I don't understand the question. Flagship is both a Command card and a Duration card.Quote from: Donald X.So I am leaning towards, the BoM rule is in fact only for BoM's, and Procession a BoM a Duration does not keep Procession out.
I guess you still mean that the rule also applies to scenarios like in this thread (Flagship + BoM + Duration)?
Donald X.,I guess I have ruled both ways on this.
Is the ruling
a card that plays a card stays in play as long as that card would have stayed in play; or
a card that plays a card that is not in play stays in play as long as that card would have stayed in play?
In other words, if you Procession a BoM to play a Duration, does the Procession stay?
No. Enchantress's +1 Card +1 Action doesn't become the card's instructions. It's not a thing Chameleon looks at. Enchantress gives cantrip instead of FTI; Chameleon changes FTI.Chameleon + Enchantress: Yes, Reckless and Enchantress both look for FTI happening due to playing a card. If one sees the Chameleon FTI then they both do. I'm with you on this one. The Menagerie rulebook says that you can use a Way to dodge Enchantress. So the temptation is to reverse the Reckless ruling to match the rulebook there. Possibly though I reverse the rulebook ruling instead. The question then is which seems like it will make more sense to people.
So to double check, the reversed-rulebook ruling would go like this?
Your Chapel is Enchanted:
-use Chameleon: get +$1 +1 Action
-don't use Chameleon: get +1 Card +1 Action
If so, I give my thumbs up to that.
But doesn't call out Chameleon specifically. Chameleon could be the exception, even though it's not brought up in the rulebook.That's true, and there's a nice line of reasoning that makes e.g. Way of the Sheep dodge Enchantress but not Way of the Chameleon.
You don't have to keep repeating it, it's clear: Way of the Goat means that Smithy makes you trash. I've been trying to explain how I can't see any difference between a card (in this case Smithy) making you trash and that card giving you an instruction to trash. You still haven't really responded to this (which is understandable if you don't follow).- An instruction to trash doesn't mean you will necessarily trash. For example, we could have Highwayman cause us to not do the instruction.
Again, the issue with Reckless is that it cares about FTI, and Way of the Chameleon causes FTI. It says "follow the instructions." Does Reckless see that as an FTI it can add a copy of to, or does it think "oh that's some side thing that Chameleon did, that's not what we care about"? This isn't clear from card text / rulebooks. I have ruled on it though, the way I think will make the most sense to players.- Reckless + Way of the Chameleon
-- This could go either way, but I have ruled that it works, you get the flipped effect twice. (a reversal)Quote from: Donald X.- Enchantress + Way of the Chameleon
-- Your choice!
- Way of the Sheep + Way of the Chameleon
-- Not recommended! But supported. Your choice!
Those two seem contradictory to me.
Reckless works if you're following the card's instructions; it doesn't if you're not (see Reckless + Enchantress, and Reckless + Way of the Sheep).
So if Reckless + Way of the Chameleon works, it must mean that you're following the card's instructions with Chameleon.
Okay, but then Enchantress + Chameleon should work like this: You apply Enchantress first, Chameleon does nothing. You apply Chameleon first, Enchantress works. So there's no way to escape Enchantress.
And Sheep + Chameleon should work like this: You apply Sheep first, Chameleon does nothing. You apply Chameleon first, Sheep works. Of course this doesn't matter in practice, because you can just choose not to use Sheep if you want the Chameleon effect.
I'm not clear what "your choice!" means for Sheep + Chameleon... is this ruling that you can play a card and end up getting just +2 cards for it? Or does "your choice" simply mean that you can play a card for Sheep, or for Chameleon, or for neither?We recommend that you not use two Ways in the same game.
I'm sorry, I still don't follow you *at* *all*.The essence of my issue is this:I don't understand the list of 6 things or how it relates to anything.
A card gives you +$ must mean that the card makes you get +$. For instance, with Way of the Goat, the played card makes you trash - according to this ruling.
1. The card makes you trash.
2. The card tells you to trash.
3. The card instructs you to trash.
4. The card orders you to trash.
5. The card's instructions are to trash.
6. The card's orders are to trash.
To me these are synonymous. But according to the ruling, they are not. (This is not about terminology, but about concept. We can add more verbs and nouns.) Where do we draw the line? Between the verbs and nouns? Wherever we draw the line seems arbitrary to me.
Because if making you trash and giving you an instruction to trash is the same concept, then using Way of the Goat counts as following the played card's instructions.
Overnight I'd come up with a scenario that left me unsure exactly what Moat would defend against. Player X plays a Rebuild. Player Y reacts with Moat. X trashes a 4-cost card and gains a Haunted Castle. Moat protects Y from gaining a Curse. but does it also protect Y from topdecking cards, the effect of Haunted Castle having been gained?(You mean Replace.)
Those answers were in the rulebooks; I copied them into my post.- Enchantress + Highwayman
-- Your choice!
...
- Highwayman + Way of the Sheep
-- Your choice!
- Highwayman + Way of the Chameleon
-- Your choice!
Can I ask why you get a choice in these cases? I'm not sure if you saw when i had first asked about this ruling, but:It does lead me to a specific question on Highwayman, however:
Is the official ruling for Highwayman that you can play a Way (on an action-Treasure) in order to avoid its attack?
I ask because it's wording doesn't specify "the card's instructions". It just says:QuoteUntil then, the first Treasure each other player plays each turn does nothing
For me, the naturally interpretation would be that you wouldn't be able to choose any set of instructions (not even Enchantress), because that would be doing something.
Playing an Action card has three steps: announcing it; moving it to the "in play" area - the table space in front of you; and following the instructions on it, in order, top to bottom.Let's expand this.
The essence of my issue is this:I don't understand the list of 6 things or how it relates to anything.
A card gives you +$ must mean that the card makes you get +$. For instance, with Way of the Goat, the played card makes you trash - according to this ruling.
1. The card makes you trash.
2. The card tells you to trash.
3. The card instructs you to trash.
4. The card orders you to trash.
5. The card's instructions are to trash.
6. The card's orders are to trash.
To me these are synonymous. But according to the ruling, they are not. (This is not about terminology, but about concept. We can add more verbs and nouns.) Where do we draw the line? Between the verbs and nouns? Wherever we draw the line seems arbitrary to me.
(As a separate matter, I don't see that the Way rules say anything about the played card "giving" you or "making" you do anything [explained in more detail before, I'm just mentioning it here for completeness], and Enchantress doesn't say it [yes in the rulebook notes, but so do the rulebook notes about Merchant, Ironworks and Ironmonger].)Yes, the rulebook using easy-to-read language for Merchant etc. (I haven't checked but will guess that you're right there) doesn't mean the rules work differently due to that easy-to-read language.
Taskmaster seems to be like Garrison and Cargo Ship: If it hasn't triggered yet at the start of Clean-up, it can be trashed with Improve, making it trigger. Except the cost of Taskmaster is $3, so it can't be Improved into a $5 cost card. But let's say we played Improve twice, and we first trash Taskmaster with Improve, and then Improve another card into a $5 cost - then Taskmaster should trigger. And it should keep working every turn even though it's trashed. Am I thinking about it correctly?Yes, Taskmaster doesn't look for itself in play.
I was talking about me as a player, not as a rules-document manintainer (if I shared your thinking I could just delete all the stuff about old versions in the document). I'm not going to explain before we start a game that Trader allows when-gain stuff to happen and Haggler triggers on when-gain, unlike what the cards say. And I expect other people to do that even less (out of those people who know about the changes). I don't imagine that most people that look up their card is fine with playing with a different card text that works differently. And I don't imagine that IRL tournaments include all the changed card texts unless the organizers actually bought all the new sets (and tournaments need rulings).This is just another case where we fail to communicate? You, and people reading this thread, are trying to figure out weird cases. Normal people are not! They are not. They aren't. They don't. It's not a thing.
I get that you don't want to engage with this anymore. I actually thought you wouldn't even respond to that post; and in the end you didn't actually respond to its arguments.You could try sticking to the thing you care the most about, and saying it tersely, and seeing how it goes.
Okay, but I don't agree that it's reasonable. People who look up an explanation of how to play a card they own, can't be expected to then play that card with a different card text. If it were a completely broken card that needed errata to not ruin the game, I would agree, but that's not the case. About 70 cards have been functionally changed. When I play IRL with my original sets, I don't expect the other players to play the cards differently than the printed text. If a rules question comes up, I'll answer it based on the cards we're actually playing with.I can see how it's not ideal from your perspective as a rules-document maintainer. It's essential from my perspective as a game-maintainer though, and it's doing just fine for players.
As I said, I don't think that's how anybody thinks it works, nor, I assume, how it was intended. I think instead it must be:I would not lean on these "it must be" words like you do. We could also say, my rulings are inconceivable. Yet there they are.
And that's saying that "following Ways/Ench's instructions" counts as "following the card's instructions". (I explained why at the end of my post.)Yet again what it is actually saying is what I said, not what you say while saying "this is what you're saying." I again refuse to let you put new words into my mouth.
This may be the important point, but I have used up my ability to focus on these for the day. I'm not sure if you're arguing for a different ruling somewhere here or what.Quote from: Donald X.Anyway, the weirdness here is not Ways and Enchantress, it's that Harbor Village etc. look at the changed meta instruction.No. It's not that Harbor Village is doing this special thing of looking at a changed something; it's that Ways do this special thing of changing the very thing that Harbor Village looks at.
Then Harbor Village looks at what we get as a result of the normal "follow the card's on-play instructions" step of playing a card.
And "following Ways/Ench's instructions" must qualify as that if Harbor Village should see it without looking at a changed thing.
The current ruling as I understand it is that those playings form different "pools" of cards, so you get 2 different pools for Quatermaster cards, unlike Throning one (which gives you one pool that gets affected twice at each start of turn). Because the Quatermaster played is not in play, we do not remember the identity of the played card, so consider it new each time.That all sounds good.
The precedent is how it works with Durations cards. Play Overlord --> Gear (set nothing aside), then play another Overlord --> Gear (set something aside). The first Overlord leaves play at end of turn, even though it played the same Gear card as the second Overlord, which stays in play.
Since the last few expansions didn't contain much in the way of alt-VP and you took out Silk Road from Hinterlands without replacing it: Is there something you came to dislike about the color green? Is the design space too limited? Do you think green cards are boring? Are you withholding them for a future expansion?I have nothing against VP cards, and I haven't been saving them up; in fact Allies started out pursuing a Victory cards sub-theme (and you can read about a few in the Secret History). The cards just didn't work out. As noted in the link, it's hard to make a good new one that isn't just "N VP, also does something else."
Well, Trader 1E exists just as much as Feast exists. IRL people play with them, and almost certainly people IRL play with Trader 1E more than the new version. I don't think it should be expected that they use the new card text when playing with Trader 1E.No. People who don't go on the internet to find out how Trader 1E works will just play it however they play it. I don't expect them to play by the new text, or know about it; but, they're also not asking for a ruling on it. People who do go on the internet to look it up will find the errata. If anyone ever asks for a ruling on Trader 1E, the ruling is, it's Trader 2E. I think this is a reasonable position.
In any case, per the "blue dog" ruling, Ironworks (along with Groom, etc.) doesn't give a bonus if you didn't gain the card, and I thought that would still be an existing principle of "when would gain".Ironworks does not give the bonus if you didn't gain the card.
So then, in the "when would" window, all we do is change a future instruction. We're not changing Ironworks's instruction of course. Ironworks says to choose a card based on certain criteria, and then gain that card. We now have an instruction from the game, a "meta instruction", which is the same instruction that Ironworks had, namely "gain that card". In the "when would" window, that meta instruction can be changed. Possession changes "gain that card" into "the other player gains that card". It's still the meta instruction that we're set to follow when we would normally "gain that card", but now it's different. Trader now tries to change it, but can only change it from "gain that card". Then we follow the meta instruction.I don't really want to agree to a definition for the new jargon "meta instruction," or deal with finding out I didn't use it how you did or any of that. It's just, another obstacle to communication. I know it's intended to help communication; it isn't doing it for me.
So how do Ways and Enchantress work?"When you would x" does have a "window" in which to resolve with other things timed the same. I'm not sure why you're guessing that it changes what *will* happen, rather than, it cancels the old thing and makes the new thing happen.
We have the meta instruction "follow the card's on-play instructions" that we're set to follow at a certain time when playing a card. In the "when would" window, the Way rules change that meta instruction into "follow the Ways's instructions".
First of all, cards like Moat and Harbor Village cannot look at simply what we get from playing the card, since that would include all abilities that trigger from that (tokens etc.). They're supposed to look at what we get from "what the card does when played", but this of course means "what we do when playing the card", so we're back to the wrong thing. Saying "what the card instructs us to do" would eliminate the unwanted abilities; but it would only include the card's instructions and not the changed meta instruction. So we have to interpret Harbor Village, Moat, etc., in a peculiar way: They look at the instructions that we follow as a result of the "follow the card's on-play instructions" meta instruction we follow as the normal step of playing a card, but also if that meta instruction has been changed into something else.The rules can totally say - not that they have to in some particular case, but they totally can - that some x qualifies as being y. They can totally say that. And then it's true.
Anyway, the weirdness here is not Ways and Enchantress, it's that Harbor Village etc. look at the changed meta instruction.No. It's not that Harbor Village is doing this special thing of looking at a changed something; it's that Ways do this special thing of changing the very thing that Harbor Village looks at.
I was saying that there is no phrasing for Reckless about "attributing" anything to the card. You replied that Reckless's "follow" instruction has to work like the card's normal instructions since that's what everybody would think, so I assumed that you meant that that was the reason rather than Reckless specifically "attributing" like Ways and Enchantress. I mean, since Reckless doesn't say that on the card or in the rules. But then I guess I misunderstood you. Reading your response again, I don't find it particularly clear.I was providing a philosophical reason, not a mechanical one. It would be super confusing if the two follow-instructions from Reckless were resolved differently somehow; so, I don't want that. That doesn't say anything about "why, mechanically"; that's up in the air.
I guess maybe you're misunderstanding my use of "require" (unless you're just twisting it to make a point), and it was probably not a good word. I tried to avoid "imply" since that can be interpreted in two different ways. But what I meant was simply, your new ruling doesn't follow as the only possible ruling based on the Way rules, for the specific reasons I gave.Sure, the rulebooks and texts aren't precise enough to just say "this is the only way this could go." And even precise rules may need changing due to e.g. "everyone will get this wrong."
Then you're saying that the reason Reckless works the way it does is not because it specifically "attributes" its effects to the played card (like Ways and Enchantress apparently do), but because it tells the player to "follow the card's instructions".No, not at all.
Except: what they actually think is what those cards literally say, that you're following the card's instructions, not just somehow "getting the effects" from the card without following its instructions.Well I don't know about that. For the most part of course, no-one is "actually thinking" anything along any of these lines; they're playing Harbor Village, then either a Smithy, no +$1, or a Militia, +$1, and that's that. They're not trying to figure out edge cases. The main thing that comes up is, if you play two Harbor Villages and then a Militia, damn, only +$1. This can be worked out but people also ask.
When it comes to Enchantress, yes this makes the rulebook correct in this case. But the "give" phrasing is used several places in the rulebooks, for instance for Ironworks as I quoted above, and all of those would be wrong. The two phrasings are used interchangeably because of course that's how they were intended. Introducing a distinct meaning based on this phrasing now, introduces several incorrect explanations in the rulebooks and is certainly not intuitive language.These rulebooks, trying to be clear with friendly English, and the card wordings, trying to be clear with friendly English, cannot always handle edge cases. Ideally I catch the ones people will actually ask about and put the answers in the rulebooks.
I will again stress that the Way rules don't explicitly require your new ruling.Well I mean. You, Jeebus, you are the entity that requires a ruling. Sometimes, the online programmers require a ruling, but you know, once there's code, doing whatever it does, well if no-one is asking, they aren't thinking to worry about it. You asked; I answered; you weren't satisfied; here we are. Yes the "Way rules" don't require a ruling; you do.
1) EnchantressI see what you are saying about Enchantress. The card text does not attribute the cantrip to the card. Both card texts and FAQs may end up not perfect, due to both sides trying to communicate card functionality to normal people. For Enchantress, the question then is, is it better to go by the card text - the Dominion classic, who reads the rulebooks, as much as possible the game should work from just the basic rules and card texts - or, is it better to line up Enchantress with Ways and Reckless, which is sure nice, and hey then the rulebook is right and that's something.
2) Reckless
You’re working on non-Dominion projects now, right?Yes.
Would you rather expand upon Kingdom Builder, Winter Kingdom, neither, or both?I'd rather make another related game than add more to those.
Have you ever been interested in developing cooperative board games?I've made a few; I've got two we play some now.
This didn't get me anywhere. I feel like this is "let's define jargon that means that some things said colloquially can be poked at" and I mean it's not helping me get rulings or communicate with you.It does not seem like this poking at the word "instructions" is helping us communicate. Harbor Village doesn't say "instructions" on it.
It's the core of my point though - when we are referring to things that happen we are referring to instructions having been followed. Almost no cards say "instructions", but everything on them (in the area in the middle) are still instructions, per the rulebook.
