Print

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

[Jeebus]

   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.

Where specifically am I wrong here? http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=21600.msg899855#msg899855
Or if I'm not wrong, how do you explain your idea based on that?

[AJD]

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?

No, I'm pretty sure we know this one: CardB gives you the $1. The existing Priest/Chameleon interaction seems to clarify this; Priest is worded similarly to CardB and Priest/Chameleon causes you to draw 2 cards if you trash later in the turn, meaning that it's Priest that would be giving you the $2 for trashing.

[Gdan0]

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"

1: Sure, these are instructions, but relevance and context matters in how they are applied. It could be printed text on a card, it could be a game mechanic or rule that attributes these specific changes to the game state to a particular card.

2: This is irrelevant to me.

3: I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at here. If Harbor Village said "If it(the action) gave(any changes to the game state that are attributed to the resolving of the action) +1 card, +$1." If this hypothetical Harbor Village was played and then followed up with Wood Cutter played as Way of the Pig, then Harbor Village would give you +$1. Harbor Village is not necessarily asking if the played action is instructing the player to do anything like you are assuming. It isn't asking if the played action was resolved for its printed text either. It doesn't care about that, nor does it need to. It is asking if at any point during the resolution of the action was there are gain of $ and was it attributed to the resolution of the action.

4: Based on my clarifications in my original post and my follow up here, I wouldn't consider these descriptions accurate.

[Jeebus]

3: I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at here. If Harbor Village said "If it(the action) gave(any changes to the game state that are attributed to the resolving of the action) +1 card, +$1." If this hypothetical Harbor Village was played and then followed up with Wood Cutter played as Way of the Pig, then Harbor Village would give you +$1. Harbor Village is not necessarily asking if the played action is instructing the player to do anything like you are assuming. It isn't asking if the played action was resolved for its printed text either. It doesn't care about that, nor does it need to. It is asking if at any point during the resolution of the action was there are gain of $ and was it attributed to the resolution of the action.

What I'm getting at is that we have to consider everything as instructions that the player is following. Then we can try to figure out the context of how they are applied. "Gives" is technically useless (that's where point 2 is relevant). If you get +$1, it means you followed some instruction to get it. If you trash a card, it means you followed some instruction to trash it. I posited Barber Village: "if it made you trash a card". I said, Barber Village asks if it (playing the Action card) made you follow an instruction - an instruction to trash a card.

[Gdan0]

3: I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at here. If Harbor Village said "If it(the action) gave(any changes to the game state that are attributed to the resolving of the action) +1 card, +$1." If this hypothetical Harbor Village was played and then followed up with Wood Cutter played as Way of the Pig, then Harbor Village would give you +$1. Harbor Village is not necessarily asking if the played action is instructing the player to do anything like you are assuming. It isn't asking if the played action was resolved for its printed text either. It doesn't care about that, nor does it need to. It is asking if at any point during the resolution of the action was there are gain of $ and was it attributed to the resolution of the action.

What I'm getting at is that we have to consider everything as instructions that the player is following. Then we can try to figure out the context of how they are applied. "Gives" is technically useless (that's where point 2 is relevant). If you get +$1, it means you followed some instruction to get it. If you trash a card, it means you followed some instruction to trash it. I posited Barber Village: "if it made you trash a card". I said, Barber Village asks if it (playing the Action card) made you follow an instruction - an instruction to trash a card.

I very much disagree that "gives" is technically useless here. It essentially means that there was a change to the game state that is attributable to the action played and you are in some way were affected. The fact a card, rule, or mechanic gave instructions is incidental and irrelevant when it comes to Harbor Village. That is why I mentioned relevance in point 1, because with some other cards or mechanics it may be relevant. Whether or not the +$ is a result of the player following instructions is irrelevant. All that matters is $ was received and it's attributed to the action played. Intrinsically, the player carries out instructions while resolving cards. If Harbor Village stated "If it(the action) made you trash a card (a change in game state from having resolved the action while also being attributed to that action)" Then Way of the Goat would have Harbor Village gain you +$1. We can colloquially call whatever the player does as following instructions, but that does not mean it necessarily has any relevance to how any given card resolves.

[Jeebus]

The fact is that all cards have instructions. All game rules are also instructions. Nothing can be done by the players that is not following instructions. As you conceded, "+$1" is an instruction. And as you said, intrinsically, the player carries out instructions while resolving cards (and tokens). This is technically true. You're not addressing what I wrote in step 3, you're jumping to your conclusion. Since you can't trash a card without following an instruction, it must be technically true to say that "if it made you trash a card" asks if it made you follow an instruction to trash a card.

[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.

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?

It does not seem like this poking at the word "instructions" is helping us communicate. Harbor Village doesn't say "instructions" on it.

Maybe we can give it a while and see if more people chime in.

[Jeebus]

It does not seem like this poking at the word "instructions" is helping us communicate. Harbor Village doesn't say "instructions" on it.

It's the core of my point though - when we are referring to things that happen we are referring to instructions having been followed. Almost no cards say "instructions", but everything on them (in the area in the middle) are still instructions, per the rulebook.

[Donald X.]

It does not seem like this poking at the word "instructions" is helping us communicate. Harbor Village doesn't say "instructions" on it.

It's the core of my point though - when we are referring to things that happen we are referring to instructions having been followed. Almost no cards say "instructions", but everything on them (in the area in the middle) are still instructions, per the rulebook.

This didn't get me anywhere. I feel like this is "let's define jargon that means that some things said colloquially can be poked at" and I mean it's not helping me get rulings or communicate with you.

I feel like I have a set of rulings that's consistent and working. At the same time there is a communication issue, me trying to get you to feel like there's a set of rulings that's consistent and working. I have put some time into it. Let's see if someone else gets anywhere.

Maybe someone will ultimately reveal that I am mistaken, maybe hugely mistaken. I don't mind, I'll roll with that punch. But I can only put so much energy into trying to communicate clearly with you.

[Gdan0]

The fact is that all cards have instructions. All game rules are also instructions. Nothing can be done by the players that is not following instructions. As you conceded, "+$1" is an instruction. And as you said, intrinsically, the player carries out instructions while resolving cards (and tokens). This is technically true. You're not addressing what I wrote in step 3, you're jumping to your conclusion. Since you can't trash a card without following an instruction, it must be technically true to say that "if it made you trash a card" asks if it made you follow an instruction to trash a card.

I haven't conceded anything as I haven't change my position on anything I've said thus far. I've been using the word, "resolve" more than the word "instruction," because it is so very easy to conflate what instruction means to the game and what instruction means in the colloquial sense. I have addressed what you said in step 3 in almost every post so far: I disagree with your conclusion that Harbor Village looks for instructions. To be specific, Harbor Village does not specifically say "instructions" You claim I'm jumping to conclusions, but I've clearly and plainly posted my reasoning as to why Harbor Village doesn't care about if instructions are followed. I said resolving the action is intrinsically following instructions because following instructions is innate, nothing more. That doesn't mean Harbor Village looks for instructions being followed. It's incidental that instructions are being followed. This is a matter of relevance. Harbor Village cares only about results. It's looking for results that are attributed to the action being resolved. The action being resolved by the player carrying out various rules and instructions. To contrast, I've brought on up in my first post, Enchantress and Reckless care if a card is being resolved specifically for "its instructions." "Its instructions" being the printed text on the card.

Since you can't trash a card without following an instruction, it must be technically true to say that "if it made you trash a card" asks if it made you follow an instruction to trash a card.

It must also be technically true to say that Harbor Village produces $1 if by resolving the next played action the player receives $ that is also attributed to that action.

[Jeebus]

I haven't conceded anything as I haven't change my position on anything I've said thus far. I've been using the word, "resolve" more than the word "instruction," because it is so very easy to conflate what instruction means to the game and what instruction means in the colloquial sense. I have addressed what you said in step 3 in almost every post so far: I disagree with your conclusion that Harbor Village looks for instructions. To be specific, Harbor Village does not specifically say "instructions" You claim I'm jumping to conclusions, but I've clearly and plainly posted my reasoning as to why Harbor Village doesn't care about if instructions are followed. I said resolving the action is intrinsically following instructions because following instructions is innate, nothing more. That doesn't mean Harbor Village looks for instructions being followed. It's incidental that instructions are being followed. This is a matter of relevance. Harbor Village cares only about results. It's looking for results that are attributed to the action being resolved. The action being resolved by the player carrying out various rules and instructions. To contrast, I've brought on up in my first post, Enchantress and Reckless care if a card is being resolved specifically for "its instructions." "Its instructions" being the printed text on the card.

I meant "agreed", not "conceded".

I mean instructions in the technical sense. That's why it's irrelevant that the colloquial text on HV doesn't have the word "instructions" in it.

I have replied to everything you're saying so many times in this thread that I don't care to adress it in detail even more times. That's why I asked you to specifically adress the post I made. In adressing step 3, you're jumping to your conclusion instead of directly adressing my point in that step. Sure, Harbor Village is asking about results, but "+$1" is an instruction followed by a player, and HV cares how that player ended up following an instruction to get $.

Since you can't trash a card without following an instruction, it must be technically true to say that "if it made you trash a card" asks if it made you follow an instruction to trash a card.

It must also be technically true to say that Harbor Village produces $1 if by resolving the next played action the player receives $ that is also attributed to that action.

So if you agree that it's true, you have conceded that step 3 is true. And step 4 too.

[Gdan0]

Since you can't trash a card without following an instruction, it must be technically true to say that "if it made you trash a card" asks if it made you follow an instruction to trash a card.

It must also be technically true to say that Harbor Village produces $1 if by resolving the next played action the player receives $ that is also attributed to that action.

So if you agree that it's true, you have conceded that step 3 is true. And step 4 too.

This actually concedes nothing. In your quote both "if it(the action) made you trash a card" and "if it (the action) made you follow an instruction to trash the card" mean almost the same thing. Both attribute trashing to the action,  because as we discussed, following instructions is innate. However,  Harbor Village does not say,  "instruction." Your use of "an instruction" is vague enough to allow for any rule or mechanic that attributes itself to the resolution of an action to satisfy the if clause. It's actually redundant here. This is why I responded to that quote with what I said. What I said is similar to the two things you said,  only mine describes what Harbor Village actually does and asks.

I have replied to everything you're saying so many times in this thread that I don't care to adress it in detail even more times. That's why I asked you to specifically adress the post I made. In adressing step 3, you're jumping to your conclusion instead of directly adressing my point in that step. Sure, Harbor Village is asking about results, but "+$1" is an instruction followed by a player, and HV cares how that player ended up following an instruction to get $.

So we agree,  that Harbor Village cares about the result of the action. "+$1" is incidentally an instruction, but Harbor Village only cares so much that the resolution of the action "gives"(any changes to the game state that are attributed to the resolving of the action.) Whether or not instructions are followed are not within Harbor Villages scope, because it does not say "instruction" explicitly.

[chipperMDW]

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.

Correct; they do trigger as a result of playing the card. And we can point at what they do when they trigger:

Code: [Select]

def way_trigger_instructions(player, card, instance):
    global way_save
    instance.instructions_to_follow = way_save.instructionsThey change what instructions are going to be followed. And that's all.

Notably, WotS doesn't give +$2 when the Ways rules trigger (or ever). The instance does that when it carries out its "instructions to follow" in its resolve method (and it takes credit for it). So my saying the instance does "nothing that triggered as a result" is indeed correct (in the model I'm suggesting), and is exactly what I meant.

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"?

First of all, somewhere along the way, you seem to have started interpreting "Instance of playing a card" as "the stuff that results from playing a card" rather than "a particular playing of a card," the latter being what I have always intended it to mean. I see that you used it that way in the innermost quote of the last section (and in another sentence that isn't quoted), and I didn't correct you then because I assumed it was a typo. Maybe I misused it somewhere and gave you the wrong idea?

If you want a name for "the stuff that results from playing a card," I would call that its "results" or its "effects." That just seems like not what the word "instance" means.

But I think you're saying that, if, during the resolution of Ironworks, it proposed an "instance of gaining a card" that had a target of a Village, and 1E Trader triggered and modified the target of that gaining-instance to Silver, then the gaining-instance "resolved," then Ironworks would see that as "its own" gain and give you a coin. And, yeah, I could see it working that way. That would be a valid model via which the rules could work. But the thing is, Donald X. (eventually) ruled that it worked otherwise. Blue dog and everything. So... we don't (didn't) describe it that way.

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.

(You're still using "instance" to describe something more like "effects" here.)

So, this all sounds like "You only programmed it that way because that's how Donald X. said it worked." And, well, you're correct. I thought the issue was that you were having trouble imagining a model in which what Donald X. described was consistent and possible. From what you say here, it seems more like the issue is that you don't see how Donald X. arrived at the conclusions he did from what the cards/rulebooks say.

Note that you would also have to special-code Enchantress and Reckless in the same way - and Reckless is not "instead".

So, is the complaint just that Reckless would use the same mechanism as the others but doesn't use the same wording? Or perhaps that "instead of playing" would "replace" the playing even though "instead of gaining" didn't replace the gaining (and they both use "instead")?

EDIT: My last question there is worded pretty poorly, so I struck it out. Of course they both replace the thing in some way; and also, there's not really an "instead of playing," but an "instead of following instructions." What I meant was more like: is the problem that these two things both use the word "instead," but "instead of following instructions" functions by changing what an old thing (the instance) is about to do and "instead of gaining" functions by stopping the old thing (the gain) and directly making a new thing (another gain) happen in its place? Or, to say it a shorter way, that you consider them to be using the same wording, but operating via different mechanisms?

[Jeebus]

It does not seem like this poking at the word "instructions" is helping us communicate. Harbor Village doesn't say "instructions" on it.

It's the core of my point though - when we are referring to things that happen we are referring to instructions having been followed. Almost no cards say "instructions", but everything on them (in the area in the middle) are still instructions, per the rulebook.

This didn't get me anywhere. I feel like this is "let's define jargon that means that some things said colloquially can be poked at" and I mean it's not helping me get rulings or communicate with you.

I feel like I have a set of rulings that's consistent and working. At the same time there is a communication issue, me trying to get you to feel like there's a set of rulings that's consistent and working. I have put some time into it. Let's see if someone else gets anywhere.

Maybe someone will ultimately reveal that I am mistaken, maybe hugely mistaken. I don't mind, I'll roll with that punch. But I can only put so much energy into trying to communicate clearly with you.

I really don't see that I'm defining any jargon at all (unlike most other posters). "Instructions" are well-established in Dominion and is simply what a card tells you to do at a specific time. Moat has two sets of instructions, one that you follow when you play it and one that you follow when you react with it. Cards like Enchantress specifically refer to following these instructions. Furthermore, everything players do in all games is following instructions. Games are made up of instructions! Games consist wholly of instructions to the players - what to do and when. Whenever you're checking if a player did something, it refers to that player having followed some instructions. I just can't believe that's controversial.

[Jeebus]

Since you can't trash a card without following an instruction, it must be technically true to say that "if it made you trash a card" asks if it made you follow an instruction to trash a card.

It must also be technically true to say that Harbor Village produces $1 if by resolving the next played action the player receives $ that is also attributed to that action.

So if you agree that it's true, you have conceded that step 3 is true. And step 4 too.

This actually concedes nothing. In your quote both "if it(the action) made you trash a card" and "if it (the action) made you follow an instruction to trash the card" mean almost the same thing. Both attribute trashing to the action,  because as we discussed, following instructions is innate. However,  Harbor Village does not say,  "instruction." Your use of "an instruction" is vague enough to allow for any rule or mechanic that attributes itself to the resolution of an action to satisfy the if clause. It's actually redundant here. This is why I responded to that quote with what I said. What I said is similar to the two things you said,  only mine describes what Harbor Village actually does and asks.

(I assume that with "action" you mean "Action card".)

Yes, they mean the same thing. "Being made to do something" means that you followed an instruction to do it. Nothing else could make you do it! If you'll read more closely, you'll see that I did not mean "if it(the action) made you trash a card" but rather "if it (playing the Action card) made you trash a card". It's vague because in step 3 we have not yet asked the question of exactly what made you trash a card (which is the same as saying "what instructions you followed to trash a card").

The reason I'm defining "it" as playing the card instead of the card itself, is that it allows for more interpretations, including that the card itself did it.

"Receives $ that is attributed to the Action card" is vague.
Barber Village is much easier to use, since then this whole "giving a resource" thing is not confusing people.
"Receives 'trash a card' that is attributed to the Action card" is vague. You're "attributing" an instruction to a card without saying what that means technically. The only way to be technically accurate is to talk about the player following instructions. It's never "redundant" to be more technically accurate, and any rules explanation has to be able to withstand the most technical description.

I have replied to everything you're saying so many times in this thread that I don't care to adress it in detail even more times. That's why I asked you to specifically adress the post I made. In adressing step 3, you're jumping to your conclusion instead of directly adressing my point in that step. Sure, Harbor Village is asking about results, but "+$1" is an instruction followed by a player, and HV cares how that player ended up following an instruction to get $.

So we agree,  that Harbor Village cares about the result of the action. "+$1" is incidentally an instruction, but Harbor Village only cares so much that the resolution of the action "gives"(any changes to the game state that are attributed to the resolving of the action.) Whether or not instructions are followed are not within Harbor Villages scope, because it does not say "instruction" explicitly.

The thing is, Barber Village caring about the result of "trash a card" (which is an instruction) is the same as saying that Barber Village cares about the player trashing a card. But of course it cares about what made the player trash a card; in other words, what instructions the player followed to trash a card.

You say "resolving of the Action card", but of course "resolving" means following instructions. What else are we resolving?

[Jeebus]

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).

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.

I will give you a new answer to this. (Note that I restored the full text of what I wrote in the innermost quote.)
I'm asking how we define which instructions the Instance should include. You're answer is "every instruction issued by the instance". This is circular.

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"?

First of all, somewhere along the way, you seem to have started interpreting "Instance of playing a card" as "the stuff that results from playing a card" rather than "a particular playing of a card," the latter being what I have always intended it to mean. I see that you used it that way in the innermost quote of the last section (and in another sentence that isn't quoted), and I didn't correct you then because I assumed it was a typo. Maybe I misused it somewhere and gave you the wrong idea?

If you want a name for "the stuff that results from playing a card," I would call that its "results" or its "effects." That just seems like not what the word "instance" means.

I just used a short-hand there. I didn't mean that the term "Instance of playing a card" refers to whatever we were going to do from that, but rather that the actual Instance refers to (points to) what we were going to do.

When it comes to the innermost quote, you had taken it out of context.

I never meant that "Instance of playing a card" means the results.

But I think you're saying that, if, during the resolution of Ironworks, it proposed an "instance of gaining a card" that had a target of a Village, and 1E Trader triggered and modified the target of that gaining-instance to Silver, then the gaining-instance "resolved," then Ironworks would see that as "its own" gain and give you a coin. And, yeah, I could see it working that way. That would be a valid model via which the rules could work. But the thing is, Donald X. (eventually) ruled that it worked otherwise. Blue dog and everything. So... we don't (didn't) describe it that way.

I can only repeat what I said: There is nothing in the rules that say that they are different. Why would we have an "Instance of playing a card" and an "Instance of gaining a card" that work in opposite ways? There is certainly nothing in the rules to suggest it. Yes, Donald has ruled that Ways/Ench/Reckl work a particular way, but that is not because there is something special about the act of playing cards itself that is different than all other things you can do in Dominion.

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.

(You're still using "instance" to describe something more like "effects" here.)

So, this all sounds like "You only programmed it that way because that's how Donald X. said it worked." And, well, you're correct. I thought the issue was that you were having trouble imagining a model in which what Donald X. described was consistent and possible. From what you say here, it seems more like the issue is that you don't see how Donald X. arrived at the conclusions he did from what the cards/rulebooks say.[/i]

No, I did imagine a model, the "tag model". See what I replied to GendoIkari above. You have created another version of my "tag model". It has the same problems.

[chipperMDW]

I can only repeat what I said: There is nothing in the rules that say that they are different. Why would we have an "Instance of playing a card" and an "Instance of gaining a card" that work in opposite ways? There is certainly nothing in the rules to suggest it. Yes, Donald has ruled that Ways/Ench/Reckl work a particular way, but that is not because there is something special about the act of playing cards itself that is different than all other things you can do in Dominion.

I think the question you mean to ask there is "Why would we have an 'instance of playing a card' when we don't have an 'instance of gaining a card'?" Since, if we did have an "instance of gaining a card" (that worked the way you're proposing), they would not work in opposite ways.

My answer there would be that, if Donald X. says that playing a card works a certain way that defies your expectations given how he says other things work, then maybe playing a card is special and different from those other things. You say that the rules don't say they should work differently; but Donald X.'s posts seem to have said they should.


I asked before and you didn't answer: Is this just a matter of you being dissatisfied that similar wordings are being used to describe dissimilar mechanisms (Ways vs. 1E Trader)? Or that dissimilar wordings are being used to describe similar mechanisms (Ways vs. Reckless)? Are you just looking for the wording in the rulebooks/rulings to be more precise and consistent?

[Gdan0]

You say "resolving of the Action card", but of course "resolving" means following instructions. What else are we resolving?

I'm glad you asked. If I say "follow instructions of the action card" it could be vague. It could be interpreted as everything that goes into playing an action or it could be interpreted as specifically the printed text on the card. When an action is played many game mechanics can happen. Playing the action as a Way. There are other effects like durations, tokens, or effects on other card that may do things during the playing of that action. When I say "resolve an action" that would mean to encompass all possible things that could occur. However, not everything that occurs at this time is attributable to the playing or instruction following of that action.

"Receives $ that is attributed to the Action card" is vague.

This isn't vague as we already have rules are rulings that demonstrate this. I'm simply describing it. Ways attribute their effect to the action. Actions, of course, attribute their own effect to themselves. Adventures tokens, per their rules, do not attribute their effect to the action. Effects that can happen as you play an action or during resolving it may or may not be attributed to the action. It depends on the effect's specific wording. Donald X. gave a great example for this one.

"Receives 'trash a card' that is attributed to the Action card" is vague. You're "attributing" an instruction to a card without saying what that means technically.

I don't think that is vague at all. I could try to describe it differently.
 
The player carries out the effect "trash a card" during the playing of the action whose source is the action.
The player carries out the effect "trash a card" during the playing of the action whose source is not the action.
The player carries out the effect "+$1" during the playing of the action whose source is the action.
The player carries out the effect "+$1" during the playing of the action whose source is not the action.

I'm a bit wary about using "source", just so long as its agreed that here it means "from where it is obtained." In addition an effect or rule may say an action is to be considered "from where it is obtained."
Also note I can remove, "The player carries out the effect" in all of these since it's implicit.

The player having to trash a card can happen for any number of reasons. This only matters if there is a hypothetical card that cares if an action is trashing a card. To be more technical an action that has "trash a card" be attributed to it. For example, if there was a trashing token in addition to the +1 card, +1 action, +1 buy, and +$1 tokens in Adventures that behaved exactly like those tokens. We'd have a situation where playing an action would first have you trash a card, but the trashing is not attributed to the action per the rules in the Adventures Rulebook. The trashing would not be attributed to the playing of the action, to the resolving of the action, or to following the instructions of the action. It would thus not give +$1 on our hypothetical Harbor Village that cares about trashing.

The only way to be technically accurate is to talk about the player following instructions.

I'll soft disagree with this notion as the player following any instruction written anywhere or any game really, be it a rule, a ruling, a card, is so innate. It is so implicit and engrained into what makes a game. If the player following instructions has to be explicitly mentioned to be accurate when describing a card, then that must mean the player following instructions is explicitly mentioned on the card for a specific reason, otherwise its redundant and irrelevant. Harbor Village does not say "instruction." It doesn't need to. Harbor Village isn't looking for instructions being followed. It simply doesn't mention it explicitly at all. If you try to expand what Harbor Village means, in order for it to fall in line with how it's ruled would be. "If the next action and any attributable effects to the action gave you $, +$1" I'll expand it further. "If the player followed an instruction on the next action or an instruction that is attributed to the action and received $ as a result, +$1" I could word it like my example earlier. "If the player carried out instructions for "+$" whose source is the next action, +$1" Harbor Village could say something like this and be this long, but a lot of this is redundant because of rules and rulings that exist to govern the players and how cards are played. Harbor Village exists as its written and it is in line with how it is intended and ruled upon.

It's never "redundant" to be more technically accurate, and any rules explanation has to be able to withstand the most technical description.

The reason why I say the phrasing is redundant is because "an instruction" would have it fall in line with all existing rules and rulings. Its already implicit that the player is going to follow instructions of some kind. The phrase "an instruction" can be any and all instructions in the game because of how vague it is. It is assumed that some instructions are being followed to do things. Only Harbor Village doesn't care about that, just the results and if those results were attributed to the action. It looks for "if it gave". "Gave" meaning whatever effect the player carried out that is attributed to the action. If there was an effect the player carried out during the resolving of said action, that the action didn't do, then the action didn't "give" it. Throughout all of this, of course, the player is carrying out "an instruction."

Yes, they mean the same thing. "Being made to do something" means that you followed an instruction to do it. Nothing else could make you do it! If you'll read more closely, you'll see that I did not mean "if it(the action) made you trash a card" but rather "if it (playing the Action card) made you trash a card". It's vague because in step 3 we have not yet asked the question of exactly what made you trash a card (which is the same as saying "what instructions you followed to trash a card").

So long as you mean "if it(playing the action card) made you trash a cards" means "if carrying out the action's effects including all effects that are attributed to it made you trash a card." If you are trying to say "if it made you trash a card" to mean "if the card and nothing but its printed text made you trash the card", then I'd disagree.

[Jeebus]

I can only repeat what I said: There is nothing in the rules that say that they are different. Why would we have an "Instance of playing a card" and an "Instance of gaining a card" that work in opposite ways? There is certainly nothing in the rules to suggest it. Yes, Donald has ruled that Ways/Ench/Reckl work a particular way, but that is not because there is something special about the act of playing cards itself that is different than all other things you can do in Dominion.

I think the question you mean to ask there is "Why would we have an 'instance of playing a card' when we don't have an 'instance of gaining a card'?" Since, if we did have an "instance of gaining a card" (that worked the way you're proposing), they would not work in opposite ways.

My answer there would be that, if Donald X. says that playing a card works a certain way that defies your expectations given how he says other things work, then maybe playing a card is special and different from those other things. You say that the rules don't say they should work differently; but Donald X.'s posts seem to have said they should.

If there is such a thing as "Instance if playing a card", it must mean "what the rules tell us to do when playing a card", and it follows that we also have "Instance of gaining a card" and everything else you can do in Dominion. But I see that you are inventing this concept as something special for playing cards, a node for hooking instructions into. As I said, it's my "tag model" all over again. This is my main argument against your model, which I have explained in different ways.

I asked before and you didn't answer: Is this just a matter of you being dissatisfied that similar wordings are being used to describe dissimilar mechanisms (Ways vs. 1E Trader)? Or that dissimilar wordings are being used to describe similar mechanisms (Ways vs. Reckless)? Are you just looking for the wording in the rulebooks/rulings to be more precise and consistent?

I didn't answer because I wasn't sure what specific argument of mine you were referring to. And because I explained everything so thoroughly already. The answer is no to all those three questions. I'll just quote myself and see if that helps you:

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.

I have explained my point in a succinct way here. (And several other times in more verbose ways.)

[Jeebus]

You say "resolving of the Action card", but of course "resolving" means following instructions. What else are we resolving?

I'm glad you asked. If I say "follow instructions of the action card" it could be vague. It could be interpreted as everything that goes into playing an action or it could be interpreted as specifically the printed text on the card. When an action is played many game mechanics can happen. Playing the action as a Way. There are other effects like durations, tokens, or effects on other card that may do things during the playing of that action. When I say "resolve an action" that would mean to encompass all possible things that could occur. However, not everything that occurs at this time is attributable to the playing or instruction following of that action.

"Instructions of a card" means one thing and is not vague. Just like the cost, name and types of the card it is an attribute of the card. (They are printed on the card, yes, but they can be "shapeshifted", meaning changed. Bridge changes the cost of cards. Inheritance changes the instructions of Estates. Envious changes the instructions of Silver and Gold. There used to be more "shapeshifters", like Band of Misfits, but they were errataed away.) Enchantress for instance directly refers to the instructions of the card. It has a clear definition.

If we say "the instructions you follow as a result of playing a card", it can mean any of the different instructions, like tokens, etc. But "the card's instructions that you follow when you play it" can of course only mean the card's instructions. You say "resolve an Action card" and mean the first thing, but that is very unclear and confusing language. Then you should say at least "resolve the playing of an Action card".

But aside from that terminology, I see that we agree about this part.

"Receives $ that is attributed to the Action card" is vague.

This isn't vague as we already have rules are rulings that demonstrate this. I'm simply describing it. Ways attribute their effect to the action. Actions, of course, attribute their own effect to themselves. Adventures tokens, per their rules, do not attribute their effect to the action. Effects that can happen as you play an action or during resolving it may or may not be attributed to the action. It depends on the effect's specific wording. Donald X. gave a great example for this one.

We have a ruling, but this debate is about whether the ruling makes sense within the framework of how Dominion works in general and how games work in general. You can't explain why a ruling makes sense by saying that it's because we have that ruling. This is circular argumentation.

I'll note that neither Ways nor Harbor Village use the word "attribute". If you attribute something to a card, you are giving it an attribute, a property. Cards have that, as I said, their instructions, cost, name and types. You are giving it another. See my "tag model"!

"Receives 'trash a card' that is attributed to the Action card" is vague. You're "attributing" an instruction to a card without saying what that means technically.

I don't think that is vague at all. I could try to describe it differently.
 
The player carries out the effect "trash a card" during the playing of the action whose source is the action.
The player carries out the effect "trash a card" during the playing of the action whose source is not the action.
The player carries out the effect "+$1" during the playing of the action whose source is the action.
The player carries out the effect "+$1" during the playing of the action whose source is not the action.

I'm a bit wary about using "source", just so long as its agreed that here it means "from where it is obtained." In addition an effect or rule may say an action is to be considered "from where it is obtained."
Also note I can remove, "The player carries out the effect" in all of these since it's implicit.

"Source" is not defined anywhere, neither is "obtained". Note that I'm using the words "player" and "instructions" and "follow instructions", all defined in Dominion and also generally defined and understood in all games. Use these terms only and see where it gets you.

The only way to be technically accurate is to talk about the player following instructions.

I'll soft disagree with this notion as the player following any instruction written anywhere or any game really, be it a rule, a ruling, a card, is so innate. It is so implicit and engrained into what makes a game. If the player following instructions has to be explicitly mentioned to be accurate when describing a card, then that must mean the player following instructions is explicitly mentioned on the card for a specific reason, otherwise its redundant and irrelevant.

The point is not to have card texts themselves be unnecessarily more spesific, like mentioning "instructions" or "player" when it's not needed. But here we have a disagreement about card interactions, and the only way to get anywhere is to be technically specific when we talk about them.

Harbor Village does not say "instruction." It doesn't need to. Harbor Village isn't looking for instructions being followed. It simply doesn't mention it explicitly at all.

Enchantress doesn't say "when you would follow the card's on-play instructions" either, but that's what it means according to the ruling. Cards use colloquial language a lot of the time, not technically accurate language.

If you try to expand what Harbor Village means, in order for it to fall in line with how it's ruled would be. "If the next action and any attributable effects to the action gave you $, +$1" I'll expand it further. "If the player followed an instruction on the next action or an instruction that is attributed to the action and received $ as a result, +$1"

"Attributable" or "attributed to" would not be technically accurate, since they have no defined meaning. As I said, they are not used anywhere. We could use them of course, for talking about this, but then we have to define them. An attribute of a card seems to be a thing like its cost, name, etc., and as I said, you're then doing my tag model.

You're actually following my tag model exactly: "an instruction on the card or an instruction that is attributed to the card" is the same as "the instructions on the card or the card's Intrusive instructions", since I defined Ways as giving the card Intrusive instructions (in your parlance, "attributing the instructions to the card"). Note that this means that cards can have both instructions and "attributed instructions", so two types of instructions. As I wrote further down in that post, we then have to define a new rule to make it work: wherever "instructions" are mentioned with no modifier, the normal instructions are meant, not "attributed instructions".

Yes, they mean the same thing. "Being made to do something" means that you followed an instruction to do it. Nothing else could make you do it! If you'll read more closely, you'll see that I did not mean "if it(the action) made you trash a card" but rather "if it (playing the Action card) made you trash a card". It's vague because in step 3 we have not yet asked the question of exactly what made you trash a card (which is the same as saying "what instructions you followed to trash a card").

So long as you mean "if it(playing the action card) made you trash a cards" means "if carrying out the action's effects including all effects that are attributed to it made you trash a card." If you are trying to say "if it made you trash a card" to mean "if the card and nothing but its printed text made you trash the card", then I'd disagree.

In step 3, I am actually saying neither, as I have explained. I'm being as vague as Barber Village is. It just asks if playing the card made you trash a card. You are again jumping to the conclusion and reading into it. Again, if you read that post a little closer, you'll see that after the definitions in 3 and 4, THEN I'm addressing which instructions should be included in what Moat and Harbor Village is looking for. Once you've gotten past 3 and 4, you can address that.

[GendoIkari]

An attribute of a card seems to be a thing like its cost, name, etc

I could be mistaken, but it sounds like you're talking about a completely unrelated meaning of the word "attribute"; not even pronounced the same. You're talking about attribute, with emphasis on the a, a noun. He's talking about attribute, with emphasis on "tri", a verb.

Verb: regard something as being caused by (someone or something).
Noun: a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.

[Jeebus]

An attribute of a card seems to be a thing like its cost, name, etc

I could be mistaken, but it sounds like you're talking about a completely unrelated meaning of the word "attribute"; not even pronounced the same. You're talking about attribute, with emphasis on the a, a noun. He's talking about attribute, with emphasis on "tri", a verb.

Verb: regard something as being caused by (someone or something).
Noun: a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.

I know it's a verb and pronounced differently. But there is also this meaning of the verb: to consider as a quality or characteristic of the person, thing, group, etc.
That's how I interpreted it. You might be right that he meant it the other way, but that doesn't exactly work, because he said that Ways "attribute" their effects to the card, and that describes the Way as actively affecting the card, not just "regarding" the effects as caused by the card. Ways are what makes it happen; Harbor Village is what checks it.

[Udzu]

-how can Moat block a Chameleon'd Witch if you aren't following the Witch's instructions?

- Again the rulebook text says that Way change what a card does - A Way of the Sheep'd Witch results in Witch making $2, Witch is making the $2, that's what the Way rules say. So Moat means you're unaffected by that.

Apologies if I misunderstood, but does this mean that you've finally had to rule on how Masquerade would behave as a Moatable Attack? I.e. what happens if you play an Attack, someone Moats it, then you use Way of the Mouse to play a set aside Masquerade?

[GendoIkari]

An attribute of a card seems to be a thing like its cost, name, etc

I could be mistaken, but it sounds like you're talking about a completely unrelated meaning of the word "attribute"; not even pronounced the same. You're talking about attribute, with emphasis on the a, a noun. He's talking about attribute, with emphasis on "tri", a verb.

Verb: regard something as being caused by (someone or something).
Noun: a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.

I know it's a verb and pronounced differently. But there is also this meaning of the verb: to consider as a quality or characteristic of the person, thing, group, etc.
That's how I interpreted it. You might be right that he meant it the other way, but that doesn't exactly work, because he said that Ways "attribute" their effects to the card, and that describes the Way as actively affecting the card, not just "regarding" the effects as caused by the card. Ways are what makes it happen; Harbor Village is what checks it.

It was Donald X who originally brought up "attribute", and he definitely meant it as in the verb definition I quoted. I have been under the impression that the whole thing about Harbor Village has been colloquially "who gets credit for the effect", which is another way of saying "whom to we attribute the effect to". The fact that cards have attributes (noun) doesn't come into play at all there.

[GendoIkari]

-how can Moat block a Chameleon'd Witch if you aren't following the Witch's instructions?

- Again the rulebook text says that Way change what a card does - A Way of the Sheep'd Witch results in Witch making $2, Witch is making the $2, that's what the Way rules say. So Moat means you're unaffected by that.

Apologies if I misunderstood, but does this mean that you've finally had to rule on how Masquerade would behave as a Moatable Attack? I.e. what happens if you play an Attack, someone Moats it, then you use Way of the Mouse to play a set aside Masquerade?

No, see similar question about Mouse and Duchess here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=21600.msg899501#msg899501. The difference is that Mouse causes you to play a card, so that card's effects are separate from the original played card's effects. If Mouse had Masquerade's text printed on it directly, then yes a Moat would protect you from Masquerade (which would cause all sorts of issues).