Print

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

[Jeebus]

 

The wiki says:
If you shuffle from the +3 Cards, and use Order of Masons to make Emissary draw 0 cards, you'll still get +1 Action and +2 Favors.

Is this accurate? Order of Masons has to trigger before you actually shuffle (when you would shuffle) because that's when you actually pick out cards. The shuffling comes after. If you are left with 0 cards to shuffle, then by the definition on Emissary, you didn't shuffle.

[Wizard_Amul]

Good question--I think you do still get the +1 Action and +2 Favors because if you do what the wiki says, you end up having to actually shuffle 1+ cards again.

Simple scenario that explains:
1. I have 1 card in my deck, 2 cards in my discard pile, and 1 favor.
2. I play Emissary, drawing the 1 card and attempt to shuffle 2 cards.
3. I use Order of Masons to set the 2 cards in the discard pile. I now have 0 favors.
4. I now have to actually shuffle the 2 cards because I still need to draw 2 cards that I still haven't drawn.

I would say the wiki is misleading in that I don't see how you can use Order of Masons to make Emissary draw 0 cards--maybe I'm missing some edge case that I'm not thinking of.

[Ingix]

The question is what it actually means to "shuffle". With Order of Masons, Astrologers and Star Chart, that has potentially becoming quite different from a simple randomization.

To me it makes no sense to say that Order of Masons applies, but that you then didn't shuffle for the purpose of Emissary.

Order of Masons and the other are in my opinion replacement effects, that modify what you do when you shuffle. That you need to shuffle is decided at some point, and whatever is then done is the "shuffle". In an extreme case, it may not involve any randomiization of cards, but is still a shuffle for the game.

[Jeebus]

Good question--I think you do still get the +1 Action and +2 Favors because if you do what the wiki says, you end up having to actually shuffle 1+ cards again.

Simple scenario that explains:
1. I have 1 card in my deck, 2 cards in my discard pile, and 1 favor.
2. I play Emissary, drawing the 1 card and attempt to shuffle 2 cards.
3. I use Order of Masons to set the 2 cards in the discard pile. I now have 0 favors.
4. I now have to actually shuffle the 2 cards because I still need to draw 2 cards that I still haven't drawn.

I would say the wiki is misleading in that I don't see how you can use Order of Masons to make Emissary draw 0 cards--maybe I'm missing some edge case that I'm not thinking of.

Hmm, that's a good question.

Whichever cards you kept aside are put in your discard pile after shuffling. (Compare with Star Chart and Order of Astrologers. You keep cards aside, and then, after shuffling, you put them on top of the shuffled cards. You can't do this before shuffling. There is no reason why Order of Masons should work differently.)

According to the new rule for shuffling that was introduced in Dominion 2E, drawing from your deck entails:
A. Check if you have enough cards in your deck.
B. If not, shuffle your discard pile, and put the shuffled cards under your deck.
C. Draw.

1. I have 1 card in my deck, 2 cards in my discard pile.
2. I play Emissary and (A) see that I don't have 3 cards in my deck, so I need to shuffle.
3. (B) When I would shuffle, I use Order of Masons to keep 2 cards aside.
4. I now shuffle 0 cards from my discard pile.
5. I put the 2 cards in my discard pile.
6. (C) Now Emissary draws 1 card.

Since Emissary was already at C (drawing), I don't think it makes sense that it goes back to A (counting your deck), meaning you don't start the shuffling process again.
The wiki page for Order of the Masons also supports this.

[Jeebus]

The question is what it actually means to "shuffle". With Order of Masons, Astrologers and Star Chart, that has potentially becoming quite different from a simple randomization.

To me it makes no sense to say that Order of Masons applies, but that you then didn't shuffle for the purpose of Emissary.

Order of Masons and the other are in my opinion replacement effects, that modify what you do when you shuffle. That you need to shuffle is decided at some point, and whatever is then done is the "shuffle". In an extreme case, it may not involve any randomiization of cards, but is still a shuffle for the game.

We don't have to decide what kind of randomization or not randomization constitutes "shuffling", because Emissary already has the answer. It's whether it involved at least one card. So when you're told to shuffle, if you move at least one card from your discard pile to your deck, you "shuffled" those cards (or that card). If you moved 0 cards, you didn't shuffle. If something interrupts, modifies or replaces that shuffling, making you move 0 cards instead of what you otherwise would have, you didn't shuffle according to Emissary's definition. I don't see that it matters whether we call the interrupted, modified or replaced process "shuffling" or not, since by the mere fact that we did it to 0 cards, it doesn't trigger Emissary.

[vidicate]

I gotta say it’s kind of nuts that you can make a draw card not draw cards you have in your deck/discard. That just sounds very wrong.

Edit, from OoM wiki page:
When you need to shuffle your discard pile to access more cards from your deck, you only get to shuffle one time. This is true even if there are still cards in your discard pile due to Order of Masons. So if playing a Sentinel makes you shuffle a discard pile with 5 cards, and you spend a Favor to leave 2 of them in your discard pile, the Sentinel looks at the 3 cards in your deck, and you won't shuffle to include the 2 cards in your discard pile.

But, I guess that’s what it do—if for some reason you wanted a specifically untouched discard pile

[Wizard_Amul]

I gotta say it’s kind of nuts that you can make a draw card not draw cards you have in your deck/discard. That just sounds very wrong.

Edit, from OoM wiki page:
When you need to shuffle your discard pile to access more cards from your deck, you only get to shuffle one time. This is true even if there are still cards in your discard pile due to Order of Masons. So if playing a Sentinel makes you shuffle a discard pile with 5 cards, and you spend a Favor to leave 2 of them in your discard pile, the Sentinel looks at the 3 cards in your deck, and you won't shuffle to include the 2 cards in your discard pile.

But, I guess that’s what it do—if for some reason you wanted a specifically untouched discard pile

Huh, I see what you and Jeebus are saying now. So, I was wrong and you don't shuffle again to pick up the cards you left out of the shuffle. I agree that it does sound wrong--I suppose it is in the "spirit" of Order of Masons to make you not draw specific cards through your next shuffle, but it is definitely weird that it can make you draw 0 cards when you leave out all cards from a shuffle.

By the way, just tested on Dominion Online and it does work as you all are saying--all the cards get set aside, I don't draw any cards, and I get the +1 action and +2 favors. I had one card left in my deck (the copper that I do draw) when I played Emissary.

Turn 21 - Wizard_Amul
W plays an Emissary.
W spends 3 Favors.
W puts a Copper, a Silver, a Port, a Bounty Hunter, and an Emissary into their discard pile.
W shuffles their deck.
W draws a Copper.
W gets +1 Action.
W gets +2 Favors. (Emissary)

[Jeebus]

By the way, just tested on Dominion Online and it does work as you all are saying--all the cards get set aside, I don't draw any cards, and I get the +1 action and +2 favors. I had one card left in my deck (the copper that I do draw) when I played Emissary.

Actually, what I've been saying is that you shouldn't get +1 Action and +2 Favors when you shuffle 0 cards because of Order of Masons.

[Ingix]

We don't have to decide what kind of randomization or not randomization constitutes "shuffling", because Emissary already has the answer. It's whether it involved at least one card. So when you're told to shuffle, if you move at least one card from your discard pile to your deck, you "shuffled" those cards (or that card).

I disagree. When you play Emissary, you look if you need to shuffle. Then you look if you have at least 1 card in the discard pile. If yes, you shuffle, and Emissary is satisfied and will give the bonus. How many cards end up anwhere is totally irrelevant to that. If you took the card and made it go to (or rather stay) in the discard pile (with Order of Masons), you shuffled that one card.

To me that idea that you only look at the the "usual" shuffling (what I call randomization) to determine if Emissary gives the bonus is very alien. It would mean that shuffling means something else on Emissary and Order of Masons.

[Wizard_Amul]

By the way, just tested on Dominion Online and it does work as you all are saying--all the cards get set aside, I don't draw any cards, and I get the +1 action and +2 favors. I had one card left in my deck (the copper that I do draw) when I played Emissary.

Actually, what I've been saying is that you shouldn't get +1 Action and +2 Favors when you shuffle 0 cards because of Order of Masons.

I just meant that it's what everyone in this thread is saying happens now. I agree with you and vidicate that it's not really intuitive it should work the way that it currently does.

[dz]

This isn't so relevant for Emissary but there was a discord conversation about Order of Masons.

Context: The question asked was, if you have an empty deck, play Smithy, and use Order of Masons to leave out all cards in your discard pile, does Smithy make you shuffle again, or do you draw nothing? And when I said that Smithy should draw 0, DXV said this:

https://discord.com/channels/212660788786102272/285903840660946954/967465442073509938

My initial thought is strongly the other way. You play Smithy. Oops, gotta shuffle. You put 2 cards into your discard pile with Order of Masons. Where were we? Oops, gotta shuffle. You shuffle, you draw the 2. That seems "natural" to me, for this case that can only be a Possession scenario. I don't know what rulings I've made here but hope they aren't all over the place.

I see the beauty of not providing a way to endlessly loop here; maybe that's the thought. If I made e.g. a project with "every time you shuffle, pick two cards to not shuffle in" then oops you never finish that Smithy. That doesn't sound on the surface like something I'd just know "obviously that locks up the game" and avoid doing.

I write the rulebooks but not the wiki. People have accumulated rulings I guess? I don't know where the non-rulebook part of that came from. But I mean, the intention is probably just to use my posts there.

Library locks up for non-existent Project any which way. So I guess I can rule out that Project.

"If you have to do anything with your deck - for example draw, look at, reveal, set aside, discard, or trash cards - and you need more cards than are left in your deck, first shuffle your discard pile and put it under your deck, then do the thing.

If there are still not enough cards, you do the thing with however many cards you can. If when shuffling there are no cards in your deck, the shuffled discard pile simply becomes your new deck.

When your deck is empty, you do not shuffle until you need to do something with cards from your deck.

If you have to put a card on top of your deck when it is empty, that card becomes the only card in your deck."

(let's guess that that's actual quoted rulebook text; it's sure easier to dig this up than the rulebook, which will be a .pdf I can't just paste from)

That text does suggest that you don't get a second shot at providing the cards for Smithy. You have to draw and need more cards; you shuffle and put it under your deck; then you draw. There are still not enough cards, so you do the thing with the number of cards you can, zero in this case.

For that matter, the game doesn't lock up if you play Smithy and have no cards left in deck / discard. And I mean that's why.

So. You play Smithy. You have two cards in your discard pile or deck, whatever. You Order of Masons them away. Smithy fails to draw; the cards aren't set aside, they're in your discard pile, but you don't try again to get them into your deck for this operation.

As usual I don't care at all about what happens in situations that are never happening. Why am I using Order of Masons when Smithy will draw the cards? It's a rhetorical question; don't answer. Everyone is getting it right every time because no-one is ever doing it. It's only a problem for programmers and people who like to think about these things. And for them I need an answer; I'm not dodging it. But you know. What's important about the answer is that it follows from the rules in a precise way, not what the answer is. I like answers to be intuitive but again, unreal situation, and anyone would have to look in the rules anyway here.

The rulebooks intentionally do not cover weird edge cases at this point. Still the rules for shuffling are straightforward and there they are.

Library somehow doesn't lock the game up, since it has to. It isn't explicit about this, but for sure it can fail to draw cards and get on with life, and the -1 token doesn't do that by itself.

[Donald X.]

 

The wiki says:
If you shuffle from the +3 Cards, and use Order of Masons to make Emissary draw 0 cards, you'll still get +1 Action and +2 Favors.

Is this accurate? Order of Masons has to trigger before you actually shuffle (when you would shuffle) because that's when you actually pick out cards. The shuffling comes after. If you are left with 0 cards to shuffle, then by the definition on Emissary, you didn't shuffle.

Tentatively no; if due to Masons you didn't actually shuffle any cards, then you didn't shuffle at least one card, and get no bonus from Emissary.

[Jeebus]

We don't have to decide what kind of randomization or not randomization constitutes "shuffling", because Emissary already has the answer. It's whether it involved at least one card. So when you're told to shuffle, if you move at least one card from your discard pile to your deck, you "shuffled" those cards (or that card).

I disagree. When you play Emissary, you look if you need to shuffle. Then you look if you have at least 1 card in the discard pile. If yes, you shuffle, and Emissary is satisfied and will give the bonus. How many cards end up anwhere is totally irrelevant to that. If you took the card and made it go to (or rather stay) in the discard pile (with Order of Masons), you shuffled that one card.

To me that idea that you only look at the the "usual" shuffling (what I call randomization) to determine if Emissary gives the bonus is very alien. It would mean that shuffling means something else on Emissary and Order of Masons.

No, it wouldn't mean that if we say that Order of Masons triggers "when you would shuffle". As I said, you have to resolve Order of Masons before you actually shuffle, not after.

Compare to the -1 Card token. If Emissary said "when you draw (at least one card)", it wouldn't trigger if you played a Village with the -1 Card token on your deck. You removed the token instead of drawing.

Or compare with how Enchantress makes you not resolve the card's instructions. Since you're not resolving the instructions on Border Guard, Lantern doesn't trigger. You were going to resolve the instructions, that's how Enchantress triggered in the first place (cancelling those instructions), but in the end you didn't. You were going to shuffle, that's how Order of Masons triggered, but in the end you shuffled less cards. If you ended up shuffling at least 1, then Emissary gives you the bonus, otherwise not.

[dz]

This is even less relevant than my previous post, but the topic of replacement effects reminded me of this. In the past I didn't have a great way of explaining Lantern/Chameleon (which I once deemed as the funniest Dominion ruling). But now I have a new way of explaining it.

Remember the blue dog rule? I guess most people here either 1) stopped caring about that ruling when Trader got its errata; or 2) never knew about the old Trader. (If the mention of this rule brings you good memories, you're rad and I'm proud of you.) Anyways that rule is still relevant because Possession still exists, and I'll show that it's relevant here as well, so go learn about it: http://wiki.dominionstrategy.com/index.php/Blue_dog_rule

The blue dog rule basically states that: when Card A cares about Event A, but Card B makes you do Event B instead, Card A has no effect. In the classic scenario, Ironworks checks the types of the card it gained, but revealing Trader means that you didn't gain a card, so you get no bonuses.

As for Lantern Chameleon...
Card A: Lantern
Event A: follow the instructions on Border Guard
Card B: Chameleon
Event B: follow the instructions on Chameleon

Fortunately with most Ways, it's pretty clear that Lantern does nothing if you Way the Border Guard. The oddball is Chameleon, which makes it look like you're still doing Event A (since it says "follow [Border Guard's] instructions." But that can't be the case, because Ways create an Event B. So even though Chameleon still makes you follow the instructions on Border Guard, that's an Event B, and Lantern has no idea about that happening.

[GendoIkari]

I prefer to think of Order of Masons as changing the way that shuffling happens, as opposed to replacing shuffling with a different thing. Mostly because I'm reading "when shuffling" as literal, rather than interpreting it as "when you would shuffle". It changes what shuffling looks like so that some of the shuffled cards get randomized into a new draw pile, while other shuffled cards get put into the discard pile. In other words, those 2 cards you put into your discard pile were still "shuffled"; you just used an ability to change the default move-to location that cards normally go to when being shuffled.

[Jeebus]

I prefer to think of Order of Masons as changing the way that shuffling happens, as opposed to replacing shuffling with a different thing. Mostly because I'm reading "when shuffling" as literal, rather than interpreting it as "when you would shuffle". It changes what shuffling looks like so that some of the shuffled cards get randomized into a new draw pile, while other shuffled cards get put into the discard pile. In other words, those 2 cards you put into your discard pile were still "shuffled"; you just used an ability to change the default move-to location that cards normally go to when being shuffled.

First of all, if "when shuffling" is literal, then you would do it after shuffling. And anyway, you have to do it before shuffling. Do you agree that with Star Chart and Order of Astrologers you do it before shuffling?
And it's not just the default move-to location. Those cards literally were not shuffled. With Order of Astrologers you even get to put them in the desired order. How is that being shuffled? Seems like a tortured definition of "shuffling".

[GendoIkari]

I prefer to think of Order of Masons as changing the way that shuffling happens, as opposed to replacing shuffling with a different thing. Mostly because I'm reading "when shuffling" as literal, rather than interpreting it as "when you would shuffle". It changes what shuffling looks like so that some of the shuffled cards get randomized into a new draw pile, while other shuffled cards get put into the discard pile. In other words, those 2 cards you put into your discard pile were still "shuffled"; you just used an ability to change the default move-to location that cards normally go to when being shuffled.

First of all, if "when shuffling" is literal, then you would do it after shuffling.

No, that would be "when you shuffle". "When you do X" is after you do X. "When doing X" is during, not after.

And anyway, you have to do it before shuffling. Do you agree that with Star Chart and Order of Astrologers you do it before shuffling?

No... in fact I don't see how it's at all possible for that to happen before shuffling. You're putting a card "on top"... if you haven't shuffled yet, what are you putting that card on top of? "On top" means "on top of the shuffled cards", right? So shuffled cards must exist to follow that instruction. Those 2 examples read to me even much more clearly than Order of Masons as changing what shuffling looks like, rather than doing an extra thing before or after shuffling. Same as Stash. It allows you to manipulate the shuffle so that instead of being fully random, it's only fully random for some cards and not random for other cards.

And it's not just the default move-to location. Those cards literally were not shuffled. With Order of Astrologers you even get to put them in the desired order. How is that being shuffled? Seems like a tortured definition of "shuffling".

There's "shuffled" as in "put into a fully random order", and then there's "shuffled" as is how a game's rules can define shuffling. Normally those are the same. But by using various special abilities, such as Stash, a shuffled card or cards can be not put into a fully random order.

Just as a very generic example, if a card game simply had an ability that you could access which said "when shuffling, you can choose the order of your cards", I would expect that when someone does exactly that, it would still trigger any other game events that happen whenever a player shuffles. That player has a special ability so that shuffling isn't random for them.

[Jeebus]

And anyway, you have to do it before shuffling. Do you agree that with Star Chart and Order of Astrologers you do it before shuffling?

No... in fact I don't see how it's at all possible for that to happen before shuffling. You're putting a card "on top"... if you haven't shuffled yet, what are you putting that card on top of? "On top" means "on top of the shuffled cards", right? So shuffled cards must exist to follow that instruction.

Just to quickly answer this. Of course you also do something after shuffling, namely place the cards you kept aside. But you have to choose them and keep them aside before shuffling. See the numbered sequence I wrote earlier in this thread. What I just described is what actually happens by the way. That's how everybody has to resolve Star Chart and Astrologers. You pick out cards, then you shuffle, then you place the cards. I don't see how anybody can disagree with that.

[Jeebus]

First of all, if "when shuffling" is literal, then you would do it after shuffling.

No, that would be "when you shuffle". "When you do X" is after you do X. "When doing X" is during, not after.

Granted. But what you actually do when resolving that, is do something before shuffling and after shuffling.

And it's not just the default move-to location. Those cards literally were not shuffled. With Order of Astrologers you even get to put them in the desired order. How is that being shuffled? Seems like a tortured definition of "shuffling".

There's "shuffled" as in "put into a fully random order", and then there's "shuffled" as is how a game's rules can define shuffling. Normally those are the same. But by using various special abilities, such as Stash, a shuffled card or cards can be not put into a fully random order.

Just as a very generic example, if a card game simply had an ability that you could access which said "when shuffling, you can choose the order of your cards", I would expect that when someone does exactly that, it would still trigger any other game events that happen whenever a player shuffles. That player has a special ability so that shuffling isn't random for them.

I would expect that to mean, "when shuffling, you can choose the order of your cards instead". At least the rules would clarify that you don't shuffle the cards when you use that ability. I mean, they would say something like, "instead of shuffling the cards, you get to put them in any order". The rules could clarify that anything that triggers on shuffling, would still trigger. But without any clarification I would say that they don't.

Rules could go any way, it depends on the intention, not just the literal text. The thing is that I'm going with how Dominion normally works. Like I said, with Enchantress (even with Chameleon, as Dz brought up) you're not actually resolving the card's instructions anymore. Anything that triggers on resolving those instructions, don't. Doing +1 Action and +1 Card from Enchantress doesn't "count as" following the card's instructions. Order of Astrologers, Order of Masons and Star Chart stop you from shuffling some cards that you otherwise would have shuffled. Why would that "count as" shuffling them? (You're saying that you're reading "when shuffling" literally, but I'm actually the one who is reading "shuffling" literally.)

What do you think about the -1 Card token scenario?

[Ingix]

Slight rant and trying to understand how this works, but in the end I think I agree with Jeebus now.

The -1 card token and Enchatress/Ways replace a thing with something else. That is relatively clean, because now you have something else, the previous thing that was about to happen no longer happens, so other things that would apply to it or try to replace it no longer "work".

Star Chart and Astrologer/Masons do not do this clean replacement IMO, because if they did, you couldn't use both Star Chart and one of those 2 Allies on the same shuffle. This is a modifying effect, the "shuffle" isn't replaced with something else, it is modified. For Star Chart, you first select a card and put it somewhere, then do the randomization of the remaining cards (the "shuffle"), then put the selected card on top. But, you can also apply another modifying effect to the randomization, like an Ally. Or you do it in the reverse order, first the Ally, then Star Chart.

For all of this to work as intended, one cannot argue that Star Chart replaces one shuffle with a new, different shuffle. Because if that was the case, you could apply Star Chart again to the new shuffle, and recusively not just topdeck one card, but order the complete deck. While that argument cannot be applied to the Orders alone, I wouldn't want those two to create new shuffles, as this would again allow Star Chart to be applicable to the new shuffle. While this does not really seem to break the game, it seems not good to have those similar effects work in a different way.

All of this means to me, that Star Chart and the 2 Orders are modifying effects, which do not completely replace a shuffle with something else, but they modify the shuffle, and other modifying effects can still apply to modified shuffle.

The question is now what should "shuffle" on Emmissary mean? Does it apply to the first "shuffle" it created, or to any modified versions in between, or only to the "final" one? Originally I argued it should apply to the first one it created, but I see that making it "see" the final one only makes sense as well. If that "shuffle" involved 0 cards due to Order of Masons, then it doesn't give the bonus.

[Jeebus]

For all of this to work as intended, one cannot argue that Star Chart replaces one shuffle with a new, different shuffle. Because if that was the case, you could apply Star Chart again to the new shuffle, and recusively not just topdeck one card, but order the complete deck. While that argument cannot be applied to the Orders alone, I wouldn't want those two to create new shuffles, as this would again allow Star Chart to be applicable to the new shuffle. While this does not really seem to break the game, it seems not good to have those similar effects work in a different way.

Trying to understand this. Why do you say that you could apply Star Chart again to the new shuffle but you couldn't apply the Orders again?
EDIT: Ah, I think it's not that you couldn't, it's just that it wouldn't make a difference because you have to spend Favors.

[Ingix]

For all of this to work as intended, one cannot argue that Star Chart replaces one shuffle with a new, different shuffle. Because if that was the case, you could apply Star Chart again to the new shuffle, and recusively not just topdeck one card, but order the complete deck. While that argument cannot be applied to the Orders alone, I wouldn't want those two to create new shuffles, as this would again allow Star Chart to be applicable to the new shuffle. While this does not really seem to break the game, it seems not good to have those similar effects work in a different way.

Trying to understand this. Why do you say that you could apply Star Chart again to the new shuffle but you couldn't apply the Orders again?
EDIT: Ah, I think it's not that you couldn't, it's just that it wouldn't make a difference because you have to spend Favors.

Yes, or more specifically that applying an Order again to the hypothetically created "new shuffle" does not do anything you couldn't have done "the first time". If you spend 2 Favors once, to put 4 cards into the discard pile, you get the same as when you spend a Favor to put 2 cards into it and then spend another Favor to put 2 more cards into it. I hope that makes sense

[GendoIkari]

Slight rant and trying to understand how this works, but in the end I think I agree with Jeebus now.

The -1 card token and Enchatress/Ways replace a thing with something else. That is relatively clean, because now you have something else, the previous thing that was about to happen no longer happens, so other things that would apply to it or try to replace it no longer "work".

Star Chart and Astrologer/Masons do not do this clean replacement IMO, because if they did, you couldn't use both Star Chart and one of those 2 Allies on the same shuffle. This is a modifying effect, the "shuffle" isn't replaced with something else, it is modified. For Star Chart, you first select a card and put it somewhere, then do the randomization of the remaining cards (the "shuffle"), then put the selected card on top. But, you can also apply another modifying effect to the randomization, like an Ally. Or you do it in the reverse order, first the Ally, then Star Chart.

For all of this to work as intended, one cannot argue that Star Chart replaces one shuffle with a new, different shuffle. Because if that was the case, you could apply Star Chart again to the new shuffle, and recusively not just topdeck one card, but order the complete deck. While that argument cannot be applied to the Orders alone, I wouldn't want those two to create new shuffles, as this would again allow Star Chart to be applicable to the new shuffle. While this does not really seem to break the game, it seems not good to have those similar effects work in a different way.

All of this means to me, that Star Chart and the 2 Orders are modifying effects, which do not completely replace a shuffle with something else, but they modify the shuffle, and other modifying effects can still apply to modified shuffle.

The question is now what should "shuffle" on Emmissary mean? Does it apply to the first "shuffle" it created, or to any modified versions in between, or only to the "final" one? Originally I argued it should apply to the first one it created, but I see that making it "see" the final one only makes sense as well. If that "shuffle" involved 0 cards due to Order of Masons, then it doesn't give the bonus.

You say you agree with Jeebus, but this entire explanation sounds exactly like what I've been arguing for.

[GendoIkari]

What do you think about the -1 Card token scenario?

I for sure agree with you there. The rules for -1 Card token just sound very clear, they cause you to draw 1 fewer card. Whereas, I don't think Star Chart causes you to Shuffle 1 fewer card.

What do you think about Stash? Does Stash ever get shuffled?

I only just realized that Stash isn't just a thought exercise, it's a rules question. If your deck is empty and your discard pile contains nothing other than 1 or more Stashes, and you play Emissary... does it trigger? Did you shuffle at least 1 card?

[majiponi]

What do you think about the -1 Card token scenario?

I for sure agree with you there. The rules for -1 Card token just sound very clear, they cause you to draw 1 fewer card. Whereas, I don't think Star Chart causes you to Shuffle 1 fewer card.

What do you think about Stash? Does Stash ever get shuffled?

I think shuffling has done when at least one card is in the new deck, but I am not sure. Are 3 Stashes shuffled? Dominion is so complicated.