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".
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.