Print

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

[Jeebus]

Realizing that a Way overrides Enchantress made me think that Lantern could work the same way. When you get to resolving the play ability of the Enchanted Border Guard, you can choose to apply Enchantress first and then Lantern. The question then is, what does Lantern do? Obviously it tells you to resolve a modified version of Border Guard's play ability (similar to Way of the Chamelion), but does it only work when you were already going to resolve that exact ability, or does it already "know" the whole "modified Border Guard ability" and just cares that you were going to resolve a Border Guard?

The latter case would mean that "reveal 3 cards and discard 2, it takes all 3 being Actions to take the Horn" implicitly means the whole text: "Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Put one into your hand and discard the others. If all were Actions, take the Lantern or Horn."

[Jeebus]

One reason to think that Lantern actually does override Enchantress, is that I'm pretty sure Way of the Chameleon does. (As I understand it, all Ways do.)

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that this is the case. An Enchanted Border Guard still has the same card text, after all.

[mxdata]

I think you're right.  I can't think of any logical reason why Lantern shouldn't be able to override Enchantress.  In effect, Enchantress, Ways, and Lantern are all things that try to change what a card does, so they all trigger at the same time, meaning that you can order the effects in any way, with the last effect "winning out"

[Donald X.]

Lantern modifies what happens due to following the instructions on Border Guard. With Enchantress in effect, you ignore those instructions, so Lantern does nothing.

[GendoIkari]

Related, how do Enchantress and Way of the Chameleon interact? I understand that with Ways in general, you can choose to apply the Way effect rather than the Enchantress effect. But with Chameleon, can you do Enchantress's +1 card +1 action, but replace the +1 card  with +? I'm guessing not, because Chameleon says to "follow this card's instructions", which are the actual instructions on the card, not the Enchantress instructions. But not sure.

[mxdata]

Related, how do Enchantress and Way of the Chameleon interact? I understand that with Ways in general, you can choose to apply the Way effect rather than the Enchantress effect. But with Chameleon, can you do Enchantress's +1 card +1 action, but replace the +1 card  with +? I'm guessing not, because Chameleon says to "follow this card's instructions", which are the actual instructions on the card, not the Enchantress instructions. But not sure.

Yeah, that's been previously discussed.  It has the funny effect of allowing something like Marketplace to dodge Enchantress.  Apply Chameleon to Marketplace, and you change the +1 card to +$1 and the +$1 to +1 card ... so it does the same thing it would normally do, but since the Way is being used, it overrides Enchantress

[Dominionaer]

I think you're right.  I can't think of any logical reason why Lantern shouldn't be able to override Enchantress.  In effect, Enchantress, Ways, and Lantern are all things that try to change what a card does, so they all trigger at the same time, meaning that you can order the effects in any way, with the last effect "winning out"

I think Border Guards change to the Lantern version the moment i get Lantern. So it is not same time and so no choice of order.

[Jeebus]

Lantern modifies what happens due to following the instructions on Border Guard. With Enchantress in effect, you ignore those instructions, so Lantern does nothing.

Does Way of the Chameleon override Enchantress? If yes, what is the difference between that and Lantern? I mean, with Enchantress in effect, you ignore the card's instructions, so how can Way of the Chameleon do anything? Unless it actually does what GendoIkari asked about, modifies the Enchantress effect instead of the card's own ability?

[Jeebus]

I think Border Guards change to the Lantern version the moment i get Lantern. So it is not same time and so no choice of order.

No, that's how Lantern used to work. It changed the actual ability on your Border Guards. But the new version from the September 2019 errata has the same timing as Enchantress.

[Jeebus]

How I thought I understood it:

Enchantress triggers when you would resolve the first Action card you played this turn.
I'm assuming Lantern triggers when you would resolve a Border Guard you played.

It's possible to replace the play ability of a card several times. For instance, first Enchantress, then a Way. So that means the Way can do it even when you're no longer doing the normal play ability. You're still set to resolve the card, so you can replace it. This should mean that both Way of the Chameleon and Lantern can also replace it after Enchantress.

[Dominionaer]

the new version from the September 2019 errata has the same timing as Enchantress.

Please enlighten me with your reasoning for that?

[Jeebus]

the new version from the September 2019 errata has the same timing as Enchantress.

Please enlighten me with your reasoning for that?

I think this is all I have from Donald: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19892.msg819683#msg819683
Granted, he's not confirming or denying that it has the same timing as Enchantress. But since Lantern changes what you do when you resolve a card, I have been assuming it was the same, and so far I can't think of any other timing that makes sense.

[Ingix]

It's possible to replace the play ability of a card several times.

No, that is AFAIK not true. You can replace following the card's instructions once, but then you aren't following the card's instruction any more, so any other replacements for "follow a card's instructions" don't apply any more. That's how Ways "beat" Enchantress: Once a Way has been applied, there isn't something to apply the Enchantress effect to.

I do not know how the Lantern works formally. One possible explanation is that it replaces just a part of following the Border Guard's instruction.

[mxdata]

It's possible to replace the play ability of a card several times.

No, that is AFAIK not true. You can replace following the card's instructions once, but then you aren't following the card's instruction any more, so any other replacements for "follow a card's instructions" don't apply any more. That's how Ways "beat" Enchantress: Once a Way has been applied, there isn't something to apply the Enchantress effect to.

I do not know how the Lantern works formally. One possible explanation is that it replaces just a part of following the Border Guard's instruction.

I believe with Ways beating Enchantress it's actually a matter of ordering the changes.  Enchantress is essentially a forced Way, so it's either
1. Change card to +1 Card +1 Action
2. Apply Way (replace card's normal text; with Chameleon, it specifically says to follow the card's direction except for its modification, so the original text "returns")

or

1. Apply Way (replace card's normal text)
2. Change card [in this case the Way] to +1 Card +1 Action

So the last-applied change dominates

With Lantern it's either
1. Apply Lantern (modify Border guard to say "3 cards")
2. Apply Enchantress/Way (replacing Border Guard's normal text)

or

1. Apply Enchantress/Way (replacing Border Guard's normal text)
2. Apply Lantern (fails because Border Guard's normal text has been overriden)

Thus in either case, the Enchantress "wins out"

[Jeebus]

It's possible to replace the play ability of a card several times.

No, that is AFAIK not true. You can replace following the card's instructions once, but then you aren't following the card's instruction any more, so any other replacements for "follow a card's instructions" don't apply any more. That's how Ways "beat" Enchantress: Once a Way has been applied, there isn't something to apply the Enchantress effect to.

I do not know how the Lantern works formally. One possible explanation is that it replaces just a part of following the Border Guard's instruction.

Man, Enchantress is tough to parse. I asked this before, and I took Donald's reply as confirmation that I was right. But maybe I wasn't. I thought it meant that you're still resolving the card even when Way/Enchantress has replaced it, just with other instructions, so that's why you can replace it again. (This would explain nicely how Royal Carriage can trigger when the card's instructions were not resolved.)

It would be nice if Donald could confirm which is the case: Does the first applied ability win, or the last applied?

But if you're right that it's the first ability that wins, I still don't think it changes the conclusion, as long as Lantern has the same timing as Enchantress and Way of the Chameleon. If you choose to apply Lantern or Way of the Chameleon first, you aren't following the card's instructions any more, so Enchantress can't replace them.

[hhelibebcnofnena]

Border Guards you play reveal 3 cards and discard 2. (It takes all 3 being Actions to take the Horn.)

How I understand it:

There are two ways to interpret this. Either this is actually a modification of Border Guard's played effect (i.e. "When you would reveal cards with Border Guard, reveal 3 of them. When you would discard cards with Border Guard, discard two of them.") or it is a replacement of Border Guard's effect (i.e. "When you would play Border Guard, instead of following its effect, reveal 3 cards and discard 2.").

If Lantern were a replacement, then it would, in fact, be able to replace Enchantress (or at least you would get to choose, I think).

However, we know for a fact that Lantern is not a replacement. If it were, Border Guards would cease to give +1 Action.
Therefore, it must be a modification, and therefore it does not replace Enchantress.

Way of the Chameleon, on the other hand, is a replacement followed by a modification. The fact that it is a Way makes it a replacement. But, it tells you to "follow this card's instructions," so most of the time the replacement section has no effect, except with Enchantress. The replacement is then followed by a modification, but Enchantress by this point has already been replaced.

The real question: How does Lantern interact with Way of the Mole. Way of the Mole tells you to discard your hand. Does Lantern's "Border Guards you play discard 2 cards" mean that a Moled Border Guard can discard only two cards instead of your whole hand? I imagine you can choose whether Lantern's modification comes before or after a Way?

[mxdata]

Border Guards you play reveal 3 cards and discard 2. (It takes all 3 being Actions to take the Horn.)

How I understand it:

There are two ways to interpret this. Either this is actually a modification of Border Guard's played effect (i.e. "When you would reveal cards with Border Guard, reveal 3 of them. When you would discard cards with Border Guard, discard two of them.") or it is a replacement of Border Guard's effect (i.e. "When you would play Border Guard, instead of following its effect, reveal 3 cards and discard 2.").

If Lantern were a replacement, then it would, in fact, be able to replace Enchantress (or at least you would get to choose, I think).

However, we know for a fact that Lantern is not a replacement. If it were, Border Guards would cease to give +1 Action.
Therefore, it must be a modification, and therefore it does not replace Enchantress.

Way of the Chameleon, on the other hand, is a replacement followed by a modification. The fact that it is a Way makes it a replacement. But, it tells you to "follow this card's instructions," so most of the time the replacement section has no effect, except with Enchantress. The replacement is then followed by a modification, but Enchantress by this point has already been replaced.

The real question: How does Lantern interact with Way of the Mole. Way of the Mole tells you to discard your hand. Does Lantern's "Border Guards you play discard 2 cards" mean that a Moled Border Guard can discard only two cards instead of your whole hand? I imagine you can choose whether Lantern's modification comes before or after a Way?

No, I think either way a Moled BG with Lantern would still be "discard your hand +3 cards", for the same reason that Lantern doesn't override Enchantress - if you apply Mole first, then Lantern fails to apply (and if you applied Lantern first, then Mole would completely override it)

[hhelibebcnofnena]

Border Guards you play reveal 3 cards and discard 2. (It takes all 3 being Actions to take the Horn.)

How I understand it:

There are two ways to interpret this. Either this is actually a modification of Border Guard's played effect (i.e. "When you would reveal cards with Border Guard, reveal 3 of them. When you would discard cards with Border Guard, discard two of them.") or it is a replacement of Border Guard's effect (i.e. "When you would play Border Guard, instead of following its effect, reveal 3 cards and discard 2.").

If Lantern were a replacement, then it would, in fact, be able to replace Enchantress (or at least you would get to choose, I think).

However, we know for a fact that Lantern is not a replacement. If it were, Border Guards would cease to give +1 Action.
Therefore, it must be a modification, and therefore it does not replace Enchantress.

Way of the Chameleon, on the other hand, is a replacement followed by a modification. The fact that it is a Way makes it a replacement. But, it tells you to "follow this card's instructions," so most of the time the replacement section has no effect, except with Enchantress. The replacement is then followed by a modification, but Enchantress by this point has already been replaced.

The real question: How does Lantern interact with Way of the Mole. Way of the Mole tells you to discard your hand. Does Lantern's "Border Guards you play discard 2 cards" mean that a Moled Border Guard can discard only two cards instead of your whole hand? I imagine you can choose whether Lantern's modification comes before or after a Way?

No, I think either way a Moled BG with Lantern would still be "discard your hand +3 cards", for the same reason that Lantern doesn't override Enchantress - if you apply Mole first, then Lantern fails to apply (and if you applied Lantern first, then Mole would completely override it)

I think Lantern doesn't override Enchantress because Lantern doesn't override anything. Lantern modifies, and the modification has no effect on Enchantress. However, it might have an effect on Way of the Mole. Also, we know that the reason Ways override Enchantress is the following:

So this means that it has the same timing as Enchantress? You can choose to resolve Enchantress first and then the Way, meaning that the Way "wins". Or you can choose to do it the other way around, but the result would be the same as not choosing the Way at all.

It's the same timing as Enchantress; obv. you will choose to have the Way "win."

They occur at the same time, and you can just choose to have the Way resolve second, making it "win". None of the effects "fail", they just get overridden.

[Jeebus]

However, we know for a fact that Lantern is not a replacement. If it were, Border Guards would cease to give +1 Action.
Therefore, it must be a modification, and therefore it does not replace Enchantress.

Lantern could be a replacement, the replacement being the Border Guard's normal text with some modification. As you note, this is how Way of the Chameleon works. There is no obvious reason Lantern shouldn't work the same way. Then it would be a replacement and still give +1 Action.

[Jeebus]

I think Lantern doesn't override Enchantress because Lantern doesn't override anything. Lantern modifies, and the modification has no effect on Enchantress. However, it might have an effect on Way of the Mole. Also, we know that the reason Ways override Enchantress is the following:

So this means that it has the same timing as Enchantress? You can choose to resolve Enchantress first and then the Way, meaning that the Way "wins". Or you can choose to do it the other way around, but the result would be the same as not choosing the Way at all.

It's the same timing as Enchantress; obv. you will choose to have the Way "win."

They occur at the same time, and you can just choose to have the Way resolve second, making it "win". None of the effects "fail", they just get overridden.

According to Ingix, what I wrote there is wrong. We can't know for sure until Donald says something.

[hhelibebcnofnena]

However, we know for a fact that Lantern is not a replacement. If it were, Border Guards would cease to give +1 Action.
Therefore, it must be a modification, and therefore it does not replace Enchantress.

Lantern could be a replacement, the replacement being the Border Guard's normal text with some modification. As you note, this is how Way of the Chameleon works. There is no obvious reason Lantern shouldn't work the same way. Then it would be a replacement and still give +1 Action.

Okay, that's fair. But I am guessing from Donald's earlier post that Lantern is simply a modification and not a replacement. Way of the Chameleon would probably like to do that too, but it can't because it is a Way, and Ways have built in rules which inherently make them replacements. So it gets around that by replacing the card with itself, and then modifying it.

[mxdata]

However, we know for a fact that Lantern is not a replacement. If it were, Border Guards would cease to give +1 Action.
Therefore, it must be a modification, and therefore it does not replace Enchantress.

Lantern could be a replacement, the replacement being the Border Guard's normal text with some modification. As you note, this is how Way of the Chameleon works. There is no obvious reason Lantern shouldn't work the same way. Then it would be a replacement and still give +1 Action.

Donald X earlier in this thread said "Lantern modifies what happens due to following the instructions on Border Guard. With Enchantress in effect, you ignore those instructions, so Lantern does nothing." So the same should apply to Ways.  With a Way in effect, such as Mole, you ignore the instructions, so Lantern wouldn't work.  The only Way where you keep the directions is Chameleon, and since there's no +card or +coin on Border Guard, there's nothing for Chameleon to do anything with

[GendoIkari]

However, we know for a fact that Lantern is not a replacement. If it were, Border Guards would cease to give +1 Action.
Therefore, it must be a modification, and therefore it does not replace Enchantress.

Lantern could be a replacement, the replacement being the Border Guard's normal text with some modification. As you note, this is how Way of the Chameleon works. There is no obvious reason Lantern shouldn't work the same way. Then it would be a replacement and still give +1 Action.

Donald X earlier in this thread said "Lantern modifies what happens due to following the instructions on Border Guard. With Enchantress in effect, you ignore those instructions, so Lantern does nothing." So the same should apply to Ways.  With a Way in effect, such as Mole, you ignore the instructions, so Lantern wouldn't work.  The only Way where you keep the directions is Chameleon, and since there's no +card or +coin on Border Guard, there's nothing for Chameleon to do anything with

I think I see a difference between Ways and Lantern given the wording from Donald X as quoted here. With Lantern, you still follow Border Guard's instructions; it changes how those instructions work, but it doesn’t replace the instructions. With both Ways and Enchantress, the instructions aren’t just changed, they are replaced. You’re following brand new instructions. But Lantern isn’t new instructions, it’s the same instructions with a change put in.

[Jeebus]

I think I see a difference between Ways and Lantern given the wording from Donald X as quoted here. With Lantern, you still follow Border Guard's instructions; it changes how those instructions work, but it doesn’t replace the instructions. With both Ways and Enchantress, the instructions aren’t just changed, they are replaced. You’re following brand new instructions. But Lantern isn’t new instructions, it’s the same instructions with a change put in.

I still don't see how that's different from the way Way of the Chameleon is supposed to work, but maybe you're saying that Way of the Chameleon doesn't override Enchantress either.

I will also note that Donald didn't say that Lantern makes you follow Border Guard's instructions; he said that Lantern only works when you are already following Border Guard's instructions. That's not the same thing.

[hhelibebcnofnena]

I think I see a difference between Ways and Lantern given the wording from Donald X as quoted here. With Lantern, you still follow Border Guard's instructions; it changes how those instructions work, but it doesn’t replace the instructions. With both Ways and Enchantress, the instructions aren’t just changed, they are replaced. You’re following brand new instructions. But Lantern isn’t new instructions, it’s the same instructions with a change put in.

I still don't see how that's different from the way Way of the Chameleon is supposed to work, but maybe you're saying that Way of the Chameleon doesn't override Enchantress either.

I will also note that Donald didn't say that Lantern makes you follow Border Guard's instructions; he said that Lantern only works when you are already following Border Guard's instructions. That's not the same thing.

It's not different from how Way of the Chameleon would ideally work. However, Way of the Chameleon has the difference of being restricted by Way rules, which means it has to act as a full replacement somehow. The method it uses of getting around that restriction is by making sure the replacement has no effect (except in edge cases like Enchantress), but still takes place. Then it modifies. Lantern isn't restricted in the same way, so it doesn't have to act as a full replacement before modification.

Sorry if this is too similar to what I said previously.

[Jeebus]

It's not different from how Way of the Chameleon would ideally work. However, Way of the Chameleon has the difference of being restricted by Way rules, which means it has to act as a full replacement somehow. The method it uses of getting around that restriction is by making sure the replacement has no effect (except in edge cases like Enchantress), but still takes place. Then it modifies. Lantern isn't restricted in the same way, so it doesn't have to act as a full replacement before modification.

Sorry if this is too similar to what I said previously.

I just don’t see how replacing X with X means that we don’t have X. To me Way of the Chameleon effectively overrides the general Way rules. You know, cards can override rules. Way means that you do the Way instead of the Action card, but when we follow that rule for Chameleon we get “do the Action card”. If Lantern has the same timing (which I don’t see any logical alternative for), then Lantern does the same thing: instead of X, do X modified.

Now this can mean two things. The question is if doing a modified version of the card counts as doing the card or not. If yes, it means Enchantress wins. If no, the played card wins. Both with Chameleon and Lantern.

[GendoIkari]

I think I see a difference between Ways and Lantern given the wording from Donald X as quoted here. With Lantern, you still follow Border Guard's instructions; it changes how those instructions work, but it doesn’t replace the instructions. With both Ways and Enchantress, the instructions aren’t just changed, they are replaced. You’re following brand new instructions. But Lantern isn’t new instructions, it’s the same instructions with a change put in.

I still don't see how that's different from the way Way of the Chameleon is supposed to work, but maybe you're saying that Way of the Chameleon doesn't override Enchantress either.

I will also note that Donald didn't say that Lantern makes you follow Border Guard's instructions; he said that Lantern only works when you are already following Border Guard's instructions. That's not the same thing.

Way of the Chameleon does have you ultimately follow the same instructions, but it's a new set of instructions telling you to do that. Smithy with Enchantress says "instead of draw 3 cards, get +1 card +1 action." Chameleon with Enchantress says "instead of draw 3 cards, do this: draw 3 cards, except instead of cards, get coins". When playing Smithy, you get to choose which of the 2 "insteads" to follow.

The key is that choosing to use Chameleon is not simply "instead of draw 3 cards, get 3 coins". It's the full "instead of draw 3 cards, do this: draw 3 cards, except instead of cards, get coins".

In other words, the choice to use a Way completely replaces all instructions from playing the card with something new. In the case of Chameleon, that something new happens to be dependent upon the original instructions. But it's still new instructions.

Or for another example, if you play Chapel and choose Way of the Chameleon; the instructions you are now following are the instructions on Way of the Chameleon. Yes those instructions happen to be the same list of things to do that Chapel had originally, but they're still new instructions. You're no longer simply "Trashing up to 4 cards from your hand", instead you're now "Follow the instructions on Chapel to trash up to 4 cards from your hand". Net result is the same, but you're doing it because Chameleon said to, not because Chapel said to.

[Ingix]

I just don’t see how replacing X with X means that we don’t have X.

I think this is the blue dog principle. You replaced something with something else that happens to be "the same", but it really isn't the same any more. Way of the Chameleon (like any Way) replaces following the card's instructions with something else. The "something else" is in this case following modified instructions of the card, but we are still just using a Way, so anything that replaces "following a card's instructions" (Echantress) doesn't see them as the original instructions it can replace.

If you would gain a Silver with IronWorks and replace that with Trader, you still gain a Silver. But for Ironworks it's not the "gained card", so it doesn't give out +$1. Similiarly, once you use a Way on an Action card, Enchantress will not apply to what you do, even if for Way of the Chameleon what you do looks awfully like following a card's instructions.

[GendoIkari]

I just don’t see how replacing X with X means that we don’t have X.

I think this is the blue dog principle. You replaced something with something else that happens to be "the same", but it really isn't the same any more. Way of the Chameleon (like any Way) replaces following the card's instructions with something else. The "something else" is in this case following modified instructions of the card, but we are still just using a Way, so anything that replaces "following a card's instructions" (Echantress) doesn't see them as the original instructions it can replace.

If you would gain a Silver with IronWorks and replace that with Trader, you still gain a Silver. But for Ironworks it's not the "gained card", so it doesn't give out +$1. Similiarly, once you use a Way on an Action card, Enchantress will not apply to what you do, even if for Way of the Chameleon what you do looks awfully like following a card's instructions.

Right, this is a much shorter version of what my post was saying.

[Jeebus]

I just don’t see how replacing X with X means that we don’t have X.

I think this is the blue dog principle. You replaced something with something else that happens to be "the same", but it really isn't the same any more. Way of the Chameleon (like any Way) replaces following the card's instructions with something else. The "something else" is in this case following modified instructions of the card, but we are still just using a Way, so anything that replaces "following a card's instructions" (Echantress) doesn't see them as the original instructions it can replace.

In the part you're quoting from me I was replying to Hhelibebcnofnena's post that said that Chameleon is different from Lantern because the rules for Way means it doesn't just modify, it first replaces then modifies, whereas Lantern only modifies. So that was me saying that Chameleon modifies just as much as Lantern.

But as I wrote in the end of that post, I definitely see how we could say that Chameleon replaces the ability with something else based on that ability. My point is that then the same applies to Lantern. Conversely, if we somehow say that this is not like "blue dog", that we are still resolving the Action card (just with modifications), then that should apply to Chameleon as well as Lantern. Ultimately, I agree with you and GendoIkari that the first alternative seems more correct.

So what I don't see, and which neither you or GendoIkari mentioned in your last posts, is how Lantern is different from Chameleon. Not as long as they both have the same timing, which I think everybody in this thread has assumed (except Dominionaer, but s/he was basing it on the old version of Lantern). Actually, you (Ingix) also mentioned that Lantern might have a different timing. To me that interpretation doesn't follow at all from how the card is supposed to work. Of course we don't have any FAQ for the new version. But we do know that it triggers every time you play Border Guard and changes what happens when you resolve it. This is exactly how Enchantress and Ways work, so to me it would require some kind of official "errata" to say that it works differently.

tl;dr:
How can Lantern be "the same instructions with a change put in", while Chameleon is "new instructions based on the old instructions" if they both happen at the same time? And what is the basis for saying that they don't happen at the same time?

[GendoIkari]

I just don’t see how replacing X with X means that we don’t have X.

I think this is the blue dog principle. You replaced something with something else that happens to be "the same", but it really isn't the same any more. Way of the Chameleon (like any Way) replaces following the card's instructions with something else. The "something else" is in this case following modified instructions of the card, but we are still just using a Way, so anything that replaces "following a card's instructions" (Echantress) doesn't see them as the original instructions it can replace.

In the part you're quoting from me I was replying to Hhelibebcnofnena's post that said that Chameleon is different from Lantern because the rules for Way means it doesn't just modify, it first replaces then modifies, whereas Lantern only modifies. So that was me saying that Chameleon modifies just as much as Lantern.

But as I wrote in the end of that post, I definitely see how we could say that Chameleon replaces the ability with something else based on that ability. My point is that then the same applies to Lantern. Conversely, if we somehow say that this is not like "blue dog", that we are still resolving the Action card (just with modifications), then that should apply to Chameleon as well as Lantern. Ultimately, I agree with you and GendoIkari that the first alternative seems more correct.

So what I don't see, and which neither you or GendoIkari mentioned in your last posts, is how Lantern is different from Chameleon. Not as long as they both have the same timing, which I think everybody in this thread has assumed (except Dominionaer, but s/he was basing it on the old version of Lantern). Actually, you (Ingix) also mentioned that Lantern might have a different timing. To me that interpretation doesn't follow at all from how the card is supposed to work. Of course we don't have any FAQ for the new version. But we do know that it triggers every time you play Border Guard and changes what happens when you resolve it. This is exactly how Enchantress and Ways work, so to me it would require some kind of official "errata" to say that it works differently.

tl;dr:
How can Lantern be "the same instructions with a change put in", while Chameleon is "new instructions based on the old instructions" if they both happen at the same time? And what is the basis for saying that they don't happen at the same time?

I thought it was known that they don't both happen at the same time, due to the rules that a Way can override Enchantress(because it's at the same time), but Lantern cannot?

I thought it was known without question that Lantern only takes place while Border Guard's instructions are being followed?

[Jeebus]

I thought it was known that they don't both happen at the same time, due to the rules that a Way can override Enchantress(because it's at the same time), but Lantern cannot?

I thought it was known without question that Lantern only takes place while Border Guard's instructions are being followed?

I have been qualifying me statements almost every time with "as long as Lantern and Enchantress have the same timing". This was also the basis for the discussion with Hhelibebcnofnena. If we had accepted that they don't have the same timing, that whole discussion would be moot.

EDIT: I guess you're basing your conclusion on Donald's comment in this thread? Because as I said, the cards Chameleon and Lantern both change what a card does when you play it, so the intuitive interpretation otherwise would be that they happen at the same time.

[mxdata]

I just don’t see how replacing X with X means that we don’t have X.

I think this is the blue dog principle. You replaced something with something else that happens to be "the same", but it really isn't the same any more. Way of the Chameleon (like any Way) replaces following the card's instructions with something else. The "something else" is in this case following modified instructions of the card, but we are still just using a Way, so anything that replaces "following a card's instructions" (Echantress) doesn't see them as the original instructions it can replace.

In the part you're quoting from me I was replying to Hhelibebcnofnena's post that said that Chameleon is different from Lantern because the rules for Way means it doesn't just modify, it first replaces then modifies, whereas Lantern only modifies. So that was me saying that Chameleon modifies just as much as Lantern.

But as I wrote in the end of that post, I definitely see how we could say that Chameleon replaces the ability with something else based on that ability. My point is that then the same applies to Lantern. Conversely, if we somehow say that this is not like "blue dog", that we are still resolving the Action card (just with modifications), then that should apply to Chameleon as well as Lantern. Ultimately, I agree with you and GendoIkari that the first alternative seems more correct.

So what I don't see, and which neither you or GendoIkari mentioned in your last posts, is how Lantern is different from Chameleon. Not as long as they both have the same timing, which I think everybody in this thread has assumed (except Dominionaer, but s/he was basing it on the old version of Lantern). Actually, you (Ingix) also mentioned that Lantern might have a different timing. To me that interpretation doesn't follow at all from how the card is supposed to work. Of course we don't have any FAQ for the new version. But we do know that it triggers every time you play Border Guard and changes what happens when you resolve it. This is exactly how Enchantress and Ways work, so to me it would require some kind of official "errata" to say that it works differently.

tl;dr:
How can Lantern be "the same instructions with a change put in", while Chameleon is "new instructions based on the old instructions" if they both happen at the same time? And what is the basis for saying that they don't happen at the same time?

Because that's how Ways in general work.  When a Way is invoked, or Enchantress is in effect, it effectively replaces the text with something new.  In the case of Chameleon, the new text is defined as being similar to the original text, but it's still completely new text.  Lantern, on the other hand, is just an amendment to BG

And, actually, I would agree that they happen at the same time, so you can choose the order.  But the order isn't relevant for Lantern.  Either Lantern modifies Border Guard, then Enchantress/a Way tells you to ignore Border Guard's text (including Lantern's amendment), or Enchantress/a Way happens first, then Lantern has nothing to amend (unless the Way was Chameleon, since Chameleon would leave the text unchanged), and so fails to have any effect.  In either case, the result is the same - Lantern doesn't do anything.  (Although, by this line of thinking, you could technically use Chameleon to overrule Lantern - I don't know why you'd want to, but you could theoretically use Chameleon that way)

On the other hand, with Enchantress and Ways, the order is relevant.  Either Enchantress happens first, replacing the card's text with +1 Card +1 Action, then the Way happens, replacing the Enchanted card with whatever the Way does (in the case of Chameleon, "follow the original text, with +card and +coin swapped", and so the original text returns with any necessary amendments), or the Way happens first, replacing the card's text with what the Way does, then Enchantress happens, replacing the Way with +1 Card +1 Action.  This is why Ways can replace Enchantress, while Lantern can't do anything about Enchantress

[scolapasta]

(Although, by this line of thinking, you could technically use Chameleon to overrule Lantern - I don't know why you'd want to, but you could theoretically use Chameleon that way)

Well, you have ways (no pun intended) of setting up / knowing the top of your deck. You wouldn't always want to discard that 3rd card, instead leaving it there to be drawn next.

[Jeebus]

Because that's how Ways in general work.  When a Way is invoked, or Enchantress is in effect, it effectively replaces the text with something new.  In the case of Chameleon, the new text is defined as being similar to the original text, but it's still completely new text.  Lantern, on the other hand, is just an amendment to BG

And, actually, I would agree that they happen at the same time, so you can choose the order.  But the order isn't relevant for Lantern.  Either Lantern modifies Border Guard, then Enchantress/a Way tells you to ignore Border Guard's text (including Lantern's amendment), or Enchantress/a Way happens first, then Lantern has nothing to amend (unless the Way was Chameleon, since Chameleon would leave the text unchanged), and so fails to have any effect.  In either case, the result is the same - Lantern doesn't do anything.  (Although, by this line of thinking, you could technically use Chameleon to overrule Lantern - I don't know why you'd want to, but you could theoretically use Chameleon that way)

On the other hand, with Enchantress and Ways, the order is relevant.  Either Enchantress happens first, replacing the card's text with +1 Card +1 Action, then the Way happens, replacing the Enchanted card with whatever the Way does (in the case of Chameleon, "follow the original text, with +card and +coin swapped", and so the original text returns with any necessary amendments), or the Way happens first, replacing the card's text with what the Way does, then Enchantress happens, replacing the Way with +1 Card +1 Action.  This is why Ways can replace Enchantress, while Lantern can't do anything about Enchantress

You're using the model of "the last applied ability wins". Actually I think Ingix is right that it's the first applied ability that wins. But I'll go with your model here to be able to reply without too much confusion.

You're saying that Lantern would override Chameleon, with the justification that Chameleon leaves the text unchanged. So then that would mean that Enchantress would also override Chameleon (at least in cases where the text is unchanged). But then you're saying that Chameleon overrides Enchantress. This makes no sense to me. And I'm exremely doubtful that Chameleon is supposed to override Enchantress only in the cases where Chameleon changes the effects.

Your argument would be more consistent if you said that Lantern could not override anything, including Chameleon.

In any case, I still don't see any real explanation of why or how Lantern is "just an amendment" but Chameleon is "defined as completely new text". At least not if they have the same timing. I don't find the argument that "that's how Ways in general work" convincing at all. I already explained this in my response to Hhelibebcnofnena. Enchantress has a short version of its rules on the card. Ways have their rules in the rulebook. But it's the same: they change what you do when you're about to resolve a played card. There is nothing special about Ways as opposed to Enchantress here, no special "Ways rule". It's as if Chameleon said "when you play an Action, you may instead of following its instructions, follow its instructions in this modified way" If Lantern triggers at the same time, why shouldn't it be "when you play a Border Guard, you may instead of following its instructions, follow its instructions in this modified way"?

Yes, like Trader: "Instead of gaining the card, gain a Silver" (NOT "your card gaining is now modified so that the card is replaced with a Silver")

[mxdata]

Because that's how Ways in general work.  When a Way is invoked, or Enchantress is in effect, it effectively replaces the text with something new.  In the case of Chameleon, the new text is defined as being similar to the original text, but it's still completely new text.  Lantern, on the other hand, is just an amendment to BG

And, actually, I would agree that they happen at the same time, so you can choose the order.  But the order isn't relevant for Lantern.  Either Lantern modifies Border Guard, then Enchantress/a Way tells you to ignore Border Guard's text (including Lantern's amendment), or Enchantress/a Way happens first, then Lantern has nothing to amend (unless the Way was Chameleon, since Chameleon would leave the text unchanged), and so fails to have any effect.  In either case, the result is the same - Lantern doesn't do anything.  (Although, by this line of thinking, you could technically use Chameleon to overrule Lantern - I don't know why you'd want to, but you could theoretically use Chameleon that way)

On the other hand, with Enchantress and Ways, the order is relevant.  Either Enchantress happens first, replacing the card's text with +1 Card +1 Action, then the Way happens, replacing the Enchanted card with whatever the Way does (in the case of Chameleon, "follow the original text, with +card and +coin swapped", and so the original text returns with any necessary amendments), or the Way happens first, replacing the card's text with what the Way does, then Enchantress happens, replacing the Way with +1 Card +1 Action.  This is why Ways can replace Enchantress, while Lantern can't do anything about Enchantress

You're using the model of "the last applied ability wins". Actually I think Ingix is right that it's the first applied ability that wins. But I'll go with your model here to be able to reply without too much confusion.

You're saying that Lantern would override Chameleon, with the justification that Chameleon leaves the text unchanged. So then that would mean that Enchantress would also override Chameleon (at least in cases where the text is unchanged). But then you're saying that Chameleon overrides Enchantress. This makes no sense to me. And I'm exremely doubtful that Chameleon is supposed to override Enchantress only in the cases where Chameleon changes the effects.

Your argument would be more consistent if you said that Lantern could not override anything, including Chameleon.

In any case, I still don't see any real explanation of why or how Lantern is "just an amendment" but Chameleon is "defined as completely new text". At least not if they have the same timing. I don't find the argument that "that's how Ways in general work" convincing at all. I already explained this in my response to Hhelibebcnofnena. Enchantress has a short version of its rules on the card. Ways have their rules in the rulebook. But it's the same: they change what you do when you're about to resolve a played card. There is nothing special about Ways as opposed to Enchantress here, no special "Ways rule". It's as if Chameleon said "when you play an Action, you may instead of following its instructions, follow its instructions in this modified way" If Lantern triggers at the same time, why shouldn't it be "when you play a Border Guard, you may instead of following its instructions, follow its instructions in this modified way"?

Yes, like Trader: "Instead of gaining the card, gain a Silver" (NOT "your card gaining is now modified so that the card is replaced with a Silver")

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.  Chameleon, like all Ways, and Enchantress both replace text with something new.  The rulebook says "Playing an Action card for a Way ability means not doing anything the Action card said to do when played."  It explicitly tells you to ignore the card and do what the Way says.  In the case of Chameleon, what Way says is "Follow the card's text, except for this change".  Enchantress also says "don't do what the Action card says to do".  Since you can't do both what the Way says and what Enchantress says, one has to win out.  It makes more sense to me to say that the last-applied effect wins out (if you're replacing X with Y, then replacing Y with Z, then naturally you have Z in the end, not Y), but if you want to say the first-applied effect wins out, it makes no difference and we can just swap the order we apply the effects.  I never said Lantern overrides anything.  It obviously doesn't.  It makes an amendment to Border Guard.  But if Border Guard's text is being ignored, then it fails to have any effect (okay, so maybe Chameleon followed by Lantern also has no effect because Chameleon+BG is technically different from just Border Guard, that doesn't really affect the rest of my argument however)

But, what is relevant is that Lantern, unlike Ways and Enchantress, does not say "don't do what Border Guard says to do", it says "Make this change to Border Guard".  If Enchantress (or a Way) is in effect, then you're ignoring what Border Guard says, which means that Lantern has nothing to amend, or, equivalently, that Lantern's amendment is ignored along with the rest of what Border Guard says.  Either way, Lantern doesn't do anything

[Ingix]

tl;dr:
How can Lantern be "the same instructions with a change put in", while Chameleon is "new instructions based on the old instructions" if they both happen at the same time? And what is the basis for saying that they don't happen at the same time?

My opinion is that there is not a big, all encompassing theory that explains everything in Dominion and that nobody is telling us out of spite. Effects that are one-off "just work" with a few rulings, and only when there are more of them those rulings become kind of a small theory that works by rules.

Enchantress used to be such a one-off, now it isn't any more. Ways and Enchantress both replace following a card's instructions, and the interactions of those, as far as I understand them, I've described above.

Border Guard/Lantern still is a one-off. There are rulings how it works with Enchantress, and IMO they obviously should also be applied to Ways. I tried to give some explanation how one could arrive at those rulings, but this is just guesswork. With the currently existing card set, it (now) doesn't make sense to me to make a theory, because there just isn't any foundation to build it on. 

[GendoIkari]

If Lantern triggers at the same time, why shouldn't it be "when you play a Border Guard, you may instead of following its instructions, follow its instructions in this modified way"?

Although I don't think that Lantern triggers at the same time (I think it triggers the moment you go to reveal 2 cards as part of Border Guard), I don't know what reasoning there is for interpreting Border Guard's text the way you suggest here. The rules for both Ways and Enchantress seem clearly defined: "Follow these instructions instead of following the card's normal instructions". But no such rule exists for Lantern. There is no rule saying that Lantern provides alternate instructions. Perhaps there's also no such rule that Lantern simply replaces the 2 with a 3 and keeps the same instructions either... but given Donalds actual ruling that that's how Enchantress and Lantern interact, aren't we forced to conclude that Lantern must be not new instructions you can follow instead of Border Guard's instructions, but rather simply changing what happens when you follow Border Guard's instructions?

[mxdata]

tl;dr:
How can Lantern be "the same instructions with a change put in", while Chameleon is "new instructions based on the old instructions" if they both happen at the same time? And what is the basis for saying that they don't happen at the same time?

My opinion is that there is not a big, all encompassing theory that explains everything in Dominion and that nobody is telling us out of spite. Effects that are one-off "just work" with a few rulings, and only when there are more of them those rulings become kind of a small theory that works by rules.

Enchantress used to be such a one-off, now it isn't any more. Ways and Enchantress both replace following a card's instructions, and the interactions of those, as far as I understand them, I've described above.

Border Guard/Lantern still is a one-off. There are rulings how it works with Enchantress, and IMO they obviously should also be applied to Ways. I tried to give some explanation how one could arrive at those rulings, but this is just guesswork. With the currently existing card set, it (now) doesn't make sense to me to make a theory, because there just isn't any foundation to build it on.

But also there's something special about Lantern - it only affects Border Guard.  If you were to trash all your Border Guards after taking the Lantern, then the Lantern would just be sitting there doing absolutely nothing.  In a sense, it feels to me like the Border Guard/Lantern situation is more like cards such as Rogue or Menagerie whose effect is dependent upon something else in the game - what's in the trash for Rogue, and the presence or absence of duplicates for Menagerie

Border Guard/Lantern is kind of like that.  Border Guard does one thing if you have the Lantern and another thing if you don't.  It would lead to a much wordier card, though, if you tried to put it all in BG's text, something like "+1 Action Reveal the top 2 cards of your deck (3 if you have the Lantern). Put one into your hand and discard the other(s). If both/all were Actions, take the Lantern or Horn", so for practical purposes, there's instead text on Lantern that tells you how it affects Border Guard

If this hypothetical text had been how Border Guard was released, then we'd have no debate at all.  It would be obvious that Lantern wouldn't override Enchantress

[hhelibebcnofnena]

"when you play an Action, you may instead of following its instructions, follow its instructions in this modified way"

That's not exactly how I've been interpreting Way of the Chameleon. I've been interpreting it as two separate instructions:

When you play an action,
First: instead of following its instructions, follow its instructions.
Second: modify the instructions you are following.

Lantern has no need for the first instruction, so it only uses the second. Way of the Chameleon, being a Way, needs the first instruction, which is what gives it the weird Enchantress override.

I'm starting to see how it could be seen as only one instruction, though. If it were two, shouldn't that semicolon be a period? Now I'm getting confused.

[Jeebus]

I never said Lantern overrides anything.  It obviously doesn't.  It makes an amendment to Border Guard.  But if Border Guard's text is being ignored, then it fails to have any effect (okay, so maybe Chameleon followed by Lantern also has no effect because Chameleon+BG is technically different from just Border Guard, that doesn't really affect the rest of my argument however)

Yes, you wrote: "Enchantress/a Way happens first, then Lantern has nothing to amend (unless the Way was Chameleon, since Chameleon would leave the text unchanged)".
But I guess you're changing your mind there now.

But, what is relevant is that Lantern, unlike Ways and Enchantress, does not say "don't do what Border Guard says to do", it says "Make this change to Border Guard".  If Enchantress (or a Way) is in effect, then you're ignoring what Border Guard says, which means that Lantern has nothing to amend, or, equivalently, that Lantern's amendment is ignored along with the rest of what Border Guard says.  Either way, Lantern doesn't do anything

Lantern tells you to do something different instead of what you're usually doing. Exactly like with Chameleon, that "something different" is based on the normal effects. With Chameleon, we have a rule saying that the ability is replaced with a modified version of itself. Like I said, it's exactly like Trader. So we have precedent for this in Dominion: When an ability tells you to do something instead of something else, the first thing doesn't happen. It's natural to interpret Lantern the same way, since it does exactly the same as Chameleon. The fact that we have this explained for Chameleon is a coincidence because there are other Ways. If Chameleon were the only one, its card text would be similar to Lantern's - and I bet Donald would reply here saying that Chameleon could not override Enchantress.

Although I don't think that Lantern triggers at the same time (I think it triggers the moment you go to reveal 2 cards as part of Border Guard), I don't know what reasoning there is for interpreting Border Guard's text the way you suggest here. The rules for both Ways and Enchantress seem clearly defined: "Follow these instructions instead of following the card's normal instructions". But no such rule exists for Lantern. There is no rule saying that Lantern provides alternate instructions. Perhaps there's also no such rule that Lantern simply replaces the 2 with a 3 and keeps the same instructions either... but given Donalds actual ruling that that's how Enchantress and Lantern interact, aren't we forced to conclude that Lantern must be not new instructions you can follow instead of Border Guard's instructions, but rather simply changing what happens when you follow Border Guard's instructions?

But Lantern does actually tell you to do something instead of what you would normally do. Lantern doesn't shapeshift Border Guard anymore. So there are alternate instructions. I don't know how you can deny that. "Simply replaceing the 2 with a 3", etc, is also providing alternate instructions.

That leaves the question of the timing. The natural interpretation is that it does this just as you're about to do it, just like all other cards like this. To conclude that it triggers several times during your resolution of Border Guard seems very forced to me. It seems to be a rule invented just to avoid a certain interaction.

Anyway, yes, if Donald sticks to that, maybe we're forced to conclude that. I asked him what's the difference between Lantern and Chameleon in order to figure this out.

[Jeebus]

My opinion is that there is not a big, all encompassing theory that explains everything in Dominion and that nobody is telling us out of spite. Effects that are one-off "just work" with a few rulings, and only when there are more of them those rulings become kind of a small theory that works by rules.

Enchantress used to be such a one-off, now it isn't any more. Ways and Enchantress both replace following a card's instructions, and the interactions of those, as far as I understand them, I've described above.

Border Guard/Lantern still is a one-off. There are rulings how it works with Enchantress, and IMO they obviously should also be applied to Ways. I tried to give some explanation how one could arrive at those rulings, but this is just guesswork. With the currently existing card set, it (now) doesn't make sense to me to make a theory, because there just isn't any foundation to build it on.

Well, I've been around since somebody asked why a Throned and trashed Mining Village didn't get moved back to play, since the rules say that it should. And Donald had a big all-encompassing rule to explain it! There are many of those in Dominion. Another one is that "when x" means "after x is finished". Of course that doesn't mean that cards can't exist that do crazy things, but they should work within the framework of the existing rules. For instance, a card shouldn't say "when you buy a Horse, gain a Silver", with the rulebook explaining that this card allows you to buy a Horse, since that would break the rules. We could say that this card has an mistake and needs an errata to reflect the explanation in the rulebook, but we can't say that it works the way it's written.

[GendoIkari]

Lantern tells you to do something different instead of what you're usually doing. Exactly like with Chameleon, that "something different" is based on the normal effects. With Chameleon, we have a rule saying that the ability is replaced with a modified version of itself. Like I said, it's exactly like Trader. So we have precedent for this in Dominion: When an ability tells you to do something instead of something else, the first thing doesn't happen. It's natural to interpret Lantern the same way, since it does exactly the same as Chameleon. The fact that we have this explained for Chameleon is a coincidence because there are other Ways. If Chameleon were the only one, its card text would be similar to Lantern's - and I bet Donald would reply here saying that Chameleon could not override Enchantress.

It still feels like you're missing a step that happens when you use Chameleon. You have to think of Chameleon the same as all other Ways. Ways don't modify instructions on a card; they fully replace those instructions with something new. Whether it's Way of the Chameleon or Way of the Pig doesn't matter; in both cases you are getting brand new replacement instructions; not a modified version of the old instructions.

It just so happens that those brand new instructions on Chameleon tell you to do something that is based on the original card instructions. But that doesn't mean that Chameleon is "just" modifying the original card's instructions. It's still giving you a new instruction to follow.

Example of playing Smithy choosing Chameleon. It seems like your interpretation is that Chameleon modifies "+3 cards" to "+". But I think this is wrong. Chameleon replaces "+3 cards" with "Follow this card's instructions; each time that would give you +Cards this turn, you get +$ instead, and vice-versa."

[scolapasta]

Lantern tells you to do something different instead of what you're usually doing. Exactly like with Chameleon, that "something different" is based on the normal effects. With Chameleon, we have a rule saying that the ability is replaced with a modified version of itself. Like I said, it's exactly like Trader. So we have precedent for this in Dominion: When an ability tells you to do something instead of something else, the first thing doesn't happen. It's natural to interpret Lantern the same way, since it does exactly the same as Chameleon. The fact that we have this explained for Chameleon is a coincidence because there are other Ways. If Chameleon were the only one, its card text would be similar to Lantern's - and I bet Donald would reply here saying that Chameleon could not override Enchantress.

It still feels like you're missing a step that happens when you use Chameleon. You have to think of Chameleon the same as all other Ways. Ways don't modify instructions on a card; they fully replace those instructions with something new. Whether it's Way of the Chameleon or Way of the Pig doesn't matter; in both cases you are getting brand new replacement instructions; not a modified version of the old instructions.

It just so happens that those brand new instructions on Chameleon tell you to do something that is based on the original card instructions. But that doesn't mean that Chameleon is "just" modifying the original card's instructions. It's still giving you a new instruction to follow.

Example of playing Smithy choosing Chameleon. It seems like your interpretation is that Chameleon modifies "+3 cards" to "+". But I think this is wrong. Chameleon replaces "+3 cards" with "Follow this card's instructions; each time that would give you +Cards this turn, you get +$ instead, and vice-versa."

In this same vein:

Player A plays Enchantress.
Player B plays Necropolis as Way of the Ox.

Even though the instructions are still +2 Action, they are "different", so Enchantress doesn't "enchant".

[Jeebus]

It still feels like you're missing a step that happens when you use Chameleon. You have to think of Chameleon the same as all other Ways. Ways don't modify instructions on a card; they fully replace those instructions with something new. Whether it's Way of the Chameleon or Way of the Pig doesn't matter; in both cases you are getting brand new replacement instructions; not a modified version of the old instructions.

It just so happens that those brand new instructions on Chameleon tell you to do something that is based on the original card instructions. But that doesn't mean that Chameleon is "just" modifying the original card's instructions. It's still giving you a new instruction to follow.

Example of playing Smithy choosing Chameleon. It seems like your interpretation is that Chameleon modifies "+3 cards" to "+". But I think this is wrong. Chameleon replaces "+3 cards" with "Follow this card's instructions; each time that would give you +Cards this turn, you get +$ instead, and vice-versa."

I haven't been missing that. But now I think you've totally misunderstood what I've been saying.

Clearly I have not been saying that I think Chameleon triggers several times during the resolution of the played card, since I just said that I found that interpretation forced for Lantern.

Also I have not been saying that Chameleon somehow shapeshifts the played card.

I have been saying that it works exactly like you say, it's just that I've been saying that Lantern should work that way too.

Yes, I understand Chameleon works that way because that's how Ways work (unless Donald chimes in and says that that specific rule about Ways don't apply to Chameleon). What I'm saying is that Chameleon is supposed to achieve the exact same thing that Lantern is supposed to achieve, namely making you do a modified version of the ability instead of the as-is ability. Like I said: The fact that we have this explained for Chameleon is a coincidence because there are other Ways. If Chameleon were the only one, its card text would be similar to Lantern's.

I don't know what to say. Maybe if you go back and check out some of my recent posts again, it will be clearer.

[Jeebus]

It's like you're seeing two cards:
"when you play an Action card, you may instead follow its instructions getting +Cards instead of +$ and vice versa"
"when you play a Border Guard, you may instead follow its instructions revealing 3 cards instead of 2 and discarding 2 instead of 1"
and concluding that the way they work is fundamentally different.

Those are the instructions on Chameleon with the rules included on the card like on Enchantress.

[Doom_Shark]

"when you play a Border Guard, you may instead follow its instructions revealing 3 cards instead of 2 and discarding 2 instead of 1"

Except that's not what lantern says. It says "Border Guards you play reveal 3 cards and discard 2." It has nothing saying either way that it's completely replacing Border Guard's text or just modifying what's there. I'm inclined to the direction that it's modifying what is already happening, as it says nothing about "instead of following its instructions."

[GendoIkari]

"when you play a Border Guard, you may instead follow its instructions revealing 3 cards instead of 2 and discarding 2 instead of 1"

Except that's not what lantern says. It says "Border Guards you play reveal 3 cards and discard 2." It has nothing saying either way that it's completely replacing Border Guard's text or just modifying what's there. I'm inclined to the direction that it's modifying what is already happening, as it says nothing about "instead of following its instructions."

Right, this is the big difference that I've been trying to point out. Lantern does not contain an instruction to follow, Ways do.

[Jeebus]

Except that's not what lantern says. It says "Border Guards you play reveal 3 cards and discard 2." It has nothing saying either way that it's completely replacing Border Guard's text or just modifying what's there. I'm inclined to the direction that it's modifying what is already happening, as it says nothing about "instead of following its instructions."

Of course that's not what it literally says. What is literally says obviously doesn't tell us how it works or the timing. Literally, it says that Border Guards you play does something, it doesn't say when they do it or for how long the effect lasts or if it is instead of something else. Obviously the meaning is "instead" (or it would mean that you reveal 3 cards and discard 2 in addition to doing the normal play ability). Instead of what? Obviously it replaces at least parts of the instructions.

This:
"when you play an Action card, you may instead follow its instructions getting +Cards instead of +$ and vice versa"
"when you play a Border Guard, you may instead follow its instructions revealing 3 cards instead of 2 and discarding 2 instead of 1"
means replacing the instructions, either wholly or in part, either when you would start resolving the instructions or when you would resolve each instruction. Does anybody actually disagree with this?

[Jeebus]

Right, this is the big difference that I've been trying to point out. Lantern does not contain an instruction to follow, Ways do.

It sounds like you think Lantern still causes shapeshifting, telling you to replace numbers in the card text. Lantern does contain instructions to follow. It is to reveal 3 instead of 2 cards, etc. I can't believe this part is controversial.

I have been saying this before, look:

But Lantern does actually tell you to do something instead of what you would normally do. Lantern doesn't shapeshift Border Guard anymore. So there are alternate instructions. I don't know how you can deny that. "Simply replaceing the 2 with a 3", etc, is also providing alternate instructions.

What's your response?

[GendoIkari]

Right, this is the big difference that I've been trying to point out. Lantern does not contain an instruction to follow, Ways do.

It sounds like you think Lantern still causes shapeshifting, telling you to replace numbers in the card text. Lantern does contain instructions to follow. It is to reveal 3 instead of 2 cards, etc. I can't believe this part is controversial.

It doesn't cause shapeshifting in terms of what text Border Guard is considered to actually have, like if there were a weird Event that said "trash any card you have in play that has a '3' in its text". But I do think it causes shapeshifting in that it modifies how you play Border Guard.  When you have Lantern and you play Border Guard, it is Border Guard's instructions, not Lantern's instructions, that make you reveal cards, etc.

I mean, that seems to just come directly from what Donald said in this thread: "Lantern modifies what happens due to following the instructions on Border Guard."

[Jeebus]

Right, this is the big difference that I've been trying to point out. Lantern does not contain an instruction to follow, Ways do.

It sounds like you think Lantern still causes shapeshifting, telling you to replace numbers in the card text. Lantern does contain instructions to follow. It is to reveal 3 instead of 2 cards, etc. I can't believe this part is controversial.

It doesn't cause shapeshifting in terms of what text Border Guard is considered to actually have, like if there were a weird Event that said "trash any card you have in play that has a '3' in its text". But I do think it causes shapeshifting in that it modifies how you play Border Guard.  When you have Lantern and you play Border Guard, it is Border Guard's instructions, not Lantern's instructions, that make you reveal cards, etc.

I mean, that seems to just come directly from what Donald said in this thread: "Lantern modifies what happens due to following the instructions on Border Guard."

Looks like we cross-posted as I added something to my last post.

You're kind of missing what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how to interpret Lantern independently of what Donald said in that post. I'm assuming that what he said may or may not be accurate. In other words, I'm not trying to force an interpretation that would fit what he said then, I'm trying to arrive at a logical interpretation based on everything else we know. Like I said before, if what he said there stands, it might mean that we have to interpret Lantern as triggering several times during Border Guard; each time replacing an effect right before resolving it. But it still means Lantern is replacing parts of the instructions on Border Guard as you are resolving it. Anything else would be shapeshifting. Your half-shapeshifting idea makes no sense. Lantern alters how you play Border Guard as you play it, it doesn't cause Border Guard to have any other instructions temporarily (this would be shapeshifting). Do you think it's Ironworks' instructions you're following when you reveal a Trader?

[Jeebus]

Actually it's not really that important to my point if you believe Lantern causes some kind of crazy shapeshifting. The point, again, is this:

Both Chameleon and Lantern replace the instructions, either wholly or in part, either when you would start resolving the instructions or when you would resolve each instruction.

If you believe Lantern works with insta-shapeshifting, there is no reason why you wouldn't think Chameleon does to. There is nothing on the card or in the rules that suggest that it doesn't, any more than for Lantern. The only indication that it doesn't, is the rule that Ways override Enchantress. That rule does make sense for Ways that obviously replace the whole play ability, but there is no way to know if it applies to Chameleon without a ruling on how Chameleon is supposed to work. Now, the fact that Chameleon is not mentioned as an exception to the Enchantress override, given that that was not a mistake, makes us conclude that Chameleon does also replace the whole play ability, but that would be the only reason. (It's not Chameleon's ability in itself that makes us conclude this.) And if that's the case, Lantern should work the same way.

[GendoIkari]

Both Chameleon and Lantern replace the instructions, either wholly or in part, either when you would start resolving the instructions or when you would resolve each instruction.

The difference I see is that Lantern just replaces the instructions. While Chameleon first does its own thing, and then replaces the instructions as part of doing that thing. Its own thing being the “follow this card’s instructions” bit. Lantern doesn’t have “follow Border Guard’s instructions”; and thats why I think that they have different timings. Lantern never tells you to follow Border Guard’s instructions; so its text cannot trigger when you would otherwise follow Border Guard’s instructions. The only way you know to follow Border Guard’s instructions is that the normal playing of Border Guard tells you to.

But with Chameleon; you don’t need the normal card’s instructions to begin before Chameleon does its thing. Chameleon tells you all of the instructions you need; some of which involve the instructions on the action being played.

So Chameleon can trigger when you would normally follow a card’s instructions; but Lantern cannot.

[GendoIkari]

To try and be shorter:

You can get away with only following Chameleon’s instructions and pretending there are no normal Dominion rules that say when you play a card you do what it says.

You can’t with Lantern. Lantern only works because of the normal rule that when you play a card, you do what it says.

[Jeebus]

I feel like I already addressed everything you're saying but you're not addressing what I'm saying about Chameleon. What I'm saying is that Chameleon overrides Enchantress (if it does) because it's not mentioned as an exception in the rulebook, and that's the only reason. The card itself doesn't tell us that.

Let's say Chameleon was not a Way but another kind of landscape card, "Magic Trick", that said: "Action cards you play may give you +Cards instead of +$ and vice versa". That's a little fuzzy, but the rulebook would explain that you make the choice for every Action card you play. This is the same as how Chameleon works, except we don't know if Magic Trick can override Enchantress. Donald would have to rule on it. If yes, then we would expect Lantern to also override Enchantress. (If no, then not.) And if Magic Trick could override Enchantress, it would work exactly like Chameleon.

But you are saying that Magic Trick, which would work exactly like Chameleon, is fundamentally different from Chameleon.

Sure, we could look at the wordings and try to parse the differences as some kind of difference in timing or "shapeshifting", etc. But that parsing would actually only matter for this very question: "Does it override Enchantress?" But the problem with that way of arguing is that neither Magic Trick, Lantern or Chameleon tells us the answer. We can only know based on a ruling (for Chameleon the ruling would be that it's not mentioned as an exception in the rulebook). So without any of those rulings, we would have nothing. But we would assume that logically, Chameleon would work the same as Magic Trick. This is what I'm trying to say.

[Jeebus]

To try and be shorter:

You can get away with only following Chameleon’s instructions and pretending there are no normal Dominion rules that say when you play a card you do what it says.

You can’t with Lantern. Lantern only works because of the normal rule that when you play a card, you do what it says.

Lantern tells you to replace, wholly or in part, Border Guard's instructions. It's telling you to do something instead of (some of) Border Guard's instructions. That is the same that Chameleon is saying. Chameleon has to say "follow the instructions" because the rules for Ways means that it has an implicit "do this instead of following the instructions". So that phrase just cancels that implicit instruction. I don't see why you're so hung up on the details of the wordings when their effect is exactly the same.

[mxdata]

This is ultimately kind of a futile argument, since Donald X has already ruled on it.  So, it really just boils down to whether you want to interpret his ruling as logically consistent with the text on the cards and stated rules (mine and GendoIkari's view) or whether you want to interpret his ruling as an exception to the rules (Jeebus' view).  Either way, Lantern does not override Enchantress while Ways (including Chameleon) do

And, ultimately, there's also the issue of precedent - Renaissance has been out for a while and we've all up till now had no problem with the idea that Lantern doesn't override Enchantress.  It's only the question of whether it's the same kind of thing as Ways or whether they're two different things.  If we were to adopt Jeebus' view that Chameleon and Lantern should work the same way, then we'd have to either change how we've been playing Lantern up till now, or we'd have to make Chameleon an exception to all the other Ways which do override Enchantress, and neither seems really satisfactory to me

Maybe if Border Guard and Ways had been released in the same set, or if Border Guard had been in a later set than Ways, it might've been done differently (because I agree, there is an ambiguity in that Lantern could be interpreted either as a replacement like Ways, or as just a modification), and they'd work the same way, but we can only deal with the game as it actually exists, not a hypothetical alternate version

[GendoIkari]

Lantern tells you to replace, wholly or in part, Border Guard's instructions. It's telling you to do something instead of (some of) Border Guard's instructions. That is the same that Chameleon is saying. Chameleon has to say "follow the instructions" because the rules for Ways means that it has an implicit "do this instead of following the instructions". So that phrase just cancels that implicit instruction.

I think this is the key disagreement maybe... I don't agree that that's the same thing that Chameleon is saying. Chameleon is saying more than to replace some of Border Guard's instructions (if Border Guard is the card you're playing that you used Chameleon on). Lantern only says to replace some of Border Guard's instructions, while Chameleon says more than that. It says to follow the instructions, and I think that makes all the difference here, in terms of the timing.

I don't see how Lantern can have the same timing of "when you would otherwise follow the card's instructions", because if it did, there's no wording telling you to ever read and follow anything Border Guard says. You need to still have a rule or effect telling you to follow the instructions on Border Guard. Under normal circumstances, it's the rulebook that causes this; normal game rules tell you that when you play a card, you follow its instructions. With Chameleon; that entire rule is replaced; now instead of following that card's instructions, you're following Border Guard's instructions. But it's impossible to follow only Lantern's instructions, as it never tells you do anything that Border Guard says to do. The normal act of following Border Guard's instructions, as it comes from the rulebook, must still be the thing causing you to do things.

[Doom_Shark]

Right, this is the big difference that I've been trying to point out. Lantern does not contain an instruction to follow, Ways do.

It sounds like you think Lantern still causes shapeshifting, telling you to replace numbers in the card text. Lantern does contain instructions to follow. It is to reveal 3 instead of 2 cards, etc. I can't believe this part is controversial.

I have been saying this before, look:

But Lantern does actually tell you to do something instead of what you would normally do. Lantern doesn't shapeshift Border Guard anymore. So there are alternate instructions. I don't know how you can deny that. "Simply replaceing the 2 with a 3", etc, is also providing alternate instructions.

What's your response?

Chameleon/Enchantress replace the whole effect.

Lantern replaces the specific action of looking at the top cards.

The difference here is while Lantern doesn't shapeshift Border Guard anymore, it still only replaces part of the effect when you play Border Guard.

[Doom_Shark]

Chameleon/Enchantress replace the whole effect.

Lantern replaces the specific action of looking at the top cards.

The difference here is while Lantern doesn't shapeshift Border Guard anymore, it still only replaces part of the effect when you play Border Guard.

I just came up with what might be a better way to explain this:

You're reading lantern as "Instead of following Border Guard's instructions, follow them, revealing 3 cards instead of two."

We're reading Lantern as "When you would reveal 2 cards by following the instructions of Border Guard, reveal 3 instead."

[Jeebus]

I just came up with what might be a better way to explain this:

You're reading lantern as "Instead of following Border Guard's instructions, follow them, revealing 3 cards instead of two."

We're reading Lantern as "When you would reveal 2 cards by following the instructions of Border Guard, reveal 3 instead."

Yes, I was going to write more or less the same thing.

First of all, even with the latter interpretation, your are definitely not only following Border Guard's instructions, some of them are interrupted and replaced on the fly with Lantern's (unlike what you said before). Whether this should count as resolving Border Guard so that Enchantress overrides it, I don't know, but whatever the case, Chameleon should work the same way.

Second, even that interpretation is adding stuff that is not in the wording. It's no more or less valid than my interpretation from the actual card text. The reason my interpretation is more valid, is that it fits with all other such when-would effects that we have; it follows precedent. I explained this before. I also said this (and now we have established that Lantern does replace at least some of the instructions): "That leaves the question of the timing. The natural interpretation is that it does this just as you're about to do it, just like all other cards like this. To conclude that it triggers several times during your resolution of Border Guard seems very forced to me. It seems to be a rule invented just to avoid a certain interaction."

You are also assuming that Chameleon replaces the whole instruction, but I can't see that you have any basis for that. See my last post, which nobody has responded to. Why is Magic Trick fundamentally different from Chameleon? To me your whole basis for this is circular; it's based on the fact that Chameleon is a Way to conclude that therefore it works as a Way.

[Jeebus]

This is ultimately kind of a futile argument, since Donald X has already ruled on it.  So, it really just boils down to whether you want to interpret his ruling as logically consistent with the text on the cards and stated rules (mine and GendoIkari's view) or whether you want to interpret his ruling as an exception to the rules (Jeebus' view).  Either way, Lantern does not override Enchantress while Ways (including Chameleon) do

And, ultimately, there's also the issue of precedent - Renaissance has been out for a while and we've all up till now had no problem with the idea that Lantern doesn't override Enchantress.  It's only the question of whether it's the same kind of thing as Ways or whether they're two different things.  If we were to adopt Jeebus' view that Chameleon and Lantern should work the same way, then we'd have to either change how we've been playing Lantern up till now, or we'd have to make Chameleon an exception to all the other Ways which do override Enchantress, and neither seems really satisfactory to me

Maybe if Border Guard and Ways had been released in the same set, or if Border Guard had been in a later set than Ways, it might've been done differently (because I agree, there is an ambiguity in that Lantern could be interpreted either as a replacement like Ways, or as just a modification), and they'd work the same way, but we can only deal with the game as it actually exists, not a hypothetical alternate version

I mostly agree with you here.

He has never ruled on it before, so there is no precedent. He has actually ruled on several other corner-case things that it turns out are implemented wrong online (and some of them probably still are), so that's not a hindrance either.

In the past he has listened to logical arguments when it comes to card interpretations, so that remote possibility exists, but in this case I see it as almost non-existent.

He still hasn't responded to how Chameleon works with Enchantress. We can assume that there is no omission in the rulebook of course. If we also assume that what he said in this thread still stands, there is the question of how both those things can be true. The answer is probably something along the lines of what GendoIkari is saying. But of course, I still think this is a forced interpretation, not how the cards naturally read.

[GendoIkari]

You are also assuming that Chameleon replaces the whole instruction, but I can't see that you have any basis for that. See my last post, which nobody has responded to. Why is Magic Trick fundamentally different from Chameleon? To me your whole basis for this is circular; it's based on the fact that Chameleon is a Way to conclude that therefore it works as a Way.

This is the part I'm most confused about. Why is it circular; we know for a fact how Ways work. Chameleon isn't special or different than any of the other 19 Ways when it comes to this. By the rules, by definition, using a Way replaces all normal instructions; not just a part of it.

I think that Magic Trick is fundamentally different from Chameleon, and not only because it's a Way. Also because Chameleon says "follow this card's instructions", which Magic Trick didn't say. A Magic Trick landscape that works exactly like Chameleon would have to be worded: "When playing action cards, you can choose instead of following their instructions to follow their instructions but get +Cards instead of +$ and vice versa".

This gives you the option of which instruction to follow... the rulebook instruction which says "do what's written on the card you played", or Magic Trick's instruction which says "do what's written on the card you played, but get +Cards instead of +$ and vice versa".

Imagine for a moment that we edit the actual rules to play a variant of Dominion. We take this rule from the rulebook:

Playing an Action card has three steps: announcing it; moving it to the "in play" area - the table space in front of you; and following the instructions on it, in order, top to bottom.

And we edit it to say:

Playing an Action card has two steps: announcing it; and moving it to the "in play" area - the table space in front of you.

Under this version of Dominion, when you play a Smithy, nothing happens. When you play a Border Guard, nothing happens, whether you have Lantern or not. (But Horn still works like normal!) Even if you're playing with your version of Magic Trick, playing a Smithy doesn't do anything. Sure you can change those Smithy's instructions to tell you to get $ instead of cards; but that doesn't have any effect on anything; because you never follow Smithy's instructions.

But, under this version of Dominion, using a Way does cause something to happen. That's because Ways work completely independently of the rule "following the instructions on it, in order, top to bottom." In fact the rules for Ways basically causes that rule to not exist as long as you are choosing to use the Way instead. So Ways would function exactly the same under this variant of Dominion.

[silvern]

always feel amped-up when there's a NEW contentious discussion about the theoretical side of Dominion. Let's formalize this game, baby

[Jeebus]

I'm not convinced Ways would do anything under your alternative version of Dominion. It might depend on Donald's answer to my previous question: Do abilities like Ways and Enchantress replace each other, or does only the first one work and all subsequent ones fail? If Ingix is right that it's the latter one, Ways will definitely not work when you're not already doing the card's ability. Enchantress clearly wouldn't work either way, based on its wording, and I would actually think Ways work the same way as Enchantress, in which case it doesn't matter what the answer to that question is, Ways wouldn't work anyway.

Maybe circular wasn't right word, but I meant that the logic is backwards. I think I know a better way to explain it: To me the rulebook notes on Chameleon could perfectly well have said that Chameleon, unlike the other Ways, doesn't override Enchantress, since it's still following the card's instructions. I just can't believe that you would read that and think, "This rule is in conflict with the card text on Chameleon." I mean, Chameleon actually says to follow the instructions. It's a perfectly reasonable rule. In that reality, we would all agree that Chameleon works exactly like Lantern; neither would override Enchantress. I repeat, with the same exact card text on Chameleon. That's why I think you're basing this idea about Chameleon solely on the fact that it's apparently supposed to work as the other Ways do. You're putting the cart ahead of the mule or whatever.

[Doom_Shark]

Now, as I was reviewing the wall of text that was typed below, you posted something else that finally showed me what you were trying to say the entire time: that Enchantress should still able to do its thing with Way of the Chameleon because it should be able to replace the "Follow this card's instructions" bit on Chameleon with "+1 Card, +1 Action," and if it can't, then Lantern should override enchantress as well. This seems much more reasonable of a viewpoint to me. With this in mind, the I think the debate shouldn't be, "Does Lantern override Enchantress?" but rather, "Should Way of the Chameleon be an exception to the rule in this case?"

I will leave this argument here for posterity's sake anyway:

I just came up with what might be a better way to explain this:

You're reading lantern as "Instead of following Border Guard's instructions, follow them, revealing 3 cards instead of two."

We're reading Lantern as "When you would reveal 2 cards by following the instructions of Border Guard, reveal 3 instead."

Yes, I was going to write more or less the same thing.

So, when I posted those earlier, I failed to realize that there was an entire 3rd page of discussion that I hadn't read. That's on me. That said, I'm going to do my best to go through your post point by point:

First of all, even with the latter interpretation, your are definitely not only following Border Guard's instructions, some of them are interrupted and replaced on the fly with Lantern's (unlike what you said before). Whether this should count as resolving Border Guard so that Enchantress overrides it, I don't know

I think the difference here is that Enchantress and Ways replace the entire card's instructions before they happen, while the latter interpretation of Lantern replaces one subset of the instructions as they happen. This is much like reacting to Workshop with Trader. Workshop is still resolving, but Trader is replacing the gain event.

but whatever the case, Chameleon should work the same way.

I disagree with you on this. Way of the Chameleon has to replace the entire card's effect due to being a Way. That is how Ways work; Chameleon is worded the way it is due to that constraint, and is why it has this weird interaction with Enchantress. Lantern has no such card-type-based limitations.

Second, even that interpretation is adding stuff that is not in the wording. It's no more or less valid than my interpretation from the actual card text.

I'll concede that.

The reason my interpretation is more valid,

Alright, now you're contradicting the above statement. This doesn't add anything to the discussion, I'm just trying to inject humor by being pedantic.

is that it fits with all other such when-would effects that we have; it follows precedent. I explained this before.

I'm not sure what precedent you are referring to here. You may or may not have already explained this; I'm not entirely sure. If you have, I lost it in all the other discussion/arguing that's happening around this.

I also said this (and now we have established that Lantern does replace at least some of the instructions):

I, at least, never intended to imply that Lantern did not replace any instructions. I do, however, believe that the replacement is much more limited in scope than Way of the Chameleon; see above.

"That leaves the question of the timing. The natural interpretation is that it does this just as you're about to do it, just like all other cards like this. To conclude that it triggers several times during your resolution of Border Guard seems very forced to me. It seems to be a rule invented just to avoid a certain interaction."

Ah, the crux of the miscommunication (as I see it, anyway). I see the "natural interpretation" of the timing for Lantern as being when would reveal rather than when would resolve. This goes back to the two different interpretations issue. There's nothing saying this somehow triggers multiple times; I'm not sure where you're getting that from, and I could just be reading too much into rhetorical hyperbole.

You are also assuming that Chameleon replaces the whole instruction, but I can't see that you have any basis for that.

The basis for this is the rules for how Ways function; see above.

See my last post, which nobody has responded to. Why is Magic Trick fundamentally different from Chameleon?

I don't see it as fundamentally different; rather, it is only different enough to matter in this specific edge case involving Enchantress. This question is like asking why first and second edition Cellar are fundamentally different; on a fundamental level, they aren't, but it matters for an edge case involving one particular card-shaped thing.

To me your whole basis for this is circular; it's based on the fact that Chameleon is a Way to conclude that therefore it works as a Way.

Yes, much like saying a Nissan Leaf is a car; therefore, it works like cars do. The rulebook defines the behaviors of Ways; Chameleon is cleverly worded to work within those bounds, but at its core, it is still a Way.

[Jeebus]

Now, as I was reviewing the wall of text that was typed below, you posted something else that finally showed me what you were trying to say the entire time: that Enchantress should still able to do its thing with Way of the Chameleon because it should be able to replace the "Follow this card's instructions" bit on Chameleon with "+1 Card, +1 Action," and if it can't, then Lantern should override enchantress as well. This seems much more reasonable of a viewpoint to me. With this in mind, the I think the debate shouldn't be, "Does Lantern override Enchantress?" but rather, "Should Way of the Chameleon be an exception to the rule in this case?"

Yes, that's it. But those two questions are really just two approaches to asking the same thing. Figuring out if Lantern should override Enchantress is the same as figuring out of Chameleon should override Enchantress. Of course, asking this question presupposes that we don't just accept that Chameleon will override Enchantress because it's a Way. That's what I was saying with my "cart ahead of the mule" argument.

There are actually two lines to this discussion:
1) Does Lantern replace the total ability with a modified version of it, like Ways and Enchantress does?
2) If Lantern doesn't replace the total ability (just parts of the ability as we go along), why doesn't Chameleon work the same way?

Line 1 is about how Lantern works. Line 2 is about how Chameleon works.

1) Does Lantern replace the total ability with a modified version of it, like Ways and Enchantress does?

It seems to me you have been trying to argue that Lantern doesn't based on the card text. But like I said, there's nothing in the actual Lantern card text to say either way. My reason to say that it does is based on how it seems it's intended to work, not the particular words used. (Kind of like "when this is your first buy" is the same timing as "when you buy".) Enchantress, Ways and Lantern all change what a card does as you're playing it. To me it's natural to assume that they have the same timing. If they do have the same timing, Chameleon and Lantern should work the same in regards to Enchantress. If Chameleon works like the other Ways, Lantern should to.

2) If Lantern doesn't replace the total ability (just parts of the ability as we go along), why doesn't Chameleon work the same way?

The reason I say this would be triggering several times: First we get to revealing cards, and then Lantern changes that. Then we get to discarding cards and Lantern changes that. Then, arguably, we get to checking how many revealed cards were Actions and Lantern changes that. This is what I find a forced enterpretation.

But let's assume that it's true. Why doesn't Chameleon work the same way as Lantern? Like I said before, there's nothing in Chameleon's ability that makes us conclude that it changes the whole ability. It actually says to follow the instructions, with certain modifications. Isn't that the very opposite of telling you to cancel the instructions? We follow the instructions and then replace each +Cards with +$ and vice versa, as we go along. If that's how Lantern works, I would think Chameleon should work the same way. Yes, then it would be an exception to the other Ways.

***

Again, this is just logical reasoning (as I see it, of course). It's not based on Donald's previous statement in this thread, nor on the fact that Chameleon seems to not be an exception to how Ways work. I'm saying that I don't see the logic behind both of those being true.

[GendoIkari]

But let's assume that it's true. Why doesn't Chameleon work the same way as Lantern? Like I said before, there's nothing in Chameleon's ability that makes us conclude that it changes the whole ability. It actually says to follow the instructions, with certain modifications. Isn't that the very opposite of telling you to cancel the instructions?

Because “follow this card's instructions” is a brand new instruction you are being given. It’s not a statement saying that Chameleon doesn’t have its own instructions like other Ways; it IS the new instruction. You said before that were reading “follow this card's instructions” as cancelling out the normal way that Ways work, but I think that’s where you're wrong. Imagine a Way that said nothing at all other than “follow this card’s instructions”. That Way would still work like all other Ways, by giving you a brand new instruction follow instead of following the original instructions.

Yes, this brand new instruction involves replacing parts of the original instruction. But that’s the second step of resolving the Way.  The first step is to ignore everything written on the card because you are using a Way. The second step is to follow the steps on the Way. Chameleon isn’t special or different than other Ways.

[GendoIkari]

I see it like Band of Misfits (pre-errata).

The “play this as” is a literal instruction that you follow. It’s not a special wording that changes the way it gets played... originally it was the latter, but Donald changed that ruling a long time ago. So you play Band of Misfits like normal and follow its instructions. The first instructions tells you to play it again, but this time in a special way. Chameleon does the same. “Follow this card's instructions” is not a special wording that changes the normal fact that Chameleon has its own instructions. It’s simply the first instruction on the card.

It sounds like you are reading Chameleon in the way that Band of Misfits used to work, before the changed ruling.

[mxdata]

Lantern has to be a modification, not a replacement of the text, because it's not a complete instruction by itself.  If you were to interpret it as working like a Way, and replacing the original instructions, then the new instructions are "Reveal three cards and discard two".  Reveal from where?  From your hand?  From your deck?  And what do you do with the one you don't discard?  Do you topdeck it?  Put it into your hand?  You can only answer those questions by referencing the text of Border Guard.  So, unlike Ways, it can't be a brand-new instruction, you have to keep part of the original instructions.

Imagine if, instead, Lantern actually said "When you play a Border Guard: +1 Action Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Put one into your hand and discard the rest. If all three were Actions, take the Horn."  In that case, it would be logical to conclude that it worked the same as Ways and would override Enchantress.  It's completely new instructions, albeit, instructions that are similar to the original text.  Very much like Chameleon in fact

[Jeebus]

I see it like Band of Misfits (pre-errata).

The “play this as” is a literal instruction that you follow. It’s not a special wording that changes the way it gets played... originally it was the latter, but Donald changed that ruling a long time ago. So you play Band of Misfits like normal and follow its instructions. The first instructions tells you to play it again, but this time in a special way. Chameleon does the same. “Follow this card's instructions” is not a special wording that changes the normal fact that Chameleon has its own instructions. It’s simply the first instruction on the card.

It sounds like you are reading Chameleon in the way that Band of Misfits used to work, before the changed ruling.

I am saying that it's completely open to interpretation. I have explained this in detail. It still sounds to me that you're basing your interpretation on the idea that it has to work a certain way because it's a Way, not on the idea of how it works. From the card text we could perfectly well conclude that it does what you're saying Lantern does. Like I said:

To me the rulebook notes on Chameleon could perfectly well have said that Chameleon, unlike the other Ways, doesn't override Enchantress, since it's still following the card's instructions. I just can't believe that you would read that and think, "This rule is in conflict with the card text on Chameleon." I mean, Chameleon actually says to follow the instructions. It's a perfectly reasonable rule.

Sure, maybe you're right that this would be like the original BOM ruling, but that means that you're viewing Lantern like that ruling too.

This debate about Chameleon is mostly only relevant if you still disagree about "Line 1" btw, which you didn't adress.

[Jeebus]

Lantern has to be a modification, not a replacement of the text, because it's not a complete instruction by itself.  If you were to interpret it as working like a Way, and replacing the original instructions, then the new instructions are "Reveal three cards and discard two".  Reveal from where?  From your hand?  From your deck?  And what do you do with the one you don't discard?  Do you topdeck it?  Put it into your hand?  You can only answer those questions by referencing the text of Border Guard.  So, unlike Ways, it can't be a brand-new instruction, you have to keep part of the original instructions.

Imagine if, instead, Lantern actually said "When you play a Border Guard: +1 Action Reveal the top 3 cards of your deck. Put one into your hand and discard the rest. If all three were Actions, take the Horn."  In that case, it would be logical to conclude that it worked the same as Ways and would override Enchantress.  It's completely new instructions, albeit, instructions that are similar to the original text.  Very much like Chameleon in fact

I adressed all this already, and even said how it would work as a Way. See here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20199.msg828030#msg828030
I've said many times that your interpretation is not based on the card text either. I said this: "Even that interpretation is adding stuff that is not in the wording. It's no more or less valid than my interpretation from the actual card text." Doom_Shark, at least, conceded that.

[GendoIkari]

I see it like Band of Misfits (pre-errata).

The “play this as” is a literal instruction that you follow. It’s not a special wording that changes the way it gets played... originally it was the latter, but Donald changed that ruling a long time ago. So you play Band of Misfits like normal and follow its instructions. The first instructions tells you to play it again, but this time in a special way. Chameleon does the same. “Follow this card's instructions” is not a special wording that changes the normal fact that Chameleon has its own instructions. It’s simply the first instruction on the card.

It sounds like you are reading Chameleon in the way that Band of Misfits used to work, before the changed ruling.

I am saying that it's completely open to interpretation. I have explained this in detail. It still sounds to me that you're basing your interpretation on the idea that it has to work a certain way because it's a Way, not on the idea of how it works. From the card text we could perfectly well conclude that it does what you're saying Lantern does. Like I said:

To me the rulebook notes on Chameleon could perfectly well have said that Chameleon, unlike the other Ways, doesn't override Enchantress, since it's still following the card's instructions. I just can't believe that you would read that and think, "This rule is in conflict with the card text on Chameleon." I mean, Chameleon actually says to follow the instructions. It's a perfectly reasonable rule.

Sure, maybe you're right that this would be like the original BOM ruling, but that means that you're viewing Lantern like that ruling too.

This debate about Chameleon is mostly only relevant if you still disagree about "Line 1" btw, which you didn't adress.

I think it can be concluded outside of knowing the rules for Ways, simply by going off of the most literal reading of the card. Just like Band of Misfits, every word written on a card should be automatically interpreted as its own instruction. Even if we didn't know anything about Ways, we should always read "Follow this card's instructions..." exactly like we read "+2 cards". Simply because it is text printed on a card/landscape. We read it literally and do what it says. Your interpretation seems to require treating "Follow this card's instructions" as a special type of instruction, one that has different rules from all other written text in the game.

Does Lantern replace the total ability with a modified version of it, like Ways and Enchantress does?

No, because of the reason that mxdata just posted; which is the same thing I've been trying to say... Lantern doesn't contain a full instruction. You can't only literally follow the text on Lantern and get anywhere. With Chameleon, just like with Smithy, Way of the Mouse, or any other Event or Card or Way, it is possible to simply literally read the text and do what it says. Lantern doesn't contain an instruction that you can follow.

Basically, Chameleon is worded like a list of things you can do. Lantern is not.

[Jeebus]

Ill repeat it once more then: Lantern doesn't say what you says it says. You are interpreting and putting words there that aren't there. Just like me. There's no way to follow it "literally", just like Mxdata just said, and just like I said before.

[GendoIkari]

Ill repeat it once more then: Lantern doesn't say what you says it says. You are interpreting and putting words there that aren't there. Just like me.

Lantern does not tell you do do something though... that's just the literal words on Lantern. It contains no instructions. I'm not putting any words on it; I'm pointing out what words are not on it.

*Edit* It's the difference between "At the start of your turn, +", and "You start your turns with ". The first one is a thing that you do. The second one is just a statement about how the game works for you.

In MTG terms, it's the difference between a triggered ability and a static ability. Static abilities are just statements that are always true; they don't ever "happen". Triggered abilities are things that happen.

[Jeebus]

You're not putting words on it? So you think we can literally follow it as is? You just agreed with Mxdata when he said the opposite. Again, see here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20199.msg828030#msg828030

[GendoIkari]

You're not putting words on it? So you think we can literally follow it as is? You just agreed with Mxdata when he said the opposite. Again, see here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20199.msg828030#msg828030

I'm saying we can't "follow" it ever, because it doesn't actually DO anything. It creates a new truth that is always true. You never do what Lantern says at any time. It doesn't have any instructions for you to follow. There is no question of timing, there's no "when" Lantern happens.

[Jeebus]

Okay. Going back to Chameleon and Enchantress, let's read as literally as we can:

Chameleon: "Instead of following this card's instructions: Follow this card's instructions; each time that would give you +Cards this turn, you get +$ instead, and vice-versa."
Enchantress: "when you play an Action card, you get +1 Card and +1 Action instead of following its instructions."

Did you play the Action card? Yes. Did you follow its instructions? According to Chameleon, yes. It literally says that Enchantress wins.

Let's compare with Tradering a Curse. Instead of gaining the Curse, you gain a Silver. But that means that Guildhall can trigger. The new thing that happened (gaining a Silver) still counts as what it is - gaining a Silver.

Chameleon does a new thing, but the new thing is the same thing. It's "follow the instructions". This is what Enchantress replaces. If it replaces it on Lantern, it replaces it here. Chameleon then triggers each time something happens during the card instructions and replaces it, exactly like Lantern.

[Jeebus]

You're not putting words on it? So you think we can literally follow it as is? You just agreed with Mxdata when he said the opposite. Again, see here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20199.msg828030#msg828030

I'm saying we can't "follow" it ever, because it doesn't actually DO anything. It creates a new truth that is always true. You never do what Lantern says at any time. It doesn't have any instructions for you to follow.

That is categorically false. That's how Lantern used to work, with shapeshifting. Now, Border Guards are untouched. Lantern triggers each time you play one, and then it has some effect on how you resolve the Border Guard. We can debate the timing there, but Lantern absolutely has instructions that you have to follow each time you play a Border Guard.

[GendoIkari]

Okay. Going back to Chameleon and Enchantress, let's read as literally as we can:

Chameleon: "Instead of follwing this card's instructions: Follow this card's instructions; each time that would give you +Cards this turn, you get +$ instead, and vice-versa."
Enchantress: "when you play an Action card, you get +1 Card and +1 Action instead of following its instructions."

Did you play the Action card? Yes. Did you follow its instructions? According to Chameleon, yes. It literally says that Enchantress wins.

Let's compare with Tradering a Curse. Instead of gaining the Curse, you gain a Silver. But that means that Guildhall can trigger. The new thing that happened (gaining a Silver) still counts as what it is - gaining a Silver.

Chameleon does a new thing, but the new thing is the same thing. It's "follow the instructions". This is what Enchantress replaces. If it replaces it on Lantern, it replaces it here. Chameleon then triggers each time something happens during the card instructions and replaces it, exactly like Lantern.

I think that's just the rule for replacement effects... when 2 things try to replace the same 1 thing, you get to choose which one it is. Once you make that choice once, the one you didn't choose can't then happen again. The choice is "replace A with B, or replace A with C". If you choose B, C can't happen. If you choose C, B can't happen.

[GendoIkari]

You're not putting words on it? So you think we can literally follow it as is? You just agreed with Mxdata when he said the opposite. Again, see here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20199.msg828030#msg828030

I'm saying we can't "follow" it ever, because it doesn't actually DO anything. It creates a new truth that is always true. You never do what Lantern says at any time. It doesn't have any instructions for you to follow.

That is categorically false. That's how Lantern used to work, with shapeshifting. Now, Border Guards are untouched. Lantern triggers each time you play one, and then it has some effect on how you resolve the Border Guard. We can debate the timing there, but Lantern absolutely has instructions that you have to follow each time you play a Border Guard.

Is this based on a ruling that Donald gave? It doesn't follow from the wording on Lantern (either old or new wording). To me it seems like your way would have to be worded "when you play a Border guard, instead of following its instructions, follow its instructions except you reveal 3 cards and discard 2 cards".

[Jeebus]

I think that's just the rule for replacement effects... when 2 things try to replace the same 1 thing, you get to choose which one it is. Once you make that choice once, the one you didn't choose can't then happen again. The choice is "replace A with B, or replace A with C". If you choose B, C can't happen. If you choose C, B can't happen.

Hmm, I think you're skimming my posts. You don't seem to be replying to anything I said.

Is this based on a ruling that Donald gave? It doesn't follow from the wording on Lantern (either old or new wording). To me it seems like your way would have to be worded "when you play a Border guard, instead of following its instructions, follow its instructions except you reveal 3 cards and discard 2 cards".

The ruling is that Lantern doesn't shapeshift. So how can it cause Border Guard to be played differently if it doesn't do anything when you play Border Guard? You'll have to explain this theory in more detail.

[GendoIkari]

I'm trying to read it all like plain English. Stuff written on cards and events and Ways are things you could ask someone to do as a favor... "Do me a favor, draw 3 cards". (Of course, "draw" is shorthanded to "+" usually). "Do me a favor, take another turn after this one".

But with Lantern... "do me a favor; Border Guards you play reveal 3 cards and discard 2." It doesn't make sense as a sentence.

[Jeebus]

Ill repeat it once more then: Lantern doesn't say what you says it says. You are interpreting and putting words there that aren't there. Just like me.

Lantern does not tell you do do something though... that's just the literal words on Lantern. It contains no instructions. I'm not putting any words on it; I'm pointing out what words are not on it.

*Edit* It's the difference between "At the start of your turn, +", and "You start your turns with ". The first one is a thing that you do. The second one is just a statement about how the game works for you.

In MTG terms, it's the difference between a triggered ability and a static ability. Static abilities are just statements that are always true; they don't ever "happen". Triggered abilities are things that happen.

In Dominion we have ongoing abilities like Bridge. Bridge causes shapeshifting. Lantern does not. We also have ongoing abilities like Goons ("when you buy"). Goons enables a triggered ability to happen: When you buy a card, you follow Goon's instruction (take a VP token). This is like Lantern.

[Jeebus]

I'm trying to read it all like plain English. Stuff written on cards and events and Ways are things you could ask someone to do as a favor... "Do me a favor, draw 3 cards". (Of course, "draw" is shorthanded to "+" usually). "Do me a favor, take another turn after this one".

But with Lantern... "do me a favor; Border Guards you play reveal 3 cards and discard 2." It doesn't make sense as a sentence.

That's why I and others are saying that you can't follow it literally.

[GendoIkari]

I think that's just the rule for replacement effects... when 2 things try to replace the same 1 thing, you get to choose which one it is. Once you make that choice once, the one you didn't choose can't then happen again. The choice is "replace A with B, or replace A with C". If you choose B, C can't happen. If you choose C, B can't happen.

Hmm, I think you're skimming my posts. You don't seem to be replying to anything I said.

Not meaning to, but there is a lot to keep up with all around. I'm saying that when Enchantress says "instead of following that card's instructions", that event that was to be replaced has already had its chance to be replaced. Enchantress doesn't work on any time you are following the card's instructions, it only works on the one normal situation of following a card's instructions due directly to having played that card. Perhaps that's adding extra words to Enchantress, but it does say it only happens "the first time each other player plays an Action card", and I'm suggesting that this limits the scope of "instead of following its instructions" to be the normal "following its instructions" that you do as a direct result of playing a card. Not just any time you would follow its instructions while playing your first card.

Is this based on a ruling that Donald gave? It doesn't follow from the wording on Lantern (either old or new wording). To me it seems like your way would have to be worded "when you play a Border guard, instead of following its instructions, follow its instructions except you reveal 3 cards and discard 2 cards".

The ruling is that Lantern doesn't shapeshift. So how can it cause Border Guard to be played differently if it doesn't do anything when you play Border Guard? You'll have to explain this theory in more detail.

I guess I don't see how Lantern's wording can work via anything other than Shapeshifting. The difference between the old Lantern wording and new Lantern wording is which set of Border Guards are shapeshifted... it used to be "your" Border Guards", now its the ones you play. But the wording just doesn't make any sense to me if it isn't shapeshifting.

[GendoIkari]

I'm trying to read it all like plain English. Stuff written on cards and events and Ways are things you could ask someone to do as a favor... "Do me a favor, draw 3 cards". (Of course, "draw" is shorthanded to "+" usually). "Do me a favor, take another turn after this one".

But with Lantern... "do me a favor; Border Guards you play reveal 3 cards and discard 2." It doesn't make sense as a sentence.

That's why I and others are saying that you can't follow it literally.

You can follow it literally if you treat it like Bridge's shapeshifting.

[Jeebus]

I'm trying to read it all like plain English. Stuff written on cards and events and Ways are things you could ask someone to do as a favor... "Do me a favor, draw 3 cards". (Of course, "draw" is shorthanded to "+" usually). "Do me a favor, take another turn after this one".

But with Lantern... "do me a favor; Border Guards you play reveal 3 cards and discard 2." It doesn't make sense as a sentence.

That's why I and others are saying that you can't follow it literally.

You can follow it literally if you treat it like Bridge's shapeshifting.

But you can't, since it doesn't cause shapeshifting. There's no difference between "Bridge's shapeshifting" and the shapeshifting that pre-errata Lantern had, if that's what you think. Bridge changes the cost on the card. Pre-errata Lantern changed the card text on Border Guard. Post-errata Lantern doesn't. I can't see that have any argument here.

I guess I don't see how Lantern's wording can work via anything other than Shapeshifting. The difference between the old Lantern wording and new Lantern wording is which set of Border Guards are shapeshifted... it used to be "your" Border Guards", now its the ones you play. But the wording just doesn't make any sense to me if it isn't shapeshifting.

Maybe that has been part of the problem. Since it's not shapeshifting, it has to trigger when you play Border Guard, and then we're pretty close to the interpretation I've been saying.

[GendoIkari]

I'm trying to read it all like plain English. Stuff written on cards and events and Ways are things you could ask someone to do as a favor... "Do me a favor, draw 3 cards". (Of course, "draw" is shorthanded to "+" usually). "Do me a favor, take another turn after this one".

But with Lantern... "do me a favor; Border Guards you play reveal 3 cards and discard 2." It doesn't make sense as a sentence.

That's why I and others are saying that you can't follow it literally.

You can follow it literally if you treat it like Bridge's shapeshifting.

But you can't, since it doesn't cause shapeshifting. There's no difference between "Bridge's shapeshifting" and the shapeshifting that pre-errata Lantern had, if that's what you think. Bridge changes the cost on the card. Pre-errata Lantern changed the card text on Border Guard. Post-errata Lantern doesn't. I can't see that have any argument here.

What are you basing that on? A ruling from Donald? The text on Lantern, whether old or new, imply Shapeshifting if read literally.

[Jeebus]

What are you basing that on? A ruling from Donald? The text on Lantern, whether old or new, imply Shapeshifting if read literally.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19892.msg819683#msg819683

[GendoIkari]

What are you basing that on? A ruling from Donald? The text on Lantern, whether old or new, imply Shapeshifting if read literally.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19892.msg819683#msg819683

Heh, even you said "It kinda sounds like it still is."

It finally occurs to me that our entire disagreement may have actually just been about whether Lantern was shapeshifting or not. If Lantern does not Shapeshift, as Donald said, then I don't see how that's consistent with his ruling here that it doesn't override Enchantress. I agree with you on that.

[GendoIkari]

Eight cards are getting errata. Four are "shapeshifters" - they can change what they are, or what something else is. These create lots of rules questions and a few problems, and are switching to be like Captain and Necromancer - they'll play a card instead of becoming the card.

Yeah this reads like Donald's intent was to make Lantern cause Border Guard to be played. He lists Lantern along with BoM and Inheritance  and Overlord, as if the change made to Lantern was the same as the change made to those three. I don't think that makes any sense though. I can't think of any re-wording or re-interpretation of Lantern's new text that acts equivalent to BoM / Inheritance / Overlord; causing Border Guard to be played.

*Edit* Hmm, still thinking about it. It can't be Border Guard that Lantern is causing to be played. It has to be more like Border Guard now plays a new card; one with these modified instructions. But even that version sounds like Shapeshifiting. I simply can't find any possible way for Lantern to actually work without Shapeshifting; despite Donald saying that the intent was that it doesn't shapeshift.

[Jeebus]

Eight cards are getting errata. Four are "shapeshifters" - they can change what they are, or what something else is. These create lots of rules questions and a few problems, and are switching to be like Captain and Necromancer - they'll play a card instead of becoming the card.

Yeah this reads like Donald's intent was to make Lantern cause Border Guard to be played. He lists Lantern along with BoM and Inheritance  and Overlord, as if the change made to Lantern was the same as the change made to those three. I don't think that makes any sense though. I can't think of any re-wording or re-interpretation of Lantern's new text that acts equivalent to BoM / Inheritance / Overlord; causing Border Guard to be played.

*Edit* Hmm, still thinking about it. It can't be Border Guard that Lantern is causing to be played. It has to be more like Border Guard now plays a new card; one with these modified instructions. But even that version sounds like Shapeshifiting. I simply can't find any possible way for Lantern to actually work without Shapeshifting; despite Donald saying that the intent was that it doesn't shapeshift.

I think he was just getting rid of all possible shapeshifting. So it was not related to causing a card to be played. Causing a card to be played was the solution for BoM etc, but not related to Lantern.

The interpretation would be what I've been saying in this thread: "when you play a Border Guard, you may instead follow its instructions revealing 3 cards instead of 2 and discarding 2 instead of 1"

Or it could be that it triggers several times, like Hhelibebcnofnena was saying already on page 1 of this thread.

In any case it's very similar to Chameleon.

[Jeebus]

Reading Chameleon's text more closely, it really seem like it's not replacing the instructions as a whole with something new.

It's telling you to follow the instructions, and then it's telling you what happens when you would get +Cards and +$ this turn. It's not telling you "Follow this card's instructions with +$ instead of +Cards and vice versa." (That wouldn't even work, because it's only supposed to be this-turn stuff.) It's saying "each time you would". It sounds like it's setting up stuff to happen as you're following the instructions.

I'm also realizing that it could matter (depending on which interpretation of Chameleon and Lantern we go with) whether it's the last applied effect that wins or the first applied. This is getting a bit too complicated with too much information missing.

[hhelibebcnofnena]

I've only been gone for a little over 24 hours! How did this fill more than a page in that time?

[crj]

It's telling you to follow the instructions, and then it's telling you what happens when you would get +Cards and +$ this turn. It's not telling you "Follow this card's instructions with +$ instead of +Cards and vice versa."

Indeed. If there was a hypothetical card which said "Each player gets +1 Card", when played via Way of the Chameleon you'd get +$1 and everyone else would get +1 Card.

I... assume?

[hhelibebcnofnena]

It's telling you to follow the instructions, and then it's telling you what happens when you would get +Cards and +$ this turn. It's not telling you "Follow this card's instructions with +$ instead of +Cards and vice versa."

Indeed. If there was a hypothetical card which said "Each player gets +1 Card", when played via Way of the Chameleon you'd get +$1 and everyone else would get +1 Card.

I... assume?

... Governor?

[GendoIkari]

It's telling you to follow the instructions, and then it's telling you what happens when you would get +Cards and +$ this turn. It's not telling you "Follow this card's instructions with +$ instead of +Cards and vice versa."

Indeed. If there was a hypothetical card which said "Each player gets +1 Card", when played via Way of the Chameleon you'd get +$1 and everyone else would get +1 Card.

I... assume?

... Governor?

Right, it’s been discussed that Chameleon only changes your own Governor effect, opponents still get the card.

[Jeebus]

It's telling you to follow the instructions, and then it's telling you what happens when you would get +Cards and +$ this turn. It's not telling you "Follow this card's instructions with +$ instead of +Cards and vice versa."

Indeed. If there was a hypothetical card which said "Each player gets +1 Card", when played via Way of the Chameleon you'd get +$1 and everyone else would get +1 Card.

I... assume?

Good point, but I was talking about the timing. I shouldn't have phrased it like that. I should have said:

It's telling you to follow the instructions, and then it's telling you what happens when you would get +Cards and +$ this turn. It's not telling you "Follow this card's instructions with +$ instead of +Cards for you this turn, and vice versa."

I was trying to say that it doesn't read like it's replacing the whole set of instructions up front, and then it's done (before you start following the instructions). It sounds like it's replacing the instructions with the same instructions and also setting up stuff to happen, so that when you start following the instructions and get to +$ or +Cards, Chameleon triggers and changes it.

[crj]

... Governor?

No. Governor doesn't actually apply the same number to both the current and other players. So you could, at least in theory, achieve a Chameleon-like effect by editing the card text. I was trying to illustrate a circumstance in which it would be essential to leave the card as-is but modify how its instructions are followed.

[hhelibebcnofnena]

... Governor?

No. Governor doesn't actually apply the same number to both the current and other players. So you could, at least in theory, achieve a Chameleon-like effect by editing the card text. I was trying to illustrate a circumstance in which it would be essential to leave the card as-is but modify how its instructions are followed.

Ah. I understand now.

[GendoIkari]

... Governor?

No. Governor doesn't actually apply the same number to both the current and other players. So you could, at least in theory, achieve a Chameleon-like effect by editing the card text. I was trying to illustrate a circumstance in which it would be essential to leave the card as-is but modify how its instructions are followed.

Ah I see the difference. This actually makes a lot of sense, and basically confirms what Jeebus said in his last post... Chameleon doesn't modify instructions; it just sets a new rule for what you personally do while following certain instructions.

[Jeebus]

I'm going to try to write some sort of summary of this very complex topic that I've spent too much time on. Now we have information telling us how the different interactions work (mostly).

After all the comments in this thread, I've modified my views somewhat, and also Lantern probably has one of the most vague card texts in Dominion, so it's natural that we might read it in different ways.

I still think it would be most intuitive if Lantern and Way of the Chameleon worked the same. We know that Lantern doesn't change (shapeshift) Border Guard, so that means it has to trigger when we play Border Guard, somehow modifying what we do. The only other cards that do this are Enchantress and all the Ways.

Enchantress and Ways trigger when you would resolve the play ability, and replace it. It's important to note that if one of them has replaced the play ability already, the other one fails. (This is what Ingix assumed early in the thread, but Donald didn't confirm it until later.) In other words, you can't ever "override" Enchantress with a Way or vice versa, you just choose which to apply first, and the other does nothing.

If Lantern worked the same way, it would do essentially the same as Chameleon: Right before we would resolve the play ability, it's replaced with a version of itself. Then the question becomes, (1) is it replaced with a modified version right now, or (2) is it replaced with an identical version and the modification effects are set up to trigger on the fly? In the first case it would seem that Enchantress should fail. In the second case it's less clear, but it would seem Enchantress should succeed (in which case Chameleon would be an exception to the rulebook statement that Ways can cancel the Enchantment).

The first option is what I've been arguing for mostly, because then all the cards would have the exact same timing. But then I realized that the card text on Chameleon seemed to suggest the second option. The two options also matter for the -$1 token and -1 Card token, which trigger on when-would just like the modification effects would do in the second option.


But it turns out that Chameleon follows the first option: All the modifications are done before you start resolving, with the same timing as Enchantress. Enchantress fails because the ability is replaced, and this is the case even if the ability can't be modified by Chameleon (because of lack of +Cards/+$). And the tokens apply after Chameleon has done all the modifications.

When it comes to Lantern, the ruling is that it works differently. It works as in the second option above, except it doesn't even do an initial replacement. When we play Border Guard and get to revealing cards, Lantern triggers and changes the number of cards, and when we get to discarding cards, Lanten triggers again, etc. This is what Hhelibebcnofnena said in the beginning (except that you can't choose to apply Lantern's modifications before a Way).


There is the question of Chameleon with another Way, like Way of the Sheep, if you apply Sheep first. I would assume that Ways work like Enchantress: As long as the ability is replaced, Chameleon can't replace it.

There is also the question of Lantern with a Way like Way of the Mole. This is different, since Lantern doesn't replace the ability. It could be seen as, Lantern still triggers after you have applied Mole, because it's still a Border Guard, and it's telling you to discard cards. But based on Donald's ruling, it seems that this is not the case: Even though we have a new discard effect, we're ignoring Border Guard's ability, so Lantern should never trigger.

Thirdly, there is the question of Lantern with Chameleon. Chameleon replaces the ability on Border Guard without making any modifications. This one is less clear, but I assume that Lantern is also like Enchantress in that it only works on the unreplaced ability of a card (in this case Border Guard). Lantern doesn't do anything with the whole ability (unlike Enchantress or Ways), but it does do something with specific effects in Border Guard's ability. This would mean that you can use Chameleon to play Border Guards "as-is" (to reveal less cards).


A way to view the card texts is then:

Chameleon: "Instead of following this card's instructions: Follow this card's instructions with the exception that effects that give you +Cards this turn give you +$ instead, and vice versa."

Lantern: "When you would resolve Border Guard's effect of revealing 2 cards, instead reveal 3. When you would resolve Border Guard's effect of discarding 1 card, instead discard 2."

[scolapasta]

This wording:

A way to view the card texts is then:

Lantern: "When you would resolve Border Guard's effect of revealing 2 cards, instead reveal 3. When you would resolve Border Guard's effect of discarding 1 card, instead discard 2."

makes me think of this phrasing for Border Guard that mxdata had several pages back:

Border Guard/Lantern is kind of like that.  Border Guard does one thing if you have the Lantern and another thing if you don't.  It would lead to a much wordier card, though, if you tried to put it all in BG's text, something like "+1 Action Reveal the top 2 cards of your deck (3 if you have the Lantern). Put one into your hand and discard the other(s). If both/all were Actions, take the Lantern or Horn", so for practical purposes, there's instead text on Lantern that tells you how it affects Border Guard

If this hypothetical text had been how Border Guard was released, then we'd have no debate at all.  It would be obvious that Lantern wouldn't override Enchantress

I think all of the rulings are consistent if BG's text had been this, so it might be a good way to think about it.

Of course, if this had been BG's actual text, then there would be no text at all on Lantern.