Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

1

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Marchland

« on: April 08, 2024, 05:27:57 pm »

More like Aprilland.

2

Dominion General Discussion / Re: New 2e Cornucopia/Guilds cards are shown in the rule book

« on: February 21, 2024, 01:02:26 pm »

Is it just me, or is there a mistake in the recommended sets of 10? The Bounty of the hunt preset has Farrier selected for Ferryman's additional pile, but unless I'm mistaken, Farrier costs and Ferryman calls for a or cost card.

It's a mistake. For now the ruling is, for that recommended set, make Farrier the card for Ferryman anyway.

We can imagine that it's actually using the slightly-altered card, Farryman, which always picks the Farrier pile.

3

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Question Re: Highwayman and COTR

« on: June 07, 2023, 10:47:26 pm »

My gut says that the answer is going to Be that called cards aren't played

I think your gut got it.

But I mean they are... I just played that coin. It's not like it was discarded, it literally goes into play.

You played it at one time; that gave you a coin and put it on the tavern mat. Highwayman would have replaced that with doing nothing. But calling a card on the tavern mat is indeed not playing it despite the fact that doing so puts it into play.

4

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Am I a slow player

« on: May 13, 2023, 12:37:55 pm »

What are "all the forums"? I guess there's here, BGG, Reddit, Discord... I don't frequent the other places, but I've definitely never seen anything like that here.

5

Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat

« on: January 18, 2023, 12:59:40 pm »

I can only repeat what I said: There is nothing in the rules that say that they are different. Why would we have an "Instance of playing a card" and an "Instance of gaining a card" that work in opposite ways? There is certainly nothing in the rules to suggest it. Yes, Donald has ruled that Ways/Ench/Reckl work a particular way, but that is not because there is something special about the act of playing cards itself that is different than all other things you can do in Dominion.

I think the question you mean to ask there is "Why would we have an 'instance of playing a card' when we don't have an 'instance of gaining a card'?" Since, if we did have an "instance of gaining a card" (that worked the way you're proposing), they would not work in opposite ways.

My answer there would be that, if Donald X. says that playing a card works a certain way that defies your expectations given how he says other things work, then maybe playing a card is special and different from those other things. You say that the rules don't say they should work differently; but Donald X.'s posts seem to have said they should.


I asked before and you didn't answer: Is this just a matter of you being dissatisfied that similar wordings are being used to describe dissimilar mechanisms (Ways vs. 1E Trader)? Or that dissimilar wordings are being used to describe similar mechanisms (Ways vs. Reckless)? Are you just looking for the wording in the rulebooks/rulings to be more precise and consistent?

6

Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat

« on: January 17, 2023, 09:52:45 pm »

If "Instance of a card" is whatever you end up doing as a result of playing that card, then Adventures tokens, Priest's +$2, another Cultist, etc., are all included.

It's not everything that happens "as a result of" playing that card; it's every instruction issued by the instance, and nothing that triggered as a result.

Ways and Enchantress specifically triggered as a result.

Correct; they do trigger as a result of playing the card. And we can point at what they do when they trigger:

Code: [Select]

def way_trigger_instructions(player, card, instance):
    global way_save
    instance.instructions_to_follow = way_save.instructionsThey change what instructions are going to be followed. And that's all.

Notably, WotS doesn't give +$2 when the Ways rules trigger (or ever). The instance does that when it carries out its "instructions to follow" in its resolve method (and it takes credit for it). So my saying the instance does "nothing that triggered as a result" is indeed correct (in the model I'm suggesting), and is exactly what I meant.

Why would we use the Instance model for gaining, though? As you demonstrated, it doesn't give the intended results there. If we use an Instance model for playing cards because it gives the intended results there, why would that mean we were forced to use it in other places?

Because there is nothing in the rules that say that they are different. If "Instance of playing a card" refers to whatever we were going to do from that and ALSO something that has been substituted, why shouldn't the same be true for "Instance of gaining a card"?

First of all, somewhere along the way, you seem to have started interpreting "Instance of playing a card" as "the stuff that results from playing a card" rather than "a particular playing of a card," the latter being what I have always intended it to mean. I see that you used it that way in the innermost quote of the last section (and in another sentence that isn't quoted), and I didn't correct you then because I assumed it was a typo. Maybe I misused it somewhere and gave you the wrong idea?

If you want a name for "the stuff that results from playing a card," I would call that its "results" or its "effects." That just seems like not what the word "instance" means.

But I think you're saying that, if, during the resolution of Ironworks, it proposed an "instance of gaining a card" that had a target of a Village, and 1E Trader triggered and modified the target of that gaining-instance to Silver, then the gaining-instance "resolved," then Ironworks would see that as "its own" gain and give you a coin. And, yeah, I could see it working that way. That would be a valid model via which the rules could work. But the thing is, Donald X. (eventually) ruled that it worked otherwise. Blue dog and everything. So... we don't (didn't) describe it that way.

I mean, I feel like I explained a way it can work. The ultimate test, I guess, is can I explain it to a computer and have it give the expected results?

So I threw together a little Python script both as a sanity check and an attempt to explain what I'm trying to say.

You have defined "Instance" as something that is created when you play a card, and points to which instructions to follow when you get to the "follow the card's on-play instructions" part. And Ways are special-coded to change that pointer in the Instance. And then you have Harbor Village check what you got from following the Instance's instructions. Of course you get the intended result in that case. Note that you would also have to special-code Enchantress and Reckless in the same way - and Reckless is not "instead".

You have decided that Ways get hooked to the Instance, but you could have programmed that however you wanted. Why doesn't the Adventures token get hooked to the Instance? Why doesn't Priest's "+$2"? Why does Reckless's "follow the instructions an extra time"?
By making these choices, you decide what cards/tokens that will count as "things you get from playing the card" and which won't. But there is no explanation in the program for why, it's just chosen arbitrarily to be that way. I don't see that the program answers anything.

You have defined "Instance of playing the card" for the sole purpose of interactions with Harbor Village, Moat, Elder and Lantern. Other abilities (as far as we have found) don't care. Imagine that Harbor Village was actually ruled to check everything that happens from announcing the card until you are done with everything that triggered off of that. And Moat could be ruled the same way, which means it would protect you from the whole chain of Cultists. Same with Elder and Lantern. Then we would have to define "Instance of the card" differently, to include everything. There would be nothing in the rules to proclude such a definition either, and it would work in accordance with those rulings. I get that that's what you're trying to do, with the actual rulings. But defining the concept of Instance to match exactly the rulings doesn't actually address the problems I have brought up.

(You're still using "instance" to describe something more like "effects" here.)

So, this all sounds like "You only programmed it that way because that's how Donald X. said it worked." And, well, you're correct. I thought the issue was that you were having trouble imagining a model in which what Donald X. described was consistent and possible. From what you say here, it seems more like the issue is that you don't see how Donald X. arrived at the conclusions he did from what the cards/rulebooks say.

Note that you would also have to special-code Enchantress and Reckless in the same way - and Reckless is not "instead".

So, is the complaint just that Reckless would use the same mechanism as the others but doesn't use the same wording? Or perhaps that "instead of playing" would "replace" the playing even though "instead of gaining" didn't replace the gaining (and they both use "instead")?

EDIT: My last question there is worded pretty poorly, so I struck it out. Of course they both replace the thing in some way; and also, there's not really an "instead of playing," but an "instead of following instructions." What I meant was more like: is the problem that these two things both use the word "instead," but "instead of following instructions" functions by changing what an old thing (the instance) is about to do and "instead of gaining" functions by stopping the old thing (the gain) and directly making a new thing (another gain) happen in its place? Or, to say it a shorter way, that you consider them to be using the same wording, but operating via different mechanisms?

7

Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat

« on: January 16, 2023, 09:31:48 pm »

For Ways, it's the rules for Ways that change which instructions you're following, and for Enchantress, it's Enchantress itself.

Ok, I agree. Ways don't trigger directly; the rules for ways set up a delayed ability.

But the actual instructions you end up following, are instructions given on Enchantress ("+1 Card, +1 Action") and on the Way card. This is straight-forward.

They are printed on those things, but they are not given by those things. "Printed on" and "given by" need not be equivalent. You keep saying they have to be, and I keep saying they don't. I think you have to allow for them being different concepts in order the get a clean solution, here. I dunno; let's see if the script at the end of this post helps out at all.

3.1. With Ways/Enchantress, you're following the Way's/Enchantress's instructions (pretty sure everybody has agreed with this). Why does that count as something the Instance "does" anymore than Adventures tokens would?

You're following the instructions printed on Way/Enchantress, but the Instance is what's issuing the instructions. Why does it count as something the instance does? Well, I guess it's because the instance is what was going to do something all along, and the Way came along and changed what it was going to do. Why doesn't that apply to Adventures tokens? Because there, the triggered effect is not to change what instructions the instance is going to "do"; the triggered effect is to actually do the thing (e.g. +$1) itself.

If "Instance of a card" is whatever you end up doing as a result of playing that card, then Adventures tokens, Priest's +$2, another Cultist, etc., are all included.

It's not everything that happens "as a result of" playing that card; it's every instruction issued by the instance, and nothing that triggered as a result.

If "Instance of a card" is supposed to exclude all those things, then it has to refer to just the card's instructions.

It doesn't have to specifically refer to the card's instructions; it refers to whichever instructions the instance is going to issue. Maybe instructions printed on the card, and maybe instructions printed on a Way.

If it's also supposed to include instructions from Ways or Enchantress, then we would have to define that specifically somehow (either with tagging instructions, or by calling out Ways/Enchantress by name or similar).

Or by saying that the instance issues instructions that are printed on a Way/Enchantress. By separating those concepts.

To illustrate the problem with your model: Let's say gaining a card with Ironworks creates an Instance of gaining a card, which is set to the card you've chosen to gain, and then Trader 1E triggers and changes the Instance's pointer to Silver instead. So the Instance of gaining which was "gain a Mill" is now "gain a Silver" instead. Is the card you gained with Ironworks Silver? Well, that would mean Ironworks gives you +$1 for gaining a Treasure. And if Ways worked like that, it would mean the Way's instructions count as the card's instructions. What if there were a Farber Village that asked if playing the Ironworks made you gain a Silver? The answer should be no, but with the Instance model it seems to be yes.

Why would we use the Instance model for gaining, though? As you demonstrated, it doesn't give the intended results there. If we use an Instance model for playing cards because it gives the intended results there, why would that mean we were forced to use it in other places?

Then how the frack do we solve it*? It's remarkable to me that nobody can answer this and still claim that this ruling makes any sense.

I mean, I feel like I explained a way it can work. The ultimate test, I guess, is can I explain it to a computer and have it give the expected results?

So I threw together a little Python script both as a sanity check and an attempt to explain what I'm trying to say. It's supposed to represent a player playing Smithy under four different circumstances. That player's +$1 Token is on the Smithy pile the whole time, so it always gives +$1. Way of the Sheep is in the setup, and it asks the user to choose on each play, so I alternate between playing Smithy normally and using the Way. The first two times, Harbor Village isn't involved; the second two times, we'll say that a Harbor Village was played just before the Smithy. (I don't actually simulate playing HV; I fake it.)

Here's the output:

Code: [Select]

$ python demo.py
Player 1 plays Smithy:
        Play as Way of the Sheep? n
        Player 1 gets +$1 [issued by delayed ability set up by +$1 Token rules]
        Player 1 draws 3 cards [issued by instance #0 (of Smithy)]
Player 1 plays Smithy:
        Play as Way of the Sheep? y
        Player 1 gets +$1 [issued by delayed ability set up by +$1 Token rules]
        Player 1 gets +$2 [issued by instance #1 (of Smithy)]
Player 1 plays Smithy:
        Play as Way of the Sheep? n
        Player 1 gets +$1 [issued by delayed ability set up by +$1 Token rules]
        Player 1 draws 3 cards [issued by instance #2 (of Smithy)]
Player 1 plays Smithy:
        Play as Way of the Sheep? y
        Player 1 gets +$1 [issued by delayed ability set up by +$1 Token rules]
        Player 1 gets +$2 [issued by instance #3 (of Smithy)]
        Player 1 gets +$1 [issued by delayed ability set up by Harbor Village]

The first play is a normal play, so it draws cards, and the token gives +$1 beforehand. Note that the Instance is listed as the issuer of the +cards instructions and the token rules are listed as the issuer of the +$1 instruction.

The second play is a Way play, so it gives coins. The token gives its extra beforehand. Note that the Instance is listed as the issuer of the +$2 instruction and the token rules are still the issuer of the +$1 instruction.

The third play is a normal play "under the influence of" Harbor Village. It draws cards, but first gets a coin from the token. Note that the issuers of these instructions are the same as for the first play. Note also that, because the Instance never issued a +coins instruction (the +coins instruction was issued by the token rules), Harbor Village does not trigger and no additional coin is produced.

The fourth play is a Way play "under the influence of" Harbor Village. It gives coins and first gets an extra one from the token. Note that the issuers of these instructions are the same as for the second play. Note also that, because the Instance this time issued a +coins instruction, Harbor Village does trigger afterwards and produces an additional coin; the delayed ability set up by the Harbor Village is what issues that +coin instruction.

Are those the expected results?


And here's the script itself. It should run on any Python installation. I'm not sure if this is something you know how to read or not. If you need me to explain parts of it in English, I can do that; it's just that English wasn't helping us much before.

Code: [Select]

class Card:
    def __init__(self, name, instructions):
        self.name = name
        self.instructions = instructions

class Way:
    def __init__(self, name, instructions):
        self.name = name
        self.instructions = instructions

class Trigger:
    def __init__(self, cond, effect):
        self.condition = cond
        self.effect = effect

def handle_triggers(triggers, player, card, instance):
    for trigger in triggers:
        if trigger.condition(player, card, instance):
            trigger.effect(player, card, instance)

class Instance:
    id = 0

    def __init__(self, card, player):
        self.id = Instance.id
        Instance.id += 1
        self.name = "instance #{} (of {})".format(self.id, card.name)
        self.instructions_to_follow = card.instructions
        self.player = player

    def resolve(self):
        self.instructions_to_follow(self.player, self.name)

# just a log of instances that gave coins (for Harbor Village)
coin_log = []

class Player:
    def __init__(self, id):
        self.id = id

    def plus_cards(self, count, issuer):
        print "\tPlayer {} draws {} cards [issued by {}]".format(
            self.id, count, issuer)

    def plus_coins(self, count, issuer):
        print "\tPlayer {} gets +${} [issued by {}]".format(
            self.id, count, issuer)

        global coin_log
        coin_log.append(issuer)

    def play_a_card(self):
        # player always plays Smithy in this example
        the_card = smithy

        print "Player {} plays {}:".format(self.id, the_card.name)
        instance = Instance(the_card, self)

        # Handle "when you play, instead" triggers
        handle_triggers(on_play_instead_triggers, self, the_card, instance)

        # Handle "when you play, first" triggers
        handle_triggers(on_play_first_triggers, self, the_card, instance)

        instance.resolve()

        # Handle "after you play" triggers
        handle_triggers(after_play_triggers, self, the_card, instance)

#
# Smithy definition
#

def smithy_instructions(player, issuer):
    player.plus_cards(3, issuer)

smithy = Card("Smithy", smithy_instructions)

#
# +$1 Token definition
#

def token_trigger_cond(player, card, instance):
    return player.id == 1 and card.name == "Smithy"

def token_trigger_instructions(player, card, instance):
    player.plus_coins(1, "delayed ability set up by +$1 Token rules")

on_play_first_triggers = [
    Trigger(token_trigger_cond, token_trigger_instructions)]

#
# Way of the Sheep definition
#

def way_of_the_sheep_instructions(player, issuer):
    player.plus_coins(2, issuer)

ways = [Way("Way of the Sheep", way_of_the_sheep_instructions)]

#
# General rule for Ways
#

def way_trigger_cond(player, card, instance):
    global way_save

    for way in ways:
        if raw_input("\tPlay as {}? ".format(way.name))[:1] == 'y':
            way_save = way
            return True

    return False

def way_trigger_instructions(player, card, instance):
    global way_save
    instance.instructions_to_follow = way_save.instructions

on_play_instead_triggers = [
    Trigger(way_trigger_cond, way_trigger_instructions)]

#
# Harbor Village delayed ability definition
#

def harbor_village_trigger_cond(player, card, instance):
    return True

def harbor_village_trigger_instructions(player, card, instance):
    global coin_log

    if instance.name in coin_log:
        player.plus_coins(1, "delayed ability set up by Harbor Village")

    coin_log = []

#
# Main program
#

# first two plays don't use Harbor Village
after_play_triggers = []

p = Player(1)

p.play_a_card()
p.play_a_card()

# second two plays do use Harbor Village
after_play_triggers = [
    Trigger(harbor_village_trigger_cond, harbor_village_trigger_instructions)]

p.play_a_card()
p.play_a_card()

Some notable points:

 - A player is given an instruction by calling a method on a Player object. (This script only considers +cards and +coins instructions.) Each such method accepts a parameter for the issuer of the instruction. An Instance "does" something when its (unique) name is passed as the issuer. In fact, in this script, that's the definition of an Instance "doing" anything: having its name passed as the "issuer" parameter to a method that represents giving a player an instruction to do that thing.

 - Things that are not Instances can also be issuers of instructions in this script. Like delayed abilities from previous plays of cards or from the rules themselves. You can also imagine events and projects to be valid "issuers" of instructions. Is that concept really needed in Dominion? Well, nothing in the game (that I know of) cares about any of those things "doing" stuff, so... no, it's not needed yet, anyway. But using them here lets me print things that hopefully clarify what I'm saying, so I did.

 - Harbor Village triggers after playing a card, so it has to go back and check what happened in the past. I do that by having the plus_coins method log the issuer of the instruction, then when Harbor Village actually triggers, it can go back and check the log to see if the Instance in question issued a plus_coins instruction. I clear the log after each play. That's not actually a correct way to do it in a real implementation; if I Throne a card, then I shouldn't clear the log after either play of that card because the Throne Room is still being played. But it's close enough for this toy program.

 - See how the Instance has a resolve method? Every instance is resolved in the same way: issue the instructions that it's most recently been told to use. It could issue instructions printed on a card (Smithy), or instructions printed on a Way (WotS). It issues them to the player whose playing of a card produced that Instance. It passes its own name as the issuer.

 - But, I hear you saying, Smithy just says "+3 Cards"; it doesn't say anything about an "issuer." I've just added a bunch of stuff that the card doesn't actually have printed on it. Well, the card doesn't say anything about Player 1, either. Even if it said "you," that wouldn't mean anything without further context. Who's "you"? Is it Bob? Is Bob even in a game right now? Is the card? The instructions written on Smithy (or any card) are unbound; they require further context in order to be interpreted. The instance binds them to a context. For sure, the instructions need the context of who played the card; they might also need the context of the card itself (the instructions might say to trash "this"). So why is it so weird to acknowledge that part of that context needed for some instructions is an implicit "issuer"? Especially when it's been established that some cards (like HV) are definitely looking for such a thing?

 - I completely half-assed passing the chosen Way around using a global (way_save). It's ugly and bad, but it's probably more readable this way than the alternative.

 - Don't ask me what Way of the Chameleon looks like in this or I'll have to make it self-modifying and then nobody'll be able to read it.


I dunno if any of that helped or not. I'm trying.

8

Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat

« on: January 13, 2023, 10:06:36 pm »

First of all, Ways are Enchantress are, and need to be defined as, triggered abilities, with specific timings...

Ok, I think I see why. I had missed that Enchantress and Highwayman are supposed to be "reorderable" with Ways. The way I believed Ways worked (which was the way I thought Donald X. was describing them to work), you would not have been able to "override" an Enchantress with a Way.  Given that you're supposed to be able to do that, I agree with you that Ways do need to "trigger."

But I think that's beside the point. What I'm saying is that triggering WotS is not what directly "gives" "+$2." And that triggering Enchantress is not what directly "gives" "+1 Card +1 Action." Like, the +$2 hasn't even happened by the time WotS has finished doing stuff.

I'm saying that triggering WotS or Enchantress merely changes which instructions the Instance of playing a card is going to have you follow. (Not changes the card, and not changes the instructions themselves, but changes the Instance's idea of which instructions.) Then, a tiny bit later, the Instance of playing the card actually has you follow the instructions (meaning that Instance "gives" whatever for HV).

So...

You play a card:
1. An Instance of playing a card is created.  It has an attribute we'll call "instructions to be followed."  That attribute is set to point at the instructions printed on the card that was played (not a copy of those instructions, but a direct reference to them).
2. Ways/Enchantress/etc. may trigger.  (This step can occur multiple times, I guess.)
  2.1. This may result in the Instance's "instructions to be followed" attribute being changed to point at instructions printed on a Way or on Enchantress (again, not a copy, but a reference).
3. You resolve the Instance by following its "instructions to be followed," whether that's still the ones printed on the card or something printed somewhere else.
  3.1. Anything that happens here counts as what the Instance "gives" for the purposes of Harbor Village.
4. (The Instance goes away 'cuz it's not needed anymore.)

Note again that I'm not saying that anything is shapeshifting a card. The only thing being modified is the Instance of playing a card (which is why I keep belaboredly using that term). You change which instructions that Instance is going to have you follow. Like, imagine you have a wire running to each set of instructions and you flip a switch in the Instance to select which set of instructions it's connected to. And when you press the "resolve" button, the instructions that are selected by the switch get executed. If you want to call that shapeshifting the instance, fine (then does giving a player +1 buy shapeshift the player?); but nowhere am I describing shapeshifting a card or modifying what any instructions say. I promise.

And all instructions that the Instance has you follow (whether they're printed on the card on on a Way or wherever) are the things it "does" for the purposes of Harbor Village. If you want, you can imagine that each instruction "given" by an Instance includes an ID uniquely associated with that Instance, so things like HV can check for the "source" of the instruction.

I know the rulebook doesn't actually spell that procedure out, and you'll probably quote the rulebook to show how it says stuff that's a direct contradiction to it, but that seems, to me, like the cleanest and most straightforward way to describe what people actually want to happen. Maybe it doesn't actually work that way and you'll need intrusive instructions to explain everything. Only Donald X. can say, I guess.

So the rules for playing a card have not been expanded for Ways...

Ok, agreed. I was mistaken there.

But I think Donald X. meant it only as #1. You're following instructions that are printed on WotS (as opposed to, like, instructions on a card that's been shapeshifted).

Sidenote: Your parenthesis is dead wrong. If a card has been shapeshifted, anything referring to the instructions of that card (or in any way talking about the effects of it) only sees the shapeshifted instructions. That much is beyond any doubt. That is the whole reason why shapeshifting was practically eliminated.

No, you completely misinterpreted the bit in parentheses. I was not saying "In a different manner from what would happen if you tried to read instructions from a shapeshifted card." I was saying "Not in any alternate location you might propose, including, for example, a hypothetical card that has been shapeshifted to have Way of the Sheep's instructions (primarily because such a card does not exist in this scenario as no shapeshifting has occurred)."

As I said (and you deleted): that's what instructions are, in all games, text telling you to do something.

Yes, I deleted that because I agreed with it and didn't feel like I needed to respond. But ok, I agree with all the things: instructions are text telling players to do stuff, players are the only ones that "really" do stuff, and all instructions are ultimately followed because players are following instructions in the rulebook.

(In your example, I will skip the "someone tells you" part, because I think by mistake you added an unnecessary first step in the chain.)

No, I actually added the first step because the rulebook is ultimately what tells anyone to do anything. I figured if me-pretending-to-be-a-card gave an instruction without any prompting, you'd tell me that cards have no free will and could not simply decide to give an instruction out of the blue, and that my "doing" anything must have been a result of someone following a rulebook-derived instruction somewhere else. 'Cuz the analogy was always meant to be super accurate (it was not meant to be super accurate).

9

Rules Questions / Re: Frigate discarding

« on: January 12, 2023, 10:47:05 pm »

But I do think you’re right that this is the first card to rely solely on “until your next turn” as a form of “having something to do”.

"At the start of your next turn, +1 Substance."

10

Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat

« on: January 12, 2023, 04:34:33 pm »

But Way of the Sheep's +$2 is triggered.

No, I don't think it is.

When you play Chapel for "Trash up to 4...," do you call that triggered? I don't. Sure, you can describe it as "When you play a card, you follow the instructions printed on it," but that doesn't mean it works the same way as what we call triggered abilities. It's just the rules for playing a card.

So when you play Chapel for "+$2" (which is a thing you can do when WotS is in the game), why would you call that triggered? It's the same thing. You can describe it as "When you play a card, choose one: follow the instructions printed on it or follow the instructions printed on a Way being used in the game," but that doesn't mean it works the same as triggered abilities do. It's just the rules for playing a card (which were expanded to accommodate Ways).

Even Donald X. acknowledged that you're following Way of the Sheep's instructions.

So, the possessive could be interpreted in at least two different ways in that sentence:

1) The instructions are printed on WotS
2) WotS is the thing issuing (or causing or "doing") the instructions.

I feel like you're interpreting it as #2 because you're using it as a justification for WotS being "triggered"; you're saying that WotS is telling a player to do stuff, so something must have "transferred control" to WotS.

But I think Donald X. meant it only as #1. You're following instructions that are printed on WotS (as opposed to, like, instructions on a card that's been shapeshifted). But the Instance of playing Chapel is what's issuing the instructions or "doing" things. WotS is not an "active" object here and it's not capable of "doing" things; it's just a container of instructions. Nothing "transfers control" to Ways.

It's like if I have a tattoo that says "Eat a sandwich" and the blackboard has "Throw a ball" written on it and someone tells me to issue to you either the instructions on my tattoo or the instructions on the board. Yeah, the sandwich instruction is "mine" and the ball instruction is "the blackboard's" by virtue of where they're printed. But whichever instruction I give you, it's mine in that I'm the one who issues it to you. Even if I say "Throw a ball," the blackboard isn't what gave you the instruction; I did.

You're saying that the Instance of playing Chapel tells you to follow Way of the Sheep's instructions. Again, it's the rulebook, specifically the rule for Ways, that tells you that. (Or, for Enchantress, it's Enchantress's instructions that tell you to follow "+1 Card, +1 Action" instead of following the card's instructions.)
What the Way rules say is, when you play Chapel, instead of the normal rule of following the on-play instructions of Chapel, you follow the instructions of Way of the Sheep. Do you disagree with this?

If "the instructions of Way of the Sheep" means "the instructions printed on WotS," then no, I don't disagree.

If "the instructions of Way of the Sheep" means "the instructions WotS gave," then yes, I disagree. Again, WotS never gives any instructions or "does" anything. It just sits there holding instructions.

When you follow Way of the Sheep's instructions, Way of the Sheep tells you to do stuff.

But that sentence is where I disagree for sure. WotS is not telling me to do stuff; an Instance of playing Chapel is still what's telling me to do stuff. It's just telling me to do stuff that's printed on WotS instead of what's printed on Chapel, like Instances of Chapel usually tell me to do.

11

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Changing the definition of" buy" to no longer mean "gain" as well?

« on: January 11, 2023, 01:06:19 pm »

The thing is, "When you buy" was weird from the start. "Buying" a card is a process that ultimately (usually) includes gaining it. But "When you buy" never meant "When you've completed the buying process"; it really meant "[At this certain specific point during the buying process]." It was more like a "When you pay" or "When you choose to buy." Or maybe a "When you buy, first."

Now that these triggers are supposed to happen after the gain (after the entire buying process), continuing to say "When you buy" but changing that to mean "When you've completed the buying process [and actually gained the card]" seems like it would make the most sense. It doesn't use a goofy wording, it makes "When you buy" mean what I would have expected it to mean, and it makes cards behave as currently desired.

The only weird thing I can think of would be: is the "When you gain" trigger window the same as the "When you buy" trigger window? Like, right now, there's just a single trigger window, so you wouldn't want to add another one that happens basically at the same time for people to wonder if it came first or last or if you could reorder triggered effects between them. Is it a problem to have a single trigger window handling things specified with two different wordings? I dunno.

Of course, using "When you buy" would mean using the same words but having them mean something different from what they used to mean, which isn't ideal. So maybe it could be "When you've bought" or "When you buy... afterwards."

"When you gain... due to buying it"? That's not much better than the current way, I guess.

12

Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat

« on: January 11, 2023, 12:21:07 pm »

When you use Way of the Sheep, you are certainly following Way of the Sheep's instructions.

The thing is, that definition doesn't match your conclusion that Smithy "does what the Way does". The other definition ("with Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Smithy's instructions") does match that ruling. I still don't see a third option; this has been my point.

I've been trying to find the disconnect and I'm wondering if you're maybe missing a noun in your mental model; it doesn't have a great name, but it's this thing (bolding mine):

If we look at the natural reading of the sentence, “it” seems to be “the playing of the attack card”.

Harbor Village is referring to that play of the card; further plays don't interest it.

Reckless's extra follow-instructions is part of the play of the card.

Yes; Reckless looks for a play of a card causing its instructions to be followed.

Let's call this not-well-named thing an "Instance of playing a card." When we talk about what a card does, we're really talking about what an Instance of playing a card does. Each Instance of playing a card causes a sequence of instructions to be followed. Whatever directly happens in those instructions (i.e. not things that are triggered because of abilities set up elsewhere, so no +$1 Token or Priest) is what that Instance of playing the card "does" for the purposes of Harbor Village, Moat, etc.

When a card is played normally, the sequence of instructions followed in that Instance is the one printed on the card. When a card is instead played "using" a Way, the sequence of instructions followed in that Instance is the one printed on the Way. That doesn't change the card's instructions (no card was shapeshifted; Smithy's instructions are still +3 Cards), but it changes which instructions are followed.


I think a key point here is that it doesn't matter where instructions are printed. It matters what is telling a player to follow them. Like, in your recent example with Priest, the reason the +$2 is coming from "Priest" instead of "Chapel" is not specifically because that instruction is printed on Priest cards; it's because a prior Instance of playing Priest is what told the player to follow it. By contrast, with Way of the Sheep (or any Way), it doesn't matter that the instructions were printed on the Way; the Instance of playing Chapel really is what's telling the player to follow them.

Or, more simply: Priest's +$2 is triggered; Way of the Sheep's +$2 is not.

13

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Plunder is online

« on: January 02, 2023, 08:17:27 pm »

is there still wandering winder? he was always good at realizing when you should just play money.

Seems like it's been quite a while since any of us have been WanderingWinder here.

14

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Plunder is online

« on: December 28, 2022, 03:08:27 pm »

Nope. I responded to a post which responded to this post:

Cage is not even indirectly giving you money, is it?

You can of course read „indirectly giving money“ as gaining … but that is a fetch given that you could also read thinning as increasing the average Coin yield of your deck or drawing cards as a way to play more Coin producing stuff or whatever.

Fair enough. But I did, in fact, assume "indirectly giving money" included gaining. Maybe because that interpretation causes the question to make sense.

EDIT: Or maybe I should say because that interpretation matched the question I already had.

15

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Plunder is online

« on: December 28, 2022, 01:40:48 pm »

While most Treasures do produce Coins, Horn of Plenty, War Chest, Sunken Treasure and Tools are gainers and plenty of other Treasures do not unconditionally produce Coins. For example Tiara and King's Cache are Thrones can theoretically fail to yield Coins and Crown is a Throne that fatils to do so quite often.

So the notion that all Treasures should somehow always produce Coins is pretty weird given that this has not been the case for over 10 years.

As far as I can tell, you're the only one who has mentioned the notion that treasures should always produce coins. That seems to be an assumption you made upon hearing people wonder why Cage is a treasure; "They must be confused that it's not making any coins." It's also kind of a weird assumption since, as you mentioned, it's not exactly a new thing for treasures to not make coins; certainly other people have noticed this.

It's more likely that people were noticing that Cage is (I think) the first treasure (including all the Loots we just got) that cannot (in any obvious way) contribute to gaining you cards. Most treasures help you gain cards by making coins (or potion) you can spend to buy stuff. The first set of cards you mentioned are, as you noted, gainers, so they do this directly. The second set can be used for magnifying other treasures, so they help in whatever way the other treasures do. The fact that some treasures (Throne, Scepter) can be used for other things is irrelevant; the point is that Cage breaks the pattern because it cannot.

At least, that's the reason I was wondering why Cage was a treasure.

16

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Timeline for Secret History

« on: October 31, 2022, 11:03:50 am »

You might be interested in the outtakes article.

17

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion: Plunder

« on: September 21, 2022, 06:23:05 pm »

Why assume they're talking about Dominion at all? If someone says they like Plunder, they might just be a viking.

18

Dominion General Discussion / Re: What cards do you ban and why?

« on: August 13, 2022, 01:03:41 pm »

Is Mindslaver Mastermind?

Mindslaver is a Magic: The Gathering card similar to Possession.

19

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.

« on: July 02, 2022, 05:22:06 pm »

You can do meterology without catastrophes.

The magnitude of the event is beside the point. Being interested in meteorology also doesn't require you to be happy that it's raining.

20

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.

« on: July 02, 2022, 04:39:44 pm »

Did you read what he said? He is trying to keep track of what rules are changing so he can continue to follow them - which he already said has nothing to do with if he likes the rulings or not.

That's nonsense. If you use your spare free time to make the effort to design a rule document for a game you obviously like that stuff, i.e. rule changes and rule details.

What you said there seems like the nonsense to me.  That's like saying someone must be happy a tornado destroyed their house because they're interested in meteorology.

21

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Hinterlands 2E Preview 3

« on: July 02, 2022, 12:07:22 pm »

Original Trader canceled the gain before you gained the card, so it was never yours. Possession works exactly the same way.

Well, if you bought an Inherited Estate, it did briefly become yours long enough to trigger the when-buy. If you then cancelled the gain with Trader, that would also have needed to make the Estate not yours or else it'd be sitting in the Supply belonging to you for an arbitrary period of time.

22

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Hinterlands 2E Preview 3

« on: July 01, 2022, 06:28:25 pm »

The buy thing is interesting, since by definition you gain the card anyway unless instructed otherwise. Does that mean a Possessed player technically owned a bought card before the Possessor did? Also, have there been any cases where 1. You buy a card. 2. It is interrupted by some trigger, and never subsequently gained. 3. It is still acquired by end of the turn. 4. And none of the other methods we listed above occurred (which would cause it to be acquired regardless)? If not, then I’m not as concerned

I think the reason the buy thing came about in the first place was with the original wording on Inheritance that transformed "your" Estates to have abilities. People expected the when-buy and when-gain abilities from the Inherited card to trigger when you bought an Estate, so the Estates needed to be "yours" at that point so they could have those abilities. That doesn't appear to matter anymore, so "acquiring on buying" may no longer be a thing (or need to be).

I'm not sure if this is an answer to your specific question, but I guess, with old Trader you could buy a card, have it become yours, then trash it before gaining decline to gain it. Again, not anymore with current Trader (but maybe some other how).

EDIT: Brain forgot how Trader worked.

23

Rules Questions / Re: Not enough Banes

« on: June 10, 2022, 02:44:52 pm »

Do you mean that the Black Market deck will be constructed after Black Market is selected, and that the bane pile should be selected after Young Witch is selected? If so, and you’re feeling compelled to follow the setup rules for Young Witch exactly as written, there’s no way for Black Market to be selected as the bane, so the question is not applicable.

Yes, that's why I said it was "apparently impossible": because it's not possible for it to be generated by following the setup rules as written. We appear to agree, right?

If you’re not following the setup rules for Young Witch exactly as written, the Black Market pile could definitely be a bane pile, and if so, where is the problem? If I draw Young Witch as one of my ten first randomizer cards for a specific kingdom, I always draw eleven randomizer cards and choose the last 2 or 3 cost card drawn to be the bane. This could very well be Black Market.

Just because someone's following a non-standard setup procedure (especially if they're doing so out of necessity because they encountered an "error") doesn't necessarily mean they're ok with ending up with a kingdom that would have been impossible to generate under normal circumstances. I was just pointing out a case where AJD's proposed solution could result in such an "impossible" kingdom. Some people would balk at that; others would be fine with it.

Thanks, it was as I expected, then. My point is that if you have a situation like they proposed, with Black Market being selected as the bane, nothing except setup is affected by this fact (which is already «compromised» if you find yourself in that situation), and therefore, I don’t see why it should matter at all once you start playing. Because of this, I find the issue a moot point.

Indeed, such a kingdom would work fine if you wanted to play it. I even pointed that out, saying "it doesn't hurt anything aside from being apparently impossible." I wonder if you thought I meant "impossible to play" rather than "impossible to generate."


Mostly, I just thought the edge case was amusing (hey, look, a paradox) and wanted to point it out. I wasn't suggesting there was an actual issue or problem anywhere.

24

Rules Questions / Re: Not enough Banes

« on: June 09, 2022, 11:46:35 pm »

Well, this particular question would come up when writing something like a kingdom generator.

25

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Am I the only copper strategist? Probably.

« on: June 09, 2022, 07:19:26 pm »

Thanks awaculus for clarifying that. Although I’m still not sure on how all that works. I just wished it was more like leveling up in a video game, where you can lose your level.  So if I’m 0.44 what’s the highest you can go and the Lowest you can go.

It is a pretty complicated system and I don't understand the details either, but the big picture is easy enough to understand. The point is to measure your skill level relative to the average player, so being able to lose points when you lose games necessarily has to be a part of it, otherwise people who play the most would have the most points even if they're not the best players.

If you go to the online client and go to the Leaderboard tab, there are a couple of buttons in the upper right. "Implementation" goes to a Shuffle IT forum post and "Glicko-2" goes to a PDF; I figure those are where you go if you want to learn more about how the system actually works.