Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All

Author Topic: Durable Mouse  (Read 2169 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Durable Mouse
« Reply #50 on: July 27, 2020, 08:22:27 pm »
0

I think we have to keep to the same terms here, or it's not going anywhere.

This is true; in that case, please use the term "instructions" in the way Gendo and I have been using it, since that term is actually used in-game.

The rulebooks use instructions, effects and abilities. "Instruction" is mostly only used when it talks about following something. It doesn't say things like "when an instruction plays a card", but rather "when an effect plays a card". It sometimes says "a card's effects", sometimes "a card's effect", sometimes "a card's ability". I'm trying to find good and consistent terms. Since the normal way of referring to what cards do is "ability" (like "on-play ability", "next turn ability", "Reaction abiltiy") I find it better to use "effect" for the individual parts. "Instruction" works too, but "effect" works better overall, in all kinds of sentences. The thing here was just, I already wrote the whole long post, I thought it was better to follow that going forward. We can use "instruction" and "effect" interchangably without a problem though. Just avoid calling an ability an "effect".

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Durable Mouse
« Reply #51 on: July 27, 2020, 08:29:59 pm »
0

You are following the cards PA in a modified way. The normal effects are still there but you aren’t following them like you normally would. You are following a different set of effects instead. I guess this is the same thing as saying that the effects have been replaced, yes.

I’m not sure if I’m understanding you here. I’m just referring to the “normal PA” as the thing that exists due to the base game rulebook. The thing that says that when you play a card, you follow its instructions. Enchantress overrides that rule with a new rule. So “N” doesn’t matter anymore, only “R” is in effect. I don’t think there’s any comparing R to N here; I’m stating flat-out that Enchantress and Ways only affect N.

Wait - they only affect N? So N is now changed. But how does the next Way know this without comparing to what N used to be? You're saying that Ways/Enchantress only works on the "normal PA", but how can we know what the "normal PA" is if it's not there anymore?

Quote
This may be the core of our disagreement. I think it is suggested both by the rules wording where Enchantress and Ways both refer to them applying at a time that you are playing a card (which I am taking to mean the initial act of playing the card; not the entire window of time that the card is being played), and also deriving it from Donald's rulings on not being allowed to use multiple Ways.

Not sure if this is relevant, but Enchantress and Ways don't trigger when you announce the card (the initial act of playing it). The first thing that happens (after that act) is "first" abilities (Reactions/Urchin/Kiln). Then Ways and Enchantress trigger.

Quote
It may be circular, but I’m starting with the assumption that Donald's rulings are correct, and coming up with what I see as a consistent explanation as to why. Yes the text could be interpreted differently, to conclude that you can apply multiple Ways to a single play of a card. But we’ve been told that such an interpretation is incorrect.

Yes, there are rules we can introduce to make it consistent. I stated two in my long post (the first of which I think is pretty bad). I think you're ultimately suggesting a rule that you also did in another post: that a PA can't be replaced twice. But this is a new rule, since cards don't normally have memories of that stuff. It would be like a cost reducer that only worked on the printed cost: It would mean that both "current cost" and "printed cost" are there at the same time.

Quote
Quote
The card's PA can change without it being shape-shifting. This goes against all precedent, compare with Lantern and the Trader(1E) examples.

I can’t see any possible interpretation of a Way that doesn’t involve a card's PA changing. The rules tell of very clearly that a card's PA is to follow its instructions, and yet the Menagerie rules tell of very clearly that if you choose to use a Way, then that isn’t the PA that happens. So of course the PA has to change. How do you avoid following a card's instructions without saying that the PA has changed?

Lantern was discussed at length separately, and I’m still pretty convinced that Lantern 2e doesn’t solve the problem Donald was trying to solve; it only works because it’s been ruled that it does.

The interpretation would be that you simply do something else instead of following it. This is exactly how Trader(1E) and Possession work, and how Lantern(2E) works. (It's also how Snowy Village works, except nothing is happening "instead" there, you simply cancel the effect as it's about to happen.) If the "gain a Silver" effect were a change in the Ironwork's PA, it would give +$1. Donald actually specifically referred to this interaction when explaining Ways/Enchantress. (But of course I'm just repeating.)
In any case, Donald has been very clear that it's not shape-shifting.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2020, 08:35:24 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3047
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +3962
    • View Profile
Re: Durable Mouse
« Reply #52 on: July 27, 2020, 08:46:31 pm »
0

I think we have to keep to the same terms here, or it's not going anywhere.

This is true; in that case, please use the term "instructions" in the way Gendo and I have been using it, since that term is actually used in-game.

The rulebooks use instructions, effects and abilities. "Instruction" is mostly only used when it talks about following something. It doesn't say things like "when an instruction plays a card", but rather "when an effect plays a card". It sometimes says "a card's effects", sometimes "a card's effect", sometimes "a card's ability". I'm trying to find good and consistent terms. Since the normal way of referring to what cards do is "ability" (like "on-play ability", "next turn ability", "Reaction abiltiy") I find it better to use "effect" for the individual parts. "Instruction" works too, but "effect" works better overall, in all kinds of sentences. The thing here was just, I already wrote the whole long post, I thought it was better to follow that going forward. We can use "instruction" and "effect" interchangably without a problem though. Just avoid calling an ability an "effect".

Since one of the issues here is the interpretation of Way of the Chameleon, we can't proceed without having a clear understanding of the term "instructions", which is used on Way of the Chameleon. I couldn't understand your long post at all, in part because you're trying to interpret Chameleon without making it clear what you believe the term "instructions" refers to.

I don't want to use "instruction" and "effect" interchangeably. They don't mean the same thing.

So here is how we should use the terms, based on the meanings of the English words. This is, I think, a different way of breaking down these terms than your taxonomy.

A card(-shaped thing)'s instructions are the text printed on the card(-shaped thing). Now that there's no more Band-of-Misfits–style shapeshifting, a card's instructions never change. For example, the instructions of Altar are "Trash a card from your hand." and "Gain a card costing up to $5."

A card's abilities are what the card's instructions tell you to do. For instance, the abilities of Altar are trashing a card from your hand, and gaining a card costing up to $5. I'm not sure if the difference between "instructions" and "abilities" matters.

A card's effects are what happens when you use a card. Ordinarily these are the same as the card's abilities. For instance, under ordinary circumstances the effects of Altar are that you trash a card from your hand, and gain a card costing up to $5. However, if you have no cards in your hand, the only effect of Altar is that you gain a card costing up to $5.
Enchantress and Ways can also cause a card to have different effects than usual. When you play Altar according to the Way of the Otter, its effect is that you draw two cards. This is not an ability of Altar; it's an ability of the Way of the Otter. But it's still the effect of Altar (on this particular occasion).
« Last Edit: July 27, 2020, 08:55:21 pm by AJD »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Durable Mouse
« Reply #53 on: July 27, 2020, 09:56:48 pm »
0

Since one of the issues here is the interpretation of Way of the Chameleon, we can't proceed without having a clear understanding of the term "instructions", which is used on Way of the Chameleon. I couldn't understand your long post at all, in part because you're trying to interpret Chameleon without making it clear what you believe the term "instructions" refers to.

I don't want to use "instruction" and "effect" interchangeably. They don't mean the same thing.

So here is how we should use the terms, based on the meanings of the English words. This is, I think, a different way of breaking down these terms than your taxonomy.

A card(-shaped thing)'s instructions are the text printed on the card(-shaped thing). Now that there's no more Band-of-Misfits–style shapeshifting, a card's instructions never change. For example, the instructions of Altar are "Trash a card from your hand." and "Gain a card costing up to $5."

A card's abilities are what the card's instructions tell you to do. For instance, the abilities of Altar are trashing a card from your hand, and gaining a card costing up to $5. I'm not sure if the difference between "instructions" and "abilities" matters.

A card's effects are what happens when you use a card. Ordinarily these are the same as the card's abilities. For instance, under ordinary circumstances the effects of Altar are that you trash a card from your hand, and gain a card costing up to $5. However, if you have no cards in your hand, the only effect of Altar is that you gain a card costing up to $5.
Enchantress and Ways can also cause a card to have different effects than usual. When you play Altar according to the Way of the Otter, its effect is that you draw two cards. This is not an ability of Altar; it's an ability of the Way of the Otter. But it's still the effect of Altar (on this particular occasion).

As I said before, I don't want to argue about the terms. You chose not to define any then, so I have been using the ones I have settled on as most useful. I explained my reasons for using mine; you didn't really, but fine. I was calling all the instructions "effects" whether we do them or not. But it's okay to differentiate like you do. I'm calling a set of instructions (that happens at a certain time) an "ability". This is crucial in order to apply rules like lose-track. I also found it helpful in this discussion to have a word for the whole set, and also to be consistent. You don't have any term for that consept. Like you, I fail to see the difference between your "instruction" and your "ability". I therefore suggest that we go back to terms like "(on-)play ability", "next-turn ability", etc, meaning the set, as I think these are pretty well established. "Instructions of the card" is ambiguous, since that could be a "when this is in play" ability or a Reaction ability, etc. This is why I'm calling these instructions the card's play ability (PA). So PA = the instructions that apply when we play that card.

In any case, I think you're not really saying anything that I haven't already addressed. Yes, an instruction of a card can end up not being followed. By your terms, it is never an effect of the card. Ironwork's "gain a card costing up to $4" is not an effect of Ironworks when you reveal Trader(1E). But then you're saying that another ability (like a Way) can cause a card to have an effect.

Your definition of "effect" is simply "instruction if a card's PA that we end up resolving". Enchantress/Way instructions can't be a card's effects unless they are inserted as instructions into the card's PA. Again, this is shape-shifting. Also, we know that the Enchantress/Way instructions are not the card's instructions. This means that they also can't be the card's effects.

Trader(1E)'s instruction is "gain a Silver instead of gaining the card".
The Way's instruction is "do these instructions instead of doing the card's instructions".

Trader's "substitute" is not Ironworks's effect. Why do you think the Way's "substitute" is the card's effect?
« Last Edit: July 27, 2020, 11:46:57 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8858
  • Respect: +9640
    • View Profile
Re: Durable Mouse
« Reply #54 on: July 28, 2020, 01:58:45 am »
0

You are following the cards PA in a modified way. The normal effects are still there but you aren’t following them like you normally would. You are following a different set of effects instead. I guess this is the same thing as saying that the effects have been replaced, yes.

I’m not sure if I’m understanding you here. I’m just referring to the “normal PA” as the thing that exists due to the base game rulebook. The thing that says that when you play a card, you follow its instructions. Enchantress overrides that rule with a new rule. So “N” doesn’t matter anymore, only “R” is in effect. I don’t think there’s any comparing R to N here; I’m stating flat-out that Enchantress and Ways only affect N.

Wait - they only affect N? So N is now changed. But how does the next Way know this without comparing to what N used to be? You're saying that Ways/Enchantress only works on the "normal PA", but how can we know what the "normal PA" is if it's not there anymore?

It doesn’t matter what N used to be or if it has changed. Even if you replaced N with a completely identical R that wouldn’t matter (which can happen; use Chameleon on Chapel). It “knows” because it’s open information about the current game state, just like Crown knows whether it is your action phase or not. Enchantress knows if you are currently (or are just about to) obeying the rule written in the rulebook that says to follow a card's instructions when you okay that card. If you are, then change what's happening; replace that rule with a new one. Whether or not you are just about to play a card normally is as much open information in the game as which phase you are currently in.

Quote

The interpretation would be that you simply do something else instead of following it.

This is again just a confusion of semantics then. I thought PA was referring to “the rules that govern what you should do when you play a card”. Your definition was “the effects you follow when you play it”. Thus by a literal interpretation of that definition, if you do X when you play card Y, then X is the PA at that time. Did you mean instead that the PA is the effects you would normally follow when you play a card, if something like Enchantress doesn’t interrupt that? If that’s what you meant, then replace every time that I used the word PA in my other posts with something else, something that means literally “the thing you actually end up doing when you play a card”. Trivially, whatever that thing is called can change from the normal “follow the card's instructions” to “follow the Way's instructions”.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3047
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +3962
    • View Profile
Re: Durable Mouse
« Reply #55 on: July 28, 2020, 02:37:10 am »
+1

Since one of the issues here is the interpretation of Way of the Chameleon, we can't proceed without having a clear understanding of the term "instructions", which is used on Way of the Chameleon. I couldn't understand your long post at all, in part because you're trying to interpret Chameleon without making it clear what you believe the term "instructions" refers to.

I don't want to use "instruction" and "effect" interchangeably. They don't mean the same thing.

So here is how we should use the terms, based on the meanings of the English words. This is, I think, a different way of breaking down these terms than your taxonomy.

A card(-shaped thing)'s instructions are the text printed on the card(-shaped thing). Now that there's no more Band-of-Misfits–style shapeshifting, a card's instructions never change. For example, the instructions of Altar are "Trash a card from your hand." and "Gain a card costing up to $5."

A card's abilities are what the card's instructions tell you to do. For instance, the abilities of Altar are trashing a card from your hand, and gaining a card costing up to $5. I'm not sure if the difference between "instructions" and "abilities" matters.

A card's effects are what happens when you use a card. Ordinarily these are the same as the card's abilities. For instance, under ordinary circumstances the effects of Altar are that you trash a card from your hand, and gain a card costing up to $5. However, if you have no cards in your hand, the only effect of Altar is that you gain a card costing up to $5.
Enchantress and Ways can also cause a card to have different effects than usual. When you play Altar according to the Way of the Otter, its effect is that you draw two cards. This is not an ability of Altar; it's an ability of the Way of the Otter. But it's still the effect of Altar (on this particular occasion).

As I said before, I don't want to argue about the terms. You chose not to define any then, so I have been using the ones I have settled on as most useful. I explained my reasons for using mine; you didn't really, but fine. I was calling all the instructions "effects" whether we do them or not. But it's okay to differentiate like you do. I'm calling a set of instructions (that happens at a certain time) an "ability". This is crucial in order to apply rules like lose-track. I also found it helpful in this discussion to have a word for the whole set, and also to be consistent. You don't have any term for that consept.


I guess I don't see the need to have a separate word for the whole set? Trashing a card is an ability of Altar; gaining a card is an ability of Altar; together those are Altar's abilities.

Quote
Like you, I fail to see the difference between your "instruction" and your "ability". I therefore suggest that we go back to terms like "(on-)play ability", "next-turn ability", etc, meaning the set, as I think these are pretty well established.

My whole point here is that we need to use the term "instruction", or at least have a shared understanding of "instruction", because (unlike "ability") the term "instruction" is actually used on cards. So we can determine that "follow instructions" in the text of Enchantress and Chameleon means the same thing as "execute abilities" (or whatever), or we can determine that it means something different, but whichever way we have to have an understanding of what "follow instructions" means to understand exactly how these cards work.

Quote
"Instructions of the card" is ambiguous, since that could be a "when this is in play" ability or a Reaction ability, etc. This is why I'm calling these instructions the card's play ability (PA). So PA = the instructions that apply when we play that card.

Sure, it's certainly necessary to distinguish between instructions that are followed / abilities that are executed on play rather than at other times. And I guesssss we do need to assume that "follow this card's instructions" on Way of the Chameleon refers only to the on-play instructions. (Unless Procession—Cultist—Chameleon produces +$3 when Cultist is trashed rather than +3 cards?) But for the purpose of talking about Ways and Enchantress, I think on-play instructions are the only ones we need to worry about.

Quote
But then you're saying that another ability (like a Way) can cause a card to have an effect.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

Quote
Your definition of "effect" is simply "instruction if a card's PA that we end up resolving".


It is not. Under ordinary circumstances that's a card's effect, but Enchantress and Ways cause a card's effect to be something other than the card's abilities.

Quote
Enchantress/Way instructions can't be a card's effects unless they are inserted as instructions into the card's PA. Again, this is shape-shifting.


No. This, specifically, is where I disagree with you. The card's instructions do not change. The card's abilities do not change. The card's effect is something else, instead of the card's abilities.

Quote
Also, we know that the Enchantress/Way instructions are not the card's instructions. This means that they also can't be the card's effects.

Again, this is exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. What Ways and Enchantress do is cause a card to have effects that are different than its own abilities.

Quote
Trader(1E)'s instruction is "gain a Silver instead of gaining the card".
The Way's instruction is "do these instructions instead of doing the card's instructions".

Trader's "substitute" is not Ironworks's effect. Why do you think the Way's "substitute" is the card's effect?

Well, one reason is because, under my interpretation, the known behavior of the cards falls out automatically; whereas applying your interpretation has led you to endless perplexity and positing of unwritten rules.

(Another reason is because that's a natural interpretation of the rules text: "you can play the Action for what it normally does, or play it to do what the Way says to do." So "what it normally does" and "what the Way says to do" are both parallel things that Action cards can do.)
« Last Edit: July 28, 2020, 02:39:18 am by AJD »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Durable Mouse
« Reply #56 on: July 28, 2020, 11:12:27 am »
0

I guess I don't see the need to have a separate word for the whole set? Trashing a card is an ability of Altar; gaining a card is an ability of Altar; together those are Altar's abilities.

I have said several times that semantics discussions are not fruitful. Now we have three posters each using their own set of terms. It's getting us nowhere. This is why I asked you to provide your terms earlier, which you declined. Then I clearly defined my terms in order to illustrate my reasoning (the same ones used in my rules document btw). The courteous and sensible thing would be to start from there. Almost everything you guys have said, I have already addressed in that initial post of a couple of days ago. It would be much less time and energy spent if you took the effort to understand that post.

I prefer saying that an instruction is part of the play ability rather than saying that an instruction is part of the instructions. I find it is clearer and less confusing. I'm humoring you in using your term "effect", so please do the same for me in using "ability".

Quote
My whole point here is that we need to use the term "instruction", or at least have a shared understanding of "instruction", because (unlike "ability") the term "instruction" is actually used on cards. So we can determine that "follow instructions" in the text of Enchantress and Chameleon means the same thing as "execute abilities" (or whatever), or we can determine that it means something different, but whichever way we have to have an understanding of what "follow instructions" means to understand exactly how these cards work.

I defined effect as synonumous with instruction, so there was no problem. The problem with our different understanding was not that I used the word "effect" (especially since I defined it!). It was only that you wanted to separate between different kinds of instructions: executed ones and non-executed ones (since "effects" in your definition ultimately all are executed instructions no matter where those instructions come from).

Quote
Sure, it's certainly necessary to distinguish between instructions that are followed / abilities that are executed on play rather than at other times. And I guesssss we do need to assume that "follow this card's instructions" on Way of the Chameleon refers only to the on-play instructions. (Unless Procession—Cultist—Chameleon produces +$3 when Cultist is trashed rather than +3 cards?) But for the purpose of talking about Ways and Enchantress, I think on-play instructions are the only ones we need to worry about.

We know that Ways/Enchantress only affect the card's PA, this is well-defined in the rulebooks and other places.

Quote
Quote
But then you're saying that another ability (like a Way) can cause a card to have an effect.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

Quote
Your definition of "effect" is simply "instruction if a card's PA that we end up resolving".

It is not. Under ordinary circumstances that's a card's effect, but Enchantress and Ways cause a card's effect to be something other than the card's abilities.

Quote
Enchantress/Way instructions can't be a card's effects unless they are inserted as instructions into the card's PA. Again, this is shape-shifting.

No. This, specifically, is where I disagree with you. The card's instructions do not change. The card's abilities do not change. The card's effect is something else, instead of the card's abilities.

Quote
Also, we know that the Enchantress/Way instructions are not the card's instructions. This means that they also can't be the card's effects.

Again, this is exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. What Ways and Enchantress do is cause a card to have effects that are different than its own abilities.

I see that your definition of "the card's effects" is lacking. You have merely said that it's "what happens when you use a card". Use? I assume you mean play. But many things happen when we play a card (Reactions/Kiln, Royal Carriage). Which effects are you talking about? The effects from the card's PA? That's what I would say, but you seem to not limit it to those. You need to provide a specific definition here.

The instructions that we follow from the card's ability are effects. The instructions that we follow from the Way's ability are effects. We agree on this?

The instructions that we follow from the card's ability are the card's effects. So... the instructions that we follow from the Way's ability are the Way's effects. I fail to see how you can make the leap that the instructions that we follow from the Way's ability are the card's effects. Again, what is the definition of "a card's effects" so that it encompasses both instructions from the card and instructions from the Way?

Quote
Quote
Trader(1E)'s instruction is "gain a Silver instead of gaining the card".
The Way's instruction is "do these instructions instead of doing the card's instructions".

Trader's "substitute" is not Ironworks's effect. Why do you think the Way's "substitute" is the card's effect?

Well, one reason is because, under my interpretation, the known behavior of the cards falls out automatically; whereas applying your interpretation has led you to endless perplexity and positing of unwritten rules.

(Another reason is because that's a natural interpretation of the rules text: "you can play the Action for what it normally does, or play it to do what the Way says to do." So "what it normally does" and "what the Way says to do" are both parallel things that Action cards can do.)

The problem is that your interpretation is adding elements to Dominion that have not been shown to exist before and that (so far) don't seem to make sense. I go by what we already know and try to see of there is a way that it can work with the intended behavior of Ways and Durations. Adding the rule I wrote does it.

And Donald has specifically cited Ironworks/Trader when explaining how Ways work (I linked to this the last time I wrote it). We can also see that they both say "do x instead y", and they are both about following instructions from another ability instead of the instructions on the card currently being resolved. Since you're admitting that your explanation is inconsistent with Ironworks/Trader, this should be enough to see that it can't be correct.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2020, 10:13:40 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Durable Mouse
« Reply #57 on: July 28, 2020, 12:22:10 pm »
0

It doesn’t matter what N used to be or if it has changed. Even if you replaced N with a completely identical R that wouldn’t matter (which can happen; use Chameleon on Chapel). It “knows” because it’s open information about the current game state, just like Crown knows whether it is your action phase or not. Enchantress knows if you are currently (or are just about to) obeying the rule written in the rulebook that says to follow a card's instructions when you okay that card. If you are, then change what's happening; replace that rule with a new one. Whether or not you are just about to play a card normally is as much open information in the game as which phase you are currently in.

You're saying that the card's PA has changed but its instructions haven't. My definition of the card's PA is all its instructions that apply when you play it. If those actually change (shape-shift like on old Band of Misfits), for all intents and purposes, and for all other cards, they ARE the card's instructions. This is how Band of Misfits and Inheritance worked. So clearly you can't be correct if you mean that.

Quote
This is again just a confusion of semantics then. I thought PA was referring to “the rules that govern what you should do when you play a card”. Your definition was “the effects you follow when you play it”. Thus by a literal interpretation of that definition, if you do X when you play card Y, then X is the PA at that time. Did you mean instead that the PA is the effects you would normally follow when you play a card, if something like Enchantress doesn’t interrupt that? If that’s what you meant, then replace every time that I used the word PA in my other posts with something else, something that means literally “the thing you actually end up doing when you play a card”. Trivially, whatever that thing is called can change from the normal “follow the card's instructions” to “follow the Way's instructions”.

Yes, we are not communicating here. My long post made this clear, and I assume too often that it was read and understood. The PA consists of the on-play instructions. I won't write the rest here, since I already wrote it in that post, and it gets to be too much. I'll try to address specificially what you're saying instead.

Here again you fail to take into consideration something that I have said many times: Reactions/Kiln and Royal Carriage. These are resolved when you play the card, but they are still not part of the card's PA. However, they are part of "the things you actually end up doing when you play the card". So clearly that definition of "PA" (or "whatever") is not correct.

But I think I know what you're saying. Yes, there is a rule in the game that you follow its PA when you play a card. This is a general rule, it's not given on each card. You seem to be saying that there is an implicit rule written on each card that says "follow this card's instructions". And what a Way does is change that into "follow the Way's instructions". In this way, it would be the instructions of the card itself that told you to follow the Way's instructions and therefore the Duration rules would work. (I'm actually not sure if they would, but I'll leave that aside.) First of all, even if that would be an implicit instruction, it would still be shape-shifting to change it. Second, as I said this is a global rule, it's not on each card. It's actually the Way that instructs you to follow its instructions (it does have that implicit instruction! - on Enchantress it's not implicit, it's written on the card). It's artificial to invent another implicit instruction that can be changed on the card. Third, if it's part of the card's PA (on-play instructions), arguably it would be part of what Ways can actually replace (it definitely would if it's shape-shifted), so we haven't really achieved anything.

I can put it in another way, in case that's better. There's a rule in the game that says that you should do what the card's instructions tell you to do. But other cards can break that rule, by specifically saying not to. Like Snowy Village or Trader(1E). It's those cards saying it, and saying what to do instead, not the card you're resolving. Like you say, Ways also tell you to break this rule: don't follow any of the card's instructions. But again it's not the card saying this (as you claim), it's the Way saying it, and saying what to do instead.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2020, 12:25:01 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5826
  • Respect: +23472
    • View Profile
Re: Durable Mouse
« Reply #58 on: July 28, 2020, 05:35:32 pm »
+1

Can you state your question in a simple form, where it's, this is the situation in a game, what happens? My brain refuses to read all that cryptic text. I've given it a few tries.

It was not a question about what happens, since I already know:

Play a Wharf using Way of the Chameleon: The Wharf stays in play.
(Or play a Throne Room using Way of the Chameleon and play a Wharf: The TR stays.)

You're Enchanted. Play a Chapel using Way of the Chameleon: You can't choose to get +$1 and +1 Action.
(Or play a Chapel using both Otter and Chameleon: You can't choose to get +$2.)

That what just me trying to figure out how both of those things can be consistent. In the first case, the effects are still done by the Wharf. But in the second case, the effects are not done by the Chapel. The only way I could make it make sense, is with a special rule about Ways and Durations.
Way of the Chameleon causes you to "follow this card's instructions." That never includes a Way or Enchantress's effect; those things don't modify a card's instructions.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8858
  • Respect: +9640
    • View Profile
Re: Durable Mouse
« Reply #59 on: July 28, 2020, 05:59:54 pm »
+1

I guess what I'm talking about doesn't fit into your definition of PA, instruction, or effect. I'm talking about the rule that says how you go about playing a card. That rule is defined in the base game rulebook, and that rule itself is changed when you use Enchantress or Ways. That rule is not changed when you use Kiln or Trader or Snowy Village.

I don't know the best term or exact rule wording for it, but what I'm suggesting, which I think is consistent with both Donald's rulings and is at least a valid interpretation of the rules as written, is that you play Chapel and choose Mouse, playing a Duration, that Chapel is considered to have played that Duration, because it's simply the way that Ways work. Ways don't ever do anything themselves, they only change the rule in the base game rulebook that says "this is how you play a card". I'm saying that Ways don't have play abilities, or instructions, in the same way that cards do. Ways have a general rule that says "ignore the base game rulebook when it tells you how to play a card. This is now how you play a card instead".
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Durable Mouse
« Reply #60 on: July 28, 2020, 06:57:23 pm »
0

It was not a question about what happens, since I already know:

Play a Wharf using Way of the Chameleon: The Wharf stays in play.
(Or play a Throne Room using Way of the Chameleon and play a Wharf: The TR stays.)

You're Enchanted. Play a Chapel using Way of the Chameleon: You can't choose to get +$1 and +1 Action.
(Or play a Chapel using both Otter and Chameleon: You can't choose to get +$2.)

That what just me trying to figure out how both of those things can be consistent. In the first case, the effects are still done by the Wharf. But in the second case, the effects are not done by the Chapel. The only way I could make it make sense, is with a special rule about Ways and Durations.
Way of the Chameleon causes you to "follow this card's instructions." That never includes a Way or Enchantress's effect; those things don't modify a card's instructions.

Right, we're following the Way's instructions, not the card's instructions. So then it's not the card's instructions that set up a "next turn" effect, it's the Way's instructions. So how can this cause the card to stay in play?

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Durable Mouse
« Reply #61 on: July 28, 2020, 07:21:52 pm »
0

I guess what I'm talking about doesn't fit into your definition of PA, instruction, or effect. I'm talking about the rule that says how you go about playing a card. That rule is defined in the base game rulebook, and that rule itself is changed when you use Enchantress or Ways. That rule is not changed when you use Kiln or Trader or Snowy Village.

Of course it is (not for Kiln though - you seem to not fully grasp why I bring up Kiln and why I bring up Trader and Snowy Village). The rule is you follow all the instructions on the card. With Snowy Village you don't. It's a new rule on a card that overrides the normal rules. If you don't see that, we won't come very far.

The problem is that what you're talking about doesn't fit into any definition of anything that you have come up with either. I was going by your definition ("the things you actually end up doing when you play the card") when I told you how it can't be correct. That point I made (which you didn't respond to) is actually key.

Quote
I don't know the best term or exact rule wording for it, but what I'm suggesting, which I think is consistent with both Donald's rulings and is at least a valid interpretation of the rules as written, is that you play Chapel and choose Mouse, playing a Duration, that Chapel is considered to have played that Duration, because it's simply the way that Ways work. Ways don't ever do anything themselves, they only change the rule in the base game rulebook that says "this is how you play a card". I'm saying that Ways don't have play abilities, or instructions, in the same way that cards do. Ways have a general rule that says "ignore the base game rulebook when it tells you how to play a card. This is now how you play a card instead".

So Enchantress never does anything either? Of course it does; it instructs you to follow "+1 Card and +1 Action" instead of following the PA on the card. You can call it a global rules change which only applies to the first card (or to whichever card you want in the case of Ways), but it's no different than all cards that change the rules. Goons changes the rules, there is no rule that says you get +1 VP when you buy a card. And this new rule from Goons is an instruction from Goons, not from the card you buy or any other place.

"How you play a card" is "follow the instructions", so you're just saying that Ways work by changing the rule about which instructions you follow, which is correct. You don't follow the card's instructions, rather you follow the Way's instructions. The Way rule you're talking about contains instructions that you're supposed to follow instead of the card's instructions. That rule and those instructions are written on the Way; they're the Way's instructions.

I think the reason you fail to find a way to express your reasoning within the framework of the game, is because it doesn't make sense.

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3047
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +3962
    • View Profile
Re: Durable Mouse
« Reply #62 on: July 28, 2020, 08:20:02 pm »
0

I see that your definition of "the card's effects" is lacking. You have merely said that it's "what happens when you use a card". Use? I assume you mean play.

Well, I didn't mean play, because I wasn't restricting my definition of "effects" to only on-play effects. Gaining a Madman is an effect of Hermit, but not what happens when you play Hermit. But I'm happy to restrict discussion only to on-play effects.

Quote
But many things happen when we play a card (Reactions/Kiln, Royal Carriage). Which effects are you talking about? The effects from the card's PA? That's what I would say, but you seem to not limit it to those. You need to provide a specific definition here.

Hmm, that's a good point. Kiln's effects are definitely not effects of the card that is played to trigger Kiln's gaining. I'll have to think more about this.

Quote
The instructions that we follow from the card's ability are effects. The instructions that we follow from the Way's ability are effects. We agree on this?

The instructions that we follow from the card's ability are the card's effects. So... the instructions that we follow from the Way's ability are the Way's effects.

They're definitely the Way's effects, but they're also the card's effects when played according to that Way.

Quote
I fail to see how you can make the leap that the instructions that we follow from the Way's ability are the card's effects. Again, what is the definition of "a card's effects" so that it encompasses both instructions from the card and instructions from the Way?

That's the inference from the way the durable mouse works.

The known rule is: "Some cards can play a card that isn't put into play. When you play one of these cards, leave it in play as long as you would have left the card it plays in play." This rule is already known to exist because of Misfits and the like. Way of the Mouse follows this rule: if Chapel is played according to the Way of the Mouse, playing a Fishing Village, Chapel stays in play for as long as Fishing Village would stay in play. I say: this is how we know that Chapel is playing the Fishing Village, and acting according to already-known rules. You say: it can't possibly be the case that Chapel is playing the Fishing Village, and therefore there must be some unknown rule to explain this.

Gendo's interpretation is correct. When you play an Action card, what happens is that you choose between following the Action card's own instructions, and following the instructions of a Way. If you play Chapel normally, Chapel trashes your cards. If you play Chapel according to the Way of the Otter, Chapel draws you two cards. If you play Chapel according to the Way of the Mouse, Chapel plays the set-aside Action card. Unlike Kiln and so on, it is the played Action card itself performing the instructions on the Way. This interpretation is at least consistent with the printed game rules ("you can play the Action... to do what the Way says to do"), and does not require positing any additional unknown rules.

Quote
The problem is that your interpretation is adding elements to Dominion that have not been shown to exist before and that (so far) don't seem to make sense. I go by what we already know and try to see of there is a way that it can work with the intended behavior of Ways and Durations. Adding the rule I wrote does it.

Adding the rule you wrote is literally "adding elements to Dominion that have not been shown to exist before": namely, the rule that you're adding.

Quote
And Donald has specifically cited Ironworks/Trader when explaining how Ways work (I linked to this the last time I wrote it). We can also see that they both say "do x instead y", and they are both about following instructions from another ability instead of the instructions on the card currently being resolved. Since you're admitting that your explanation is inconsistent with Ironworks/Trader, this should be enough to see that it can't be correct.

I can see how this might be the case about Enchantress, but it does not seem to apply to Ways based on the printed rules.
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3047
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +3962
    • View Profile
Re: Durable Mouse
« Reply #63 on: July 28, 2020, 08:23:33 pm »
0

It was not a question about what happens, since I already know:

Play a Wharf using Way of the Chameleon: The Wharf stays in play.
(Or play a Throne Room using Way of the Chameleon and play a Wharf: The TR stays.)

You're Enchanted. Play a Chapel using Way of the Chameleon: You can't choose to get +$1 and +1 Action.
(Or play a Chapel using both Otter and Chameleon: You can't choose to get +$2.)

That what just me trying to figure out how both of those things can be consistent. In the first case, the effects are still done by the Wharf. But in the second case, the effects are not done by the Chapel. The only way I could make it make sense, is with a special rule about Ways and Durations.
Way of the Chameleon causes you to "follow this card's instructions." That never includes a Way or Enchantress's effect; those things don't modify a card's instructions.

Right, we're following the Way's instructions, not the card's instructions. So then it's not the card's instructions that set up a "next turn" effect, it's the Way's instructions. So how can this cause the card to stay in play?

We're following the Way's instructions and the card's instructions, because the Way's instructions tell you to "follow this card's instructions".
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Durable Mouse
« Reply #64 on: July 28, 2020, 10:07:56 pm »
0

Quote
But many things happen when we play a card (Reactions/Kiln, Royal Carriage). Which effects are you talking about? The effects from the card's PA? That's what I would say, but you seem to not limit it to those. You need to provide a specific definition here.

Hmm, that's a good point. Kiln's effects are definitely not effects of the card that is played to trigger Kiln's gaining. I'll have to think more about this.

I made that point already in my first post about this (a few days ago) and have repeated it several times. This is why we're going around in circles. If you just read what I have written, you would say more meaningful things.

This is important though. Neither you or GendoIkari are managing to define what exactly you're talking about. You have some vague sense that it should all work, but can't really say how. You say that the effects that "happen when you play the card" includes the effects from other cards, but haven't even defined what "effects that happen when you play the card" actually means. This is why you're drawing wrong conclusions.

Quote
They're definitely the Way's effects, but they're also the card's effects when played according to that Way.

No more than "gain a Silver" is Ironworks's effect according to Trader(1E). Again: Donald has compared how Ways work with this.

Quote
Quote
I fail to see how you can make the leap that the instructions that we follow from the Way's ability are the card's effects. Again, what is the definition of "a card's effects" so that it encompasses both instructions from the card and instructions from the Way?

That's the inference from the way the durable mouse works.

The known rule is: "Some cards can play a card that isn't put into play. When you play one of these cards, leave it in play as long as you would have left the card it plays in play." This rule is already known to exist because of Misfits and the like. Way of the Mouse follows this rule: if Chapel is played according to the Way of the Mouse, playing a Fishing Village, Chapel stays in play for as long as Fishing Village would stay in play. I say: this is how we know that Chapel is playing the Fishing Village, and acting according to already-known rules. You say: it can't possibly be the case that Chapel is playing the Fishing Village, and therefore there must be some unknown rule to explain this.

Circular. Again, what is the definition of "a card's effects" so that it encompasses both instructions from the card and instructions from the Way?

Quote
Gendo's interpretation is correct. When you play an Action card, what happens is that you choose between following the Action card's own instructions, and following the instructions of a Way. If you play Chapel normally, Chapel trashes your cards. If you play Chapel according to the Way of the Otter, Chapel draws you two cards. If you play Chapel according to the Way of the Mouse, Chapel plays the set-aside Action card. Unlike Kiln and so on, it is the played Action card itself performing the instructions on the Way. This interpretation is at least consistent with the printed game rules ("you can play the Action... to do what the Way says to do"), and does not require positing any additional unknown rules.

All you are saying is that if we say that this counts as the card itself doing it, it works with Durations, but then of course we have to also say that it doesn't count as the card itself doing it when a Way/Enchantress is applied on top of another.

Quote
Adding the rule you wrote is literally "adding elements to Dominion that have not been shown to exist before": namely, the rule that you're adding.

Your idea of "effects that happen when you play the card" is an unknown concept (which is as of yet undefined) that pertains to Dominion as a whole. If it at least had worked, it would be one thing, but I would still probably say that a special rule for Ways and Durations is better, since this new concept is inconsistent with how things work generally (as I have shown with Trader/Possession and Border Guard). But it doesn't even seem to work.

Quote
Quote
And Donald has specifically cited Ironworks/Trader when explaining how Ways work (I linked to this the last time I wrote it). We can also see that they both say "do x instead y", and they are both about following instructions from another ability instead of the instructions on the card currently being resolved. Since you're admitting that your explanation is inconsistent with Ironworks/Trader, this should be enough to see that it can't be correct.

I can see how this might be the case about Enchantress, but it does not seem to apply to Ways based on the printed rules.

It is absolutely clear that Ways and Enchantress do the exact same thing. This is confirmed by Donald. Also, the link I have mentioned (which you are free to click on!) goes to a post about Ways.

Right, we're following the Way's instructions, not the card's instructions. So then it's not the card's instructions that set up a "next turn" effect, it's the Way's instructions. So how can this cause the card to stay in play?

We're following the Way's instructions and the card's instructions, because the Way's instructions tell you to "follow this card's instructions".

You're misunderstanding. What I wrote is about all Ways (and Enchantress), not just Way of the Chameleon.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8858
  • Respect: +9640
    • View Profile
Re: Durable Mouse
« Reply #65 on: July 28, 2020, 11:54:25 pm »
0

The rule is you follow all the instructions on the card. With Snowy Village you don't. It's a new rule on a card that overrides the normal rules. If you don't see that, we won't come very far.

No, because there are other rules in the base game rulebook as well; specifically "do as much as you can". Not getting an extra action when you play Market after Snowy Village is basically the same as not drawing a card if you play Market when your deck and discard are empty. You can't draw a card, so you don't. If you played Snowy Village that turn, you can't get a +action, so you don't.

Quote
"How you play a card" is "follow the instructions", so you're just saying that Ways work by changing the rule about which instructions you follow, which is correct. You don't follow the card's instructions, rather you follow the Way's instructions. The Way rule you're talking about contains instructions that you're supposed to follow instead of the card's instructions. That rule and those instructions are written on the Way; they're the Way's instructions.

This all seems fine, but your problem seems to be that you think that a card playing a duration causes that card to stay in play only if the card's instructions were what played the duration. Chapel's instructions didn't play the Mouse-duration, but the act of playing Chapel still did. And the rule for when you keep a card out talk about if a duration is played "by a card". Not "by a card's instructions".
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Durable Mouse
« Reply #66 on: July 29, 2020, 12:37:12 am »
0

No, because there are other rules in the base game rulebook as well; specifically "do as much as you can". Not getting an extra action when you play Market after Snowy Village is basically the same as not drawing a card if you play Market when your deck and discard are empty. You can't draw a card, so you don't. If you played Snowy Village that turn, you can't get a +action, so you don't.

But you can! You're definitely wrong here. "Do as much as you can" doesn't enter into it when there's specifically another card telling you to not do it. "Do as much as you can" covers situations when you literally can't: You can't draw a card or gain a card that isn't there. That is in the rulebooks and that's what that rule means. You can get +1 Action, but Wayfarer says to not do it. You can gain an Estate, but Trader(1E)/Possession say to not do it. These are rules dictated by the cards, not by the normal rules (except the rule that says to do what the cards say of course).

And if you believe those fall under "do as much as you can", then Ways/Enchantress do as well. But in fact, you can follow the card's instructions, but Ways/Enchantress say to not do it.

Another one is Necromancer telling you to leave the card. Normally you put it in play. Again, you can put it in play, but another card is telling you not to. It's overriding the normal rule.

Quote
Quote
"How you play a card" is "follow the instructions", so you're just saying that Ways work by changing the rule about which instructions you follow, which is correct. You don't follow the card's instructions, rather you follow the Way's instructions. The Way rule you're talking about contains instructions that you're supposed to follow instead of the card's instructions. That rule and those instructions are written on the Way; they're the Way's instructions.

This all seems fine,

Well, you said that Ways don't really have instructions, and that was me explaining that they do.

Quote
but your problem seems to be that you think that a card playing a duration causes that card to stay in play only if the card's instructions were what played the duration. Chapel's instructions didn't play the Mouse-duration, but the act of playing Chapel still did. And the rule for when you keep a card out talk about if a duration is played "by a card". Not "by a card's instructions".

The "act of playing Chapel"? I'm still waiting for what this means. It must not include things that happen as a result of playing Chapel, because that includes Kiln/Reactions and Royal Carriage. Starting to get tired of saying the same things again and again. If you can't explain what you actually mean, you're not really saying anything.

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3047
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +3962
    • View Profile
Re: Durable Mouse
« Reply #67 on: July 29, 2020, 03:39:23 am »
+1

What we're saying, Jeebus, is the following:

When you play an Action card according to a Way, the Action card carries out the instructions printed on the Way rather than its own instructions.

Yes, this is different from what happens when you reveal a Trader in response to Ironworks (in which case it is the Trader, not the Ironworks, gaining the Silver), and it is different from effects triggered by playing a card (Kiln is what gains a copy of whatever is played after it). No, we don't care that Donald compared Ways to Trader at some point. We believe this is how Ways work because it appears to be what the rule book says, is consistent with the way Ways are worded, and yields the correct results without the need for positing extra, unstated rules.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Durable Mouse
« Reply #68 on: July 29, 2020, 12:04:49 pm »
0

What we're saying, Jeebus, is the following:

When you play an Action card according to a Way, the Action card carries out the instructions printed on the Way rather than its own instructions.

Yes, I know that is your conclusion. However, you have failed to demonstrate how you reach that conclusion.

You actually seem to be laboring under the misconception that cards carry out instructions. Obviously the players do, not the cards. When we say "Smithy draws 3 cards", we mean that the player draws 3 cards following the Smithy's instructions. The Smithy is not following its instructions, the player is. With Ways/Enchantress, the player is following the instructions given by the Way/Enchantress, not the instructions given by the played card. It's a bit shocking that this is debatable.

As you can see, "the card carries out instructions" has no defined meaning - beyond "the player carries out the card's instructions" (of course in this case meaning the card's play ability as opposed to while-in-play ability etc). Which instructions is the player carrying out when using a Way? The played card's? Well, then you're saying that the card now has other instructions, which we all know is not the case.

Quote
Yes, this is different from what happens when you reveal a Trader in response to Ironworks (in which case it is the Trader, not the Ironworks, gaining the Silver), and it is different from effects triggered by playing a card (Kiln is what gains a copy of whatever is played after it). No, we don't care that Donald compared Ways to Trader at some point. We believe this is how Ways work because it appears to be what the rule book says, is consistent with the way Ways are worded, and yields the correct results without the need for positing extra, unstated rules.

You are basically now saying, it works because it's supposed to work. That is not an argument to support the conclusion, it's merely stating the conclusion. I have been asking how it is consistent with all the known rules of Dominion, and reached the conclusion that it wasn't. This is based on how Ways/Enchantress and Durations are supposed to work according to rulebooks and Donald's rulings, without positing extra, unsupported and ill-defined concepts on top of basic Dominion mechanics. Unlike you, I actually "care" about the rulings as we have them. A part of your argument was actually that Enchantress and Ways work differently, which is of course explictly contradicted in the rulebook. You never responded to that, but I guess you don't "care" about that either.

(Regarding "unstated" rules not in the rulebooks or cards: The Menagerie rulebook is actually silent on keeping Durations (or cards playing Durations) in play when using Ways. The conclusion about Ways and Durations that we are all talking about comes from Donald's statements, not the rulebook.)

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5826
  • Respect: +23472
    • View Profile
Re: Durable Mouse
« Reply #69 on: July 29, 2020, 12:50:49 pm »
+1

It was not a question about what happens, since I already know:

Play a Wharf using Way of the Chameleon: The Wharf stays in play.
(Or play a Throne Room using Way of the Chameleon and play a Wharf: The TR stays.)

You're Enchanted. Play a Chapel using Way of the Chameleon: You can't choose to get +$1 and +1 Action.
(Or play a Chapel using both Otter and Chameleon: You can't choose to get +$2.)

That what just me trying to figure out how both of those things can be consistent. In the first case, the effects are still done by the Wharf. But in the second case, the effects are not done by the Chapel. The only way I could make it make sense, is with a special rule about Ways and Durations.
Way of the Chameleon causes you to "follow this card's instructions." That never includes a Way or Enchantress's effect; those things don't modify a card's instructions.

Right, we're following the Way's instructions, not the card's instructions. So then it's not the card's instructions that set up a "next turn" effect, it's the Way's instructions. So how can this cause the card to stay in play?
I see what you're saying, but this just has to be a rule of Way + Duration. I need the Duration card to stay out, and it's available to do so, so the rule is, it does.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1913
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1283
    • View Profile
Re: Durable Mouse
« Reply #70 on: July 29, 2020, 01:12:20 pm »
0

It was not a question about what happens, since I already know:

Play a Wharf using Way of the Chameleon: The Wharf stays in play.
(Or play a Throne Room using Way of the Chameleon and play a Wharf: The TR stays.)

You're Enchanted. Play a Chapel using Way of the Chameleon: You can't choose to get +$1 and +1 Action.
(Or play a Chapel using both Otter and Chameleon: You can't choose to get +$2.)

That what just me trying to figure out how both of those things can be consistent. In the first case, the effects are still done by the Wharf. But in the second case, the effects are not done by the Chapel. The only way I could make it make sense, is with a special rule about Ways and Durations.
Way of the Chameleon causes you to "follow this card's instructions." That never includes a Way or Enchantress's effect; those things don't modify a card's instructions.

Right, we're following the Way's instructions, not the card's instructions. So then it's not the card's instructions that set up a "next turn" effect, it's the Way's instructions. So how can this cause the card to stay in play?
I see what you're saying, but this just has to be a rule of Way + Duration. I need the Duration card to stay out, and it's available to do so, so the rule is, it does.

Cool, I thought the same. I definitely think it's the intuitive thing for most players that it stays out. (The rule about Way on top of Way/Enchantress is more difficult; I don't think necessarily one way is more intuitive, but it's explained in the rulebook so no problem. I just didn't see how Durations could stay out based on that, without a rule about it like you just said.)
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All
 

Page created in 0.11 seconds with 21 queries.