Now, as I was reviewing the wall of text that was typed below, you posted something else that finally showed me what you were trying to say the entire time:
that Enchantress should still able to do its thing with Way of the Chameleon because it should be able to replace the "Follow this card's instructions" bit on Chameleon with "
+1 Card,
+1 Action," and if it can't, then Lantern should override enchantress as well. This seems much more reasonable of a viewpoint to me. With this in mind, the I think the debate shouldn't be, "Does Lantern override Enchantress?" but rather, "Should Way of the Chameleon be an exception to the rule in this case?"
I will leave this argument here for posterity's sake anyway:
I just came up with what might be a better way to explain this:
You're reading lantern as "Instead of following Border Guard's instructions, follow them, revealing 3 cards instead of two."
We're reading Lantern as "When you would reveal 2 cards by following the instructions of Border Guard, reveal 3 instead."
Yes, I was going to write more or less the same thing.
So, when I posted those earlier, I failed to realize that there was an entire 3rd page of discussion that I hadn't read. That's on me. That said, I'm going to do my best to go through your post point by point:
First of all, even with the latter interpretation, your are definitely not only following Border Guard's instructions, some of them are interrupted and replaced on the fly with Lantern's (unlike what you said before). Whether this should count as resolving Border Guard so that Enchantress overrides it, I don't know
I think the difference here is that Enchantress and Ways replace the entire card's instructions
before they happen, while the latter interpretation of Lantern replaces one subset of the instructions
as they happen. This is much like reacting to Workshop with Trader. Workshop is still resolving, but Trader is replacing the gain event.
but whatever the case, Chameleon should work the same way.
I disagree with you on this. Way of the Chameleon
has to replace the entire card's effect due to being a Way. That is how Ways work; Chameleon is worded the way it is due to that constraint, and is why it has this weird interaction with Enchantress. Lantern has no such card-type-based limitations.
Second, even that interpretation is adding stuff that is not in the wording. It's no more or less valid than my interpretation from the actual card text.
I'll concede that.
The reason my interpretation is more valid,
Alright, now you're contradicting the above statement. This doesn't add anything to the discussion, I'm just trying to inject humor by being pedantic.
is that it fits with all other such when-would effects that we have; it follows precedent. I explained this before.
I'm not sure what precedent you are referring to here. You may or may not have already explained this; I'm not entirely sure. If you have, I lost it in all the other discussion/arguing that's happening around this.
I also said this (and now we have established that Lantern does replace at least some of the instructions):
I, at least, never intended to imply that Lantern did not replace
any instructions. I do, however, believe that the replacement is much more limited in scope than Way of the Chameleon; see above.
"That leaves the question of the timing. The natural interpretation is that it does this just as you're about to do it, just like all other cards like this. To conclude that it triggers several times during your resolution of Border Guard seems very forced to me. It seems to be a rule invented just to avoid a certain interaction."
Ah, the crux of the miscommunication (as I see it, anyway). I see the "natural interpretation" of the timing for Lantern as being
when would reveal rather than
when would resolve. This goes back to the two different interpretations issue. There's nothing saying this somehow triggers multiple times; I'm not sure where you're getting that from, and I could just be reading too much into rhetorical hyperbole.
You are also assuming that Chameleon replaces the whole instruction, but I can't see that you have any basis for that.
The basis for this is the rules for how Ways function; see above.
See my last post, which nobody has responded to. Why is Magic Trick fundamentally different from Chameleon?
I don't see it as fundamentally different; rather, it is only different enough to matter in this specific edge case involving Enchantress. This question is like asking why first and second edition Cellar are fundamentally different; on a fundamental level, they aren't, but it matters for an edge case involving one particular card-shaped thing.
To me your whole basis for this is circular; it's based on the fact that Chameleon is a Way to conclude that therefore it works as a Way.
Yes, much like saying a Nissan Leaf is a car; therefore, it works like cars do. The rulebook defines the behaviors of Ways; Chameleon is cleverly worded to work within those bounds, but at its core, it is still a Way.
or 
.
I count 366 (truth: table sheet does)
more than that action.
. By this comparison, making it cost 
makes sense.
in that case