Print

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

[Jeebus]

I just thought of this. When having played Priest, you could certainly say non-technically that playing Chapel gives you +$2 (via Priest). Harbor Village says non-technically that it checks whether you got +$ from playing Chapel, but what it means technically is that it checks if you got +$ from following Chapel's instructions. You didn't, since technically playing Chapel gives you +$2 from following Priest's instructions.

I feel like Donald X has tried to make it quite clear that the bolded text is wrong. It doesn't care if you got the from following Chapel's instructions. It cares if you got the from playing Chapel.

As I've shown many times, you get many things from "playing Chapel", including Adventures tokens and the +$2 via Priest. How do we define the difference except by looking at exactly which card instructed us to get +$? Maybe you (or anybody!) can go through this post and tell me exactly where I'm wrong?

To me, the simplest technical rules wording is a new term that Harbor Village introduced: "Give". (Though it uses the past tense).

"Give": Playing a card Gives you any resources that the card's instructions tell you take, as well as any resources that a Way's instructions tell you to take if a Way is used to play the card.

But it was not introduced by Harbor Village. As we see in this thread, Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village and Moat all use this concept*. And it's all kinds of instructions, not just things that can be vaguely referred to as "resourses". Moat works on a Chameleon'ed Militia, even though it's not the Militia telling you to make each other player discard cards.

*Donald X. used to look at Enchantress and Ways just like Ironwords/Trader; that's why he originally ruled that Lantern and Elder don't work on a Chameleon'ed card, and why he's changed those rulings now.

[Jeebus]

I think a key point here is that it doesn't matter where instructions are printed. It matters what is telling a player to follow them. Like, in your recent example with Priest, the reason the +$2 is coming from "Priest" instead of "Chapel" is not specifically because that instruction is printed on Priest cards; it's because a prior Instance of playing Priest is what told the player to follow it. By contrast, with Way of the Sheep (or any Way), it doesn't matter that the instructions were printed on the Way; the Instance of playing Chapel really is what's telling the player to follow them.

Or, more simply: Priest's +$2 is triggered; Way of the Sheep's +$2 is not.

But Way of the Sheep's +$2 is triggered. Even Donald X. acknowledged that you're following Way of the Sheep's instructions.

You're saying that a prior Instance of playing Priest tells you to follow the Priest's instructions. But that's not accurate. The rulebook tells you that when you play a card you follow the card's on-play instructions. It's true that the printing doesn't matter: if something cancels a printed instruction (like Snowy Villager or Trader 1E), then it was never followed even though you did play the card. But +$2 is Priest's instructions, not Chapel's, that's what matters. In other words, Priest told you to do it, not Chapel.

You're saying that the Instance of playing Chapel tells you to follow Way of the Sheep's instructions. Again, it's the rulebook, specifically the rule for Ways, that tells you that. (Or, for Enchantress, it's Enchantress's instructions that tell you to follow "+1 Card, +1 Action" instead of following the card's instructions.)
What the Way rules say is, when you play Chapel, instead of the normal rule of following the on-play instructions of Chapel, you follow the instructions of Way of the Sheep. Do you disagree with this? When you follow Way of the Sheep's instructions, Way of the Sheep tells you to do stuff. I mean, that's what instructions are, in all games, text telling you to do something.

[Jeebus]

Just to clarify something, I assume that Ways, Enchantress and Reckless all work the same way, namely that their instructions (+$2 on Way of the Sheep; +1 Action and +1 Card on Enchantress; +3 Cards on Reckless when used on Smithy) are all "done" by the played card?

[GendoIkari]

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?

Smithy's instructions stay "+3 Cards," so I would not describe Way of the Sheep's +$2 as something you get "from following Smithy's instructions."

If the Way doesn't change Smithy's instructions, I agree. But then how can we technically describe it to match your ruling?

+$2 is something you got from playing Smithy, specifically attributed to playing Smithy via the Way rules. It doesn't change Smithy's instructions. Ways mean you can play a card to follow its instructions, or to do the Way.

To me, "follow its instructions, or do the Way" must mean "follow its instructions or follow the Way's instructions". The Way has instructions, and you follow them. (Everything the players do in Dominion is following instructions, whether in the rules or on cards.)

That makes the technical definition: "With Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Way of the Sheep's instructions."
Again, if not, what is it?

When you use Way of the Sheep, you are certainly following Way of the Sheep's instructions.

The thing is, that definition doesn't match your conclusion that Smithy "does what the Way does".

But why not? I think it's been made clear at this point that Smithy can "do" things that aren't part of its instructions. Though the only thing that exists in the game currently that a card can "do" other than its instructions is a Way's instructions.

Why not: Because that definition, as I'm sure you'll agree if you read it again, doesn't say that Smithy "does" or "gives" +$2. It says that the Way does it.

I think this alone is the single problem/disconnect. Whether or not I agree, Donald X certainly doesn't agree. And I don't think his way of thinking is incompatible with the rules of English or game rule concepts. "With Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Way of the Sheep's instructions." is correct. This is a correct technical definition. It is also correct that when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from playing Smithy. You are very stuck on the point that "what a card does" and "what a card's instructions are" are both the same thing, even though those have been specifically defined as 2 separate but related things. A card can do things other than its instructions. How? Because the rules of Dominion say they can. If it doesn't match up with your understanding of the English definition of "what a card does", then the solution has to be to expand your scope of allowed possible English meanings.

Maybe that leaves you with the opinion that Donald X used poor English wordings in his rules, but he's allowed to do that. He could have defined a in-game action called "discard" which means to take a card from your draw pile and put it in your hand. Sure you could complain forever "but discard can only mean that we put a card into our discard pile!" yet that doesn't make the rule illogical or impossible... it just makes the terminology bad.

So when you say "X can only mean Y", I think that's where the problem lies. Donald X has redefined X within his own rules framework to mean something else.

doesn't say that Smithy "does" or "gives" +$2. It says that the Way does it.

Within the world of building rules, it doesn't have to be one or the other. A rule is free to say "the Way gave you , and Smithy also gave you ." I don't think we ever need to know or care if the Way counts as having given you also, but the doesn't have to have been given by just 1 single entity.

[Jeebus]

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?

Smithy's instructions stay "+3 Cards," so I would not describe Way of the Sheep's +$2 as something you get "from following Smithy's instructions."

If the Way doesn't change Smithy's instructions, I agree. But then how can we technically describe it to match your ruling?

+$2 is something you got from playing Smithy, specifically attributed to playing Smithy via the Way rules. It doesn't change Smithy's instructions. Ways mean you can play a card to follow its instructions, or to do the Way.

To me, "follow its instructions, or do the Way" must mean "follow its instructions or follow the Way's instructions". The Way has instructions, and you follow them. (Everything the players do in Dominion is following instructions, whether in the rules or on cards.)

That makes the technical definition: "With Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Way of the Sheep's instructions."
Again, if not, what is it?

When you use Way of the Sheep, you are certainly following Way of the Sheep's instructions.

The thing is, that definition doesn't match your conclusion that Smithy "does what the Way does".

But why not? I think it's been made clear at this point that Smithy can "do" things that aren't part of its instructions. Though the only thing that exists in the game currently that a card can "do" other than its instructions is a Way's instructions.

Why not: Because that definition, as I'm sure you'll agree if you read it again, doesn't say that Smithy "does" or "gives" +$2. It says that the Way does it.

I think this alone is the single problem/disconnect. Whether or not I agree, Donald X certainly doesn't agree. And I don't think his way of thinking is incompatible with the rules of English or game rule concepts. "With Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Way of the Sheep's instructions." is correct. This is a correct technical definition.

I meant that definiton as the complete definition of how Ways work. Are you saying that that definiton alone tells us that Smithy "does" +$2?

If so, then what about: "With your +$1 token on Smithy, when playing Smithy, you get +$ from following the token's instructions."
Is that a wrong definition? If it's correct, how do you explain that it's exactly the same definition as for Ways and they still work differently according to Donald X.'s ruling?

You are very stuck on the point that "what a card does" and "what a card's instructions are" are both the same thing, even though those have been specifically defined as 2 separate but related things. A card can do things other than its instructions. How? Because the rules of Dominion say they can. If it doesn't match up with your understanding of the English definition of "what a card does", then the solution has to be to expand your scope of allowed possible English meanings.

No, you have the completely wrong idea. I have no problem with the way the Way rules are phrased or how Harbor Village is phrased. This is not about the English (non-technical) definition of "what a card does". As I have said, and explained in detail, it's fine to say that. The problem lies solely in finding the correct technical definitions.

Regarding the argument "because the rules say so":
You could introduce a rule that says that gaining a Province means that Salvager, Smithy and Chapel don't cost an Action to play for the rest of your turn, and that rule would work. But that rule could not be explained in a technical way without listing those cards. So sure, we can list Ways and Enchantress, and then list Moat, Harbor Village, Elder and Lantern, and formulate the rule of how they interact, but (so far) we can't technically describe it without listing all those cards. But yes, we can have that rule. I just don't see it written in the rulebook.

[GendoIkari]

I meant that definiton as the complete definition of how Ways work. Are you saying that that definiton alone tells us that Smithy "does" +$2?

If so, then what about: "With your +$1 token on Smithy, when playing Smithy, you get +$ from following the token's instructions."
Is that a wrong definition? If it's correct, how do you explain that it's exactly the same definition as for Ways and they still work differently according to Donald X.'s ruling?

Ah. No, I just meant that the definition isn't contradictory to the ruling, not that the definition was sufficient for the ruling. The ruling relies on another non-written-in-the-rules definition of what it means for a card to "give" you something. When a Way gives you something, it counts as the card giving you that thing. (Similar but not the same as your proposed idea of saying that following a Way's instructions could count as having followed a card's instructions).

The fact that the definition applies to both tokens and ways shows that the definition is not sufficient for the ruling. Yes, the definition is correct/true, but it's not what creates the interaction between Ways and Harbor Village.

And yeah, my attempt at coming up with a definition of "give" (which AJD improved upon) did require calling out Ways specifically.

FWIW, I combed through the Adventures rulebook and RGG listing to find something that might say that tokens modify what a card "does." That closes I found was "including tokens that modify cards." Nothing to say in the technical sense that the +1 card token makes it so that Militia gives you a card or makes you draw a card. Just that when playing Militia, you first get the bonus. Whereas Menagerie rules refer to "playing an Action card for a Way ability". I think that sentence is highly open to interpretation, but I can see Donald X's interpretation as a reasonable option there. And tokens don't have that same wording in the rules (though they certainly end up getting that wording through casual usage).

[Jeebus]

I meant that definiton as the complete definition of how Ways work. Are you saying that that definiton alone tells us that Smithy "does" +$2?

If so, then what about: "With your +$1 token on Smithy, when playing Smithy, you get +$ from following the token's instructions."
Is that a wrong definition? If it's correct, how do you explain that it's exactly the same definition as for Ways and they still work differently according to Donald X.'s ruling?

Ah. No, I just meant that the definition isn't contradictory to the ruling, not that the definition was sufficient for the ruling. The ruling relies on another non-written-in-the-rules definition of what it means for a card to "give" you something. When a Way gives you something, it counts as the card giving you that thing. (Similar but not the same as your proposed idea of saying that following a Way's instructions could count as having followed a card's instructions).

The fact that the definition applies to both tokens and ways shows that the definition is not sufficient for the ruling. Yes, the definition is correct/true, but it's not what creates the interaction between Ways and Harbor Village.

And yeah, my attempt at coming up with a definition of "give" (which AJD improved upon) did require calling out Ways specifically.

But I meant that you also have to refer to Moat, Harbor Village, etc, directly.

FWIW, I combed through the Adventures rulebook and RGG listing to find something that might say that tokens modify what a card "does." That closes I found was "including tokens that modify cards." Nothing to say in the technical sense that the +1 card token makes it so that Militia gives you a card or makes you draw a card. Just that when playing Militia, you first get the bonus. Whereas Menagerie rules refer to "playing an Action card for a Way ability". I think that sentence is highly open to interpretation, but I can see Donald X's interpretation as a reasonable option there. And tokens don't have that same wording in the rules (though they certainly end up getting that wording through casual usage).

"Nothing to say in the technical sense that the +1 card token makes it so that Militia gives you a card or makes you draw a card."
Here is where there is confusion. As you have admitted, "Militia gives you a card or makes you draw a card" has no meaning in the technical sense, it's a colloquial expression that we would need to define technically.

Go back to that post where I ask about the (full!) technical definition of what a Way does. As you will see, there is nothing in the Way rules that demand that we have to define a new concept of "give". It's perfectly reasonable and possible to just interpret the Way rules as exactly what I said, which doesn't include introducing this new concept.

[Donald X.]

Just to clarify something, I assume that Ways, Enchantress and Reckless all work the same way, namely that their instructions (+$2 on Way of the Sheep; +1 Action and +1 Card on Enchantress; +3 Cards on Reckless when used on Smithy) are all "done" by the played card?

Without re-reading or re-considering everything, tentatively yes.

[chipperMDW]

But Way of the Sheep's +$2 is triggered.

No, I don't think it is.

When you play Chapel for "Trash up to 4...," do you call that triggered? I don't. Sure, you can describe it as "When you play a card, you follow the instructions printed on it," but that doesn't mean it works the same way as what we call triggered abilities. It's just the rules for playing a card.

So when you play Chapel for "+$2" (which is a thing you can do when WotS is in the game), why would you call that triggered? It's the same thing. You can describe it as "When you play a card, choose one: follow the instructions printed on it or follow the instructions printed on a Way being used in the game," but that doesn't mean it works the same as triggered abilities do. It's just the rules for playing a card (which were expanded to accommodate Ways).

Even Donald X. acknowledged that you're following Way of the Sheep's instructions.

So, the possessive could be interpreted in at least two different ways in that sentence:

1) The instructions are printed on WotS
2) WotS is the thing issuing (or causing or "doing") the instructions.

I feel like you're interpreting it as #2 because you're using it as a justification for WotS being "triggered"; you're saying that WotS is telling a player to do stuff, so something must have "transferred control" to WotS.

But I think Donald X. meant it only as #1. You're following instructions that are printed on WotS (as opposed to, like, instructions on a card that's been shapeshifted). But the Instance of playing Chapel is what's issuing the instructions or "doing" things. WotS is not an "active" object here and it's not capable of "doing" things; it's just a container of instructions. Nothing "transfers control" to Ways.

It's like if I have a tattoo that says "Eat a sandwich" and the blackboard has "Throw a ball" written on it and someone tells me to issue to you either the instructions on my tattoo or the instructions on the board. Yeah, the sandwich instruction is "mine" and the ball instruction is "the blackboard's" by virtue of where they're printed. But whichever instruction I give you, it's mine in that I'm the one who issues it to you. Even if I say "Throw a ball," the blackboard isn't what gave you the instruction; I did.

You're saying that the Instance of playing Chapel tells you to follow Way of the Sheep's instructions. Again, it's the rulebook, specifically the rule for Ways, that tells you that. (Or, for Enchantress, it's Enchantress's instructions that tell you to follow "+1 Card, +1 Action" instead of following the card's instructions.)
What the Way rules say is, when you play Chapel, instead of the normal rule of following the on-play instructions of Chapel, you follow the instructions of Way of the Sheep. Do you disagree with this?

If "the instructions of Way of the Sheep" means "the instructions printed on WotS," then no, I don't disagree.

If "the instructions of Way of the Sheep" means "the instructions WotS gave," then yes, I disagree. Again, WotS never gives any instructions or "does" anything. It just sits there holding instructions.

When you follow Way of the Sheep's instructions, Way of the Sheep tells you to do stuff.

But that sentence is where I disagree for sure. WotS is not telling me to do stuff; an Instance of playing Chapel is still what's telling me to do stuff. It's just telling me to do stuff that's printed on WotS instead of what's printed on Chapel, like Instances of Chapel usually tell me to do.

[GendoIkari]

As you will see, there is nothing in the Way rules that demand that we have to define a new concept of "give". It's perfectly reasonable and possible to just interpret the Way rules as exactly what I said, which doesn't include introducing this new concept.

Well no, the fact that Harbor Village uses the word "give" (technically "gave") means that we have to define the new term. It's like if Dominion had never had the word "Gain" in the first place, and then one day a card says "when you gain this, trash a card from your hand". We'd have to ask "what does 'gain' mean?" And we could take the most straight-forward English definition, in which case we'd say "it means that you went from not having it be one of your cards to having it be one of your cards". But then Donald X comes along and says "well no, because if you're passed that card with Masquerade, that doesn't count as gaining it". Here, we could go with the most common English understanding of "give" (I didn't have a resource before playing a card, and I do now that I've finished playing that card, so playing the card gave me that resource), but the ruling is that no, that's not what it means for a card to give you something.

[Jeebus]

When you play Chapel for "Trash up to 4...," do you call that triggered? I don't. Sure, you can describe it as "When you play a card, you follow the instructions printed on it," but that doesn't mean it works the same way as what we call triggered abilities. It's just the rules for playing a card.

So when you play Chapel for "+$2" (which is a thing you can do when WotS is in the game), why would you call that triggered? It's the same thing. You can describe it as "When you play a card, choose one: follow the instructions printed on it or follow the instructions printed on a Way being used in the game," but that doesn't mean it works the same as triggered abilities do. It's just the rules for playing a card (which were expanded to accommodate Ways).

First of all, Ways are Enchantress are, and need to be defined as, triggered abilities, with specific timings. They trigger when you would resolve the on-play instructions, and you then decide which to resolve first. This is key, and I touched on this before:

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.

So the rules for playing a card have not been expanded for Ways. The rules are the same: Announce it, put it in play, [Reactions etc. trigger], follow the instructions. When you would follow the instructions, Ways, Enchantress and Highwayman trigger - that's what the rules say. They tell you (because that's their instructions) to do something else instead (to follow other instructions). The rules for gaining a card were not changed by Trader 1E; it just triggered when you would gain a card and made you do something else instead. Any other ability that Ways or Enchantress would have is an additional rule/ruling imbued in the instruction to "follow other instructions". It could be defined as "following the Way's/Enchantress's instructions counts as following the card's instructions", but that would not match the current rulings either (in other ways). No other technical meaning has been suggested.

Even Donald X. acknowledged that you're following Way of the Sheep's instructions.

So, the possessive could be interpreted in at least two different ways in that sentence:

1) The instructions are printed on WotS
2) WotS is the thing issuing (or causing or "doing") the instructions.

I feel like you're interpreting it as #2 because you're using it as a justification for WotS being "triggered"; you're saying that WotS is telling a player to do stuff, so something must have "transferred control" to WotS.

But I think Donald X. meant it only as #1. You're following instructions that are printed on WotS (as opposed to, like, instructions on a card that's been shapeshifted). But the Instance of playing Chapel is what's issuing the instructions or "doing" things. WotS is not an "active" object here and it's not capable of "doing" things; it's just a container of instructions. Nothing "transfers control" to Ways.

It's like if I have a tattoo that says "Eat a sandwich" and the blackboard has "Throw a ball" written on it and someone tells me to issue to you either the instructions on my tattoo or the instructions on the board. Yeah, the sandwich instruction is "mine" and the ball instruction is "the blackboard's" by virtue of where they're printed. But whichever instruction I give you, it's mine in that I'm the one who issues it to you. Even if I say "Throw a ball," the blackboard isn't what gave you the instruction; I did.

I mean the instructions printed on Way of the Sheep (not considering shape-shifting). But this is of course the same as what the Way is telling/instructing you to do.

But I think Donald X. meant it only as #1. You're following instructions that are printed on WotS (as opposed to, like, instructions on a card that's been shapeshifted).

Sidenote: Your parenthesis is dead wrong. If a card has been shapeshifted, anything referring to the instructions of that card (or in any way talking about the effects of it) only sees the shapeshifted instructions. That much is beyond any doubt. That is the whole reason why shapeshifting was practically eliminated.

You're using a lot of quotation marks, but not saying anything substantive. We need technical descriptions in a rules debate about the technical function of cards.

People have conflicting ideas in this debate (I don't mean just with me). Some people say that cards actually "do" things or "give" things, others say that's wrong, but playing a card "does" or "gives" things. Neither defines what that means, but it refers to the same undefined concept. Now you're saying that this concept can be expressed as "the card tells you to do things". I would strongly advise against such confusing language. Cards have instructions, and in English and in common sense, following instructions means following something you're being told to do; issuing instructions means telling someone to do something. As I said (and you deleted): that's what instructions are, in all games, text telling you to do something.

This confusion leads you to describe something that is actually what Chameleon and Reckless do, namely tell you to follow other instructions. The instructions of Chameleon/Reckless are to follow other instructions. (In your example, I will skip the "someone tells you" part, because I think by mistake you added an unnecessary first step in the chain.) If you tell me to follow the instructions on the blackboard/tattoo, then it's your instructions to follow those instructions. This is exactly what Chameleon/Reckless do. And you conclude the same as Donald X., that this counts as your instructions / Chameleon's/Reckless's instructions. (I'm not arguing against that btw.) But if that were how Ways work when you follow their instructions instead of the card's instructions, then it would be shapeshifting: It would be the card's instructions.

You're saying that the Instance of playing Chapel tells you to follow Way of the Sheep's instructions. Again, it's the rulebook, specifically the rule for Ways, that tells you that. (Or, for Enchantress, it's Enchantress's instructions that tell you to follow "+1 Card, +1 Action" instead of following the card's instructions.)
What the Way rules say is, when you play Chapel, instead of the normal rule of following the on-play instructions of Chapel, you follow the instructions of Way of the Sheep. Do you disagree with this?

If "the instructions of Way of the Sheep" means "the instructions printed on WotS," then no, I don't disagree.

If "the instructions of Way of the Sheep" means "the instructions WotS gave," then yes, I disagree. Again, WotS never gives any instructions or "does" anything. It just sits there holding instructions.

Again, I mean both, based on them being the same thing.

We can't get anywhere until everybody understands that everything that happens in a game, including Dominion, is the players following instructions, either in the rules or on cards (or tokens). So any technical definition of "the card does" or "playing a card does" has to include the player following a set of instructions. I have provided this, but nobody else has.

When you follow Way of the Sheep's instructions, Way of the Sheep tells you to do stuff.

But that sentence is where I disagree for sure. WotS is not telling me to do stuff; an Instance of playing Chapel is still what's telling me to do stuff. It's just telling me to do stuff that's printed on WotS instead of what's printed on Chapel, like Instances of Chapel usually tell me to do.

"Instances of Chapel" don't tell you to follow the instructions on Chapel. The rules tell you that. I already explained this, and you didn't reply.

[Jeebus]

As you will see, there is nothing in the Way rules that demand that we have to define a new concept of "give". It's perfectly reasonable and possible to just interpret the Way rules as exactly what I said, which doesn't include introducing this new concept.

Well no, the fact that Harbor Village uses the word "give" (technically "gave") means that we have to define the new term. It's like if Dominion had never had the word "Gain" in the first place, and then one day a card says "when you gain this, trash a card from your hand". We'd have to ask "what does 'gain' mean?" And we could take the most straight-forward English definition, in which case we'd say "it means that you went from not having it be one of your cards to having it be one of your cards". But then Donald X comes along and says "well no, because if you're passed that card with Masquerade, that doesn't count as gaining it". Here, we could go with the most common English understanding of "give" (I didn't have a resource before playing a card, and I do now that I've finished playing that card, so playing the card gave me that resource), but the ruling is that no, that's not what it means for a card to give you something.

First of all, I referred to the wrong post. I meant this.

As you can see there, the Way rules themselves (forget about Harbor Village!) don't demand or imply that there is any new concept of a card "doing" something or "giving" something, or that playing a card "does" something or "gives" something.

These have been colloquial terms before of course. They have always referred to what happens when you follow the card's instructions. So it's not that these notions are new colloquially. The basegame rulebook says: "Some cards give +1 Action". It's clear that it talks about following instructions. So it's completely false to say that it's a new term on Harbor Village. Before Ways (really, before this new ruling; and remember that Enchantress was ruled as working exactly like Ironworks/Trader) there was no way that Harbor Village could mean anything other than "if you got +$ from following the card's instructions". I mean, the two things meant the same! (And on Moat, this was important, otherwise it would block the second Cultist.)

"Pass" on Masquerade is defined technically, as something the players do.
"Give" or similar (as a different thing than following the card's instructions) is undefined.

[Jeebus]

Since nobody else has, I'll try to define the ruling technically.

When you play a card:
- Announce the card and put it in play.
- Reactions (etc.) trigger and are resolved.
- Now, when you would follow the instructions, Ways (and Enchantress) trigger. You can now choose to follow the Way's instructions instead.
- If you didn't choose to follow the Way (and if Enchantress didn't trigger), you follow the card's instructions.
- Royal Carriage etc. triggers.

I don't think anybody objects to this?
As I have shown, the Way rules don't imply anything beyond this. But if the new concept is to be accomodated here, how do we do it?

I can think of only one way, we create a "tag" (in the same vein as the "Bane" tag) for the instructions, let's call it "Intrusive". We have to redefine Ways, Enchantress and Reckless, plus Moat, Harbor Village, Lantern and Elder.

***

Ways: "When you would follow the card's instructions, you may follow the Way's instructions instead; those instructions are Intrusive."
Enchantress: "When you would follow the card's instructions, instead get +1 Card and +1 Action; those instructions are Intrusive."
Reckless: "When you follow the card's instructions, follow them an extra time. 'Follow them an extra time' are Intrusive instructions."

Moat: "You are unaffected by the other player's following the instructions on the Attack card and Intrusive instructions."
Harbor Village: "If you got +$ from following the instructions on the Action card or Intrusive instructions, +$1."
etc. (Lantern and Elder)

(Since these cards need to talk about which instructions are being followed, it's important that "Intrusive instructions" are actually instructions.)

But actually, this doesn't work either, because "Intrusive instructions" is not specific enough. Imagine playing Harbor Village and then Throne Room playing a Smithy, using Way of the Sheep with the Smithy. When Harbor Village checks, you didn't get +$ from following Throne Room, but you did get it from the Intrusive instructions of Way of the Sheep.

So we have to link the Intrusive instructions to the played card:
Ways: "When you would follow the card's instructions, you may follow the Way's instructions instead; those instructions are the card's Intrusive instructions."
etc.
Moat: "You are unaffected by the other player's following the instructions and Intrusive instructions on the Attack card."
etc.

Now Ways are "attributing something to the card", exactly as Donald X. said.

This means we have to introduce a new rule: A card's Intrusive instructions are not that card's instructions. Otherwise it would mean that we give the card extra instructions permanently (shapeshifting), to be followed when we play the card later. That rule is self-contradictory though, so we actually (instead) have to say that cards now have Normal instructions and Intrusive instructions, and wherever "instructions" are mentioned with no modifier, Normal instructions are meant. (This is really shapeshifting anyway of course; we're creating a new card stat in addition to cost, name, type, instructions.)

***

This is the technical meaning of this new ruling. I can't see a simpler way. It's the same as the "give" concept from GendoIkari, but described technically. (The "give" concept is in essence just like a tag, but it's described insufficiently to actually work.)

Of course, none of the rules and terms I defined above actually exist. So the ruling seems to exist only as a special-case ruling for each card interaction which can't be technically described. (I don't believe that's how Donald X. sees it, I believe he sees it as what the printed Way rules dictate, and I have explained in detail why I disagree with that. This post mainly addresses the claim by GendoIkari and others that the ruling works technically somehow.)

[GendoIkari]

It's like if I have a tattoo that says "Eat a sandwich" and the blackboard has "Throw a ball" written on it and someone tells me to issue to you either the instructions on my tattoo or the instructions on the board. Yeah, the sandwich instruction is "mine" and the ball instruction is "the blackboard's" by virtue of where they're printed. But whichever instruction I give you, it's mine in that I'm the one who issues it to you. Even if I say "Throw a ball," the blackboard isn't what gave you the instruction; I did.

I mean the instructions printed on Way of the Sheep (not considering shape-shifting). But this is of course the same as what the Way is telling/instructing you to do.

I have a problem with this bit. chipper went into detail explaining why he feels that instructions printed on Way of the Sheep is not the same as what the Way is telling you to do, and your reply simply says "this is of course the same".

[Jeebus]

It's like if I have a tattoo that says "Eat a sandwich" and the blackboard has "Throw a ball" written on it and someone tells me to issue to you either the instructions on my tattoo or the instructions on the board. Yeah, the sandwich instruction is "mine" and the ball instruction is "the blackboard's" by virtue of where they're printed. But whichever instruction I give you, it's mine in that I'm the one who issues it to you. Even if I say "Throw a ball," the blackboard isn't what gave you the instruction; I did.

I mean the instructions printed on Way of the Sheep (not considering shape-shifting). But this is of course the same as what the Way is telling/instructing you to do.

I have a problem with this bit. chipper went into detail explaining why he feels that instructions printed on Way of the Sheep is not the same as what the Way is telling you to do, and your reply simply says "this is of course the same".

I addressed that further down in the post, as well as (a little bit) in the previous post. ("That's what instructions are, in all games, text telling you to do something.") I have also mentioned it several times: A card has instructions to you > it instructs you to do things > it tells you to do things; these are synonymous.

[chipperMDW]

First of all, Ways are Enchantress are, and need to be defined as, triggered abilities, with specific timings...

Ok, I think I see why. I had missed that Enchantress and Highwayman are supposed to be "reorderable" with Ways. The way I believed Ways worked (which was the way I thought Donald X. was describing them to work), you would not have been able to "override" an Enchantress with a Way.  Given that you're supposed to be able to do that, I agree with you that Ways do need to "trigger."

But I think that's beside the point. What I'm saying is that triggering WotS is not what directly "gives" "+$2." And that triggering Enchantress is not what directly "gives" "+1 Card +1 Action." Like, the +$2 hasn't even happened by the time WotS has finished doing stuff.

I'm saying that triggering WotS or Enchantress merely changes which instructions the Instance of playing a card is going to have you follow. (Not changes the card, and not changes the instructions themselves, but changes the Instance's idea of which instructions.) Then, a tiny bit later, the Instance of playing the card actually has you follow the instructions (meaning that Instance "gives" whatever for HV).

So...

You play a card:
1. An Instance of playing a card is created.  It has an attribute we'll call "instructions to be followed."  That attribute is set to point at the instructions printed on the card that was played (not a copy of those instructions, but a direct reference to them).
2. Ways/Enchantress/etc. may trigger.  (This step can occur multiple times, I guess.)
  2.1. This may result in the Instance's "instructions to be followed" attribute being changed to point at instructions printed on a Way or on Enchantress (again, not a copy, but a reference).
3. You resolve the Instance by following its "instructions to be followed," whether that's still the ones printed on the card or something printed somewhere else.
  3.1. Anything that happens here counts as what the Instance "gives" for the purposes of Harbor Village.
4. (The Instance goes away 'cuz it's not needed anymore.)

Note again that I'm not saying that anything is shapeshifting a card. The only thing being modified is the Instance of playing a card (which is why I keep belaboredly using that term). You change which instructions that Instance is going to have you follow. Like, imagine you have a wire running to each set of instructions and you flip a switch in the Instance to select which set of instructions it's connected to. And when you press the "resolve" button, the instructions that are selected by the switch get executed. If you want to call that shapeshifting the instance, fine (then does giving a player +1 buy shapeshift the player?); but nowhere am I describing shapeshifting a card or modifying what any instructions say. I promise.

And all instructions that the Instance has you follow (whether they're printed on the card on on a Way or wherever) are the things it "does" for the purposes of Harbor Village. If you want, you can imagine that each instruction "given" by an Instance includes an ID uniquely associated with that Instance, so things like HV can check for the "source" of the instruction.

I know the rulebook doesn't actually spell that procedure out, and you'll probably quote the rulebook to show how it says stuff that's a direct contradiction to it, but that seems, to me, like the cleanest and most straightforward way to describe what people actually want to happen. Maybe it doesn't actually work that way and you'll need intrusive instructions to explain everything. Only Donald X. can say, I guess.

So the rules for playing a card have not been expanded for Ways...

Ok, agreed. I was mistaken there.

But I think Donald X. meant it only as #1. You're following instructions that are printed on WotS (as opposed to, like, instructions on a card that's been shapeshifted).

Sidenote: Your parenthesis is dead wrong. If a card has been shapeshifted, anything referring to the instructions of that card (or in any way talking about the effects of it) only sees the shapeshifted instructions. That much is beyond any doubt. That is the whole reason why shapeshifting was practically eliminated.

No, you completely misinterpreted the bit in parentheses. I was not saying "In a different manner from what would happen if you tried to read instructions from a shapeshifted card." I was saying "Not in any alternate location you might propose, including, for example, a hypothetical card that has been shapeshifted to have Way of the Sheep's instructions (primarily because such a card does not exist in this scenario as no shapeshifting has occurred)."

As I said (and you deleted): that's what instructions are, in all games, text telling you to do something.

Yes, I deleted that because I agreed with it and didn't feel like I needed to respond. But ok, I agree with all the things: instructions are text telling players to do stuff, players are the only ones that "really" do stuff, and all instructions are ultimately followed because players are following instructions in the rulebook.

(In your example, I will skip the "someone tells you" part, because I think by mistake you added an unnecessary first step in the chain.)

No, I actually added the first step because the rulebook is ultimately what tells anyone to do anything. I figured if me-pretending-to-be-a-card gave an instruction without any prompting, you'd tell me that cards have no free will and could not simply decide to give an instruction out of the blue, and that my "doing" anything must have been a result of someone following a rulebook-derived instruction somewhere else. 'Cuz the analogy was always meant to be super accurate (it was not meant to be super accurate).

[Jeebus]

First of all, Ways are Enchantress are, and need to be defined as, triggered abilities, with specific timings...

Ok, I think I see why. I had missed that Enchantress and Highwayman are supposed to be "reorderable" with Ways. The way I believed Ways worked (which was the way I thought Donald X. was describing them to work), you would not have been able to "override" an Enchantress with a Way.  Given that you're supposed to be able to do that, I agree with you that Ways do need to "trigger."

But I think that's beside the point. What I'm saying is that triggering WotS is not what directly "gives" "+$2." And that triggering Enchantress is not what directly "gives" "+1 Card +1 Action." Like, the +$2 hasn't even happened by the time WotS has finished doing stuff.

I'm saying that triggering WotS or Enchantress merely changes which instructions the Instance of playing a card is going to have you follow. (Not changes the card, and not changes the instructions themselves, but changes the Instance's idea of which instructions.) Then, a tiny bit later, the Instance of playing the card actually has you follow the instructions (meaning that Instance "gives" whatever for HV).

So...

You play a card:
1. An Instance of playing a card is created.  It has an attribute we'll call "instructions to be followed."  That attribute is set to point at the instructions printed on the card that was played (not a copy of those instructions, but a direct reference to them).
2. Ways/Enchantress/etc. may trigger.  (This step can occur multiple times, I guess.)
  2.1. This may result in the Instance's "instructions to be followed" attribute being changed to point at instructions printed on a Way or on Enchantress (again, not a copy, but a reference).
3. You resolve the Instance by following its "instructions to be followed," whether that's still the ones printed on the card or something printed somewhere else.
  3.1. Anything that happens here counts as what the Instance "gives" for the purposes of Harbor Village.
4. (The Instance goes away 'cuz it's not needed anymore.)

Note again that I'm not saying that anything is shapeshifting a card. The only thing being modified is the Instance of playing a card (which is why I keep belaboredly using that term). You change which instructions that Instance is going to have you follow. Like, imagine you have a wire running to each set of instructions and you flip a switch in the Instance to select which set of instructions it's connected to. And when you press the "resolve" button, the instructions that are selected by the switch get executed. If you want to call that shapeshifting the instance, fine (then does giving a player +1 buy shapeshift the player?); but nowhere am I describing shapeshifting a card or modifying what any instructions say. I promise.

And all instructions that the Instance has you follow (whether they're printed on the card on on a Way or wherever) are the things it "does" for the purposes of Harbor Village. If you want, you can imagine that each instruction "given" by an Instance includes an ID uniquely associated with that Instance, so things like HV can check for the "source" of the instruction.

I know the rulebook doesn't actually spell that procedure out, and you'll probably quote the rulebook to show how it says stuff that's a direct contradiction to it, but that seems, to me, like the cleanest and most straightforward way to describe what people actually want to happen. Maybe it doesn't actually work that way and you'll need intrusive instructions to explain everything. Only Donald X. can say, I guess.

I agree that with Ways and Enchantress, first which instructions you're going to follow is changed, then you follow those instructions.
For Ways, it's the rules for Ways that change which instructions you're following, and for Enchantress, it's Enchantress itself. But the actual instructions you end up following, are instructions given on Enchantress ("+1 Card, +1 Action") and on the Way card. This is straight-forward.

1. True, when you play a card, there is a default "instructions to be followed", and true, not a copy but a reference. This is given in the Dominion rules.
2. Enchantress, or the Way rules (not the Way itself) may trigger here.
2.1. - agreed
3. - sure
3.1. With Ways/Enchantress, you're following the Way's/Enchantress's instructions (pretty sure everybody has agreed with this). Why does that count as something the Instance "does" anymore than Adventures tokens would?

If "Instance of a card" is whatever you end up doing as a result of playing that card, then Adventures tokens, Priest's +$2, another Cultist, etc., are all included.
If "Instance of a card" is supposed to exclude all those things, then it has to refer to just the card's instructions. If it's also supposed to include instructions from Ways or Enchantress, then we would have to define that specifically somehow (either with tagging instructions, or by calling out Ways/Enchantress by name or similar).

***

EDIT:
To illustrate the problem with your model: Let's say gaining a card with Ironworks creates an Instance of gaining a card, which is set to the card you've chosen to gain, and then Trader 1E triggers and changes the Instance's pointer to Silver instead. So the Instance of gaining which was "gain a Mill" is now "gain a Silver" instead. Is the card you gained with Ironworks Silver? Well, that would mean Ironworks gives you +$1 for gaining a Treasure. And if Ways worked like that, it would mean the Way's instructions count as the card's instructions. What if there were a Farber Village that asked if playing the Ironworks made you gain a Silver? The answer should be no, but with the Instance model it seems to be yes.

[Jeebus]

Let's focus on Harbor Village and Moat.

1
"+$1", "+1 Card", "trash a card", "each other player discards" - these are all instructions.

2
They are instructions to the players (to whomever ends up following them).

3
To "give +$" (on Harbor Village) means to give an instruction. Consider if there were a Barber Village that said, "if it made you trash a card". Or we could phrase it similarly to Harbor Village: "if it gave you 'trash a card'". Either way, Barber Village asks if it (playing the Action card) gave you an instruction - an instruction to trash a card. Similarly, Harbor Village asks if it (playing the Action card) gave you an instruction to get $ (or, the instruction "+$").

4
- Harbor Village's "if it [playing the Action card] gave you +$" means "if it [playing the Action card] made you follow an instruction to get $".
- Moat's "unaffected by it [the other player playing the Attack card]" means "unaffected by the instructions the other player follows playing the Attack card".

But which instructions are included in "the instructions you follow playing a card"?

Clearly, it includes the card's instructions. And certainly the most straight-forward, obvious answer is that it only includes the card's instructions. (Since it does not include Adventures tokens, Cultist played by Cultist, etc.)

But we somehow want it to include the Way's instructions, Enchantress's instructions "+1 Card and +1 Action" and Reckless's instructions to "follow the card's instructions an extra time". But, we don't want to say that those instructions in any way are, or count as, the card's instructions. Then how the frack do we solve it*? It's remarkable to me that nobody can answer this and still claim that this ruling makes any sense.

*without saying "the card's instructions, or a Way's instructions if you follow those instead, or Enchantress's instructions if you follow those instead, and Reckless's instructions if you follow those in addition"

[Donald X.]

Similarly, Harbor Village asks if it (playing the Action card) gave you an instruction to get $ (or, the instruction "+$").

This is something you have created; it's not what Harbor Village actually says or does. It asks if the card gave you +$; it doesn't mention instructions.

Normally (in fact almost always), when playing a card gets you +$, that's due to following its instructions, but that's not the only way things can happen, and Harbor Village doesn't refer to any such thing.

For example, consider a hypothetical "This turn, when you play an Action card, it also gives you +$1." That clearly causes Harbor Village to trigger. We don't "follow card instructions" to get that +$1; it's a trigger waiting around, from instructions followed earlier.

Whereas of course "This turn, when you play an Action card, +$1" does not attribute the +$ to the card-play and so would not trigger Harbor Village.

How does the game possibly have anything like that first hypothetical? But it does, e.g. Way of the Sheep.

[chipperMDW]

For Ways, it's the rules for Ways that change which instructions you're following, and for Enchantress, it's Enchantress itself.

Ok, I agree. Ways don't trigger directly; the rules for ways set up a delayed ability.

But the actual instructions you end up following, are instructions given on Enchantress ("+1 Card, +1 Action") and on the Way card. This is straight-forward.

They are printed on those things, but they are not given by those things. "Printed on" and "given by" need not be equivalent. You keep saying they have to be, and I keep saying they don't. I think you have to allow for them being different concepts in order the get a clean solution, here. I dunno; let's see if the script at the end of this post helps out at all.

3.1. With Ways/Enchantress, you're following the Way's/Enchantress's instructions (pretty sure everybody has agreed with this). Why does that count as something the Instance "does" anymore than Adventures tokens would?

You're following the instructions printed on Way/Enchantress, but the Instance is what's issuing the instructions. Why does it count as something the instance does? Well, I guess it's because the instance is what was going to do something all along, and the Way came along and changed what it was going to do. Why doesn't that apply to Adventures tokens? Because there, the triggered effect is not to change what instructions the instance is going to "do"; the triggered effect is to actually do the thing (e.g. +$1) itself.

If "Instance of a card" is whatever you end up doing as a result of playing that card, then Adventures tokens, Priest's +$2, another Cultist, etc., are all included.

It's not everything that happens "as a result of" playing that card; it's every instruction issued by the instance, and nothing that triggered as a result.

If "Instance of a card" is supposed to exclude all those things, then it has to refer to just the card's instructions.

It doesn't have to specifically refer to the card's instructions; it refers to whichever instructions the instance is going to issue. Maybe instructions printed on the card, and maybe instructions printed on a Way.

If it's also supposed to include instructions from Ways or Enchantress, then we would have to define that specifically somehow (either with tagging instructions, or by calling out Ways/Enchantress by name or similar).

Or by saying that the instance issues instructions that are printed on a Way/Enchantress. By separating those concepts.

To illustrate the problem with your model: Let's say gaining a card with Ironworks creates an Instance of gaining a card, which is set to the card you've chosen to gain, and then Trader 1E triggers and changes the Instance's pointer to Silver instead. So the Instance of gaining which was "gain a Mill" is now "gain a Silver" instead. Is the card you gained with Ironworks Silver? Well, that would mean Ironworks gives you +$1 for gaining a Treasure. And if Ways worked like that, it would mean the Way's instructions count as the card's instructions. What if there were a Farber Village that asked if playing the Ironworks made you gain a Silver? The answer should be no, but with the Instance model it seems to be yes.

Why would we use the Instance model for gaining, though? As you demonstrated, it doesn't give the intended results there. If we use an Instance model for playing cards because it gives the intended results there, why would that mean we were forced to use it in other places?

Then how the frack do we solve it*? It's remarkable to me that nobody can answer this and still claim that this ruling makes any sense.

I mean, I feel like I explained a way it can work. The ultimate test, I guess, is can I explain it to a computer and have it give the expected results?

So I threw together a little Python script both as a sanity check and an attempt to explain what I'm trying to say. It's supposed to represent a player playing Smithy under four different circumstances. That player's +$1 Token is on the Smithy pile the whole time, so it always gives +$1. Way of the Sheep is in the setup, and it asks the user to choose on each play, so I alternate between playing Smithy normally and using the Way. The first two times, Harbor Village isn't involved; the second two times, we'll say that a Harbor Village was played just before the Smithy. (I don't actually simulate playing HV; I fake it.)

Here's the output:

Code: [Select]

$ python demo.py
Player 1 plays Smithy:
        Play as Way of the Sheep? n
        Player 1 gets +$1 [issued by delayed ability set up by +$1 Token rules]
        Player 1 draws 3 cards [issued by instance #0 (of Smithy)]
Player 1 plays Smithy:
        Play as Way of the Sheep? y
        Player 1 gets +$1 [issued by delayed ability set up by +$1 Token rules]
        Player 1 gets +$2 [issued by instance #1 (of Smithy)]
Player 1 plays Smithy:
        Play as Way of the Sheep? n
        Player 1 gets +$1 [issued by delayed ability set up by +$1 Token rules]
        Player 1 draws 3 cards [issued by instance #2 (of Smithy)]
Player 1 plays Smithy:
        Play as Way of the Sheep? y
        Player 1 gets +$1 [issued by delayed ability set up by +$1 Token rules]
        Player 1 gets +$2 [issued by instance #3 (of Smithy)]
        Player 1 gets +$1 [issued by delayed ability set up by Harbor Village]

The first play is a normal play, so it draws cards, and the token gives +$1 beforehand. Note that the Instance is listed as the issuer of the +cards instructions and the token rules are listed as the issuer of the +$1 instruction.

The second play is a Way play, so it gives coins. The token gives its extra beforehand. Note that the Instance is listed as the issuer of the +$2 instruction and the token rules are still the issuer of the +$1 instruction.

The third play is a normal play "under the influence of" Harbor Village. It draws cards, but first gets a coin from the token. Note that the issuers of these instructions are the same as for the first play. Note also that, because the Instance never issued a +coins instruction (the +coins instruction was issued by the token rules), Harbor Village does not trigger and no additional coin is produced.

The fourth play is a Way play "under the influence of" Harbor Village. It gives coins and first gets an extra one from the token. Note that the issuers of these instructions are the same as for the second play. Note also that, because the Instance this time issued a +coins instruction, Harbor Village does trigger afterwards and produces an additional coin; the delayed ability set up by the Harbor Village is what issues that +coin instruction.

Are those the expected results?


And here's the script itself. It should run on any Python installation. I'm not sure if this is something you know how to read or not. If you need me to explain parts of it in English, I can do that; it's just that English wasn't helping us much before.

Code: [Select]

class Card:
    def __init__(self, name, instructions):
        self.name = name
        self.instructions = instructions

class Way:
    def __init__(self, name, instructions):
        self.name = name
        self.instructions = instructions

class Trigger:
    def __init__(self, cond, effect):
        self.condition = cond
        self.effect = effect

def handle_triggers(triggers, player, card, instance):
    for trigger in triggers:
        if trigger.condition(player, card, instance):
            trigger.effect(player, card, instance)

class Instance:
    id = 0

    def __init__(self, card, player):
        self.id = Instance.id
        Instance.id += 1
        self.name = "instance #{} (of {})".format(self.id, card.name)
        self.instructions_to_follow = card.instructions
        self.player = player

    def resolve(self):
        self.instructions_to_follow(self.player, self.name)

# just a log of instances that gave coins (for Harbor Village)
coin_log = []

class Player:
    def __init__(self, id):
        self.id = id

    def plus_cards(self, count, issuer):
        print "\tPlayer {} draws {} cards [issued by {}]".format(
            self.id, count, issuer)

    def plus_coins(self, count, issuer):
        print "\tPlayer {} gets +${} [issued by {}]".format(
            self.id, count, issuer)

        global coin_log
        coin_log.append(issuer)

    def play_a_card(self):
        # player always plays Smithy in this example
        the_card = smithy

        print "Player {} plays {}:".format(self.id, the_card.name)
        instance = Instance(the_card, self)

        # Handle "when you play, instead" triggers
        handle_triggers(on_play_instead_triggers, self, the_card, instance)

        # Handle "when you play, first" triggers
        handle_triggers(on_play_first_triggers, self, the_card, instance)

        instance.resolve()

        # Handle "after you play" triggers
        handle_triggers(after_play_triggers, self, the_card, instance)

#
# Smithy definition
#

def smithy_instructions(player, issuer):
    player.plus_cards(3, issuer)

smithy = Card("Smithy", smithy_instructions)

#
# +$1 Token definition
#

def token_trigger_cond(player, card, instance):
    return player.id == 1 and card.name == "Smithy"

def token_trigger_instructions(player, card, instance):
    player.plus_coins(1, "delayed ability set up by +$1 Token rules")

on_play_first_triggers = [
    Trigger(token_trigger_cond, token_trigger_instructions)]

#
# Way of the Sheep definition
#

def way_of_the_sheep_instructions(player, issuer):
    player.plus_coins(2, issuer)

ways = [Way("Way of the Sheep", way_of_the_sheep_instructions)]

#
# General rule for Ways
#

def way_trigger_cond(player, card, instance):
    global way_save

    for way in ways:
        if raw_input("\tPlay as {}? ".format(way.name))[:1] == 'y':
            way_save = way
            return True

    return False

def way_trigger_instructions(player, card, instance):
    global way_save
    instance.instructions_to_follow = way_save.instructions

on_play_instead_triggers = [
    Trigger(way_trigger_cond, way_trigger_instructions)]

#
# Harbor Village delayed ability definition
#

def harbor_village_trigger_cond(player, card, instance):
    return True

def harbor_village_trigger_instructions(player, card, instance):
    global coin_log

    if instance.name in coin_log:
        player.plus_coins(1, "delayed ability set up by Harbor Village")

    coin_log = []

#
# Main program
#

# first two plays don't use Harbor Village
after_play_triggers = []

p = Player(1)

p.play_a_card()
p.play_a_card()

# second two plays do use Harbor Village
after_play_triggers = [
    Trigger(harbor_village_trigger_cond, harbor_village_trigger_instructions)]

p.play_a_card()
p.play_a_card()

Some notable points:

 - A player is given an instruction by calling a method on a Player object. (This script only considers +cards and +coins instructions.) Each such method accepts a parameter for the issuer of the instruction. An Instance "does" something when its (unique) name is passed as the issuer. In fact, in this script, that's the definition of an Instance "doing" anything: having its name passed as the "issuer" parameter to a method that represents giving a player an instruction to do that thing.

 - Things that are not Instances can also be issuers of instructions in this script. Like delayed abilities from previous plays of cards or from the rules themselves. You can also imagine events and projects to be valid "issuers" of instructions. Is that concept really needed in Dominion? Well, nothing in the game (that I know of) cares about any of those things "doing" stuff, so... no, it's not needed yet, anyway. But using them here lets me print things that hopefully clarify what I'm saying, so I did.

 - Harbor Village triggers after playing a card, so it has to go back and check what happened in the past. I do that by having the plus_coins method log the issuer of the instruction, then when Harbor Village actually triggers, it can go back and check the log to see if the Instance in question issued a plus_coins instruction. I clear the log after each play. That's not actually a correct way to do it in a real implementation; if I Throne a card, then I shouldn't clear the log after either play of that card because the Throne Room is still being played. But it's close enough for this toy program.

 - See how the Instance has a resolve method? Every instance is resolved in the same way: issue the instructions that it's most recently been told to use. It could issue instructions printed on a card (Smithy), or instructions printed on a Way (WotS). It issues them to the player whose playing of a card produced that Instance. It passes its own name as the issuer.

 - But, I hear you saying, Smithy just says "+3 Cards"; it doesn't say anything about an "issuer." I've just added a bunch of stuff that the card doesn't actually have printed on it. Well, the card doesn't say anything about Player 1, either. Even if it said "you," that wouldn't mean anything without further context. Who's "you"? Is it Bob? Is Bob even in a game right now? Is the card? The instructions written on Smithy (or any card) are unbound; they require further context in order to be interpreted. The instance binds them to a context. For sure, the instructions need the context of who played the card; they might also need the context of the card itself (the instructions might say to trash "this"). So why is it so weird to acknowledge that part of that context needed for some instructions is an implicit "issuer"? Especially when it's been established that some cards (like HV) are definitely looking for such a thing?

 - I completely half-assed passing the chosen Way around using a global (way_save). It's ugly and bad, but it's probably more readable this way than the alternative.

 - Don't ask me what Way of the Chameleon looks like in this or I'll have to make it self-modifying and then nobody'll be able to read it.


I dunno if any of that helped or not. I'm trying.

[Jeebus]

Similarly, Harbor Village asks if it (playing the Action card) gave you an instruction to get $ (or, the instruction "+$").

This is something you have created; it's not what Harbor Village actually says or does. It asks if the card gave you +$; it doesn't mention instructions.

Normally (in fact almost always), when playing a card gets you +$, that's due to following its instructions, but that's not the only way things can happen, and Harbor Village doesn't refer to any such thing.

For example, consider a hypothetical "This turn, when you play an Action card, it also gives you +$1." That clearly causes Harbor Village to trigger. We don't "follow card instructions" to get that +$1; it's a trigger waiting around, from instructions followed earlier.

I'm saying that "+$1" is an instruction (which means "you get $1" -- $1 being the resource you get). I'm saying that you can never do anything without following an instruction to do so. Would you say the same about Barber Village - "if it made you trash a card", that this doesn't mention instructions?

What about, "at the start of your next turn, you may play this form your hand" (Clerk) or "at the start of your next turn, discard 2 cards" (Tide Pools)? According to your logic, the bolded phrases are not instructions when you get to the start of your next turn? According to me, they are. And what is giving you those instructions is Clerk/Tide Pools. Note that you have to follow the instruction "discard 2 cards" at the start of the turn, because you don't even know what cards you might discard before then. (The same is of course true for "+$1". It's an act of increasing the player's pool of $ which has to be performed by the player at the correct time.)

Whereas of course "This turn, when you play an Action card, +$1" does not attribute the +$ to the card-play and so would not trigger Harbor Village.

So to try to understand your logic:
CardA: "This turn, when you play an Action card, it also gives you +$1."  ... The card-play of the Action card "gives" you +$1. The card-play of CardA does not.
CardB: "This turn, when you play an Action card, +$1" ... The card-play of the Action card does not "give" you +$1. Neither does the card-play of CardB. So no card "gives" you +$1?

[Jeebus]

But the actual instructions you end up following, are instructions given on Enchantress ("+1 Card, +1 Action") and on the Way card. This is straight-forward.

They are printed on those things, but they are not given by those things. "Printed on" and "given by" need not be equivalent. You keep saying they have to be, and I keep saying they don't. I think you have to allow for them being different concepts in order the get a clean solution, here.

The instructions are given on the Way card. The Way card has instructions, those instructions are for the players, so the players are being given instructions to follow by the card. Even if it were somehow the case that the "Instance of the card" caused you to follow those instructions, the instructions would still be given by the Way card.

If "Instance of a card" is whatever you end up doing as a result of playing that card, then Adventures tokens, Priest's +$2, another Cultist, etc., are all included.

It's not everything that happens "as a result of" playing that card; it's every instruction issued by the instance, and nothing that triggered as a result.

Ways and Enchantress specifically triggered as a result.

Why would we use the Instance model for gaining, though? As you demonstrated, it doesn't give the intended results there. If we use an Instance model for playing cards because it gives the intended results there, why would that mean we were forced to use it in other places?

Because there is nothing in the rules that say that they are different. If "Instance of playing a card" refers to whatever we were going to do from that and ALSO something that has been substituted, why shouldn't the same be true for "Instance of gaining a card"?

I mean, I feel like I explained a way it can work. The ultimate test, I guess, is can I explain it to a computer and have it give the expected results?

So I threw together a little Python script both as a sanity check and an attempt to explain what I'm trying to say.

You have defined "Instance" as something that is created when you play a card, and points to which instructions to follow when you get to the "follow the card's on-play instructions" part. And Ways are special-coded to change that pointer in the Instance. And then you have Harbor Village check what you got from following the Instance's instructions. Of course you get the intended result in that case. Note that you would also have to special-code Enchantress and Reckless in the same way - and Reckless is not "instead".

You have decided that Ways get hooked to the Instance, but you could have programmed that however you wanted. Why doesn't the Adventures token get hooked to the Instance? Why doesn't Priest's "+$2"? Why does Reckless's "follow the instructions an extra time"?
By making these choices, you decide what cards/tokens that will count as "things you get from playing the card" and which won't. But there is no explanation in the program for why, it's just chosen arbitrarily to be that way. I don't see that the program answers anything.

You have defined "Instance of playing the card" for the sole purpose of interactions with Harbor Village, Moat, Elder and Lantern. Other abilities (as far as we have found) don't care. Imagine that Harbor Village was actually ruled to check everything that happens from announcing the card until you are done with everything that triggered off of that. And Moat could be ruled the same way, which means it would protect you from the whole chain of Cultists. Same with Elder and Lantern. Then we would have to define "Instance of the card" differently, to include everything. There would be nothing in the rules to proclude such a definition either, and it would work in accordance with those rulings. I get that that's what you're trying to do, with the actual rulings. But defining the concept of Instance to match exactly the rulings doesn't actually address the problems I have brought up.

[GendoIkari]

You have decided that Ways get hooked to the Instance, but you could have programmed that however you wanted. Why doesn't the Adventures token get hooked to the Instance? Why doesn't Priest's "+$2"? Why does Reckless's "follow the instructions an extra time"?
By making these choices, you decide what cards/tokens that will count as "things you get from playing the card" and which won't. But there is no explanation in the program for why, it's just chosen arbitrarily to be that way. I don't see that the program answers anything.

These were choices based on Donald X's rulings, and Donald X's rulings are based on his interpretations of the English wording of the rulesbooks. The point of the program was to show how the rulings can work. The whole thing is an exercise in taking non-specific English language that's used in the rulebooks and translating it to a technical framework. The rules for Ways include wording that, in Donald X's interpretation, make them act differently than tokens.

[Jeebus]

You have decided that Ways get hooked to the Instance, but you could have programmed that however you wanted. Why doesn't the Adventures token get hooked to the Instance? Why doesn't Priest's "+$2"? Why does Reckless's "follow the instructions an extra time"?
By making these choices, you decide what cards/tokens that will count as "things you get from playing the card" and which won't. But there is no explanation in the program for why, it's just chosen arbitrarily to be that way. I don't see that the program answers anything.

These were choices based on Donald X's rulings, and Donald X's rulings are based on his interpretations of the English wording of the rulesbooks. The point of the program was to show how the rulings can work. The whole thing is an exercise in taking non-specific English language that's used in the rulebooks and translating it to a technical framework. The rules for Ways include wording that, in Donald X's interpretation, make them act differently than tokens.

The question is why do HV/Moat/Lantern/Elder look for certain "things you get from playing the card" and not others. It has been said that Ways/Ench/Reckless count as "things you get from [playing the card] that HV/Moat/Lantern/Elder look for". As I have said, we can have that rule, but so far I don't see any technical description for it that doesn't involve listing the card interactions; or defining a tag like I showed earlier. And actually, the "Instance" model is exactly the same as the tag model! It creates a node for hooking certain cards (Ways/Ench/Reckless) and then defines certain other cards (HV/Moat/Lantern/Elder) as referencing that node. It's just a more complicated way of saying "Ways/Ench/Reckless count as things you get from [playing the card] that HV/Moat/Lantern/Elder look for". It describes the premise for the question, but doesn't answer it.

[Gdan0]

   Whenever the player plays an action, the player decides to have that action be resolved for its printed text, or to resolve the printed text of a Way. Harbor Village cares about changes to the game state that are attributed to the next action played. Harbor Village, specifically, looks for +$ that has been attributed to the resolution of the next action played. It doesn't necessarily only look for +$ printed on the action, but any +$ gained from the resolution of that action that is also attributed to the resolution of that action. The Adventures +$1 token, per its rules in the Adventures Rulebook, does not attribute its +$1 to the action played.

"Four tokens give +1 of something: +1 Action, +1 Buy, +1 Card, +$1. These tokens go on Action Supply piles. When the player whose token it is plays a card from that pile, that player first gets the bonus."

"When the player … plays a card … , that player first gets the bonus." The rules here do not attribute the $1 to the resolution of the card, it is a bonus you receive first. You could even say you are resolving the token.

   Traits, from my understanding essentially modify how the kingdom card is resolved. Reckless in particular simply has the player, when resolving a card, carry out "its instructions twice". Typically when a card in this game refers to "its instructions" it is referring to the printed text of a card. Enchantress cares if the player is going to resolve their first action for "its instructions" or more specifically, its printed text. It does this so it can have you resolve Enchantress's cantrip instead. Reckless cares if the player is going to resolve the card for "its instructions" or more specifically, its printed text. It does this so the card can resolve twice. This is why when the player plays their first action, they may choose to resolve a Way to override Enchantress's effect. You are no longer resolving the "instructions" that Enchantress would replace. Similarly if the player resolve a Reckless card as a Way, the player is no longer resolving the "instructions" that Reckless would affect.