Print

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

[Donald X.]

For me at 10:18 AM Pacific time, it makes more sense that we didn't follow the instructions, and Reckless doesn't kick in.

I know there's a couple posts after this which I haven't read yet, but...the problem is that this seems like a direct contradiction to what you said less than 24 hours before this. That when you use a Way, you did in fact "play the card to do what the way does".

It seems like the problem at its core is that you want 3 separate ideas of what it means for playing a card to get you something... There's a clear line between when you're looking at "were the card's instructions followed?" (Reckless with Ways doesn't work) , and when you're looking at "what events resulted from playing the card?" (When Cultist plays a Cultist, the second Cultist play isn't included in Moat protects you from if you revealed Moat to original Cultist).

But you want a third option, somewhere in between those 2... something where using a Way means that you didn't follow the card's instructions, yet somehow it's still part of what Moat protects against (and what Elder can affect, etc). But we already know that "stuff that results from playing the card which isn't the card's instructions" don't count. So what exactly is this third, in-between thing? Are we defining "what a card does" to specifically mean "its set of instructions, as well as any possible Ways that were used for it. But not including any other triggered abilities or other card plays that happen when you play it."?

I guess what I really want to know is; what's the difference between Way of the Sheep and your + token? There are clear rulings (in the Plunder rulebook) that say Way of the Sheep counts as Smithy giving you , but your token on the pile does not count as Smithy giving you . Is this just a special unnamed thing that Ways do, which make them different from any other effect that happens when you play a card?

It's because the rulebook rules for Ways say, and I quote: "Each Way gives Action cards an additional option: you can play the Action for what it normally does, or play it to do what the Way says to do."

whereas the rulebook rules for the +$1 token say: "When the player whose token it is plays a card from that pile, that player first gets the bonus."

The Way says you are playing the card to do the thing; so something that cares about playing the card counts that thing. The +$1 token rules do not say that; they just trigger on you playing a card. Similarly, Champion gives you +1 Action when playing a card; it doesn't cause the card to be giving you the +1 Action, in case some card is reckless enough to check for that.

[Donald X.]

My point is that (A) always means (B). (I don't think you've explained how it can mean anything else.) This means that Harbor Village's "if the card gave you +$" can only mean "if you followed the card's instructions to get +$".

This just doesn't follow at all.

Harbor Village looks for a card giving you +$. Way of the Sheep specifically says that the card is giving you the +$2. Specifically saying it means it's happening. So Harbor Village sees it.

+$2 is not part of the instructions for Smithy. It doesn't have to be either.

[GendoIkari]

My point is that (A) always means (B). (I don't think you've explained how it can mean anything else.) This means that Harbor Village's "if the card gave you +$" can only mean "if you followed the card's instructions to get +$".

This just doesn't follow at all.

Harbor Village looks for a card giving you +$. Way of the Sheep specifically says that the card is giving you the +$2. Specifically saying it means it's happening. So Harbor Village sees it.

+$2 is not part of the instructions for Smithy. It doesn't have to be either.

Is it accurate then (until new cards with new abilities come out) to say that "what a card does" consists of both its instructions (when they're followed) and a Way's instructions (when that's used), but not any other things that result from a card being played?

And is it accurate to say that Moat works the same as Harbor Village, in that what it cares about is "what a card does"? So that Moat does protect you from Ways, but doesn't protect you from the other non-instruction things that happen when your opponent plays an attack card?

[Jeebus]

My point is that (A) always means (B). (I don't think you've explained how it can mean anything else.) This means that Harbor Village's "if the card gave you +$" can only mean "if you followed the card's instructions to get +$".

This just doesn't follow at all.

It does, but I didn't explain it in the post you quoted. I've explained it several other places in this thread.

[Jeebus]

Donald has changed how he interprets what Ways do. Before, the Way didn't count as something the card did (same as Enchantress). That was the basis for the original ruling on Lantern and Elder. Now Donald is saying that it does count as something the card does. I'm still not convinced that interpretation makes sense.

Whenever we, or the rules, talk about something a card "does", it means that you do it following the card's instructions. There has never been a case of a card doing something without it meaning that it's actually the player doing it following that card's instructions. Chapel trashes cards always means that you trash cards following Chapel's instructions. Donald is now saying that Ways are different than all other abilities, in that they make a card "do" something that the player does following some other instructions.

The rules for Ways say: "Each Way gives Action cards an additional option: you can play the Action for what it normally does, or play it to do what the Way says to do."

So, when you play the Action card (actually when you get to following its instructions) you get two options:
1) do what it normally does
2) do what the Way says to do
"What it normally does" is its instructions. "What the Way says to do" is the Way's instructions. You either follow the card's or the Way's instructions. That's what the rules say. It doesn't say that when you follow the Way's instructions, the card "does" it somehow.

It does say that you "play" the card "to" follow the Way's instructions.
* Actually you first play the card, then choose which instructions to follow. (This is in the rulebook. Reactions happen before you choose.) So this can't be technically accurate enough to base a ruling on.
* You can also play a Throne Room to play a Market Twice, but that doesn't mean that the Throne Room gives you +$1. You can play a Stonemason to trash a Nomads, but that doesn't mean that the Stonemason gives you +$2.* I don't think Harbor Village should recognize the +$ from the Throne Room or the Stonemason in these scenarios.

*Example from Menagerie rulebook: "You play Stonemason to trash a card"

[Donald X.]

Is it accurate then (until new cards with new abilities come out) to say that "what a card does" consists of both its instructions (when they're followed) and a Way's instructions (when that's used), but not any other things that result from a card being played?

I think for the moment I will need more context to answer that. What's the text of the card that's asking "what a card does"? Again I don't want to define new jargon if I can avoid it; I don't know what other things may use it, without realizing it, because there was no jargon and they were just trying to communicate clearly in English.

And is it accurate to say that Moat works the same as Harbor Village, in that what it cares about is "what a card does"? So that Moat does protect you from Ways, but doesn't protect you from the other non-instruction things that happen when your opponent plays an attack card?

That sounds okay. Moat does protect you from Smithy's +3 Cards or Way of the Sheep's +$2, and not from the +$1 token's +$1.

[Donald X.]

My point is that (A) always means (B). (I don't think you've explained how it can mean anything else.) This means that Harbor Village's "if the card gave you +$" can only mean "if you followed the card's instructions to get +$".

This just doesn't follow at all.

It does, but I didn't explain it in the post you quoted. I've explained it several other places in this thread.

This post is extremely unhelpful. I'm trying to answer your questions to your satisfaction; you saying "nuh huh" and "go read my posts" is not going anywhere. Studying your previous posts is beyond the scope for me. When what you've got left to say is "you're wrong, go read my posts," we're done, hooray, because man, I have other things to do.

[Donald X.]

Donald

There is no-one here who goes by "Donald." There isn't! Anymore than there is someone here who goes by "Jeebu."

When trying to get people to do work for you, it's helpful to show them some respect.

has changed how he interprets what Ways do. Before, the Way didn't count as something the card did (same as Enchantress). That was the basis for the original ruling on Lantern and Elder. Now Donald is saying that it does count as something the card does. I'm still not convinced that interpretation makes sense.

Well. Before, there was no Harbor Village. Some questions have waited until now to be asked because nothing previously generated them. No-one asked if Moat could stop the +$1 token because why would you ask that?

The rulebook text for Ways attributes the +$2 of Way of the Sheep to the card played using a Way. The card is played to do the +$2, as I've said many times here. Where possible I like rulings to match the rulebooks. So far that seems possible here. So, Smithy played using Way of the Sheep is Smithy giving you +$2 as far as Harbor Village is concerned.

I don't know how consistent the other rulebooks are here towards this attitude; odds are they have lots of colloquial English that did not expect to be scrutinized as the computer code it cannot be. But I mean as always I try to make everything hang together as neatly as possible and answer the questions people have, even the ones that are not about actual played games of Dominion.

Whenever we, or the rules, talk about something a card "does", it means that you do it following the card's instructions. There has never been a case of a card doing something without it meaning that it's actually the player doing it following that card's instructions. Chapel trashes cards always means that you trash cards following Chapel's instructions. Donald is now saying that Ways are different than all other abilities, in that they make a card "do" something that the player does following some other instructions.

Obv. the players do everything that happens in the game; the cards don't have hands. But when Harbor Village asks, did the card do it, well we have to answer that question. The answer isn't possibly going to be "the card never does it, because cards can't do things, only people can." Harbor Village then Militia means you somehow get the +$1, even though the Militia is inert cardboard.

The rules for Ways say: "Each Way gives Action cards an additional option: you can play the Action for what it normally does, or play it to do what the Way says to do."

At last, something easy to agree with.

So, when you play the Action card (actually when you get to following its instructions) you get two options:
1) do what it normally does
2) do what the Way says to do
"What it normally does" is its instructions. "What the Way says to do" is the Way's instructions. You either follow the card's or the Way's instructions. That's what the rules say. It doesn't say that when you follow the Way's instructions, the card "does" it somehow.

It does say that you "play" the card "to" follow the Way's instructions.
* Actually you first play the card, then choose which instructions to follow. (This is in the rulebook. Reactions happen before you choose.) So this can't be technically accurate enough to base a ruling on.
* You can also play a Throne Room to play a Market Twice, but that doesn't mean that the Throne Room gives you +$1. You can play a Stonemason to trash a Nomads, but that doesn't mean that the Stonemason gives you +$2.* I don't think Harbor Village should recognize the +$ from the Throne Room or the Stonemason in these scenarios.

*Example from Menagerie rulebook: "You play Stonemason to trash a card"

"Playing" a card can refer either to the full process, or not, depending again on friendly English just being friendly. "When you play a Treasure," means "After you finish doing everything that's part of that process," but "When another player plays an Attack card, first..." means, "Right after another player announced playing an Attack card, but it hasn't done anything yet." Again, this is "we are dealing endlessly with English sentences trying to be clear to English speakers, rather than computer code." For computer code, you would want Moat to say e.g. "When another player announced an Attack" or something. Taken literally as-is, Moat doesn't work, because we finish the attack before it kicks in. But we don't take it literally. We recognize that it means "play" a different way and that "first" is rules jargon to narrow things down for us here.

Sure, Throning a Market doesn't mean Throne gave you +$. Throne gave you two plays of Market. You don't get +$ from Harbor Village if you Stonemason a Nomads or Throne Room a Market.

[GendoIkari]

No-one asked if Moat could stop the +$1 token because why would you ask that?

But people should have asked if Moat could stop a Militia that was played using Way of the Chameleon, because it's essentially the same question; I think we just all missed it back then. Because while it seems intuitive and obvious, and people would for sure complain if Chameleon got around the Moat, the technical rules for how Ways and Moat work do in fact make it not so clear how Moat manages to do that, beyond just "it does because it does".

[AJD]

No-one asked if Moat could stop the +$1 token because why would you ask that?

But people should have asked if Moat could stop a Militia that was played using Way of the Chameleon, because it's essentially the same question; I think we just all missed it back then. Because while it seems intuitive and obvious, and people would for sure complain if Chameleon got around the Moat, the technical rules for how Ways and Moat work do in fact make it not so clear how Moat manages to do that, beyond just "it does because it does".

I kind of disagree with this—I don't think anyone should have ever asked if Way of the Chameleon can circumvent Moat. It's obvious that it can't. Your last question is the right one—how or why does Chameleon fail to circumvent Moat.

(And the answer, as always, is that using a Way means that the Way ability is what playing the card does.)

[Jeebus]

My point is that (A) always means (B). (I don't think you've explained how it can mean anything else.) This means that Harbor Village's "if the card gave you +$" can only mean "if you followed the card's instructions to get +$".

This just doesn't follow at all.

It does, but I didn't explain it in the post you quoted. I've explained it several other places in this thread.

This post is extremely unhelpful. I'm trying to answer your questions to your satisfaction; you saying "nuh huh" and "go read my posts" is not going anywhere. Studying your previous posts is beyond the scope for me. When what you've got left to say is "you're wrong, go read my posts," we're done, hooray, because man, I have other things to do.

I phrased that last sentence poorly. I should have said: I explained it in the message you were originally replying to.

My problem is, I can either write short replies like the one you said doesn't follow, in which case you tend to read it out of context of the previous discussion; or I can write longer replies where I restate everything more fully, in which case you tend to respond partially, without always addressing the point I was making.

You have no obligation to answer my questions in any way except how you want of course. But we are both just humans here, and I do think that taking the time to consider carefully, and even going back in the thread to see things in context, is more respectful to the other party and also saves time (all in all), saves words, and makes for a more fruitful discussion.

[Jeebus]

Donald

There is no-one here who goes by "Donald." There isn't! Anymore than there is someone here who goes by "Jeebu."

When trying to get people to do work for you, it's helpful to show them some respect.

Oh, I didn't get that you were trying to disrespect me back by calling me "Jeebu".
Well, I didn't intend to disrespect you. People have been calling you "Donald" for years in these forums and I haven't caught any comments from you about it. But I will certainly only refer to you by your full user name from now on.

Whenever we, or the rules, talk about something a card "does", it means that you do it following the card's instructions. There has never been a case of a card doing something without it meaning that it's actually the player doing it following that card's instructions. Chapel trashes cards always means that you trash cards following Chapel's instructions. Donald is now saying that Ways are different than all other abilities, in that they make a card "do" something that the player does following some other instructions.

Obv. the players do everything that happens in the game; the cards don't have hands. But when Harbor Village asks, did the card do it, well we have to answer that question. The answer isn't possibly going to be "the card never does it, because cards can't do things, only people can." Harbor Village then Militia means you somehow get the +$1, even though the Militia is inert cardboard.

My point was this part: Donald X. is now saying that Ways are different than all other abilities, in that they make a card "do" something that the player does following some other instructions.

"What it normally does" is its instructions. "What the Way says to do" is the Way's instructions. You either follow the card's or the Way's instructions. That's what the rules say. It doesn't say that when you follow the Way's instructions, the card "does" it somehow.

It does say that you "play" the card "to" follow the Way's instructions.
* Actually you first play the card, then choose which instructions to follow. (This is in the rulebook. Reactions happen before you choose.) So this can't be technically accurate enough to base a ruling on.

You didn't address this part (above).

"Playing" a card can refer either to the full process, or not, depending again on friendly English just being friendly. "When you play a Treasure," means "After you finish doing everything that's part of that process," but "When another player plays an Attack card, first..." means, "Right after another player announced playing an Attack card, but it hasn't done anything yet." Again, this is "we are dealing endlessly with English sentences trying to be clear to English speakers, rather than computer code." For computer code, you would want Moat to say e.g. "When another player announced an Attack" or something. Taken literally as-is, Moat doesn't work, because we finish the attack before it kicks in. But we don't take it literally. We recognize that it means "play" a different way and that "first" is rules jargon to narrow things down for us here.

I agree with everything you wrote here. In order to figure out how Moat works in interaction with other cards, such as timing, we need to define the "computer code" though (even though we can actually express it in plain English, like you're doing now). I think this is what you've been doing many times in order to answer rules questions. It's the same thing we're trying to do here. We don't need to define "jargon", but we need to define the technical meaning of mechanics and cards. That's what rulebooks do too, although the Dominion rulebooks are not exhaustive here (like my document tries to be... well, almost).

"Play the Action card to do what the Way says to do" is an non-technical English sentence which can be interpreted several ways. As I have explained, I fail to see how it can technically mean that the card does what the Way does (or even what that means). But in any case, it would be just as fine, in non-technical English, and quite normal, to say that you play a Smithy to get +$1 and draw 3 cards, if you have your Adventures token on Smithy. Since we know that this doesn't technically mean that the Smithy "gives" you +$, there is no reason to conclude that it has to mean that the Smithy "gives" you +$ when played with Sheep either.

[Donald X.]

I phrased that last sentence poorly. I should have said: I explained it in the message you were originally replying to.

My problem is, I can either write short replies like the one you said doesn't follow, in which case you tend to read it out of context of the previous discussion; or I can write longer replies where I restate everything more fully, in which case you tend to respond partially, without always addressing the point I was making.

You have no obligation to answer my questions in any way except how you want of course. But we are both just humans here, and I do think that taking the time to consider carefully, and even going back in the thread to see things in context, is more respectful to the other party and also saves time (all in all), saves words, and makes for a more fruitful discussion.

I read your posts and address what I have to address. I don't answer rules questions as often as I used to, because there are so many other people now to spring up and answer them for me, but I still answer them all the time. Today I answered some Nefarious questions pm'd to me on BGG.

I am way more interested in dealing with situations that have come up in games than ones that are just poking at the rules. I see the value in poking at the rules though, and try to answer all of your questions. Here I am, taking time away from every other activity to do this.

You've done good work for me, compiling rules and rulings; it's hard for me to really feel the real value of it, I don't have people saying to me, "that rules document really answered my questions." I've linked to it some though.

If I don't answer some part of your post, odds are either I thought I was in fact answering it, or that it no longer was relevant based on what I actually answered. I'm not just ignoring it. When I can though I sure have to hope that I can answer one thing and then not have to endlessly repeat myself or consider specific situations that might be covered now or whatever it is.

[Donald X.]

Well, I didn't intend to disrespect you. People have been calling you "Donald" for years in these forums and I haven't caught any comments from you about it. But I will certainly only refer to you by your full user name from now on.

I have endlessly corrected people when they're talking to me, but have not covered every instance on the internet.

My point was this part: Donald X. is now saying that Ways are different than all other abilities, in that they make a card "do" something that the player does following some other instructions.

This is the kind of thing that I don't ever like to agree to because it will turn out that the blanket statement was wrong somehow, and in fact in this particular case Enchantress does the same thing, it's phrased in the current rulebook as the card giving the player +1 Card +1 Action. Ways are not "different than all other abilities"; let's never go there, there will be future cards too. Ways cause the card to do a different thing, that part is solid.

"What it normally does" is its instructions. "What the Way says to do" is the Way's instructions. You either follow the card's or the Way's instructions. That's what the rules say. It doesn't say that when you follow the Way's instructions, the card "does" it somehow.

It does say that you "play" the card "to" follow the Way's instructions.
* Actually you first play the card, then choose which instructions to follow. (This is in the rulebook. Reactions happen before you choose.) So this can't be technically accurate enough to base a ruling on.

You didn't address this part (above).

I don't know what you're looking for from me here.

Again, "play" is used two or more different ways in rulebook and card text. On Moat it really means "announce"; on Landing Party it means "do all of it, put the card on the table and do its stuff and be done." For being super technical, it would be clearer if those were two different words; it might even be clearer for casual players. It isn't two different words today though.

You first announce a card; you've started playing it, but you haven't finished yet. Some things latch on here. You choose Way or not somewhere in here. Later you "do" "stuff" and then still later you're done and "when you play a card" sans-"first" triggers.

Your "somehow" suggests that you think it's this bizarre thing that "the card" "does" something. But I mean. That's how it is with the +3 Cards on Smithy too. The card "does" it, which isn't something we ever need to think about until Harbor Village says "hey what did the card do."

"Playing" a card can refer either to the full process, or not, depending again on friendly English just being friendly. "When you play a Treasure," means "After you finish doing everything that's part of that process," but "When another player plays an Attack card, first..." means, "Right after another player announced playing an Attack card, but it hasn't done anything yet." Again, this is "we are dealing endlessly with English sentences trying to be clear to English speakers, rather than computer code." For computer code, you would want Moat to say e.g. "When another player announced an Attack" or something. Taken literally as-is, Moat doesn't work, because we finish the attack before it kicks in. But we don't take it literally. We recognize that it means "play" a different way and that "first" is rules jargon to narrow things down for us here.

I agree with everything you wrote here. In order to figure out how Moat works in interaction with other cards, such as timing, we need to define the "computer code" though (even though we can actually express it in plain English, like you're doing now). I think this is what you've been doing many times in order to answer rules questions. It's the same thing we're trying to do here. We don't need to define "jargon", but we need to define the technical meaning of mechanics and cards. That's what rulebooks do too, although the Dominion rulebooks are not exhaustive here (like my document tries to be... well, almost).

"Play the Action card to do what the Way says to do" is an non-technical English sentence which can be interpreted several ways. As I have explained, I fail to see how it can technically mean that the card does what the Way does (or even what that means). But in any case, it would be just as fine, in non-technical English, and quite normal, to say that you play a Smithy to get +$1 and draw 3 cards, if you have your Adventures token on Smithy. Since we know that this doesn't technically mean that the Smithy "gives" you +$, there is no reason to conclude that it has to mean that the Smithy "gives" you +$ when played with Sheep either.

It would be fine to have the Adventures +$1 token work with Harbor Village; it only doesn't do to me looking at rulebook and card text and having to make rulings based on that stuff. The +$1 token triggers at a particular time but doesn't attribute anything to the card itself; similarly Champion triggers at a particular time but doesn't attribute anything to the card itself. Ways actually attribute something to the card, and Harbor Village has the text it has and etc.

[GendoIkari]

But I mean. That's how it is with the +3 Cards on Smithy too. The card "does" it, which isn't something we ever need to think about until Harbor Village says "hey what did the card do."

But Moat always wanted to know what a card "did" also, right? Moat needed to know if the Militia was making you discard down to 3, as opposed to some other by-product of playing the card causing you to discard down to 3. Or as a more realistic example, Moat needed to know that your opponent's Cultist was making you gain a Ruins, but it was not making you gain a second ruins when it made your opponent play another Cultist.

[Jeebus]

You first announce a card; you've started playing it, but you haven't finished yet. Some things latch on here. You choose Way or not somewhere in here. Later you "do" "stuff" and then still later you're done and "when you play a card" sans-"first" triggers.

Your "somehow" suggests that you think it's this bizarre thing that "the card" "does" something. But I mean. That's how it is with the +3 Cards on Smithy too. The card "does" it, which isn't something we ever need to think about until Harbor Village says "hey what did the card do."

No, I don't think that's bizarre. I think it's bizarre that the card "does" something without it meaning that the card told you to do it. That's what it means with Smithy and all other cards (except Ways and Enchantress apparently). If Smithy "does" +$2, it should mean that the Smithy tells you to do it. And of course "Smithy tells you to do it" just means that you follow Smithy's instructions to do it. It doesn't compute for me that a card can tell you to do something that is not its instructions, because that's what "tell you to do something" means.

"Play the Action card to do what the Way says to do" is an non-technical English sentence which can be interpreted several ways. As I have explained, I fail to see how it can technically mean that the card does what the Way does (or even what that means). But in any case, it would be just as fine, in non-technical English, and quite normal, to say that you play a Smithy to get +$1 and draw 3 cards, if you have your Adventures token on Smithy. Since we know that this doesn't technically mean that the Smithy "gives" you +$, there is no reason to conclude that it has to mean that the Smithy "gives" you +$ when played with Sheep either.

It would be fine to have the Adventures +$1 token work with Harbor Village; it only doesn't do to me looking at rulebook and card text and having to make rulings based on that stuff. The +$1 token triggers at a particular time but doesn't attribute anything to the card itself; similarly Champion triggers at a particular time but doesn't attribute anything to the card itself. Ways actually attribute something to the card, and Harbor Village has the text it has and etc.

Again, the rules don't say that the card "does" it, and they don't actually say that the Way attributes anything to the card. They say the same as the Enchantress rules, that you do the Way/Enchantress instructions instead of the card's instructions; that's all. The non-technical phrase "play the card to do what the Way says to do" doesn't in itself suggest that it's different than "play the card to get $1 from your Adventures token"; that's what I was saying.

[scolapasta]

I hesitate to get in the middle of all this, but one thing to notice (which I don't think has been mentioned, unless I missed it) is how the text on Ways is written - they* refer to "this" and "this card". In other words that text doesn't refer to the Way, but to the card being played as the Way. Which to me fits with the ruling that playing a card as a way is something the card does, unlike enchantress and adventure tokens.

* well, those that have a reference; obviously, Ways like Way of the Ox, that are just "+2 Cards" don't refer to "this"

Really hoping that doesn't muddy anything...

[Jeebus]

I hesitate to get in the middle of all this, but one thing to notice (which I don't think has been mentioned, unless I missed it) is how the text on Ways is written - they* all refer to "this" and "this card". In other words that text doesn't refer to the Way, but to the card being played as the Way. Which to me fits with the ruling that playing a card as a way is something the card does, unlike enchantress and adventure tokens.

* well, those that have a reference; obviously, Ways like Way of the Ox, that are just "+2 Cards" don't refer to "this"

Really hoping that doesn't muddy anything...

Yep, I know. That's something I have considered a special rule, just like the rule for keeping Durations in play with Ways. If we say that following the Way's instructions counts as following the card's instructions, those two things make more sense. That technically is pretty much the same as saying that Ways change the card's instructions ("shape-shifting"), which we don't want, so then we just have to invent a rule that says that it counts as following the card's instructions for abilities that care about what instructions are being following, but not for cards that care about the instructions per se (like gaining a copy with Way of the Rat). The problem is that Ways, Enchantress and Reckless care about what instructions are being followed, so this should mean that they work differently (than the current rulings) when applied to the same card.

[Donald X.]

But I mean. That's how it is with the +3 Cards on Smithy too. The card "does" it, which isn't something we ever need to think about until Harbor Village says "hey what did the card do."

But Moat always wanted to know what a card "did" also, right? Moat needed to know if the Militia was making you discard down to 3, as opposed to some other by-product of playing the card causing you to discard down to 3. Or as a more realistic example, Moat needed to know that your opponent's Cultist was making you gain a Ruins, but it was not making you gain a second ruins when it made your opponent play another Cultist.

Yes, Moat always wanted to know it, but I mean you must know everything there is to say here. There isn't an attacking Way. Enchantress's cantrip isn't an attack.

[Donald X.]

No, I don't think that's bizarre. I think it's bizarre that the card "does" something without it meaning that the card told you to do it.

Well somehow that's exactly what the Way rules say. The card does the thing.

Again, the rules don't say that the card "does" it, and they don't actually say that the Way attributes anything to the card. They say the same as the Enchantress rules, that you do the Way/Enchantress instructions instead of the card's instructions; that's all. The non-technical phrase "play the card to do what the Way says to do" doesn't in itself suggest that it's different than "play the card to get $1 from your Adventures token"; that's what I was saying.

I'm stuck interpreting the rulebook and card texts. The Way rules attribute the +$2 to the card; that's my interpretation of that line of text. Harbor Village triggers on it.

I do not find it preferable to rule that the Way rulebook text instead means "the card didn't do it."

[dane-m]

But I mean. That's how it is with the +3 Cards on Smithy too. The card "does" it, which isn't something we ever need to think about until Harbor Village says "hey what did the card do."

But Moat always wanted to know what a card "did" also, right?

In one sense, namely that it merely wanted to know whether the card had 'Attack' written at the bottom, no.  I get the point, however, that there is the question of scope when it comes to Cultists playing Cultists.  Naively I would have thought that if card X says "You may play card Y", then card X doesn't finish being played until after card Y has finished being played.  Thus I'd have expected a Moat revealed on the first Cultist to provide protection against the entire chain of Cultists, but there would be nothing to prevent the Moat being revealed on the second or subsequent Cultist if it hadn't been revealed on a previous one.

[Jeebus]

But I mean. That's how it is with the +3 Cards on Smithy too. The card "does" it, which isn't something we ever need to think about until Harbor Village says "hey what did the card do."

But Moat always wanted to know what a card "did" also, right? Moat needed to know if the Militia was making you discard down to 3, as opposed to some other by-product of playing the card causing you to discard down to 3. Or as a more realistic example, Moat needed to know that your opponent's Cultist was making you gain a Ruins, but it was not making you gain a second ruins when it made your opponent play another Cultist.

Yes, Moat always wanted to know it, but I mean you must know everything there is to say here. There isn't an attacking Way. Enchantress's cantrip isn't an attack.

There is an attacking Way. Since Chameleon functions as the other Ways, playing Militia with Chameleon is equivalent to using a Way that says, "+2 Cards, each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand" (when playing a card with the Attack type of course).

[Jeebus]

My last attempt at explaining my point and hopefully getting somebody to fill in the blanks and make this make sense.

Saying "the card trashes a card" or "the cards gives +$2" is fine, but we have to know exactly what that means in the game. If we just say "Junk Dealer trashes a card" and that's all it means, then you don't get +1 VP from Tomb, since it says "when you trash a card".

So "Junk Dealer trashes a card" means "you trash a card from playing Junk Dealer".

I would think everything above is uncontroversial?

***

* So normally, you draw 3 cards from playing Smithy. Playing Smithy does that.
* With your +$1 token on Smithy, you draw 3 cards and get +$1 from playing Smithy. Then playing Smithy does that. Playing Smithy means you follow both Smithy's instructions and the token's instructions.
* With Way of the Sheep, you get +$2 from playing Smithy. Then playing Smithy does that. Playing Smithy means you only follow Way of the Sheep's instructions.

I hope everybody agrees to this.

Harbor Village checks if Smithy "gave you +$". Again, what does that means in the game? It must mean, "if you got +$ from playing Smithy". But playing Smithy can make you do several things other than following what Smithy says: Adventures tokens, League of Shopkeepers, Champion, Kiln. So if any of those make you get +$, it should count for Harbor Village - but this is wrong.

So clearly, just saying "from playing Smithy" is not precise enough. Harbor Village must mean "if you got +$ from following Smithy's instructions" - in order to exclude other abilities that trigger when you played Smithy. What else could it mean?

***

So, with your +$1 token, is +$1 something the Smithy tells you to do? No, it's the token that tells you. So more precisely: With your +$1 token on Smithy, when playing Smithy, you get +$ from following the token's instructions.

With Way of the Sheep, is +$2 something the Smithy tells you to do? According to Donald X.'s ruling, it is. Then what is the precise description of playing Smithy with Way of the Sheep? Is it the following?
With Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Smithy's instructions.
If not, what is it?

[GendoIkari]

But I mean. That's how it is with the +3 Cards on Smithy too. The card "does" it, which isn't something we ever need to think about until Harbor Village says "hey what did the card do."

But Moat always wanted to know what a card "did" also, right?

In one sense, namely that it merely wanted to know whether the card had 'Attack' written at the bottom, no.

That part is only relevant to whether or not you can reveal Moat when a card is played. It doesn't end up relating to what the Moat actually does when it gets revealed.

I get the point, however, that there is the question of scope when it comes to Cultists playing Cultists.  Naively I would have thought that if card X says "You may play card Y", then card X doesn't finish being played until after card Y has finished being played.  Thus I'd have expected a Moat revealed on the first Cultist to provide protection against the entire chain of Cultists, but there would be nothing to prevent the Moat being revealed on the second or subsequent Cultist if it hadn't been revealed on a previous one.

For sure card X doesn't finish being played until after card Y has finished. Matters with stuff like Royal Carriage* But Cultist #1 being "not yet finished" doesn't end up mattering in this case; the rule is that the second Cultist's instructions are not part of what the first Cultist does; not part of what Moat protects you from. Moat protects you from "what the card does", just like how Harbor Village looks to see "what the card does". The whole question we're trying to get at here is "what specifically is the scope of what a card does?" We now know that it's neither "it does what its instructions say it does" nor "it does things that happen as a direct result of playing it". It's some third option that includes its own instructions and also Ways.


*If you Throne Room a Smithy while 2 Royal Carriages are on your Tavern Mat, and you want to repeat both the Throne Room and Smithy, you'd have to call Royal Carriage on Smithy first, because "directly after playing Smithy" happens before "directly after playing Throne Room".

[Donald X.]

But I mean. That's how it is with the +3 Cards on Smithy too. The card "does" it, which isn't something we ever need to think about until Harbor Village says "hey what did the card do."

But Moat always wanted to know what a card "did" also, right? Moat needed to know if the Militia was making you discard down to 3, as opposed to some other by-product of playing the card causing you to discard down to 3. Or as a more realistic example, Moat needed to know that your opponent's Cultist was making you gain a Ruins, but it was not making you gain a second ruins when it made your opponent play another Cultist.

Yes, Moat always wanted to know it, but I mean you must know everything there is to say here. There isn't an attacking Way. Enchantress's cantrip isn't an attack.

There is an attacking Way. Since Chameleon functions as the other Ways, playing Militia with Chameleon is equivalent to using a Way that says, "+2 Cards, each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand" (when playing a card with the Attack type of course).

The lesson as always is, don't reply to posts that don't need a reply. GendoIkari's post was doing fine, it didn't need me chiming in.