Print

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

[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?

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).

Interesting, thanks. So you're "not affected" by Mouse's playing of Masquerade, but you are affected by Masquerade itself.

[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).

Interesting, thanks. So you're "not affected" by Mouse's playing of Masquerade, but you are affected by Masquerade itself.

Right, just like how you're affected by the second Cultist, but revealing Moat to the first Cultist doesn't help you there.

[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.

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.

Okay, but I think the separation between the two senses of "attributed to" is a little fluid here. We are not talking about something that innately has the credit, but something that is given the credit by something else. The Way rules (per this ruling) tell us to do what the Way says and then credit the card as the thing that "does" it (really: tells us to do it). So the card is being given credit by a special rule. That's why I interpret "attributed to" (as said by Donald X. and Gdan0) as not always just meaning "seen as having the credit" but also "actively given the credit".

[Gdan0]

"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"!

Menagerie has Ways. Each Way gives Action cards an additional option: you can play the Action for what
it normally does, or play it to do what the Way says to do. Playing an Action card for a Way ability
means not doing anything the Action card said to do when played.

GendoIkari has it correct when I'm saying "attribute." Playing an action for what it normally does, innately, has their abilities attributed itself. A rule or text (i.e. "That action also gives +$1") on a card may attribute effects to other actions.

An action is still played regardless of if you are following "its instructions*" or following the Way for its ability. This means any results from playing that action for the Way's ability is attributed to that action, because playing an action encompasses following the Way's ability. If you disagree that the text doesn't mean that, well that is why we have rulings by Donald X. to provide clarity.

*I quoted "its instructions" because there is precedent in this game where "instructions" is explicitly used to mean what the Action normally does. See Enchantress, Reckless.

This brings us back to Harbor Village. You are inserting meaning into Harbor Village when it doesn't say anything about "instructions".  In my opinion, Harbor Village isn't vague. "The next action gave" has clear meaning. For an action "to give" would mean to follow some instruction in the game that is from "playing that action." This, however, doesn't mean Harbor Village cares about if instructions are followed. Instruction following is incidental and not a determining factor in satisfying Harbor Village's if clause. (if the next action gave) The rules for Ways say "playing an Action card for a Way ability" This implies that the action is giving whatever the Way ability does. We have more than implications though. A ruling to clarify that it does indeed that.

"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.

Sure. When playing an action, the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does or what the Way's instruction does. In addition the player follows instructions of any abilities that are given to the action and the player follows instructions of any other abilities that may happen before, during, or after the playing of that action. Pretty simple, just wordy.

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.

Enchantress indeed doesn't say that explicitly, but through its ruling it is clarified to mean exactly that. The ruling also happens to make sense. On this precedent if a card explicitly says "its instruction" or "instruction" it should be assumed that it is referring to its normal text, unless noted otherwise by context in which "its instruction" is used or other rules and rulings. Harbor Village says "if it(the next played action) gave you $" is ruled the way it is because it would take a lot of warping of its interpretation to have it behave any other way than its printed meaning. There are two concepts called Rules as Written and Rules as Intended. Sometimes something may be written in a vague way (and I'm not saying Harbor Village necessarily is) it then takes the developer to clarify what is intended. In this case what is written and what is intended are in line with each other. The only matter is what it means for an action to give and well, I've been describing that. There are elements in this game that could have the player carry out instructions during the playing of an action that are not attributed to that action. (i.e. Adventures tokens or an effect that says, "when you play an action, +$1")

I'll respond to the remainder of the post when I have time. The "attribute" portion is mostly defunct now that the meaning of "attribute" was clarified by GendoIkari.

[Gdan0]

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".

I'm definitely not using "attribute" as a noun. Especially not to describe qualities of a card. The context in how I'm using it should of been sufficient to determine that I'm using it in the way GendoIkari mentioned. I would probably use "characteristic" when describing a card so there wouldn't be any ambiguous language.  The rest is based on your conclusion of what you thought I meant, so I don't feel the need to comment. However:
 

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".

Is this not already precisely how Enchantress and Reckless are ruled upon? If so, the precedent already exists as I've mentioned.

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.

I disagree with your conclusion when you say, "it only includes the card's instructions." And I'm assuming here you mean the literal text of the card.  Why? When Enchantress is in play it replaces what you would normally do while playing an action card with the cantrip, but this is only if you play the action card for what it normally does. The cantrip is also given by the played action, per the official FAQ. Playing the action for the Way's ability isn't playing the action for what it normally does. Remember, per the rules in Menagerie's Rulebook, you are still playing the action. Reckless has you carry out what a card would normally do, only twice. If you aren't doing what a card normally would do, Reckless would not apply. You are still playing that card,  however. It should also be put into consideration other hypothical effects that can say things similar to, "If an action you played met some criteria, the action also gives you some effect." That would mean the action is doing or giving something that it doesn't normally do when played. The ruling makes sense because both the rules and cards are being interpreted in a reasonable way. It is not reasonable to say "instructions you follow playing the card" to only mean "it only includes the card's instructions" because there are rules, that when interpreted in a reasonable way, contradict this.

[Jeebus]

An action is still played regardless of if you are following "its instructions*" or following the Way for its ability. This means any results from playing that action for the Way's ability is attributed to that action, because playing an action encompasses following the Way's ability. If you disagree that the text doesn't mean that, well that is why we have rulings by Donald X. to provide clarity.

Again, circular argumentation.

This brings us back to Harbor Village. You are inserting meaning into Harbor Village when it doesn't say anything about "instructions".  In my opinion, Harbor Village isn't vague. "The next action gave" has clear meaning. For an action "to give" would mean to follow some instruction in the game that is from "playing that action."

That definition includes Adventures tokens and other things, as I have said many times.

This, however, doesn't mean Harbor Village cares about if instructions are followed. Instruction following is incidental and not a determining factor in satisfying Harbor Village's if clause. (if the next action gave)

I have never said that Harbor Village cares whether instructions are followed to get $. That would be a silly thing for me to say, since "+$" can't happen without an instruction being followed. Harbor Village implicitly cares if the "+$" instruction is being followed, and importantly, it cares where that instruction comes from.

The rules for Ways say "playing an Action card for a Way ability" This implies that the action is giving whatever the Way ability does. We have more than implications though. A ruling to clarify that it does indeed that.

Again, circular argumentation.
I will also note that Donald X. originally ruled that Enchantress and Ways did not "attribute" anything to the played Action card. He just recently reinterpreted the rules. So I think we can be pretty sure that he didn't intend one way or another when he originally formulated the rules or card texts for Ways and Enchantress; he's just reading and interpreting them after the fact.

"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.

Sure. When playing an action, the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does or what the Way's instruction does. In addition the player follows instructions of any abilities that are given to the action and the player follows instructions of any other abilities that may happen before, during, or after the playing of that action. Pretty simple, just wordy.

You included the Way thing in two different ways there, I guess by mistake.
"Follow a card's instructions for what another card's instruction does" is nonsensical.
You are using "given" when the point was to not use any of these undefined terms. (As I said before, "attributed" is also not defined anywhere and not used in the rulebooks or on cards.)

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.

Enchantress indeed doesn't say that explicitly, but through its ruling it is clarified to mean exactly that. The ruling also happens to make sense. On this precedent if a card explicitly says "its instruction" or "instruction" it should be assumed that it is referring to its normal text, unless noted otherwise by context in which "its instruction" is used or other rules and rulings. Harbor Village says "if it(the next played action) gave you $" is ruled the way it is because it would take a lot of warping of its interpretation to have it behave any other way than its printed meaning.

From the base game rulebook, a card "giving you +1 Action" is used to refer to the player following the card's instructions. It would certainly not be "warping" to rule that that's what it still means. "Giving you +1 Action" must mean "making you get +1 Action". Just like "giving you 'trash a card'" must mean "making you trash a card". So to say that "a card making you trash a card" is the same as "following a card's instructions to trash a card" would not be warping anything, but a perfectly reasonable ruling.

Priest says "when you trash a card, +$2". Supposedly, if there were a card (Marble Village) that triggered when trashing a card "gives you $", it would not trigger from Priest's "+$2". According to Donald X., if Priest said "when you trash a card, it gives you $2", Marble Village would trigger from that. But note that the rulebook does use this term for Priest: "trashing a card from your hand will give you +$2". So the terms ("+$2" and "give you +$2") have been used colloquially to mean the same thing. There is no reason why it has to have one of the two specific meanings just based on the text on Harbor Village. And for me it would be way more reasonable if they still meant the same thing.

I don't see that you have technically described "to give". What needs to be technically described though is what it means for a card to "make you" do something without it entailing you following the card's instructions. Note that "do something" always means following some instructions, so to rephrase the question: What does it mean for a card to "make you" follow some instructions that are not the card's instructions?

Actually, it would seem that this is exactly what Chameleon does - it says to "follow this card's instructions" (so it makes you follow those instructions). But that is because "follow this card's instructions" is Chameleon's instructions. So if Smithy makes you trash a card (via Way of the Goat) it would seem that we have shapeshifted Smithy's instructions to "follow Way of the Goat's instructions".

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".

Is this not already precisely how Enchantress and Reckless are ruled upon? If so, the precedent already exists as I've mentioned.

No, they just mention "instructions". For instance, if the instructions where changed (shapeshifted), they would refer to the new instructions. If a card was given two sets of instructions, we would need that rule.

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.

I disagree with your conclusion when you say, "it only includes the card's instructions."

That was not my conclusion there. You seems to have skipped the last paragraph.

And I'm assuming here you mean the literal text of the card.  Why? When Enchantress is in play it replaces what you would normally do while playing an action card with the cantrip, but this is only if you play the action card for what it normally does. The cantrip is also given by the played action, per the official FAQ. Playing the action for the Way's ability isn't playing the action for what it normally does. Remember, per the rules in Menagerie's Rulebook, you are still playing the action. Reckless has you carry out what a card would normally do, only twice. If you aren't doing what a card normally would do, Reckless would not apply. You are still playing that card,  however. It should also be put into consideration other hypothical effects that can say things similar to, "If an action you played met some criteria, the action also gives you some effect." That would mean the action is doing or giving something that it doesn't normally do when played. The ruling makes sense because both the rules and cards are being interpreted in a reasonable way. It is not reasonable to say "instructions you follow playing the card" to only mean "it only includes the card's instructions" because there are rules, that when interpreted in a reasonable way, contradict this.

Again, circular. You keep saying "the rulings work becuase the rulings say so".

You seem to be confusing two aspects of Enchantress/Reckless here. I was talking about the effect of those cards ("+1 Card and +1 Action", "follow the card's instructions an extra time"), while you are talking about when those cards apply.

You argue that "you are still playing the card". Yes, of course you are playing the card, but that has very little to do with Ways and Enchantress. They trigger when you get to "when you would resolve the card's instructions". Other things trigger from playing the card too.

[Gdan0]

I will also note that Donald X. originally ruled that Enchantress and Ways did not "attribute" anything to the played Action card. He just recently reinterpreted the rules. So I think we can be pretty sure that he didn't intend one way or another when he originally formulated the rules or card texts for Ways and Enchantress; he's just reading and interpreting them after the fact.

I would disagree with the previous ruling based on what the rules and FAQ say. The current ruling is in line with what a reasonable interpretation of the rules and FAQ say.

Sure. When playing an action, the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does or what the Way's instruction does. In addition the player follows instructions of any abilities that are given to the action and the player follows instructions of any other abilities that may happen before, during, or after the playing of that action. Pretty simple, just wordy.

You included the Way thing in two different ways there, I guess by mistake.
"Follow a card's instructions for what another card's instruction does" is nonsensical.
You are using "given" when the point was to not use any of these undefined terms. (As I said before, "attributed" is also not defined anywhere and not used in the rulebooks or on cards.)

No mistake here, I mentioned Ways intentionally because it is part of playing an action.
Where at all did I say that?
"Give" is a basic English word that is used countless times in the rulebooks and FAQ. Its context matters.

Priest says "when you trash a card, +$2". Supposedly, if there were a card (Marble Village) that triggered when trashing a card "gives you $", it would not trigger from Priest's "+$2". According to Donald X., if Priest said "when you trash a card, it gives you $2", Marble Village would trigger from that. But note that the rulebook does use this term for Priest: "trashing a card from your hand will give you +$2". So the terms ("+$2" and "give you +$2") have been used colloquially to mean the same thing. There is no reason why it has to have one of the two specific meanings just based on the text on Harbor Village. And for me it would be way more reasonable if they still meant the same thing.

Yeah, you need to clean up the wording of what this "Marble Village" does. Is it supposed to be worded like Harbor Village? i.e. "If the next played action gave you $ from trashing a card, +$1" If so, I'm in agreement that the "when you trash a card" effect of Priest wouldn't cause this if clause to be satisfied. The $2 on Priest isn't attributed to any card being played. The FAQ for Priest indeed says "trashing a card from your hand will give you +$." The player is given $2. The player is given $2 from what though? By the player trashing a card of course. This is completely divorced from whatever may have instructed the player to trash a card.

So the terms ("+$2" and "give you +$2") have been used colloquially to mean the same thing. There is no reason why it has to have one of the two specific meanings just based on the text on Harbor Village. And for me it would be way more reasonable if they still meant the same thing.

This is a stretch. You are using the verb "give" without having a noun, pronoun, or present participle to provide proper context. i.e. "trashing a card from your hand will give you +$" "if the next action played gave you $, +$1" Specific meaning occurs because additional text provides context, this is a basic quality of written language. You are saying you want "give" to be used the same way every time, even though it is used essentially the same every time. It seems you want to ignore context in which "give" is used. I find that unreasonable. The use of "give" isn't changing, the context in where it is used is changing.

I don't see that you have technically described "to give". What needs to be technically described though is what it means for a card to "make you" do something without it entailing you following the card's instructions.

"Give" is a basic English word. It's also used many times in the rulebook and FAQ.

Note that "do something" always means following some instructions, so to rephrase the question: What does it mean for a card to "make you" follow some instructions that are not the card's instructions?

I'm assuming here you mean "not the card's the on-play instructions" when you say "not the card's instructions" It means that there are some instructions the player is following that are attributed to the card and its playing.

Actually, it would seem that this is exactly what Chameleon does - it says to "follow this card's instructions" (so it makes you follow those instructions). But that is because "follow this card's instructions" is Chameleon's instructions. So if Smithy makes you trash a card (via Way of the Goat) it would seem that we have shapeshifted Smithy's instructions to "follow Way of the Goat's instructions".

Incorrect. Chameleon doesn't make you follow the on-play instructions in the same way you normally would when playing an action. The moment the player has decided to play an action for Chameleon, the player is no longer playing the action for what it normally does. This does not mean the on-play text of the card changes. Only you aren't carrying out the on-play instructions, but the instructions of the Way. (I'll also reiterate the rules of Ways: "you can play the Action … to do what the Way says to do." and "Playing an Action card for a Way ability means not doing anything the Action card said to do when played.")

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.

I disagree with your conclusion when you say, "it only includes the card's instructions."

That was not my conclusion there. You seems to have skipped the last paragraph.

You really need to reword all of that then. You begin by posing the question, "But which instructions are included in "the instructions you follow playing a card"?". You then answer it with a conclusion that I disagree with(based on what the rules already say). The last paragraph is then led with "but" following that conclusion. This indicates you are using that conclusion as a premise to the final paragraph. Then you pose a question whose basis lies in that premise you made. If I disagree with the premise of the last paragraph (that you explicitly stated, "And certainly the most straight-forward, obvious answer is that it only includes the card's instructions.") then I can't comment on the question you pose in the last paragraph.

[Jeebus]

Sure. When playing an action, the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does or what the Way's instruction does. In addition the player follows instructions of any abilities that are given to the action and the player follows instructions of any other abilities that may happen before, during, or after the playing of that action. Pretty simple, just wordy.

You included the Way thing in two different ways there, I guess by mistake.
"Follow a card's instructions for what another card's instruction does" is nonsensical.
You are using "given" when the point was to not use any of these undefined terms. (As I said before, "attributed" is also not defined anywhere and not used in the rulebooks or on cards.)

No mistake here, I mentioned Ways intentionally because it is part of playing an action.

Your second sentence includes "any abilities that are given to the action" which are (according to you) supposed to include the Way's instructions, so it's redundant to mention the Way's instructions in the first sentence also. I'm surprised you don't realize this is a mistake.

Where at all did I say that?

"the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does or what the Way's instruction does."
So either "the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does" or "the player follows the action's instruction for what the Way's instruction does".
The Way is another card, so "the player follows the action's instruction for what another card's instruction does".

I'll stop there.

[GendoIkari]

Sure. When playing an action, the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does or what the Way's instruction does. In addition the player follows instructions of any abilities that are given to the action and the player follows instructions of any other abilities that may happen before, during, or after the playing of that action. Pretty simple, just wordy.

You included the Way thing in two different ways there, I guess by mistake.
"Follow a card's instructions for what another card's instruction does" is nonsensical.
You are using "given" when the point was to not use any of these undefined terms. (As I said before, "attributed" is also not defined anywhere and not used in the rulebooks or on cards.)

No mistake here, I mentioned Ways intentionally because it is part of playing an action.

Your second sentence includes "any abilities that are given to the action" which are (according to you) supposed to include the Way's instructions, so it's redundant to mention the Way's instructions in the first sentence also. I'm surprised you don't realize this is a mistake.

Where at all did I say that?

"the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does or what the Way's instruction does."
So either "the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does" or "the player follows the action's instruction for what the Way's instruction does".
The Way is another card, so "the player follows the action's instruction for what another card's instruction does".

I'll stop there.

Just to throw on a different reading of the "or" given here:

"the player follows [the action's instruction for what it normally does] or [what the Way's instruction does]".

Not sure if this is what Gdan0 meant, but it makes more sense to me than your reading as:

"the player follows the action's instruction for [what it normally does] or [what the Way's instruction does]".

[Gdan0]

Sure. When playing an action, the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does or what the Way's instruction does. In addition the player follows instructions of any abilities that are given to the action and the player follows instructions of any other abilities that may happen before, during, or after the playing of that action. Pretty simple, just wordy.

You included the Way thing in two different ways there, I guess by mistake.
"Follow a card's instructions for what another card's instruction does" is nonsensical.
You are using "given" when the point was to not use any of these undefined terms. (As I said before, "attributed" is also not defined anywhere and not used in the rulebooks or on cards.)

No mistake here, I mentioned Ways intentionally because it is part of playing an action.

Your second sentence includes "any abilities that are given to the action" which are (according to you) supposed to include the Way's instructions, so it's redundant to mention the Way's instructions in the first sentence also. I'm surprised you don't realize this is a mistake.

Where at all did I say that?

"the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does or what the Way's instruction does."
So either "the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does" or "the player follows the action's instruction for what the Way's instruction does".
The Way is another card, so "the player follows the action's instruction for what another card's instruction does".

I'll stop there.

The second sentence is there to cover any non-way effects that may be given to the action. i.e. "This turn, your actions also give $+1" So, no mistakes here.

Ways may physically be cards, but they aren't cards the player plays. I recall Donald X. describing them as vessels to hold instructions. Calling landscapes "cards" in the same way we call cards that we play "cards" is

[Gdan0]

Just to throw on a different reading of the "or" given here:

"the player follows [the action's instruction for what it normally does] or [what the Way's instruction does]".

Not sure if this is what Gdan0 meant, but it makes more sense to me than your reading as:

"the player follows the action's instruction for [what it normally does] or [what the Way's instruction does]".

That's pretty close. I'll revise it to add more clarity. I really want to stress that the "When playing an action" is part of both sides of the "or".
It's meant to be read as "When playing an action, the player may follow the action's instruction for what it normally says to do. -or- When playing an action, the player may follow the Way's instruction for what the Way says to do." Either way it's the action doing the effect.

[Jeebus]

Just to throw on a different reading of the "or" given here:

"the player follows [the action's instruction for what it normally does] or [what the Way's instruction does]".

Not sure if this is what Gdan0 meant, but it makes more sense to me than your reading as:

"the player follows the action's instruction for [what it normally does] or [what the Way's instruction does]".

That's pretty close. I'll revise it to add more clarity. I really want to stress that the "When playing an action" is part of both sides of the "or".
It's meant to be read as "When playing an action, the player may follow the action's instruction for what it normally says to do. -or- When playing an action, the player may follow the Way's instruction for what the Way says to do." Either way it's the action doing the effect.

Okay, GendoIkari's interpretation certainly makes more sense, but that's not how it naturally read. And I actually think you did mean something closer to what I wrote, because of what you're saying now.

But I'll focus on your new version. Since "the Action's instructions" = "what it normally says to do", and "the Way's instructions" = "what the Way says to do", then what you're saying is: "When playing an action, the player may follow the Action's instructions or the Way's instructions." Which is the same thing that I have said, the same definition we had from before the new ruling, and doesn't help explain anything.

Sure. When playing an action, the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does or what the Way's instruction does. In addition the player follows instructions of any abilities that are given to the action and the player follows instructions of any other abilities that may happen before, during, or after the playing of that action. Pretty simple, just wordy.

You included the Way thing in two different ways there, I guess by mistake.
"Follow a card's instructions for what another card's instruction does" is nonsensical.
You are using "given" when the point was to not use any of these undefined terms. (As I said before, "attributed" is also not defined anywhere and not used in the rulebooks or on cards.)

No mistake here, I mentioned Ways intentionally because it is part of playing an action.

Your second sentence includes "any abilities that are given to the action" which are (according to you) supposed to include the Way's instructions, so it's redundant to mention the Way's instructions in the first sentence also. I'm surprised you don't realize this is a mistake.

Where at all did I say that?

"the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does or what the Way's instruction does."
So either "the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does" or "the player follows the action's instruction for what the Way's instruction does".
The Way is another card, so "the player follows the action's instruction for what another card's instruction does".

I'll stop there.

The second sentence is there to cover any non-way effects that may be given to the action. i.e. "This turn, your actions also give $+1" So, no mistakes here.

Dude, that sentence also covers Way effects! Ways are supposed to make the Action card "give" you stuff, remember? That's the whole point here, I mean your point. Mentioning Ways in the first sentence is redundant and makes your definition even worse than it already needs to be. But I think part of the problem here is also that you're not sure what you're definining. What we were actually talking about was Barber Village's technical definition. Somehow you're now conflating it with the definition of using a Way. I think that's why we're getting stuff double up.

Ways may physically be cards, but they aren't cards the player plays. I recall Donald X. describing them as vessels to hold instructions. Calling landscapes "cards" in the same way we call cards that we play "cards" is

The Way's instructions are on the Way card, that much is obviously true. But it's completely irrelevant anyway, call it "game object" for all I care, it doesn't change anything.

[segura]

Ways ain’t cards. For all that arbitrary definitions and jargon you make up to cover weird rule edge cases that are utterly irrelevant it is beyond strange to ignore existing definitions.

[Jeebus]

Ways ain’t cards. For all that arbitrary definitions and jargon you make up to cover weird rule edge cases that are utterly irrelevant it is beyond strange to ignore existing definitions.

For all the things you could object to, you chose something completely irrelevant and ALSO moot. (But if you want to have that debate, you can start another thread.)

I'm actually pretty much the only person here not making up definitions and jargon. What jargon have I made up?

And I don't think how two cards (gasp! I said cards!) actually work together is utterly irrelevant. That's a strange thing to say. If you only care about how cards work in a vacuum, then why are you even playing Dominion?

[segura]

Huh? You made up stuff like instructions and so on. Lots of quotation marks flying around here.

Anyway, the designer already said everything relevant. Does not lead anywhere.

And if you get basic stuff wrong like cards and landscapes wrong, it is beyond unlikely that whatever funky stuff you make up will solve obscure theoretically rule issues.

[Jeebus]

Huh? You made up stuff like instructions and so on. Lots of quotation marks flying around here.

"And so on"? You mentioned one thing, "instructions". That is not made up, it's clearly defined in the base game rulebook and on cards. I can give you the relevant quotes, but I don't think you're being serious and honest here.

I have put quotation marks around card text and technical descriptions. When it comes to terms or jargon, I have put quotation marks around other people's jargon, like "Instance", "attribute", "source", "give" etc.
Other people sure have used quotation marks around their new jargon though.

I really think you're making this stuff up.

And you didn't address what I said about interactions between two cards. Of course.

[Jeebus]

Rulebook page 6:
Action cards all have a text box with instructions; sometimes other cards do.

Rulebook page 4:
Playing an Action card has three steps: announcing it; moving it to the "in play" area - the table space in front of you; and following the instructions on it, in order, top to bottom.

Here we can see that the card's instructions actually consist of separate instructions that you follow one by one; first the first instruction and so on. This is of course important in terms of the timing of triggered abilities. Each instruction can cause several things to trigger, before you move on to the next instruction. We see clearly how "+$1", "draw a card" and "trash a card" each is an instruction.

Instructed is also used, page 8:
"Look at a card" - You get to see the card; other players do not. After looking at it, return it to wherever it was (unless otherwise instructed).

Clearly instructed here is referring to the instructions: whether the instructions tell you otherwise.

[segura]

True that, I fucked that up. Like you fucked up landscapes and cards. The again I am not obsessing over rules so pardon me for not knowing the rule book by heart.

Now tell me, what non-existing rule issue did YOU solve here? Last time I checked your obsession about instructions did not do anything for DXV.

I never saw a rule issue in the OP, only you being lost in irrelevant details. Like the forest and the trees, hence your confusion about basic stuff like Ways being landscapes.

You know, I PLAY games. If a rule issue comes up, you look it up or house rule on the way. In how many games you play do unclear rule issues appear and what do you do then? Freeze the game until DXV replied or house rule as well?

[Jeebus]

True that, I fucked that up. Like you fucked up landscapes and cards. The again I am not obsessing over rules so pardon me for not knowing the rule book by heart.

Now tell me, what non-existing rule issue did YOU solve here? Last time I checked your obsession about instructions did not do anything for DXV.

I never saw a rule issue in the OP, only you being lost in irrelevant details. Like the forest and the trees, hence your confusion about basic stuff like Ways being landscapes.

You know, I PLAY games. If a rule issue comes up, you look it up or house rule on the way. In how many games you play do unclear rule issues appear and what do you do then? Freeze the game until DXV replied or house rule as well?

Okay, you wrote:

Ways ain’t cards. For all that arbitrary definitions and jargon you make up to cover weird rule edge cases that are utterly irrelevant it is beyond strange to ignore existing definitions.

So you fucked up "arbitrary definitions and jargon you make up". (Oh, and also the thing about quotation marks.)
You fucked up "weird rule edge cases that are utterly irrelevant".
And "Ways ain’t cards" is totally irrelevant in this debate, and also moot after Gdan0 rephrased his definition. But of course it's the only thing you have left, so you cling to it. As I said, I'm happy to debate it with you in another thread. Quit spewing silly trash talk here and be constructive.

[segura]

Well, unlike you I own my mistakes. About instructions not being in the rules, the rest you claimed I fucked up is not a fuck up but a characterization of what you are doing here.
Self delusion is unhealthy dude, DXV chimed out, what you are doing is not constructive or useful for fixing the rules.

I am done here, discussing with you is like discussing with a lawyer who lives in a cell, never had to represent a client in court and obsesses about irrelevant details and holes in the law.

[Jeebus]

Well, unlike you I own my mistakes. About instructions not being in the rules, the rest you claimed I fucked up is not a fuck up but a characterization of what you are doing here.
Self delusion is unhealthy dude, DXV chimed out, what you are doing is not constructive or useful for fixing the rules.

I am done here, discussing with you is like discussing with a lawyer who lives in a cell, never had to represent a client in court and obsesses about irrelevant details and holes in the law.

You are "characterizing" my rules questions as "weird rule edge cases that are utterly irrelevant", and I told you that they are about card interactions involving two cards, and I asked you if you think that's irrelevant. If so, all questions in the rules forum are irrelevant. You never replied, and certainly never "owned" your mistake.

You said I make up arbitrary jargon, but you had one example, which was false. So that whole claim was wrong. I haven't seen you "owning" it.

If you think I don't own my mistakes, you haven't seen all the times I've been wrong in this forum and admitted it. It's a bit embarrassing sometimes.

[Jeebus]

I've been really trying to make a functional definition of this new ruling.

But then I realized two things:

1) Enchantress

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.

Donald X. here explained an important difference in wording. But actually, Enchantress has the second wording, not the first. Enchantress says that when the player plays the card, "they get +1 Card and +1 Action", not "it gives them +1 Card and +1 Action". (If Enchantress instead had Way of the Goat's effect, it would say "they trash a a card", not "it makes them trash a card".)

So according to the card text on Enchantress, it works as the old ruling, not the new ruling. (The rulebook does have one instance of "the Action will give them +1 Card +1 Action", but I would think the actual card text saying the opposite should take precedence.)

***

2) Reckless

Then there is the question of why Reckless follows the new ruling. This question is based on how Donald X. said Reckless works timing-wise, namely that it kicks in after you have followed the instructions once, and make you follow them an extra time. That seems very different from what Ways or Enchantress do, which is making you do something else instead.

All three share the trait (no pun intended) of triggering when you are in the "following instructions" part of playing a card (after Reactions and before Royal Carriage). But we can easily imagine another Trait that does this. Reckless triggers "when you follow the instructions", making you follow them an extra time. So, with the same timing as Reckless:
Moneygiving: When you follow the instructions of a played Moneygiving card, +$2.
Should the +$2 be seen something the card gives you? If not, why does Reckless?

Moneygiving2: When a played Moneygiving2 card makes you trash a card, +$2.
This triggers right in the middle of the "following instructions" part. Should the +$2 be seen something the card gives you? It's the same timing as Priest's +$2.

Maybe the answer is that since those Traits don't say "it gives you +$2", the +$2 is not seen as something the card gives you. But does Reckless say that? It just says "follow the instructions", it doesn't say that the card makes you do it. Neither does the rulebook: "When you play a Reckless card, you follow its instructions an extra time", not "it makes you follow its instructions an extra time".

[Gdan0]

Dude, that sentence also covers Way effects! Ways are supposed to make the Action card "give" you stuff, remember? That's the whole point here, I mean your point. Mentioning Ways in the first sentence is redundant and makes your definition even worse than it already needs to be. But I think part of the problem here is also that you're not sure what you're definining. What we were actually talking about was Barber Village's technical definition. Somehow you're now conflating it with the definition of using a Way. I think that's why we're getting stuff double up.

This is the second time I've explained this. Yes the second sentence covers Way effects, but there are possible effects that aren't ways that are not covered by the first sentence. Hence saying "non-ways."

Donald X. here explained an important difference in wording. But actually, Enchantress has the second wording, not the first. Enchantress says that when the player plays the card, "they get +1 Card and +1 Action", not "it gives them +1 Card and +1 Action". (If Enchantress instead had Way of the Goat's effect, it would say "they trash a a card", not "it makes them trash a card".)

So according to the card text on Enchantress, it works as the old ruling, not the new ruling. (The rulebook does have one instance of "the Action will give them +1 Card +1 Action", but I would think the actual card text saying the opposite should take precedence.)

As Donald X. has said, the new ruling considers what the official FAQ for Enchantress says "While this is in play, the first Action each other player plays on each of their turns will give them +1 Card +1 Action instead of what it would have normally done." I've also mentioned this in my posts as well.

ll three share the trait (no pun intended) of triggering when you are in the "following instructions" part of playing a card (after Reactions and before Royal Carriage). But we can easily imagine another Trait that does this. Reckless triggers "when you follow the instructions", making you follow them an extra time. So, with the same timing as Reckless:
Moneygiving: When you follow the instructions of a played Moneygiving card, +$2.
Should the +$2 be seen something the card gives you? If not, why does Reckless?

Moneygiving2: When a played Moneygiving2 card makes you trash a card, +$2.
This triggers right in the middle of the "following instructions" part. Should the +$2 be seen something the card gives you? It's the same timing as Priest's +$2.

Maybe the answer is that since those Traits don't say "it gives you +$2", the +$2 is not seen as something the card gives you. But does Reckless say that? It just says "follow the instructions", it doesn't say that the card makes you do it. Neither does the rulebook: "When you play a Reckless card, you follow its instructions an extra time", not "it makes you follow its instructions an extra time".

The use of "when" is what makes the difference between your "Moneygiving" examples and what Reckless says. "When you follow instructions" is a conjunction that is followed by a participle clause. Another way to write it is, "When following instructions." Reckless does not say "When you follow the instructions, do X" It says "Follow the instructions of played Reckless cards twice." Meaning the (one) Reckless card does its effect twice. The FAQ for Reckless says "when" but not in the same context you are using it. "When you play a Reckless card, you follow its instructions an extra time." or "When playing a Reckless card, follow its(the card's) instruction an extra time." It does not say "when you follow the instructions". There is a subtle, but distinct, difference.
As we have already discussed when you are following a card's on-play effect, its instructions, the on-play effect is attributed to the card played. You are just doing the on-play effect twice.

As an aside, you are correct, your Moneygiving doesn't say "it(the card played) gives you +$2" the +$2 wouldn't be attributed to the card. It's not explicitly stated. However, it would be weird to have a Trait that is worded like Moneygivings since the point of Traits are to affect the kingdom pile.

[dane-m]

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.

Donald X. here explained an important difference in wording. But actually, Enchantress has the second wording, not the first. Enchantress says that when the player plays the card, "they get +1 Card and +1 Action", not "it gives them +1 Card and +1 Action". (If Enchantress instead had Way of the Goat's effect, it would say "they trash a a card", not "it makes them trash a card".)

So according to the card text on Enchantress, it works as the old ruling, not the new ruling. (The rulebook does have one instance of "the Action will give them +1 Card +1 Action", but I would think the actual card text saying the opposite should take precedence.)

Isn't it normal for the rulebook to take precedence?  Admittedly that's usually because in some instances the card text can't cover everything, so extra explanation is required in the rulebook, but shouldn't it also carry through to when the rulebook and the card are in disagreement?

[Jeebus]

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.

Donald X. here explained an important difference in wording. But actually, Enchantress has the second wording, not the first. Enchantress says that when the player plays the card, "they get +1 Card and +1 Action", not "it gives them +1 Card and +1 Action". (If Enchantress instead had Way of the Goat's effect, it would say "they trash a a card", not "it makes them trash a card".)

So according to the card text on Enchantress, it works as the old ruling, not the new ruling. (The rulebook does have one instance of "the Action will give them +1 Card +1 Action", but I would think the actual card text saying the opposite should take precedence.)

Isn't it normal for the rulebook to take precedence?  Admittedly that's usually because in some instances the card text can't cover everything, so extra explanation is required in the rulebook, but shouldn't it also carry through to when the rulebook and the card are in disagreement?

Not when the card text has an important keyword that explicitly distinguishes it from the explanation in the rulebook. For example, Ironworks does not say that the gained card "gives you" +1 Action, +$1 or +1 Card. But the rulebook does say that: "A card with 2 types gives you both bonuses." Going by the rulebook, it's the gained card that gives you +$1 and so Harbor Village would not trigger from an Ironworks used to gain a Silver. That is obviously wrong.