions never change. For example, the instructions of Altar are "Trash a card from your hand." and "Gain a card costing up to $5."
A card's abilities are what the card's instructions tell you to do. For instance, the abilities of Altar are trashing a card from your hand, and gaining a card costing up to $5. I'm not sure if the difference between "instructions" and "abilities" matters.
A card's effects are what happens when you use a card. Ordinarily these are the same as the card's abilities. For instance, under ordinary circumstances the effects of Altar are that you trash a card from your hand, and gain a card costing up to $5. However, if you have no cards in your hand, the only effect of Altar is that you gain a card costing up to $5.
Enchantress and Ways can also cause a card to have different effects than usual. When you play Altar according to the Way of the Otter, its effect is that you draw two cards. This is not an ability of Altar; it's an ability of the Way of the Otter. But it's still the effect of Altar (on this particular occasion).
-
Since one of the issues here is the interpretation of Way of the Chameleon, we can't proceed without having a clear understanding of the term "instructions", which is used on Way of the Chameleon. I couldn't understand your long post at all, in part because you're trying to interpret Chameleon without making it clear what you believe the term "instructions" refers to.
I don't want to use "instruction" and "effect" interchangeably. They don't mean the same thing.
So here is how we should use the terms, based on the meanings of the English words. This is, I think, a different way of breaking down these terms than your taxonomy.
A card(-shaped thing)'s instructions are the text printed on the card(-shaped thing). Now that there's no more Band-of-Misfits–style shapeshifting, a card's instructions never change. For example, the instructions of Altar are "Trash a card from your hand." and "Gain a card costing up to $5."
A card's abilities are what the card's instructions tell you to do. For instance, the abilities of Altar are trashing a card from your hand, and gaining a card costing up to $5. I'm not sure if the difference between "instructions" and "abilities" matters.
A card's effects are what happens when you use a card. Ordinarily these are the same as the card's abilities. For instance, under ordinary circumstances the effects of Altar are that you trash a card from your hand, and gain a card costing up to $5. However, if you have no cards in your hand, the only effect of Altar is that you gain a card costing up to $5.
Enchantress and Ways can also cause a card to have different effects than usual. When you play Altar according to the Way of the Otter, its effect is that you draw two cards. This is not an ability of Altar; it's an ability of the Way of the Otter. But it's still the effect of Altar (on this particular occasion).
As I said before, I don't want to argue about the terms. You chose not to define any then, so I have been using the ones I have settled on as most useful. I explained my reasons for using mine; you didn't really, but fine. I was calling all the instructions "effects" whether we do them or not. But it's okay to differentiate like you do. I'm calling a set of instructions (that happens at a certain time) an "ability". This is crucial in order to apply rules like lose-track. I also found it helpful in this discussion to have a word for the whole set, and also to be consistent. You don't have any term for that consept. Like you, I fail to see the difference between your "instruction" and your "ability". I therefore suggest that we go back to terms like "(on-)play ability", "next-turn ability", etc, meaning the set, as I think these are pretty well established. "Instructions of the card" is ambiguous, since that could be a "when this is in play" ability or a Reaction ability, etc. This is why I'm calling these instructions the card's play ability (PA). So PA = the instructions that apply when we play that card.
In any case, I think you're not really saying anything that I haven't already addressed. Yes, an instruction of a card can end up not being followed. By your terms, it is never an effect of the card. Ironwork's "gain a card costing up to $4" is not an effect of Ironworks when you reveal Trader(1E). But then you're saying that another ability (like a Way) can cause a card to have an effect.
Your definition of "effect" is simply "instruction if a card's PA that we end up resolving". Enchantress/Way instructions can't be a card's effects unless they are inserted as instructions into the card's PA. Again, this is shape-shifting. Also, we know that the Enchantress/Way instructions are not the card's instructions. This means that they also can't be the card's effects.
Trader(1E)'s instruction is "gain a Silver instead of gaining the card".
The Way's instruction is "do these instructions instead of doing the card's instructions".
Trader's "substitute" is not Ironworks's effect. Why do you think the Way's "substitute" is the card's effect?
-
You are following the cards PA in a modified way. The normal effects are still there but you aren’t following them like you normally would. You are following a different set of effects instead. I guess this is the same thing as saying that the effects have been replaced, yes.
I’m not sure if I’m understanding you here. I’m just referring to the “normal PA” as the thing that exists due to the base game rulebook. The thing that says that when you play a card, you follow its instructions. Enchantress overrides that rule with a new rule. So “N” doesn’t matter anymore, only “R” is in effect. I don’t think there’s any comparing R to N here; I’m stating flat-out that Enchantress and Ways only affect N.
Wait - they only affect N? So N is now changed. But how does the next Way know this without comparing to what N used to be? You're saying that Ways/Enchantress only works on the "normal PA", but how can we know what the "normal PA" is if it's not there anymore?
It doesn’t matter what N used to be or if it has changed. Even if you replaced N with a completely identical R that wouldn’t matter (which can happen; use Chameleon on Chapel). It “knows” because it’s open information about the current game state, just like Crown knows whether it is your action phase or not. Enchantress knows if you are currently (or are just about to) obeying the rule written in the rulebook that says to follow a card's instructions when you okay that card. If you are, then change what's happening; replace that rule with a new one. Whether or not you are just about to play a card normally is as much open information in the game as which phase you are currently in.
The interpretation would be that you simply do something else instead of following it.
This is again just a confusion of semantics then. I thought PA was referring to “the rules that govern what you should do when you play a card”. Your definition was “the effects you follow when you play it”. Thus by a literal interpretation of that definition, if you do X when you play card Y, then X is the PA at that time. Did you mean instead that the PA is the effects you would normally follow when you play a card, if something like Enchantress doesn’t interrupt that? If that’s what you meant, then replace every time that I used the word PA in my other posts with something else, something that means literally “the thing you actually end up doing when you play a card”. Trivially, whatever that thing is called can change from the normal “follow the card's instructions” to “follow the Way's instructions”.
-
Since one of the issues here is the interpretation of Way of the Chameleon, we can't proceed without having a clear understanding of the term "instructions", which is used on Way of the Chameleon. I couldn't understand your long post at all, in part because you're trying to interpret Chameleon without making it clear what you believe the term "instructions" refers to.
I don't want to use "instruction" and "effect" interchangeably. They don't mean the same thing.
So here is how we should use the terms, based on the meanings of the English words. This is, I think, a different way of breaking down these terms than your taxonomy.
A card(-shaped thing)'s instructions are the text printed on the card(-shaped thing). Now that there's no more Band-of-Misfits–style shapeshifting, a card's instructions never change. For example, the instructions of Altar are "Trash a card from your hand." and "Gain a card costing up to $5."
A card's abilities are what the card's instructions tell you to do. For instance, the abilities of Altar are trashing a card from your hand, and gaining a card costing up to $5. I'm not sure if the difference between "instructions" and "abilities" matters.
A card's effects are what happens when you use a card. Ordinarily these are the same as the card's abilities. For instance, under ordinary circumstances the effects of Altar are that you trash a card from your hand, and gain a card costing up to $5. However, if you have no cards in your hand, the only effect of Altar is that you gain a card costing up to $5.
Enchantress and Ways can also cause a card to have different effects than usual. When you play Altar according to the Way of the Otter, its effect is that you draw two cards. This is not an ability of Altar; it's an ability of the Way of the Otter. But it's still the effect of Altar (on this particular occasion).
As I said before, I don't want to argue about the terms. You chose not to define any then, so I have been using the ones I have settled on as most useful. I explained my reasons for using mine; you didn't really, but fine. I was calling all the instructions "effects" whether we do them or not. But it's okay to differentiate like you do. I'm calling a set of instructions (that happens at a certain time) an "ability". This is crucial in order to apply rules like lose-track. I also found it helpful in this discussion to have a word for the whole set, and also to be consistent. You don't have any term for that consept.
I guess I don't see the need to have a separate word for the whole set? Trashing a card is an ability of Altar; gaining a card is an ability of Altar; together those are Altar's abilities.
Like you, I fail to see the difference between your "instruction" and your "ability". I therefore suggest that we go back to terms like "(on-)play ability", "next-turn ability", etc, meaning the set, as I think these are pretty well established.
My whole point here is that we need to use the term "instruction", or at least have a shared understanding of "instruction", because (unlike "ability") the term "instruction" is actually used on cards. So we can determine that "follow instructions" in the text of Enchantress and Chameleon means the same thing as "execute abilities" (or whatever), or we can determine that it means something different, but whichever way we have to have an understanding of what "follow instructions" means to understand exactly how these cards work.
"Instructions of the card" is ambiguous, since that could be a "when this is in play" ability or a Reaction ability, etc. This is why I'm calling these instructions the card's play ability (PA). So PA = the instructions that apply when we play that card.
Sure, it's certainly necessary to distinguish between instructions that are followed / abilities that are executed on play rather than at other times. And I guesssss we do need to assume that "follow this card's instructions" on Way of the Chameleon refers only to the on-play instructions. (Unless Procession—Cultist—Chameleon produces +$3 when Cultist is trashed rather than +3 cards?) But for the purpose of talking about Ways and Enchantress, I think on-play instructions are the only ones we need to worry about.
But then you're saying that another ability (like a Way) can cause a card to have an effect.
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.
Your definition of "effect" is simply "instruction if a card's PA that we end up resolving".
It is not. Under ordinary circumstances that's a card's effect, but Enchantress and Ways cause a card's effect to be something other than the card's abilities.
Enchantress/Way instructions can't be a card's effects unless they are inserted as instructions into the card's PA. Again, this is shape-shifting.
No. This, specifically, is where I disagree with you. The card's instructions do not change. The card's abilities do not change. The card's effect is something else, instead of the card's abilities.
Also, we know that the Enchantress/Way instructions are not the card's instructions. This means that they also can't be the card's effects.
Again, this is exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. What Ways and Enchantress do is cause a card to have effects that are different than its own abilities.
Trader(1E)'s instruction is "gain a Silver instead of gaining the card".
The Way's instruction is "do these instructions instead of doing the card's instructions".
Trader's "substitute" is not Ironworks's effect. Why do you think the Way's "substitute" is the card's effect?
Well, one reason is because, under my interpretation, the known behavior of the cards falls out automatically; whereas applying your interpretation has led you to endless perplexity and positing of unwritten rules.
(Another reason is because that's a natural interpretation of the rules text: "you can play the Action for what it normally does, or play it to do what the Way says to do." So "what it normally does" and "what the Way says to do" are both parallel things that Action cards can do.)
-
I guess I don't see the need to have a separate word for the whole set? Trashing a card is an ability of Altar; gaining a card is an ability of Altar; together those are Altar's abilities.
I have said several times that semantics discussions are not fruitful. Now we have three posters each using their own set of terms. It's getting us nowhere. This is why I asked you to provide your terms earlier, which you declined. Then I clearly defined my terms in order to illustrate my reasoning (the same ones used in my rules document btw). The courteous and sensible thing would be to start from there. Almost everything you guys have said, I have already addressed in that initial post of a couple of days ago. It would be much less time and energy spent if you took the effort to understand that post.
I prefer saying that an instruction is part of the play ability rather than saying that an instruction is part of the instructions. I find it is clearer and less confusing. I'm humoring you in using your term "effect", so please do the same for me in using "ability".
My whole point here is that we need to use the term "instruction", or at least have a shared understanding of "instruction", because (unlike "ability") the term "instruction" is actually used on cards. So we can determine that "follow instructions" in the text of Enchantress and Chameleon means the same thing as "execute abilities" (or whatever), or we can determine that it means something different, but whichever way we have to have an understanding of what "follow instructions" means to understand exactly how these cards work.
I defined effect as synonumous with instruction, so there was no problem. The problem with our different understanding was not that I used the word "effect" (especially since I defined it!). It was only that you wanted to separate between different kinds of instructions: executed ones and non-executed ones (since "effects" in your definition ultimately all are executed instructions no matter where those instructions come from).
Sure, it's certainly necessary to distinguish between instructions that are followed / abilities that are executed on play rather than at other times. And I guesssss we do need to assume that "follow this card's instructions" on Way of the Chameleon refers only to the on-play instructions. (Unless Procession—Cultist—Chameleon produces +$3 when Cultist is trashed rather than +3 cards?) But for the purpose of talking about Ways and Enchantress, I think on-play instructions are the only ones we need to worry about.
We know that Ways/Enchantress only affect the card's PA, this is well-defined in the rulebooks and other places.
But then you're saying that another ability (like a Way) can cause a card to have an effect.
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.
Your definition of "effect" is simply "instruction if a card's PA that we end up resolving".
It is not. Under ordinary circumstances that's a card's effect, but Enchantress and Ways cause a card's effect to be something other than the card's abilities.
Enchantress/Way instructions can't be a card's effects unless they are inserted as instructions into the card's PA. Again, this is shape-shifting.
No. This, specifically, is where I disagree with you. The card's instructions do not change. The card's abilities do not change. The card's effect is something else, instead of the card's abilities.
Also, we know that the Enchantress/Way instructions are not the card's instructions. This means that they also can't be the card's effects.
Again, this is exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. What Ways and Enchantress do is cause a card to have effects that are different than its own abilities.
I see that your definition of "the card's effects" is lacking. You have merely said that it's "what happens when you use a card". Use? I assume you mean play. But many things happen when we play a card (Reactions/Kiln, Royal Carriage). Which effects are you talking about? The effects from the card's PA? That's what I would say, but you seem to not limit it to those. You need to provide a specific definition here.
The instructions that we follow from the card's ability are effects. The instructions that we follow from the Way's ability are effects. We agree on this?
The instructions that we follow from the card's ability are the card's effects. So... the instructions that we follow from the Way's ability are the Way's effects. I fail to see how you can make the leap that the instructions that we follow from the Way's ability are the card's effects. Again, what is the definition of "a card's effects" so that it encompasses both instructions from the card and instructions from the Way?
Trader(1E)'s instruction is "gain a Silver instead of gaining the card".
The Way's instruction is "do these instructions instead of doing the card's instructions".
Trader's "substitute" is not Ironworks's effect. Why do you think the Way's "substitute" is the card's effect?
Well, one reason is because, under my interpretation, the known behavior of the cards falls out automatically; whereas applying your interpretation has led you to endless perplexity and positing of unwritten rules.
(Another reason is because that's a natural interpretation of the rules text: "you can play the Action for what it normally does, or play it to do what the Way says to do." So "what it normally does" and "what the Way says to do" are both parallel things that Action cards can do.)
The problem is that your interpretation is adding elements to Dominion that have not been shown to exist before and that (so far) don't seem to make sense. I go by what we already know and try to see of there is a way that it can work with the intended behavior of Ways and Durations. Adding the rule I wrote does it.
And Donald has specifically cited Ironworks/Trader when explaining how Ways work (I linked to this the last time I wrote it). We can also see that they both say "do x instead y", and they are both about following instructions from another ability instead of the instructions on the card currently being resolved. Since you're admitting that your explanation is inconsistent with Ironworks/Trader, this should be enough to see that it can't be correct.
-
It doesn’t matter what N used to be or if it has changed. Even if you replaced N with a completely identical R that wouldn’t matter (which can happen; use Chameleon on Chapel). It “knows” because it’s open information about the current game state, just like Crown knows whether it is your action phase or not. Enchantress knows if you are currently (or are just about to) obeying the rule written in the rulebook that says to follow a card's instructions when you okay that card. If you are, then change what's happening; replace that rule with a new one. Whether or not you are just about to play a card normally is as much open information in the game as which phase you are currently in.
You're saying that the card's PA has changed but its instructions haven't. My definition of the card's PA is all its instructions that apply when you play it. If those actually change (shape-shift like on old Band of Misfits), for all intents and purposes, and for all other cards, they ARE the card's instructions. This is how Band of Misfits and Inheritance worked. So clearly you can't be correct if you mean that.
This is again just a confusion of semantics then. I thought PA was referring to “the rules that govern what you should do when you play a card”. Your definition was “the effects you follow when you play it”. Thus by a literal interpretation of that definition, if you do X when you play card Y, then X is the PA at that time. Did you mean instead that the PA is the effects you would normally follow when you play a card, if something like Enchantress doesn’t interrupt that? If that’s what you meant, then replace every time that I used the word PA in my other posts with something else, something that means literally “the thing you actually end up doing when you play a card”. Trivially, whatever that thing is called can change from the normal “follow the card's instructions” to “follow the Way's instructions”.
Yes, we are not communicating here. My long post made this clear, and I assume too often that it was read and understood. The PA consists of the on-play instructions. I won't write the rest here, since I already wrote it in that post, and it gets to be too much. I'll try to address specificially what you're saying instead.
Here again you fail to take into consideration something that I have said many times: Reactions/Kiln and Royal Carriage. These are resolved when you play the card, but they are still not part of the card's PA. However, they are part of "the things you actually end up doing when you play the card". So clearly that definition of "PA" (or "whatever") is not correct.
But I think I know what you're saying. Yes, there is a rule in the game that you follow its PA when you play a card. This is a general rule, it's not given on each card. You seem to be saying that there is an implicit rule written on each card that says "follow this card's instructions". And what a Way does is change that into "follow the Way's instructions". In this way, it would be the instructions of the card itself that told you to follow the Way's instructions and therefore the Duration rules would work. (I'm actually not sure if they would, but I'll leave that aside.) First of all, even if that would be an implicit instruction, it would still be shape-shifting to change it. Second, as I said this is a global rule, it's not on each card. It's actually the Way that instructs you to follow its instructions (it does have that implicit instruction! - on Enchantress it's not implicit, it's written on the card). It's artificial to invent another implicit instruction that can be changed on the card. Third, if it's part of the card's PA (on-play instructions), arguably it would be part of what Ways can actually replace (it definitely would if it's shape-shifted), so we haven't really achieved anything.
I can put it in another way, in case that's better. There's a rule in the game that says that you should do what the card's instructions tell you to do. But other cards can break that rule, by specifically saying not to. Like Snowy Village or Trader(1E). It's those cards saying it, and saying what to do instead, not the card you're resolving. Like you say, Ways also tell you to break this rule: don't follow any of the card's instructions. But again it's not the card saying this (as you claim), it's the Way saying it, and saying what to do instead.
-
Can you state your question in a simple form, where it's, this is the situation in a game, what happens? My brain refuses to read all that cryptic text. I've given it a few tries.
It was not a question about what happens, since I already know:
Play a Wharf using Way of the Chameleon: The Wharf stays in play.
(Or play a Throne Room using Way of the Chameleon and play a Wharf: The TR stays.)
You're Enchanted. Play a Chapel using Way of the Chameleon: You can't choose to get +$1 and +1 Action.
(Or play a Chapel using both Otter and Chameleon: You can't choose to get +$2.)
That what just me trying to figure out how both of those things can be consistent. In the first case, the effects are still done by the Wharf. But in the second case, the effects are not done by the Chapel. The only way I could make it make sense, is with a special rule about Ways and Durations.
Way of the Chameleon causes you to "follow this card's instructions." That never includes a Way or Enchantress's effect; those things don't modify a card's instructions.
-
I guess what I'm talking about doesn't fit into your definition of PA, instruction, or effect. I'm talking about the rule that says how you go about playing a card. That rule is defined in the base game rulebook, and that rule itself is changed when you use Enchantress or Ways. That rule is not changed when you use Kiln or Trader or Snowy Village.
I don't know the best term or exact rule wording for it, but what I'm suggesting, which I think is consistent with both Donald's rulings and is at least a valid interpretation of the rules as written, is that you play Chapel and choose Mouse, playing a Duration, that Chapel is considered to have played that Duration, because it's simply the way that Ways work. Ways don't ever do anything themselves, they only change the rule in the base game rulebook that says "this is how you play a card". I'm saying that Ways don't have play abilities, or instructions, in the same way that cards do. Ways have a general rule that says "ignore the base game rulebook when it tells you how to play a card. This is now how you play a card instead".
-
It was not a question about what happens, since I already know:
Play a Wharf using Way of the Chameleon: The Wharf stays in play.
(Or play a Throne Room using Way of the Chameleon and play a Wharf: The TR stays.)
You're Enchanted. Play a Chapel using Way of the Chameleon: You can't choose to get +$1 and +1 Action.
(Or play a Chapel using both Otter and Chameleon: You can't choose to get +$2.)
That what just me trying to figure out how both of those things can be consistent. In the first case, the effects are still done by the Wharf. But in the second case, the effects are not done by the Chapel. The only way I could make it make sense, is with a special rule about Ways and Durations.
Way of the Chameleon causes you to "follow this card's instructions." That never includes a Way or Enchantress's effect; those things don't modify a card's instructions.
Right, we're following the Way's instructions, not the card's instructions. So then it's not the card's instructions that set up a "next turn" effect, it's the Way's instructions. So how can this cause the card to stay in play?
-
I guess what I'm talking about doesn't fit into your definition of PA, instruction, or effect. I'm talking about the rule that says how you go about playing a card. That rule is defined in the base game rulebook, and that rule itself is changed when you use Enchantress or Ways. That rule is not changed when you use Kiln or Trader or Snowy Village.
Of course it is (not for Kiln though - you seem to not fully grasp why I bring up Kiln and why I bring up Trader and Snowy Village). The rule is you follow all the instructions on the card. With Snowy Village you don't. It's a new rule on a card that overrides the normal rules. If you don't see that, we won't come very far.
The problem is that what you're talking about doesn't fit into any definition of anything that you have come up with either. I was going by your definition ("the things you actually end up doing when you play the card") when I told you how it can't be correct. That point I made (which you didn't respond to) is actually key.
I don't know the best term or exact rule wording for it, but what I'm suggesting, which I think is consistent with both Donald's rulings and is at least a valid interpretation of the rules as written, is that you play Chapel and choose Mouse, playing a Duration, that Chapel is considered to have played that Duration, because it's simply the way that Ways work. Ways don't ever do anything themselves, they only change the rule in the base game rulebook that says "this is how you play a card". I'm saying that Ways don't have play abilities, or instructions, in the same way that cards do. Ways have a general rule that says "ignore the base game rulebook when it tells you how to play a card. This is now how you play a card instead".
So Enchantress never does anything either? Of course it does; it instructs you to follow "+1 Card and +1 Action" instead of following the PA on the card. You can call it a global rules change which only applies to the first card (or to whichever card you want in the case of Ways), but it's no different than all cards that change the rules. Goons changes the rules, there is no rule that says you get +1 VP when you buy a card. And this new rule from Goons is an instruction from Goons, not from the card you buy or any other place.
"How you play a card" is "follow the instructions", so you're just saying that Ways work by changing the rule about which instructions you follow, which is correct. You don't follow the card's instructions, rather you follow the Way's instructions. The Way rule you're talking about contains instructions that you're supposed to follow instead of the card's instructions. That rule and those instructions are written on the Way; they're the Way's instructions.
I think the reason you fail to find a way to express your reasoning within the framework of the game, is because it doesn't make sense.
-
I see that your definition of "the card's effects" is lacking. You have merely said that it's "what happens when you use a card". Use? I assume you mean play.
Well, I didn't mean play, because I wasn't restricting my definition of "effects" to only on-play effects. Gaining a Madman is an effect of Hermit, but not what happens when you play Hermit. But I'm happy to restrict discussion only to on-play effects.
But many things happen when we play a card (Reactions/Kiln, Royal Carriage). Which effects are you talking about? The effects from the card's PA? That's what I would say, but you seem to not limit it to those. You need to provide a specific definition here.
Hmm, that's a good point. Kiln's effects are definitely not effects of the card that is played to trigger Kiln's gaining. I'll have to think more about this.
The instructions that we follow from the card's ability are effects. The instructions that we follow from the Way's ability are effects. We agree on this?
The instructions that we follow from the card's ability are the card's effects. So... the instructions that we follow from the Way's ability are the Way's effects.
They're definitely the Way's effects, but they're also the card's effects when played according to that Way.
I fail to see how you can make the leap that the instructions that we follow from the Way's ability are the card's effects. Again, what is the definition of "a card's effects" so that it encompasses both instructions from the card and instructions from the Way?
That's the inference from the way the durable mouse works.
The known rule is: "Some cards can play a card that isn't put into play. When you play one of these cards, leave it in play as long as you would have left the card it plays in play." This rule is already known to exist because of Misfits and the like. Way of the Mouse follows this rule: if Chapel is played according to the Way of the Mouse, playing a Fishing Village, Chapel stays in play for as long as Fishing Village would stay in play. I say: this is how we know that Chapel is playing the Fishing Village, and acting according to already-known rules. You say: it can't possibly be the case that Chapel is playing the Fishing Village, and therefore there must be some unknown rule to explain this.
Gendo's interpretation is correct. When you play an Action card, what happens is that you choose between following the Action card's own instructions, and following the instructions of a Way. If you play Chapel normally, Chapel trashes your cards. If you play Chapel according to the Way of the Otter, Chapel draws you two cards. If you play Chapel according to the Way of the Mouse, Chapel plays the set-aside Action card. Unlike Kiln and so on, it is the played Action card itself performing the instructions on the Way. This interpretation is at least consistent with the printed game rules ("you can play the Action... to do what the Way says to do"), and does not require positing any additional unknown rules.
The problem is that your interpretation is adding elements to Dominion that have not been shown to exist before and that (so far) don't seem to make sense. I go by what we already know and try to see of there is a way that it can work with the intended behavior of Ways and Durations. Adding the rule I wrote does it.
Adding the rule you wrote is literally "adding elements to Dominion that have not been shown to exist before": namely, the rule that you're adding.
And Donald has specifically cited Ironworks/Trader when explaining how Ways work (I linked to this the last time I wrote it). We can also see that they both say "do x instead y", and they are both about following instructions from another ability instead of the instructions on the card currently being resolved. Since you're admitting that your explanation is inconsistent with Ironworks/Trader, this should be enough to see that it can't be correct.
I can see how this might be the case about Enchantress, but it does not seem to apply to Ways based on the printed rules.
-
It was not a question about what happens, since I already know:
Play a Wharf using Way of the Chameleon: The Wharf stays in play.
(Or play a Throne Room using Way of the Chameleon and play a Wharf: The TR stays.)
You're Enchanted. Play a Chapel using Way of the Chameleon: You can't choose to get +$1 and +1 Action.
(Or play a Chapel using both Otter and Chameleon: You can't choose to get +$2.)
That what just me trying to figure out how both of those things can be consistent. In the first case, the effects are still done by the Wharf. But in the second case, the effects are not done by the Chapel. The only way I could make it make sense, is with a special rule about Ways and Durations.
Way of the Chameleon causes you to "follow this card's instructions." That never includes a Way or Enchantress's effect; those things don't modify a card's instructions.
Right, we're following the Way's instructions, not the card's instructions. So then it's not the card's instructions that set up a "next turn" effect, it's the Way's instructions. So how can this cause the card to stay in play?
We're following the Way's instructions and the card's instructions, because the Way's instructions tell you to "follow this card's instructions".
-
But many things happen when we play a card (Reactions/Kiln, Royal Carriage). Which effects are you talking about? The effects from the card's PA? That's what I would say, but you seem to not limit it to those. You need to provide a specific definition here.
Hmm, that's a good point. Kiln's effects are definitely not effects of the card that is played to trigger Kiln's gaining. I'll have to think more about this.
I made that point already in my first post about this (a few days ago) and have repeated it several times. This is why we're going around in circles. If you just read what I have written, you would say more meaningful things.
This is important though. Neither you or GendoIkari are managing to define what exactly you're talking about. You have some vague sense that it should all work, but can't really say how. You say that the effects that "happen when you play the card" includes the effects from other cards, but haven't even defined what "effects that happen when you play the card" actually means. This is why you're drawing wrong conclusions.
They're definitely the Way's effects, but they're also the card's effects when played according to that Way.
No more than "gain a Silver" is Ironworks's effect according to Trader(1E). Again: Donald has compared how Ways work with this.
I fail to see how you can make the leap that the instructions that we follow from the Way's ability are the card's effects. Again, what is the definition of "a card's effects" so that it encompasses both instructions from the card and instructions from the Way?
That's the inference from the way the durable mouse works.
The known rule is: "Some cards can play a card that isn't put into play. When you play one of these cards, leave it in play as long as you would have left the card it plays in play." This rule is already known to exist because of Misfits and the like. Way of the Mouse follows this rule: if Chapel is played according to the Way of the Mouse, playing a Fishing Village, Chapel stays in play for as long as Fishing Village would stay in play. I say: this is how we know that Chapel is playing the Fishing Village, and acting according to already-known rules. You say: it can't possibly be the case that Chapel is playing the Fishing Village, and therefore there must be some unknown rule to explain this.
Circular. Again, what is the definition of "a card's effects" so that it encompasses both instructions from the card and instructions from the Way?
Gendo's interpretation is correct. When you play an Action card, what happens is that you choose between following the Action card's own instructions, and following the instructions of a Way. If you play Chapel normally, Chapel trashes your cards. If you play Chapel according to the Way of the Otter, Chapel draws you two cards. If you play Chapel according to the Way of the Mouse, Chapel plays the set-aside Action card. Unlike Kiln and so on, it is the played Action card itself performing the instructions on the Way. This interpretation is at least consistent with the printed game rules ("you can play the Action... to do what the Way says to do"), and does not require positing any additional unknown rules.
All you are saying is that if we say that this counts as the card itself doing it, it works with Durations, but then of course we have to also say that it doesn't count as the card itself doing it when a Way/Enchantress is applied on top of another.
Adding the rule you wrote is literally "adding elements to Dominion that have not been shown to exist before": namely, the rule that you're adding.
Your idea of "effects that happen when you play the card" is an unknown concept (which is as of yet undefined) that pertains to Dominion as a whole. If it at least had worked, it would be one thing, but I would still probably say that a special rule for Ways and Durations is better, since this new concept is inconsistent with how things work generally (as I have shown with Trader/Possession and Border Guard). But it doesn't even seem to work.
And Donald has specifically cited Ironworks/Trader when explaining how Ways work (I linked to this the last time I wrote it). We can also see that they both say "do x instead y", and they are both about following instructions from another ability instead of the instructions on the card currently being resolved. Since you're admitting that your explanation is inconsistent with Ironworks/Trader, this should be enough to see that it can't be correct.
I can see how this might be the case about Enchantress, but it does not seem to apply to Ways based on the printed rules.
It is absolutely clear that Ways and Enchantress do the exact same thing. This is confirmed by Donald. Also, the link I have mentioned (which you are free to click on!) goes to a post about Ways.
Right, we're following the Way's instructions, not the card's instructions. So then it's not the card's instructions that set up a "next turn" effect, it's the Way's instructions. So how can this cause the card to stay in play?
We're following the Way's instructions and the card's instructions, because the Way's instructions tell you to "follow this card's instructions".
You're misunderstanding. What I wrote is about all Ways (and Enchantress), not just Way of the Chameleon.
-
The rule is you follow all the instructions on the card. With Snowy Village you don't. It's a new rule on a card that overrides the normal rules. If you don't see that, we won't come very far.
No, because there are other rules in the base game rulebook as well; specifically "do as much as you can". Not getting an extra action when you play Market after Snowy Village is basically the same as not drawing a card if you play Market when your deck and discard are empty. You can't draw a card, so you don't. If you played Snowy Village that turn, you can't get a +action, so you don't.
"How you play a card" is "follow the instructions", so you're just saying that Ways work by changing the rule about which instructions you follow, which is correct. You don't follow the card's instructions, rather you follow the Way's instructions. The Way rule you're talking about contains instructions that you're supposed to follow instead of the card's instructions. That rule and those instructions are written on the Way; they're the Way's instructions.
This all seems fine, but your problem seems to be that you think that a card playing a duration causes that card to stay in play only if the card's instructions were what played the duration. Chapel's instructions didn't play the Mouse-duration, but the act of playing Chapel still did. And the rule for when you keep a card out talk about if a duration is played "by a card". Not "by a card's instructions".
-
No, because there are other rules in the base game rulebook as well; specifically "do as much as you can". Not getting an extra action when you play Market after Snowy Village is basically the same as not drawing a card if you play Market when your deck and discard are empty. You can't draw a card, so you don't. If you played Snowy Village that turn, you can't get a +action, so you don't.
But you can! You're definitely wrong here. "Do as much as you can" doesn't enter into it when there's specifically another card telling you to not do it. "Do as much as you can" covers situations when you literally can't: You can't draw a card or gain a card that isn't there. That is in the rulebooks and that's what that rule means. You can get +1 Action, but Wayfarer says to not do it. You can gain an Estate, but Trader(1E)/Possession say to not do it. These are rules dictated by the cards, not by the normal rules (except the rule that says to do what the cards say of course).
And if you believe those fall under "do as much as you can", then Ways/Enchantress do as well. But in fact, you can follow the card's instructions, but Ways/Enchantress say to not do it.
Another one is Necromancer telling you to leave the card. Normally you put it in play. Again, you can put it in play, but another card is telling you not to. It's overriding the normal rule.
"How you play a card" is "follow the instructions", so you're just saying that Ways work by changing the rule about which instructions you follow, which is correct. You don't follow the card's instructions, rather you follow the Way's instructions. The Way rule you're talking about contains instructions that you're supposed to follow instead of the card's instructions. That rule and those instructions are written on the Way; they're the Way's instructions.
This all seems fine,
Well, you said that Ways don't really have instructions, and that was me explaining that they do.
but your problem seems to be that you think that a card playing a duration causes that card to stay in play only if the card's instructions were what played the duration. Chapel's instructions didn't play the Mouse-duration, but the act of playing Chapel still did. And the rule for when you keep a card out talk about if a duration is played "by a card". Not "by a card's instructions".
The "act of playing Chapel"? I'm still waiting for what this means. It must not include things that happen as a result of playing Chapel, because that includes Kiln/Reactions and Royal Carriage. Starting to get tired of saying the same things again and again. If you can't explain what you actually mean, you're not really saying anything.
-
What we're saying, Jeebus, is the following:
When you play an Action card according to a Way, the Action card carries out the instructions printed on the Way rather than its own instructions.
Yes, this is different from what happens when you reveal a Trader in response to Ironworks (in which case it is the Trader, not the Ironworks, gaining the Silver), and it is different from effects triggered by playing a card (Kiln is what gains a copy of whatever is played after it). No, we don't care that Donald compared Ways to Trader at some point. We believe this is how Ways work because it appears to be what the rule book says, is consistent with the way Ways are worded, and yields the correct results without the need for positing extra, unstated rules.
-
What we're saying, Jeebus, is the following:
When you play an Action card according to a Way, the Action card carries out the instructions printed on the Way rather than its own instructions.
Yes, I know that is your conclusion. However, you have failed to demonstrate how you reach that conclusion.
You actually seem to be laboring under the misconception that cards carry out instructions. Obviously the players do, not the cards. When we say "Smithy draws 3 cards", we mean that the player draws 3 cards following the Smithy's instructions. The Smithy is not following its instructions, the player is. With Ways/Enchantress, the player is following the instructions given by the Way/Enchantress, not the instructions given by the played card. It's a bit shocking that this is debatable.
As you can see, "the card carries out instructions" has no defined meaning - beyond "the player carries out the card's instructions" (of course in this case meaning the card's play ability as opposed to while-in-play ability etc). Which instructions is the player carrying out when using a Way? The played card's? Well, then you're saying that the card now has other instructions, which we all know is not the case.
Yes, this is different from what happens when you reveal a Trader in response to Ironworks (in which case it is the Trader, not the Ironworks, gaining the Silver), and it is different from effects triggered by playing a card (Kiln is what gains a copy of whatever is played after it). No, we don't care that Donald compared Ways to Trader at some point. We believe this is how Ways work because it appears to be what the rule book says, is consistent with the way Ways are worded, and yields the correct results without the need for positing extra, unstated rules.
You are basically now saying, it works because it's supposed to work. That is not an argument to support the conclusion, it's merely stating the conclusion. I have been asking how it is consistent with all the known rules of Dominion, and reached the conclusion that it wasn't. This is based on how Ways/Enchantress and Durations are supposed to work according to rulebooks and Donald's rulings, without positing extra, unsupported and ill-defined concepts on top of basic Dominion mechanics. Unlike you, I actually "care" about the rulings as we have them. A part of your argument was actually that Enchantress and Ways work differently, which is of course explictly contradicted in the rulebook. You never responded to that, but I guess you don't "care" about that either.
(Regarding "unstated" rules not in the rulebooks or cards: The Menagerie rulebook is actually silent on keeping Durations (or cards playing Durations) in play when using Ways. The conclusion about Ways and Durations that we are all talking about comes from Donald's statements, not the rulebook.)
-
It was not a question about what happens, since I already know:
Play a Wharf using Way of the Chameleon: The Wharf stays in play.
(Or play a Throne Room using Way of the Chameleon and play a Wharf: The TR stays.)
You're Enchanted. Play a Chapel using Way of the Chameleon: You can't choose to get +$1 and +1 Action.
(Or play a Chapel using both Otter and Chameleon: You can't choose to get +$2.)
That what just me trying to figure out how both of those things can be consistent. In the first case, the effects are still done by the Wharf. But in the second case, the effects are not done by the Chapel. The only way I could make it make sense, is with a special rule about Ways and Durations.
Way of the Chameleon causes you to "follow this card's instructions." That never includes a Way or Enchantress's effect; those things don't modify a card's instructions.
Right, we're following the Way's instructions, not the card's instructions. So then it's not the card's instructions that set up a "next turn" effect, it's the Way's instructions. So how can this cause the card to stay in play?
I see what you're saying, but this just has to be a rule of Way + Duration. I need the Duration card to stay out, and it's available to do so, so the rule is, it does.
-
It was not a question about what happens, since I already know:
Play a Wharf using Way of the Chameleon: The Wharf stays in play.
(Or play a Throne Room using Way of the Chameleon and play a Wharf: The TR stays.)
You're Enchanted. Play a Chapel using Way of the Chameleon: You can't choose to get +$1 and +1 Action.
(Or play a Chapel using both Otter and Chameleon: You can't choose to get +$2.)
That what just me trying to figure out how both of those things can be consistent. In the first case, the effects are still done by the Wharf. But in the second case, the effects are not done by the Chapel. The only way I could make it make sense, is with a special rule about Ways and Durations.
Way of the Chameleon causes you to "follow this card's instructions." That never includes a Way or Enchantress's effect; those things don't modify a card's instructions.
Right, we're following the Way's instructions, not the card's instructions. So then it's not the card's instructions that set up a "next turn" effect, it's the Way's instructions. So how can this cause the card to stay in play?
I see what you're saying, but this just has to be a rule of Way + Duration. I need the Duration card to stay out, and it's available to do so, so the rule is, it does.
Cool, I thought the same. I definitely think it's the intuitive thing for most players that it stays out. (The rule about Way on top of Way/Enchantress is more difficult; I don't think necessarily one way is more intuitive, but it's explained in the rulebook so no problem. I just didn't see how Durations could stay out based on that, without a rule about it like you just said.)