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.

51

Rules Questions / Re: Procession vs BoM vs Duration

« on: March 13, 2023, 03:43:15 pm »

Yeah, it depends whether you have the old or the new Lighthouse. The new Lighthouse was published last year with the 2nd Edition of Seaside.

It also depends whether you have the old or the new Band of Misfits! The new BoM, which was published in 2019, doesn't emulate the Lighthouse. It just plays the Lighthouse from the supply. Image above.

If you have the new BoM...

Old Lighthouse - "while this is in play"
If you play BoM on Lighthouse, BoM stays in play. But it doesn't protect you. The Lighthouse protects you if it's in play, but it's not (it stays in the supply); only the BoM is in play.
Playing Procession on BoM on Lighthouse doesn't make a difference. BoM is of course in the trash, but wouldn't protect you anyway.

New Lighthouse
If you play BoM on Lighthouse, BoM stays in play. Lighthouse protects you because you played it (it doesn't have to be in play to protect you). It makes no difference where the BoM is. So in this case too, it doesn't matter if you trashed the BoM with Procession.

With both versions of Lighthouse, you always get the next-turn effects. Again it doesn't matter whether BoM was trashed or not.

Do you want to know how it would be with old BoM?

52

Rules Questions / Re: Friendly Village Green and Villa

« on: March 09, 2023, 01:46:49 pm »

Here's a scenario where it would make a difference.

Buy phase starts.
Play Charm (new version).
Buy and gain Villa.
Resolve Villa, ending Buy phase.
Resolve Charm, gaining Rocks.
Resolve Rocks, gaining Silver. You want to gain the Silver to your hand, not to your deck.

53

Rules Questions / Re: Friendly Village Green and Villa

« on: March 09, 2023, 01:46:12 pm »

Agreed, it seems like a (minor) bug. But as with everything, there are edge cases. For example, say you gained the Villa with Artificer (during your buy phase because of Capitalism), then triggering Sheepdog first would only net +1 card since you'd first draw the Villa. (i.e. if the online implementation were correct, you'd likely want to first move the Villa from the deck to your hand, then draw 2 more, before returning to your action phase).

Actually, you would first put Villa in your hand, then return to your Action phase, then draw 2 cards with Sheepdog. But I don't think that makes a difference.
But doesn't your scenario actually work online despite the bug?

54

Rules Questions / Re: Friendly Village Green and Villa

« on: March 09, 2023, 01:11:21 pm »

Thanks for checking! Yeah, I forgot that you can't use Innovation on Villa after returning to your Action phase, because Villa has then put itself in your hand.

I think this would work as intended with Sheepdog and the +$1 token on the Sheepdog pile:

You have a Wine Merchant on your Tavern mat. You have $1 at start of Buy-phase. You use Woodworker's Guild to gain Villa, returning you to your Action phase and ending your Buy phase. You play Sheepdog because you gained Villa, giving +$1 from the token. Can you now discard the Wine Merchant? Probably not.

Still same as before--you can discard Wine Merchant. Again, at least online, it looks like this is because the "when gain" triggers are happening before Villa returns you to your action phase. scolapasta, I tried both with Villa first and Sheepdog first, and at least online, I can discard Wine Merchant both times. I bolded the rows where the +1 action from Villa's below the line text is kicking in.

The second one, playing Sheepdog first, seems to be correct. But the first one seems to be wrong:

Reacting with Villa first:
Turn 18 - Wizard_Amul
W starts their turn.
  W gets +$1. (Key)
W begins their buy phase.
  W trashes a Hunting Lodge.
  W spends 1 Favor.
  W gains a Villa.
    W puts a Villa into their hand.
    W gets +1 Action.
    W reacts with a Sheepdog.
    W plays a Sheepdog.
      W gets +1 Coin (from Teacher).
      W draws a Teacher and a Hunting Lodge.
W ends their buy phase.
  W discards a Wine Merchant.

What happens when you resolve Villa's when-gain is:
1) put it into your hand
2) +1 Action
3) if it's your Buy phase return to your Action phase
I marked this in blue.

It should only be possible to react with Sheepdog before or after this, but online it happens in the middle, between (2) and (3). In other words, we should return to the Action phase (ending the Buy phase), then play Sheepdog.

But of course, this scenario is bad, because you could just choose to play the Sheepdog first!

55

Rules Questions / Re: Friendly Village Green and Villa

« on: March 09, 2023, 01:04:24 pm »

It's interesting to me that the first one works - it seems to me the trickier one. I guess the idea is that at the start of your buy phase, you can choose all the things you want to trigger, then you order them, and so they still trigger even if conditions (e.g. not being in your buy phase) are no longer met?

(the alternative being, you only choose the first thing to trigger, then do it; then you can choose the next thing to trigger, but only if the condition is still met)

I wonder if there are other cases like this.

No it's more like, all of them trigger, then you choose which to resolve first, etc. Once something triggers, it's never removed from the "to be resolved" list.

The classic example is, gain Mandarin with Royal Seal in play, both cards trigger. You resolve Mandarin first, topdecking the Royal Seal. You can resolve Royal Seal to topdeck the Mandarin.

56

Rules Questions / Re: Friendly Village Green and Villa

« on: March 09, 2023, 11:38:16 am »

I would think the first one would work now--tested it online, and it does work.

The second more tricky one I wasn't sure about, but it does work online, which I think is right but not sure--see what you think. I think what is happening is that Innovation triggers on gain, and if you look at Villa's text, the gaining part happens before the return to action phase part, so when Innovation triggers and you play the Villa, you are still in the Buy phase at that moment--you can then discard the Wine Merchant before the Buy phase ends and you get returned to your action phase. That's at least what happens online--see here for what I tried (the Village Green play at the very end is me playing it normally from my hand in the action phase):

Turn 9 - Wizard_Amul
W starts their turn.
  W gets +$1. (Key)
W begins their buy phase.
  W trashes a Chapel.
  W spends 1 Favor.
  W gains a Villa.
    W plays a Villa.
      W gets +2 Actions.
      W gets +1 Buy.
      W gets +$1.
    W gets +1 Action.
W ends their buy phase.
  W discards a Wine Merchant.
W plays a Village Green.
  W draws a Treasurer.
  W gets +2 Actions.

Thanks for checking! Yeah, I forgot that you can't use Innovation on Villa after returning to your Action phase, because Villa has then put itself in your hand.

I think this would work as intended with Sheepdog and the +$1 token on the Sheepdog pile:

You have a Wine Merchant on your Tavern mat. You have $1 at start of Buy-phase. You use Woodworker's Guild to gain Villa, returning you to your Action phase and ending your Buy phase. You play Sheepdog because you gained Villa, giving +$1 from the token. Can you now discard the Wine Merchant? Probably not.

57

Rules Questions / Re: Friendly Village Green and Villa

« on: March 09, 2023, 04:58:11 am »

It doesn't work online, and I actually think that it's correct to not work. If you look at Villa, Villa says that it only returns you to your Action phase if it's your Buy phase when you gain it--if you use Improve to gain a Villa, you are in the Cleanup phase when that happens, so you do gain the Villa to hand but don't go back to your Action phase (you can't play the Villa). You still get to resolve the Friendly trigger on Village Green to gain another one, but you don't get to play the Village Green since you are still in the Cleanup phase.

Thanks, yeah I thought I could be making some mistake. I was focused on both "start of Clean-up" and "start of Buy phase" things yesterday, and confused them.

So the idea is for start of Buy phase.

Let's say there's Arena and Woodworker's Guild. At start of Buy-phase, you have one Action card in hand. You use Woodworker's Guild to trash it and gain a Cavalry, drawing 2 cards and returning you to your Action phase. Now you can resolve Arena and discard an Action card that you drew (even though you're not in the Buy phase anymore).

This one's more tricky: Let's say there's Innovation and Woodworker's Guild, and you have a Wine Merchant on your Tavern mat. You have $1 at start of Buy-phase. You use Woodworker's Guild to gain Villa, returning you to your Action phase and ending your Buy phase. You play the Villa with Innovation, giving you +$1. Can you now discard the Wine Merchant? I guess not, since the Buy phase ended in the middle of resolving Villa, before you resolved when-gain stuff for Villa. Wine Merchant was triggered right when the Buy phase ended and you had to resolve it then.

58

Rules Questions / Friendly Village Green and Villa

« on: March 08, 2023, 04:44:33 pm »

So I guess this should work. Village Green is Friendly. Discarding Village Green for Friendly normally doesn't let you play it, since it's your Clean-up phase.
Start of Clean-up, Friendly and Improve trigger. You have a Village Green in hand, but you first Improve a card into a Villa, returning you to your Action phase. Now you resolve Friendly even though you're in your Action phase. You play the Village Green, then gain another one.

It could be Faithful Hound, Trail, Tunnel or Weaver instead of Village Green; Cavalry instead of Villa.

59

Rules Questions / Re: Harbor Village and Inspiring

« on: February 23, 2023, 05:12:38 pm »

Let's put it this way: Harbor Village's +$1, just like Caravan's next-turn draw, is not something the card gives you when you play it. (When you play it, it just sets that up to happen at a later time.) How do we know Harbor Village doesn't only care about what the next played Action card gives you when you play it? Again, has Donald X. ruled on this?

60

Rules Questions / Re: Harbor Village and Inspiring

« on: February 23, 2023, 11:25:21 am »

Harbor Village also has the same timing as Inspiring, Royal Carriage, etc.—i.e., "after" you play an Action—so you can also choose in which order to resolve it and Inspiring. So I guess formally, what this ruling should say is that you may receive the +$1 from the first Harbor Village in that scenario, if you choose to order them properly. Here's how it works:

Play Harbor Village [1].
..Get +1 card and +2 Actions.
..Inspiring triggers: you may play a card you don't have a copy of in play. Decline to do so.
Play Harbor Village [2].
..Get +1 card and +2 Actions.
..Inspiring and Harbor Village [1] both trigger.
....Choose to resolve Inspiring first.
......Play Guildmaster
........Get +$3.
........Harbor Village [2] triggers.
..........Did Guildmaster give you +$? Yes it did. Therefore, Harbor Village [2] gives you +$1.
....Resolve Harbor Village [1] second.
......Did Harbor Village [2] give you +$? Yes it did. Therefore, Harbor Village [1] gives you +$1.

Thinking about this again. Has Donald X. confirmed that this is how it works? Because I don't think it's obvious. I would originally think that Harbor Village checks whether resolving the Action card's on-play instructions gave you +$, and in that case Harbor Village [1] would not give you +$1. We know that Ways can also "count as" what a card gives you, so "on-play instructions" can't strictly be the right term, and (since the Way ruling lacks a technical definition) we actually don't know exactly what Harbor Village looks for. But it could just as well be that it looks for things that we would do when following the on-play instructions or other things that stand in for that (in practice, only Ways), and that it does not look for things that trigger after we're done with the "resolving on-play instructions" phase of playing the card.

61

Rules Questions / New Plan

« on: February 18, 2023, 06:17:02 am »

Now that the trashing token is when-gain, I have this question: Let's say I put the token on Village, and then I gain a Village from trash, does the token trigger?

I think it should. It says "when you gain a card from that pile", but the other tokens are "when you play a card from that pile" and of course you play them from your hand (normally).

62

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

« on: February 15, 2023, 11:27:06 am »

But obviously Ways and Enchantress can't have exactly the same mechanism anymore, since Enchantress just replaces FTI with something else, while Ways cause the card to make you do something else.

I definitely might be wrong here, but it seems to me like this sentence is the underlying issue behind this entire thread. You're looking for a difference in mechanism that explains why Harbor Village works with Ways, whereas Donald X is saying that there isn't one. The mechanics and rules behind specifically how and when Ways work is exactly the same as you have always thought (and the same as Enchantress). All that is needed is to add on a little clause when resolving the Way: "This counts as what the card did". It doesn't need a new mechanic or instruction for the Way replacing the card's FTI.

I don't think that makes any sense. If the Way effect counts as what the card did and the Enchantress effect doesn't, clearly that's a difference in how they work. It's not just an added thing that comes in addition, like +1 Card being the difference between Village and Necropolis. It's an integral part of how Ways work (compared to how Enchantress works). And Donald X. has been clear that he sees it that way; he's derving this ruling from the very description, the very sentence, in the rulebook that says how Ways work when you use them.

It's like saying that the card-gaining of Replace and Sea Hag is the same mechanism, just with an added clause that with Sea Hag it doesn't visit your discard pile.

Also, Donald X's rulings require the idea that a card can do something other than what it instructs you to do, which as I understand it you don't agree with or understand how it can be.

Yes, as I've repeated ad nauseam. Except that a more accurate phrasing would be, a card can make you do something other than what it instructs you to do.

63

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

« on: February 14, 2023, 04:55:12 am »

Actually now that Ways and Enchantress work differently in this regard, I'm not sure how Ways are supposed to work anymore. Is the following still true?

[about Ways:] Enchantress from Empires also changes what an Action card does when played.

Are Ways still triggered at the same time as Enchantress, when you would follow the on-play instructions? Or do they have a completely different mechanism now?

As far as I can tell, everything related to timing, how Ways/Enchantress mechanically work, and the technical rules for the model that explains it all, is a separate question completely from whether or not what Ways/Enchantress do is considered what the card does. At least, that’s how I’m reading what Donald X has been saying. Ways and Enchantress can have the same timing, can work via the same rules and mechanism, yet still have a different interaction with Harbor Village, simply because “did the card give you the thing you got” isn’t answered by those mechanisms.

Yeah, I meant that question as a separate question. I have been describing Ways and Enchantress as having the same timing in my rules document, and I don't even know if that's true anymore. But obviously Ways and Enchantress can't have exactly the same mechanism anymore, since Enchantress just replaces FTI with something else, while Ways cause the card to make you do something else.

64

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

« on: February 13, 2023, 03:09:15 am »

Actually now that Ways and Enchantress work differently in this regard, I'm not sure how Ways are supposed to work anymore. Is the following still true?

[about Ways:] Enchantress from Empires also changes what an Action card does when played.

Are Ways still triggered at the same time as Enchantress, when you would follow the on-play instructions? Or do they have a completely different mechanism now?

65

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

« on: February 12, 2023, 05:33:10 am »

Enchantress is easier:
"When you would follow the instructions of a played Action card, it makes you instead get +1 Card and +1 Action."

This isn't true! I'm not saying that any of the rest of your post is true; time does not permit. I can tell you though that this part is not.

Way of the Sheep attributes the +$2 to the card, for e.g. Harbor Village to see.
Enchantress does not do this. It just happens on the side, like the +$1 from the Adventures token.

Oh. Well, it was based on what you have been saying in this thread of course. But I guess what you're saying now is that you changed your mind based on re-reading things.

As I was saying earlier, it would be better if Enchantress worked the same as Ways, since the rulebooks also suggest that (although they talk about how Enchantress and Ways interact, which is unrelated to the issue of "attributing" things to the card). But I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter either way for Enchantress with current cards.

66

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

« on: February 11, 2023, 08:28:30 am »

How to state the new Way ruling in a technically accurate way?
The ruling also covers Enchantress (and Highwayman, but it doesn't matter).

The description used to be just, "When you would follow the instructions of a played Action card, you may instead follow the Way's instructions."
For Enchantress: "...you instead get +1 Card and +1 Action."

We need to incorporate the concept of the played card "making you do" things because of Ways/Enchantress. (Donald X. has made it clear that it's not Harbor Village and Moat that are special in what they look for; it's Ways and Enchantress that are special in what they cause.)

Maybe we could just add, as an extra rule, "Using a Way means the played card makes you do what the Way says to do." But what about Enchantress? I guess you also "use" Enchantress, albeit involuntarily? So, "Using Enchantress means the played card makes you get +1 Card and +1 Action." But I think "using" is not really clear, and also we're repeating the effects when we have both of these rules, which is incorrect.

So no extra rule. We need a complete description.

Enchantress is easier:
"When you would follow the instructions of a played Action card, it makes you instead get +1 Card and +1 Action."

We could phrase individual Ways like this too, for instance Way of the Goat:
"When you would follow the instructions of a played Action card, you may choose that it makes you instead trash a card from your hand."

But what about a general Way description?
"When you would follow the instructions of a played Action card, you may choose that it makes you instead follow a Way's instructions."
The problem with this is that per the new ruling, following instructions is not the same as being made to do something*. Way of the Chameleon causes the card to make you follow instructions, but the other Ways don't do that. (To be clear, using a Way means you follow the Way's instructions, but it doesn't cause the played card to make you follow those instructions.)

So then:
"When you would follow the instructions of a played Action card, you may choose that it makes you instead do what the Way says to do."
But, "what the Ways says to do" - what does that mean? It sounds like the Way's instructions, but that's what we can't have. It could mean "what the Way makes you do", but then it says that both the card and the Way make you do it, so it would seem like you should do it twice.

The following must be true: When you follow a card's instructions to do something, it means that that card makes you do that thing. (If that were not the case, Harbor Village wouldn't work when you just play a card normally.) It follows that when you follow an Event's instructions, the Event makes you do it, and the same for Projects, Allies, etc. If this also applies to Ways, then it does seem like both Way of the Goat (for instance) and the played card makes you trash a card. The conclusion must be that this does not apply to Ways. Following instructions on a Way is different from following instructions on a card or an Event.

So when a Way (or Enchantress) has its effect, what you do as a result of following its instructions is something the card makes you do, but not something the Way (or Enchantress) makes you do.

So then, for Ways:
"When you would follow the instructions of a played Action card, you may choose that it makes you instead do what following the Way's instructions makes you do."

Hmmm, it still really says that two things make you do it. And actually, that is what's expressed in the paragraph preceding it too.

I'll have to give up for now.

*which is what I find illogical

67

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

« on: February 11, 2023, 08:09:07 am »

4. Either use a Way or follow the instructions on the card (in order, top to bottom, stop at a dividing line).  Whatever instructions actually get followed count as what the card does.

Enchantress and HighWayman trigger when one attempts to FTI.

So I guess the part I bolded is the essence of how your model "requires only rulings about mechanisms to change rather than rulings about results". But the problem is still that the instructions that actually get followed in that step include the second Cultist and the +$2 from Priest.

Perhaps I'd have done better to phrase 4 as "Do something: either use a Way or follow the instructions on the card (in order, top to bottom, stop at a dividing line)." to make it clear that the same scoping rules applied as before.

The thing is that "whatever instructions actually get followed" does need to include Enchantress.

(Also, no need to change the timing of Ways.)

I'll believe that when/if you and Gendolkari come to an agreement about how the existing timing gives rise to the results that have been ruled to occur.  I find it hard to believe that you will, given that we were all previously perfectly happy that the existing timing meant that Chameleon could override Enchantress.  To prevent Chameleon overriding Enchantress with the existing timing requires Enchantress to trigger twice, once on the first attempt at FTI and again on Chameleon's attempt at FTI.  If we are to be happy with that arrangement now, why were we previously happy with it triggering only on the first attempt?

Both GendoIkari and I presented an explanation for how the new Chameleon ruling can work; none of us changed the timing of Ways. Mine has the drawback of making Chameleon different from the other Ways in what it does. His follows from the new Way ruling, which is what you're attempting to describe anyway, so no problem there.

68

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

« on: February 11, 2023, 05:42:40 am »

To rule or conclude that Chameleon is somehow special or different than all other Ways just seems unnecessary; it requires a rule outside of what is printed on the cards, a rule that would only apply to Chameleon. Right now the rule is, in my own wording: "if you choose to use a Way, you follow the instructions printed on the Way instead of the instructions printed on the card." Why add the complication of "except for Chameleon; that one does a slightly different thing".

First of all, that is not an accurate description of the how Ways work anymore. If it were (which it used to be), it would not necessarily follow that Chameleon makes you FTI as a result of playing the card; the ruling used to be that it didn't. We need the new Way ruling too, which as I said is not printed anywhere.

Can you clarify what's inaccurate about it? I know it was my own wording and not actual rules wording, but what part of my description was wrong? Do Ways not make you follow their own instructions instead of the instructions on the card you played?

It's what I said at the end: we need the Way ruling too. A correct descriptions of what Ways do needs to incorporate that ruling, which is also about Enchantress (and Highwayman, but it doesn't matter). I'll write another post.

69

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

« on: February 10, 2023, 05:30:32 am »

Envious is also an effect that changes a card's instructions (into +$1). Previous rulings with highwayman state that highwayman wins and you get nothing. Is this still true, and does it fit consistently into the FTI model?

Coppersmith is also an effect that modifies a card's instructions, by adding +$1. Highwayman has also been ruled to make it do nothing. Though do rulings care about 1e cards?

Somewhere in this thread a hypothetical card was discussed that would give actions "an additional +$1" (and that this is distinct from "when you play an action, +$1). That's what coppersmith does. For consistency with the coppersmith ruling, does that mean that card + enchantress = cantrip, not peddler?

Yes, the ruling is that Envious and Coppersmith "shapeshifts" the card's instructions. (As far as I'm aware, the ruling still stands).

So with Envious, when playing a Silver/Gold it's exactly like playing a Copper*. Under the Highwayman attack, you get nothing.
With Coppersmith, when playing a Copper it's exactly like playing a Silver*. Under the Highwayman attack, you get nothing.

Rulings care about all cards. Removed cards are still supported according to Donald X.
I think previous versions of cards should be supported in the same way as removed cards are, but Donald X. has expressed a differing view.

(The "FTI model" is not a new ruling, it's just a way of describing how playing a card has always worked.)

*except for the name of the card of course.

70

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

« on: February 10, 2023, 05:19:59 am »

Important to note that I said "Yeah I think that all makes sense, except" and then went on to the thing that I've been talking about since; about how Chameleon gives you a new FTI instead of the original FTI.

Ok, if you want to go back... You're making it sound like you had a disagreement with what I wrote, and then went on to explain an alternative mechanism that was better in that sense. That's not really an accurate description of what you wrote.

Let's take a look:

Yeah I think that all makes sense, except that new ruling does still require an understanding that Enchantress is not limited to replacing "FTI as a result of playing a card"; or alternatively an understanding that when Chameleon makes you FTI, it still counts as FTI as a result of playing a card. Come to think of it, that second option is pretty much in-line with the entire main discussion in this thread, the ruling that Sheep's + counts as getting + from playing the card.

You said that you think it makes sense, except that it requires an understanding of the reasoning behind it. That is not expressing any kind of disagreement, especially since this requirement also applies to your proposed mechanism.

The other thing is that it's not clear at all that you're proposing another mechanism in that post. The "second option" ("when Chameleon makes you FTI, it still counts as FTI as a result of playing a card") perfectly matches my proposed mechanism - and that's why I took it as applying to it. When you said that the second option is in-line with the Sheep/Way ruling, it reads as you saying that the reasoning behind what I proposed is in-line with the reasoning behind that ruling - which I subsequently objected to.

You should have made it clear that you're not supporting my mechanism and that you have an alternative. Instead you wrote that my mechanism makes sense to you except that it requires some understanding, and then went on to hint at something that requires the exact same understanding (so is no better in that sense) without clarifying that you were actually not talking about my thing anymore.

Right, I meant Donald X's reasoning, not yours. Even though he never specifically addressed the idea of what exactly it is about Chameleon's instructions that make Enchantress replace the FTI, the ruling he gave (that Enchantress wins) makes sense if you accept his prior logic about Sheep and Harbor Village.

It's false to say that your reasoning is Donald X.'s reasoning, since he never expressed one, as you also admit. It's very likely that he hasn't pondered the mechanism behind how it would work at all, especially since this ruling (Chameleon + Enchantress) was made because I made him aware that it should match the Chameleon + Reckless ruling, and that ruling was most likely made on the basis of what makes more sense to players.

Yeah I don't like the idea that Chameleon is somehow special or different than all other Ways. Different in terms of how it's actually activated and used mechanically, that is. It ends up having different interactions with Enchantress than others, but to me that's no different than saying that even though Sheep is activated and used mechanically exactly the same as Ox, yet it has a different interaction with Harbor Village. It's because Sheep gives you what Harbor Village looks for, while Ox doesn't. In the same way, Chameleon gives you what Enchantress looks for, while Ox and Sheep don't.

I'm reminded of first edition Band of Misfits. There was a time that it worked different than all other cards, or at least people thought it did. They thought that it's own instruction changed how it was played; rather than being an instruction that you followed when you played it. I don't remember if it was ever ruled that way originally, or if people just interpreted it that way. But eventually it was ruled that BoM works exactly like all other cards: you play it normally, and then you follow its instructions. It's first instruction was to play it as another card. This means that for the purposes of Conspirator, playing BoM from your hand resulted in 2 separate card plays. First edition Noble Brigand was also special and worked differently from all other action cards, though second edition changed that.

There are many cards that do something unique, and often technically obscure, in Dominion. Like Reckless, Elder, Lantern, the -Card token, the -$1 token, Animal Fair, Possession, Lich, and also Enchantress - even though it was later joined by Ways and Highwayman -, and even Chameleon itself for its "follow this card's instructions" effect, and several others. These often raise questions and require special rulings. This is not the thread to have a debate about their merits. I don't view my Chameleon explanation as substantially different than many of those. What I view as substantially different is this Way/Ench/Highw ruling, which also, to use your words, requires a rule outside of what is printed on the cards, and even in the rulebooks - a new concept of cards having effects which is expressed only as an ambiguous hint in a phrase in the Way rules and contradicted by both card texts and other rulebook descriptions (as well as not making sense technically).

To rule or conclude that Chameleon is somehow special or different than all other Ways just seems unnecessary; it requires a rule outside of what is printed on the cards, a rule that would only apply to Chameleon. Right now the rule is, in my own wording: "if you choose to use a Way, you follow the instructions printed on the Way instead of the instructions printed on the card." Why add the complication of "except for Chameleon; that one does a slightly different thing".

First of all, that is not an accurate description of the how Ways work anymore. If it were (which it used to be), it would not necessarily follow that Chameleon makes you FTI as a result of playing the card; the ruling used to be that it didn't. We need the new Way ruling too, which as I said is not printed anywhere.

71

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

« on: February 09, 2023, 04:41:26 am »

I just realized that Chameleon itself is a card that uses "give", but with the opposite meaning of what it's supposed to represent on Harbor Village. On Chameleon it clearly refers to what following the card's instructions would give you. Importantly, on Harbor Village it's supposed to represent what the card would give you, not what following the card's instructions would give you.

Also, Chameleon says "you get +$ instead" instead of "it gives you +$ instead". But since Ways per definition (according to the Way ruling) means that the card makes you do the things, it would be the card that makes you get $, so it still works, I guess.

72

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

« on: February 09, 2023, 04:21:15 am »

As I said then, we'd have to say that Chameleon does not cancel FTI, like other Ways do. Now you seem to be assuming that we don't view Chameleon this way. Well I do, because that's how the ruling makes sense.

I don’t get this. Of course chameleon cancels FTI just like any other Way would.

I was referring to what I wrote here, where I concluded, "In this way, Chameleon, unlike the other Ways, don't actually make you not FTI." You replied, "Yeah I think that all makes sense". That's why I thought we were still talking about that.

I think we have been talking past each other since that post. I don't want to continue with the all the details anymore, since this is mostly a tangent anyway. But I thought that you were saying that the reasoning behind how Chameleon makes you FTI as a result of playing the card (under the new Chameleon ruling) was in-line with the reasoning behind the Way ruling. And I thought you were referring to the Chameleon reasoning that I had given (which you had said made sense). So that is not true (that those two things are in-line with each other). But I see now that you were saying something else: that the actual Sheep ruling directly means that Chameleon makes you FTI as a result of playing the card. So that's a different reasoning behind how it can work.

So, thinking about it, I see how that can be right. With the new Way ruling, Chameleon says something like: "when you would follow the instructions of a played Action card, you may instead choose to have it make you follow its instructions with +Cards instead of +$ and vice versa." So yeah, this could be an explanation that supports the ruling that Chameleon makes you FTI as a result of playing the card.

My explanation was that Chameleon doesn't cancel FTI like the other Ways, it just modifies FTI. (If it had "+1 Card" first, it would make you draw 1 card before you FTI.) This explanation doesn't rely on the new Way ruling in order to work. But since we do have the new Way ruling, your explanation seems to be all we need.

73

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

« on: February 08, 2023, 04:32:17 pm »

Just like how you've been arguing that the +$2 doesn't seem like "+ as a result of playing the card".

I have not been arguing that. Indeed it is +$2 as a result of playing the card, but so are Adventures tokens, Priest and other things. I have been arguing that "what the card makes you do" must mean "what the card instructs you to do" and so must mean that you're following the card's instructions; so either following a Way's instructions counts as following the card's instructions, or it means that the card is not making you do anything, only the Way is.

74

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

« on: February 08, 2023, 04:21:27 pm »

Yeah I think that all makes sense, except that new ruling does still require an understanding that Enchantress is not limited to replacing "FTI as a result of playing a card"; or alternatively an understanding that when Chameleon makes you FTI, it still counts as FTI as a result of playing a card. Come to think of it, that second option is pretty much in-line with the entire main discussion in this thread, the ruling that Sheep's + counts as getting + from playing the card.

Well, I don't agree with the last part. It's rather the opposite: Per the ruling, Sheep's +$2 does not count as FTI. I've been suggesting that it should as one possible solution to the problem as I see it.

No, I wasn't saying that Sheep's + counts as FTI. I was saying that Sheep's + counts as something that playing the card does, just like how Chameleon's "follow the instructions" counts as something that playing the card does.

In this case, the question wasn't whether Chameleon counted as following the instructions or not, it was the question of whether the FTI was a result of playing the card or not (due to the rule you quoted earlier that Enchantress only cares about FTI that results from playing the card).

I still say that the two things are fundamentally different.

Given the new Chameleon ruling, there is no question that we're following the played card's instructions. The issue you brought up is just whether that counts as a result of playing the card. We always FTI as a result of playing a card, and the question is, does Chameleon change that or not.

Not following with the bold part, unless you're making "as a result of playing a card" into a more generic thing including "as a result of using a Way". We FTI because of anything we do which the game rules tell us causes FTI. Playing cards is one of those things. Buying an Event is another. Gaining a card with certain Projects having been purchased is another. The rules saying "when you play a card, FTI" is just one thing in the game that can cause us to FTI. And as per your quote earlier, Enchantress only cares about that sort of FTI, not other ones.

What I meant: When playing a card, we always FTI as a result of playing the card, and the question is, does Chameleon change that or not: Does Chameleon make it so we don't FTI as a result of playing the card.

Note that whenever I use "FTI", I mean "follow the card's on-play instructions". That's what "FTI" is short-hand for. It's not about following the below-the-line ability or a Project's ability or even a Way's ability. "There is no FTI" means we're not following the card's on-play instructions. Of course we might be following other intructions (like on a Way), but that's not what that phrase expresses.

Maybe this will make my post clearer.

"Enchantress only triggers when you FTI as a result of playing the card" was the quote. Under a straight-forward interpretation of how Ways work, I wouldn't have thought that Chameleon telling you to FTI would count as "FTI as a result of playing the card". It's "FTI as a result of Chameleon telling you to". Just like how you've been arguing that the +$2 doesn't seem like "+ as a result of playing the card". The fact that playing the card is what allowed you to use Chameleon in the first place should be separate.

However, under Donald's ruling that "What a way does counts as what playing the card does", then the Chameleon + Enchantress thing is consistent with the Harbor Village + Sheep thing;

You seem to be confusing the two rulings when you talk about Chameleon. The general Way ruling that a Way means that the played card makes you do things is not enough to make the Chameleon + Enchantress ruling be true. Under that ruling alone, Chameleon can escape Enchantress. The Chameleon + Enchantress ruling is a separate thing.

You presented a good argument earlier for why even the Chameleon + Enchantress ruling could be seen as not enough to prevent Chameleon from escaping Enchantress. As I said then, we'd have to say that Chameleon does not cancel FTI, like other Ways do. Now you seem to be assuming that we don't view Chameleon this way. Well I do, because that's how the ruling makes sense.

That is not the question with the Sheep (Way) issue. Sheep definitely changes that. As Donald X. said, there's no FTI step.

I think you're talking about the wrong "that" in the bolded word. Sheep changes it so you aren't FTI, yes. But in this case, nothing I'm saying deals with whether you are FTI or not. It deals purely with "what counts as part of what playing the card does". The ruling is that Sheep's instructions count as part of what playing the card does. And the same ruling also means that Chameleon's instructions count as part of what playing the card does. Which means that whether you use Chameleon or not, you're still following the card's instructions "as a result of playing the card".

The ruling doesn't really say that Sheep's instructions count as part of what playing the card does. Playing the card does many things, including Adventures tokens. The ruling says that what you do when following Sheep's instructions counts as what the card makes you do. Yes, it's fuzzy and unclear, but that's the way this ruling is. It's about this undefined concept of the card "making you" do something. It's not about attributing instructions.

So, as I said above, the "Sheep ruling" does not mean that you're FTI as a result of playing the card with Chameleon. Rather, it's like you said a few posts ago, even with that ruling and with the new Chameleon ruling, we could think that Chameleon means we're not FTI. We need to think of Chameleon as different from the other Ways, like I said above.

The problem I have with the Sheep ruling is that "what the card makes you do" consists of following instructions on another card. This is also unlike the Chameleon issue.

Are you implying that when you use Chameleon, you aren't following the instructions on Chameleon?

No, read it again. Of course we're following the instructions on the Way, whether it's Chamleon or any other.
But the Sheep ruling is that "what the card makes you do" consists of following instructions on another card. That's not related to what the Chameleon ruling is about, as I explained.

I'm saying Chameleon works the same way all Ways do: When you choose to use them, you follow their instructions. It just so happens that the first instruction on Chameleon is to follow the instructions on the card you played.

That's not in accordance to how we have to see Chameleon to make the new ruling work. If you look at Chameleon that way, the way you just described, the new ruling does not work, as you explained a few posts ago.

75

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

« on: February 08, 2023, 05:22:13 am »

4. Either use a Way or follow the instructions on the card (in order, top to bottom, stop at a dividing line).  Whatever instructions actually get followed count as what the card does.

Enchantress and HighWayman trigger when one attempts to FTI.

So I guess the part I bolded is the essence of how your model "requires only rulings about mechanisms to change rather than rulings about results". But the problem is still that the instructions that actually get followed in that step include the second Cultist and the +$2 from Priest.

(Also, no need to change the timing of Ways.)

We would have to change it to something like this (the important part is the "instead"):

4. Follow the instructions on the card (in order, top to bottom, stop at a dividing line).  If you follow some other instructions instead, this also counts as something the card tells you to do.

Ways, Enchantress and HighWayman trigger when you attempt to FTI as a result of playing the card.

Of course, this requires a general rule about all abilities that tell you to do something else instead of FTI. There is no such rule for other abilities that tell you to do something else "instead", for instance for gaining. And in fact, there is no such rule for FTI either! So it works, but it's not the actual explanation. The actual explanation is only about these specific cards: Ways, Enchantress and HighWayman.