Print

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

[Jeebus]

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."

Wow. The problem is the first sentence. It's redundant since Ways are also covered by the second. I have to stop responding to you now, which I had mostly done already.

[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."

Wow. The problem is the first sentence. It's redundant since Ways are also covered by the second. I have to stop responding to you now, which I had mostly done already.

That's probably a good thing since you're interpreting what I'm saying in bad faith. It's worded the way it is to reinforce the fact that it's the action that's being played for the way. The second sentence covers effects that are attributed to the action that are not from the action's on-play effect, nor the way. I'm pretty sure I described what "if it gave" means in Harbor Village, but you probably disregarded it. "Give" doesn't need a specific game definition. Its context is sufficient on a case-by-case basis, since it's a basic English word.
 The mentioned defenition of what it means to play an action (and other effects that may happen) describes what Harbor Village cares or doesn't care about. I'm going to assume you concede to my points then if you don't want to engage any further.

Oh and one last thing.  You're making the assertion that the rulings are bad. You have to provide the concrete proof and reasons why the rulings are bad. I don't believe you've done that. If you had, I'd be in agreement with you.

[GendoIkari]

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.

Right, the Dominion FAQs are often inaccurate in very technical and normally meaningless ways. They are intended to be more like a person explaining the rules; more helpful for understanding but less technically accurate.

[Donald X.]

Try to play nice, guys.

1) Enchantress
2) Reckless

I see what you are saying about Enchantress. The card text does not attribute the cantrip to the card. Both card texts and FAQs may end up not perfect, due to both sides trying to communicate card functionality to normal people. For Enchantress, the question then is, is it better to go by the card text - the Dominion classic, who reads the rulebooks, as much as possible the game should work from just the basic rules and card texts - or, is it better to line up Enchantress with Ways and Reckless, which is sure nice, and hey then the rulebook is right and that's something.

For Reckless, I think the two follow-instructions have to play the same; all else is madness. No-one is ever guessing that they're different in edge cases.

[scott_pilgrim]

I'm going to assume you concede to my points then if you don't want to engage any further.

I am not following the discussion very carefully, but this seems like a really problematic approach. If your goal is to convince someone of something (which I would argue should generally not be your goal in these sorts of discussions, but that's beside the point), and then you declare (to yourself or to everyone else) "if this person stops engaging with me, that means I've convinced them", you essentially give yourself an incentive to do a bunch of things other than actually convincing the person. For example, someone might stop engaging with you because you are attacking them, or because you've shown yourself to be especially closed-minded on the topic, or because you're trolling them, etc. I'm not saying any of those things is what happened here, since I haven't really followed the discussion. But by equating "this person has stopped engaging" with "this person agrees with me", you incentivize behavior in yourself that is probably not conducive toward producing actual agreement.

[Gdan0]

I'm going to assume you concede to my points then if you don't want to engage any further.

I am not following the discussion very carefully, but this seems like a really problematic approach. If your goal is to convince someone of something (which I would argue should generally not be your goal in these sorts of discussions, but that's beside the point), and then you declare (to yourself or to everyone else) "if this person stops engaging with me, that means I've convinced them", you essentially give yourself an incentive to do a bunch of things other than actually convincing the person. For example, someone might stop engaging with you because you are attacking them, or because you've shown yourself to be especially closed-minded on the topic, or because you're trolling them, etc. I'm not saying any of those things is what happened here, since I haven't really followed the discussion. But by equating "this person has stopped engaging" with "this person agrees with me", you incentivize behavior in yourself that is probably not conducive toward producing actual agreement.

I agree with what you're saying. It was convenient that he stopped addressing what I was saying at the particular point since I thought I did a really good job explaining a few things after that point. It wasn't necessary to make such a bold declaration, haha.

[Jeebus]

Try to play nice, guys.

1) Enchantress
2) Reckless

I see what you are saying about Enchantress. The card text does not attribute the cantrip to the card. Both card texts and FAQs may end up not perfect, due to both sides trying to communicate card functionality to normal people. For Enchantress, the question then is, is it better to go by the card text - the Dominion classic, who reads the rulebooks, as much as possible the game should work from just the basic rules and card texts - or, is it better to line up Enchantress with Ways and Reckless, which is sure nice, and hey then the rulebook is right and that's something.

For Reckless, I think the two follow-instructions have to play the same; all else is madness. No-one is ever guessing that they're different in edge cases.

Then you're saying that the reason Reckless works the way it does is not because it specifically "attributes" its effects to the played card (like Ways and Enchantress apparently do), but because it tells the player to "follow the card's instructions". That's exactly what Chameleon does too, and you ruled that the opposite way: that you got the effects from Chameleon, not from the played card; so Lantern and Elder didn't work with Chameleon any more than it worked with the other Ways. Of course with the new ruling on Ways, that ruling doesn't have any practical significance anymore for Chameleon; but it still has the implication that "follow the card's instructions" doesn't in itself mean that you're getting the effects from the card. But I agree that it's good to change that ruling, since as we agree, that's what everybody thinks anyway. Except: what they actually think is what those cards literally say, that you're following the card's instructions, not just somehow "getting the effects" from the card without following its instructions.

When it comes to Enchantress, yes this makes the rulebook correct in this case. But the "give" phrasing is used several places in the rulebooks, for instance for Ironworks as I quoted above, and all of those would be wrong. The two phrasings are used interchangeably because of course that's how they were intended. Introducing a distinct meaning based on this phrasing now, introduces several incorrect explanations in the rulebooks and is certainly not intuitive language.

I will again stress that the Way rules don't explicitly require your new ruling. Unlike the rulebook note for Enchantress, the Way rules don't say explicitly that the Action card gives you the effect or makes you do it. (They actually say: "Each Way gives Action cards an additional option." This seems to mean shapeshifting the card so that it has another option. Of course, that's not how we should read it.) The rules only say that you can play it to do what the Way says to do. That is an accurate description whether we say that "doing what the Way says to do" is "attributed" to the card, or that it's just something that is triggered when we play the card. Both interpretations are supported by the Way rules*. (Then of course I've been saying that I don't see any way technically that effects from outside instructions can be "attributed" to a card, but I won't go into that again here.)

*Which is probably why you interpreted it the other way before.

[GendoIkari]

That's exactly what Chameleon does too, and you ruled that the opposite way: that you got the effects from Chameleon, not from the played card

Hmm, is this right? Although the question was never asked before this thread, it was always assumed to be the ruling that Moat protected you from Chameleon'd Militia, (which has the advantage of being a very realistic game-play scenario). The only way that Moat could protect you is if you were getting the effects from Militia, right? I guess the point is that even if it was ruled that way in the past, I think that ruling would have been "fixed" a while ago if Moat had been brought up back then.

[Jack Rudd]

-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).

My ruling for such issues would probably be that a player who was protected in that way would be treated the same way as a player with a 0-card hand. (Doesn't pass a card, doesn't receive a card, the Masquerade skips over them to the next player.) Still, it's good that this sort of thing was avoided.

[Jeebus]

That's exactly what Chameleon does too, and you ruled that the opposite way: that you got the effects from Chameleon, not from the played card

Hmm, is this right? Although the question was never asked before this thread, it was always assumed to be the ruling that Moat protected you from Chameleon'd Militia, (which has the advantage of being a very realistic game-play scenario). The only way that Moat could protect you is if you were getting the effects from Militia, right? I guess the point is that even if it was ruled that way in the past, I think that ruling would have been "fixed" a while ago if Moat had been brought up back then.

Yes, Donald X. ruled that Chameleon worked exactly like other Ways and like Enchantress, so Lantern and Elder don't do anything on a Chameleoned card. Nobody thought about Moat though, and yes, I think it would have been "fixed" somehow if brought up.

[GendoIkari]

That's exactly what Chameleon does too, and you ruled that the opposite way: that you got the effects from Chameleon, not from the played card

Hmm, is this right? Although the question was never asked before this thread, it was always assumed to be the ruling that Moat protected you from Chameleon'd Militia, (which has the advantage of being a very realistic game-play scenario). The only way that Moat could protect you is if you were getting the effects from Militia, right? I guess the point is that even if it was ruled that way in the past, I think that ruling would have been "fixed" a while ago if Moat had been brought up back then.

Yes, Donald X. ruled that Chameleon worked exactly like other Ways and like Enchantress, so Lantern and Elder don't do anything on a Chameleoned card. Nobody thought about Moat though, and yes, I think it would have been "fixed" somehow if brought up.

Yeah I'm with you that I can't think of any good way for Moat to protect you from Chameleon while Lantern and Elder don't work; not without some completely new concept of how Moat works.

Also, I didn't realize until just now that Elder also says "gives". I had previously thought and I think said that Harbor Village introduced "give" as a new keyword.

[AJD]

That's exactly what Chameleon does too, and you ruled that the opposite way: that you got the effects from Chameleon, not from the played card

Hmm, is this right? Although the question was never asked before this thread, it was always assumed to be the ruling that Moat protected you from Chameleon'd Militia, (which has the advantage of being a very realistic game-play scenario). The only way that Moat could protect you is if you were getting the effects from Militia, right? I guess the point is that even if it was ruled that way in the past, I think that ruling would have been "fixed" a while ago if Moat had been brought up back then.

Yes, Donald X. ruled that Chameleon worked exactly like other Ways and like Enchantress, so Lantern and Elder don't do anything on a Chameleoned card. Nobody thought about Moat though, and yes, I think it would have been "fixed" somehow if brought up.

Yeah I'm with you that I can't think of any good way for Moat to protect you from Chameleon while Lantern and Elder don't work; not without some completely new concept of how Moat works.

I think the difference is that Moat (unlike Lantern and Elder) don't tell the person playing a card to do something other than follow the card's instructions. The person playing the card is still all like "now I get to make my opponents discard", and the person with the Moat is like "not including me! "

...whereas Lantern and Elder both tell the player to do something other than exactly follow the instructions on the card, but Way of the Chameleon comes in and says "actually you do have to follow the instructions on the card (with the following minor modifications)", so that overrules the Lantern and Elder effects.

That said, I think ruling Lantern and Elder the other way would also be consistent with other rulings and probably more intuitive.

[Donald X.]

Then you're saying that the reason Reckless works the way it does is not because it specifically "attributes" its effects to the played card (like Ways and Enchantress apparently do), but because it tells the player to "follow the card's instructions".

No, not at all.

I'm saying Reckless works the way it does because I don't see how players would possibly guess otherwise. I'm re-reading what I said; it looks so clear to me.

I wasn't proposing a particular computer program to make this work out.

Except: what they actually think is what those cards literally say, that you're following the card's instructions, not just somehow "getting the effects" from the card without following its instructions.

Well I don't know about that. For the most part of course, no-one is "actually thinking" anything along any of these lines; they're playing Harbor Village, then either a Smithy, no +$1, or a Militia, +$1, and that's that. They're not trying to figure out edge cases. The main thing that comes up is, if you play two Harbor Villages and then a Militia, damn, only +$1. This can be worked out but people also ask.

And I haven't done a survey of, "what would you think would happen if you played Harbor Village and then used Way of the Sheep on a Smithy."

When it comes to Enchantress, yes this makes the rulebook correct in this case. But the "give" phrasing is used several places in the rulebooks, for instance for Ironworks as I quoted above, and all of those would be wrong. The two phrasings are used interchangeably because of course that's how they were intended. Introducing a distinct meaning based on this phrasing now, introduces several incorrect explanations in the rulebooks and is certainly not intuitive language.

These rulebooks, trying to be clear with friendly English, and the card wordings, trying to be clear with friendly English, cannot always handle edge cases. Ideally I catch the ones people will actually ask about and put the answers in the rulebooks.

I will again stress that the Way rules don't explicitly require your new ruling.

Well I mean. You, Jeebus, you are the entity that requires a ruling. Sometimes, the online programmers require a ruling, but you know, once there's code, doing whatever it does, well if no-one is asking, they aren't thinking to worry about it. You asked; I answered; you weren't satisfied; here we are. Yes the "Way rules" don't require a ruling; you do.

In order to give you a ruling, I have to try to figure out what makes sense given the card texts and rulebooks. And also consider, what would people possibly think. This result may vary based on what people chime in with, or how large these things loom on a particular day; I always just do the math as best as I can though.

For me, it remains sensible to have it be that Way of the Sheep on Smithy means that that Smithy gave you +$2 as far as Harbor Village is concerned. That still sounds fine to me, like a reasonable answer given that I have to answer the question. To me, Way of the Sheep feels like Reckless, but not like the Adventures +$1 token. The Adventures token could have been explained differently, so that it felt the same to me, but it wasn't and it doesn't. That's where things were a while ago; that's where they stand today.

[Jeebus]

That's exactly what Chameleon does too, and you ruled that the opposite way: that you got the effects from Chameleon, not from the played card

Hmm, is this right? Although the question was never asked before this thread, it was always assumed to be the ruling that Moat protected you from Chameleon'd Militia, (which has the advantage of being a very realistic game-play scenario). The only way that Moat could protect you is if you were getting the effects from Militia, right? I guess the point is that even if it was ruled that way in the past, I think that ruling would have been "fixed" a while ago if Moat had been brought up back then.

Yes, Donald X. ruled that Chameleon worked exactly like other Ways and like Enchantress, so Lantern and Elder don't do anything on a Chameleoned card. Nobody thought about Moat though, and yes, I think it would have been "fixed" somehow if brought up.

Yeah I'm with you that I can't think of any good way for Moat to protect you from Chameleon while Lantern and Elder don't work; not without some completely new concept of how Moat works.

I think the difference is that Moat (unlike Lantern and Elder) don't tell the person playing a card to do something other than follow the card's instructions. The person playing the card is still all like "now I get to make my opponents discard", and the person with the Moat is like "not including me! "

...whereas Lantern and Elder both tell the player to do something other than exactly follow the instructions on the card, but Way of the Chameleon comes in and says "actually you do have to follow the instructions on the card (with the following minor modifications)", so that overrules the Lantern and Elder effects.

That said, I think ruling Lantern and Elder the other way would also be consistent with other rulings and probably more intuitive.

Lantern and Elder trigger as you are resolving the card, which is after Ways and Enchantress makes you change what instructions to follow. According to the old ruling on Ways, when you use Chameleon, you're not resolving the card anymore, so Lantern/Elder does nothing. It would be exactly the same with Moat and Harbor Village. But with the new ruling on Ways/Ench, Donald X. also changed the ruling on Lantern and Elder (in this thread), so all these four cards work the same.

[Jeebus]

Then you're saying that the reason Reckless works the way it does is not because it specifically "attributes" its effects to the played card (like Ways and Enchantress apparently do), but because it tells the player to "follow the card's instructions".

No, not at all.

I'm saying Reckless works the way it does because I don't see how players would possibly guess otherwise. I'm re-reading what I said; it looks so clear to me.

I wasn't proposing a particular computer program to make this work out.

I was saying that there is no phrasing for Reckless about "attributing" anything to the card. You replied that Reckless's "follow" instruction has to work like the card's normal instructions since that's what everybody would think, so I assumed that you meant that that was the reason rather than Reckless specifically "attributing" like Ways and Enchantress. I mean, since Reckless doesn't say that on the card or in the rules. But then I guess I misunderstood you. Reading your response again, I don't find it particularly clear.

Except: what they actually think is what those cards literally say, that you're following the card's instructions, not just somehow "getting the effects" from the card without following its instructions.

Well I don't know about that. For the most part of course, no-one is "actually thinking" anything along any of these lines; they're playing Harbor Village, then either a Smithy, no +$1, or a Militia, +$1, and that's that. They're not trying to figure out edge cases. The main thing that comes up is, if you play two Harbor Villages and then a Militia, damn, only +$1. This can be worked out but people also ask.

And I haven't done a survey of, "what would you think would happen if you played Harbor Village and then used Way of the Sheep on a Smithy."

You're talking about Harbor Village here, but you're responding to something I said about Reckless and Chameleon, not Harbor Village. Reckless and Chameleon tell you to "follow the card's instructions". I was saying that most people read that literally. So they would probably think that you couldn't escape Enchantress with Chameleon, unlike with other Ways.

When it comes to Enchantress, yes this makes the rulebook correct in this case. But the "give" phrasing is used several places in the rulebooks, for instance for Ironworks as I quoted above, and all of those would be wrong. The two phrasings are used interchangeably because of course that's how they were intended. Introducing a distinct meaning based on this phrasing now, introduces several incorrect explanations in the rulebooks and is certainly not intuitive language.

These rulebooks, trying to be clear with friendly English, and the card wordings, trying to be clear with friendly English, cannot always handle edge cases. Ideally I catch the ones people will actually ask about and put the answers in the rulebooks.

Of course. But introducing "give" as jargon with a technical meaning on cards, as you are now, is a bit different. For instance, I don't think there are mistakes in the friendly rulebooks using "draw" when what is actually meant is just putting cards in your hand.

I will again stress that the Way rules don't explicitly require your new ruling.

Well I mean. You, Jeebus, you are the entity that requires a ruling. Sometimes, the online programmers require a ruling, but you know, once there's code, doing whatever it does, well if no-one is asking, they aren't thinking to worry about it. You asked; I answered; you weren't satisfied; here we are. Yes the "Way rules" don't require a ruling; you do.

I guess maybe you're misunderstanding my use of "require" (unless you're just twisting it to make a point), and it was probably not a good word. I tried to avoid "imply" since that can be interpreted in two different ways. But what I meant was simply, your new ruling doesn't follow as the only possible ruling based on the Way rules, for the specific reasons I gave.

[Donald X.]

I was saying that there is no phrasing for Reckless about "attributing" anything to the card. You replied that Reckless's "follow" instruction has to work like the card's normal instructions since that's what everybody would think, so I assumed that you meant that that was the reason rather than Reckless specifically "attributing" like Ways and Enchantress. I mean, since Reckless doesn't say that on the card or in the rules. But then I guess I misunderstood you. Reading your response again, I don't find it particularly clear.

I was providing a philosophical reason, not a mechanical one. It would be super confusing if the two follow-instructions from Reckless were resolved differently somehow; so, I don't want that. That doesn't say anything about "why, mechanically"; that's up in the air.

Mechanically, it may well be that the simplest thing is if "follow the instructions of Foo" means "Foo is the source of that effect" for purposes of Harbor Village and Moat.

I guess maybe you're misunderstanding my use of "require" (unless you're just twisting it to make a point), and it was probably not a good word. I tried to avoid "imply" since that can be interpreted in two different ways. But what I meant was simply, your new ruling doesn't follow as the only possible ruling based on the Way rules, for the specific reasons I gave.

Sure, the rulebooks and texts aren't precise enough to just say "this is the only way this could go." And even precise rules may need changing due to e.g. "everyone will get this wrong."

[Jeebus]

I wrote this trying to figure out a way that this ruling could work. I don't expect it to make any difference, but here it is.

This is somewhat similar to chipperMDW's interpretation.

The main problem lies in figuring out "when would" abilities, which are actually very strange. First of all, the whole concept of several abilities triggering at the same time and then resolving consecutively is strange in itself, and not in line with physical reality. In reality, if several things happen as a result of something, they happen at the same time (very simplified of course); there is no mechanism that makes any of them wait. So it's an artificial (but of course necessary) game concept that we make the rest wait while we resolve one. This creates a logical problem with "when would".

Let's start with Trader 1E and Possession. Let's say we gain a card with Ironworks, and we resolve Possession first.
It would seem that when we resolve Possession in the "when would" window, the other player gains the card. Afterwards (after the card has been gained) we would still be in the "when would" window, and Trader would fail. This does work as intended. But now we get to the actual "gaining" step, and we would have to say that it's been cancelled by Possession. This is probably not the intended meaning and not how most people think it works. Rather, Possession changes the whole "gaining thing" and then Trader fails to change it, and THEN we resolve whatever it has been changed into.

So then, in the "when would" window, all we do is change a future instruction. We're not changing Ironworks's instruction of course. Ironworks says to choose a card based on certain criteria, and then gain that card. We now have an instruction from the game, a "meta instruction", which is the same instruction that Ironworks had, namely "gain that card". In the "when would" window, that meta instruction can be changed. Possession changes "gain that card" into "the other player gains that card". It's still the meta instruction that we're set to follow when we would normally "gain that card", but now it's different. Trader now tries to change it, but can only change it from "gain that card". Then we follow the meta instruction.

So how do Ways and Enchantress work?
We have the meta instruction "follow the card's on-play instructions" that we're set to follow at a certain time when playing a card. In the "when would" window, the Way rules change that meta instruction into "follow the Ways's instructions".
First of all, cards like Moat and Harbor Village cannot look at simply what we get from playing the card, since that would include all abilities that trigger from that (tokens etc.). They're supposed to look at what we get from "what the card does when played", but this of course means "what we do when playing the card", so we're back to the wrong thing. Saying "what the card instructs us to do" would eliminate the unwanted abilities; but it would only include the card's instructions and not the changed meta instruction. So we have to interpret Harbor Village, Moat, etc., in a peculiar way: They look at the instructions that we follow as a result of the "follow the card's on-play instructions" meta instruction we follow as the normal step of playing a card, but also if that meta instruction has been changed into something else.

In this way, Ways and Enchantress actually work just like Trader 1E and Possession: They change a meta instruction. Note that Reckless does not do this. It could: we could decide that it works like Chameleon, triggering on "when would" and making us resolve the card's instructions twice instead of once. That would change the meta instruction "follow the card's instructions" into something else. But per the ruling, it triggers during our resolution of the card's instructions, making us do something. It's not "when would".

Anyway, the weirdness here is not Ways and Enchantress, it's that Harbor Village etc. look at the changed meta instruction. It would be simpler and more straighforward if they looked at the card's instructions, that they expected the normal meta instruction to happen, like most things in Dominion expect. For instance, a played card expects the normal meta instruction of "put the card in play" to happen, and can't be moved from any other place. That's because of a specific rule of course, but you'd expect that an ability looking for "direct effects" of a played card would follow a similar rule, that the default meta instruction were expected.

Also, this makes Harbor Village etc. inconsistent with Ironworks. Ironworks looks at "that card" (the card that was chosen and gained), which certainly doesn't exist if Trader was used, so that's perfectly fine. But if Possession was used, the meta instruction is "the other player gains that card", so Ironworks (if it worked like Harbor Village) should be able to see the card. But Ironworks expects only the default meta instruction, while Harbor Village etc. don't.

In this interpretation, Ways/Ench are not interpreted as behaving differently than Trader 1E and Possession. It's sufficient to interpret Harbor Village etc. in the described way. Is it possible to interpret Ways/Ench as "attributing" effects to the card in a special way (as Donald X. has been suggesting) and have Harbor Village etc. be more in line with how for instance Ironworks works? We would have to add a rule that the meta instruction that Ways/Ench create counts as the "default meta intruction" that HV is looking for, meaning that when HV looks for effects from "following the card's instructions", it recognizes "following Way/Ench's instructions" as the same. This is simply the same as my earlier idea, having a rule that "following Way/Ench's instructions" counts as "following the card's instructions". The implication of that is that using Chameleon on an Enchanted card would give +$1 and +1 Action. (This still seems like the best ruling to me.)

[Donald X.]

The most important thing here I think is, absolutely nothing should look to Possession for guidance. In every situation, ignore Possession, figure out the best way for cards to work while ignoring Possession, then be happy at a job well done. When having to specifically look at Possession, in order to rule on Possession itself, well, ideally it will get fixed, and if not it will be a rules nightmare mess all on its own, not extending its tentacles to any other cards whatsoever.

Trader 1E meanwhile does not exist. The fix to Trader is, there's errata. Absolutely nothing wants to look to Trader 1E for guidance.

Basing an argument on "here's how a no-longer-exists card and Possession work" is bad. Sorry! It's bad though. Let's never look to those cards for guidance, absolutely never.

Time did not permit me to get past that part today.

[Jeebus]

Well, Trader 1E exists just as much as Feast exists. IRL people play with them, and almost certainly people IRL play with Trader 1E more than the new version. I don't think it should be expected that they use the new card text when playing with Trader 1E.

I don't understand what's the rules problem with Possession? Both Possession and Trader 1E have a "when would" timing, which you have said is confusing for players, but the fact is that Ways and Enchantress do too (and are also confusing for players). But we can substitute Ways/Enchantress for Possession/Trader when it comes to the "when would" timing, it's the same.

In any case, per the "blue dog" ruling, Ironworks (along with Groom, etc.) doesn't give a bonus if you didn't gain the card, and I thought that would still be an existing principle of "when would gain".

[Donald X.]

Well, Trader 1E exists just as much as Feast exists. IRL people play with them, and almost certainly people IRL play with Trader 1E more than the new version. I don't think it should be expected that they use the new card text when playing with Trader 1E.

No. People who don't go on the internet to find out how Trader 1E works will just play it however they play it. I don't expect them to play by the new text, or know about it; but, they're also not asking for a ruling on it. People who do go on the internet to look it up will find the errata. If anyone ever asks for a ruling on Trader 1E, the ruling is, it's Trader 2E. I think this is a reasonable position.

I just was not thrilled to see an argument starting "well this is how Possession and a no-longer-exists card work..." It's no way to talk me into anything, and doesn't make me too interested in plowing through what the argument is. Now you know!

In any case, per the "blue dog" ruling, Ironworks (along with Groom, etc.) doesn't give a bonus if you didn't gain the card, and I thought that would still be an existing principle of "when would gain".

Ironworks does not give the bonus if you didn't gain the card.

So then, in the "when would" window, all we do is change a future instruction. We're not changing Ironworks's instruction of course. Ironworks says to choose a card based on certain criteria, and then gain that card. We now have an instruction from the game, a "meta instruction", which is the same instruction that Ironworks had, namely "gain that card". In the "when would" window, that meta instruction can be changed. Possession changes "gain that card" into "the other player gains that card". It's still the meta instruction that we're set to follow when we would normally "gain that card", but now it's different. Trader now tries to change it, but can only change it from "gain that card". Then we follow the meta instruction.

I don't really want to agree to a definition for the new jargon "meta instruction," or deal with finding out I didn't use it how you did or any of that. It's just, another obstacle to communication. I know it's intended to help communication; it isn't doing it for me.

So how do Ways and Enchantress work?
We have the meta instruction "follow the card's on-play instructions" that we're set to follow at a certain time when playing a card. In the "when would" window, the Way rules change that meta instruction into "follow the Ways's instructions".

"When you would x" does have a "window" in which to resolve with other things timed the same. I'm not sure why you're guessing that it changes what *will* happen, rather than, it cancels the old thing and makes the new thing happen.

First of all, cards like Moat and Harbor Village cannot look at simply what we get from playing the card, since that would include all abilities that trigger from that (tokens etc.). They're supposed to look at what we get from "what the card does when played", but this of course means "what we do when playing the card", so we're back to the wrong thing. Saying "what the card instructs us to do" would eliminate the unwanted abilities; but it would only include the card's instructions and not the changed meta instruction. So we have to interpret Harbor Village, Moat, etc., in a peculiar way: They look at the instructions that we follow as a result of the "follow the card's on-play instructions" meta instruction we follow as the normal step of playing a card, but also if that meta instruction has been changed into something else.

The rules can totally say - not that they have to in some particular case, but they totally can - that some x qualifies as being y. They can totally say that. And then it's true.

And they do, in the case of Ways; getting the +$2 from Way of the Sheep is treated like the Smithy you were playing gave you the +$2. That's what happens, because that's what Ways say happens, and because I've interpreted it that way, which is the most sensible way for me and that continues to not change.

Anyway, the weirdness here is not Ways and Enchantress, it's that Harbor Village etc. look at the changed meta instruction.

No. It's not that Harbor Village is doing this special thing of looking at a changed something; it's that Ways do this special thing of changing the very thing that Harbor Village looks at.

[Jeebus]

Well, Trader 1E exists just as much as Feast exists. IRL people play with them, and almost certainly people IRL play with Trader 1E more than the new version. I don't think it should be expected that they use the new card text when playing with Trader 1E.

No. People who don't go on the internet to find out how Trader 1E works will just play it however they play it. I don't expect them to play by the new text, or know about it; but, they're also not asking for a ruling on it. People who do go on the internet to look it up will find the errata. If anyone ever asks for a ruling on Trader 1E, the ruling is, it's Trader 2E. I think this is a reasonable position.

Okay, but I don't agree that it's reasonable. People who look up an explanation of how to play a card they own, can't be expected to then play that card with a different card text. If it were a completely broken card that needed errata to not ruin the game, I would agree, but that's not the case. About 70 cards have been functionally changed. When I play IRL with my original sets, I don't expect the other players to play the cards differently than the printed text. If a rules question comes up, I'll answer it based on the cards we're actually playing with.

I don't really want to agree to a definition for the new jargon "meta instruction," or deal with finding out I didn't use it how you did or any of that. It's just, another obstacle to communication. I know it's intended to help communication; it isn't doing it for me.

I was not intending it to be new jargon, just a short-hand way of saying "what the game rules tell you to do in a certain situation".

"When you would x" does have a "window" in which to resolve with other things timed the same. I'm not sure why you're guessing that it changes what *will* happen, rather than, it cancels the old thing and makes the new thing happen.

Because of what I explained further up in the post; I marked it in blue now. But I can say it another way:

If it doesn't change what will happen, then it must be:

• "when would" window opens.
• Way of the Sheep and Enchantress trigger.
• We choose to resolve Way of the Sheep: We get $2.
• We resolve Enchantress: Enchantress fails.
• "when would" window closes.
• We should now resolve the card's on-play instruction, except it was cancelled by Enchantress.

As I said, I don't think that's how anybody thinks it works, nor, I assume, how it was intended. I think instead it must be:

• "when would" window opens.
• Way of the Sheep and Enchantress trigger.
• We choose to resolve Way of the Sheep: We change "follow the card's on-play instruction" into "follow Way of the Sheep's instructions".
• We resolve Enchantress: Enchantress fails.
• "when would" window closes.
• We now resolve what would normally be "follow the card's on-play instruction" (the default meta instruction) but is now "follow Way of the Sheep's instructions" (the changed meta instruction).

In other words, "when would" abilities change what will happen. (ChipperMDW's model also follows this.)

The rules can totally say - not that they have to in some particular case, but they totally can - that some x qualifies as being y. They can totally say that. And then it's true.

I agree with that.

And they do, in the case of Ways; getting the +$2 from Way of the Sheep is treated like the Smithy you were playing gave you the +$2.

And that's saying that "following Ways/Ench's instructions" counts as "following the card's instructions". (I explained why at the end of my post.)

Anyway, the weirdness here is not Ways and Enchantress, it's that Harbor Village etc. look at the changed meta instruction.

No. It's not that Harbor Village is doing this special thing of looking at a changed something; it's that Ways do this special thing of changing the very thing that Harbor Village looks at.

Then Harbor Village looks at what we get as a result of the normal "follow the card's on-play instructions" step of playing a card.
And "following Ways/Ench's instructions" must qualify as that if Harbor Village should see it without looking at a changed thing.

[Donald X.]

Okay, but I don't agree that it's reasonable. People who look up an explanation of how to play a card they own, can't be expected to then play that card with a different card text. If it were a completely broken card that needed errata to not ruin the game, I would agree, but that's not the case. About 70 cards have been functionally changed. When I play IRL with my original sets, I don't expect the other players to play the cards differently than the printed text. If a rules question comes up, I'll answer it based on the cards we're actually playing with.

I can see how it's not ideal from your perspective as a rules-document maintainer. It's essential from my perspective as a game-maintainer though, and it's doing just fine for players.

Of course people play cards by their wordings; they don't even know there's errata. And weird Trader questions don't come up and they're fine. No-one demands rulings beyond "there's errata" but you. It's beyond the scope for me; it's not happening.

As I said, I don't think that's how anybody thinks it works, nor, I assume, how it was intended. I think instead it must be:

I would not lean on these "it must be" words like you do. We could also say, my rulings are inconceivable. Yet there they are.

I think the "anybody" who's thinking how things work, is not baffled by Way of the Sheep; it means you can play a card to make +$2, and that's how they use it. They're not possibly baffled by the minutiae that you're looking at but which they absolutely never are. They're not programming Dominion or writing a rules document for it.

And that's saying that "following Ways/Ench's instructions" counts as "following the card's instructions". (I explained why at the end of my post.)

Yet again what it is actually saying is what I said, not what you say while saying "this is what you're saying." I again refuse to let you put new words into my mouth.

It would be nice if we were better at communicating with each other. I can share the blame but there's only so much time I have to devote to fixing it.

Anyway, the weirdness here is not Ways and Enchantress, it's that Harbor Village etc. look at the changed meta instruction.

No. It's not that Harbor Village is doing this special thing of looking at a changed something; it's that Ways do this special thing of changing the very thing that Harbor Village looks at.

Then Harbor Village looks at what we get as a result of the normal "follow the card's on-play instructions" step of playing a card.
And "following Ways/Ench's instructions" must qualify as that if Harbor Village should see it without looking at a changed thing.

This may be the important point, but I have used up my ability to focus on these for the day. I'm not sure if you're arguing for a different ruling somewhere here or what.

When you try to come up with a new way to say what Harbor Village does, it just makes it so hard to try to follow it or agree to anything ever. Harbor Village does what it says and what I've explained; your terms for it just shut me down.

[Jeebus]

Okay, but I don't agree that it's reasonable. People who look up an explanation of how to play a card they own, can't be expected to then play that card with a different card text. If it were a completely broken card that needed errata to not ruin the game, I would agree, but that's not the case. About 70 cards have been functionally changed. When I play IRL with my original sets, I don't expect the other players to play the cards differently than the printed text. If a rules question comes up, I'll answer it based on the cards we're actually playing with.

I can see how it's not ideal from your perspective as a rules-document maintainer. It's essential from my perspective as a game-maintainer though, and it's doing just fine for players.

Of course people play cards by their wordings; they don't even know there's errata. And weird Trader questions don't come up and they're fine. No-one demands rulings beyond "there's errata" but you. It's beyond the scope for me; it's not happening.

I was talking about me as a player, not as a rules-document manintainer (if I shared your thinking I could just delete all the stuff about old versions in the document). I'm not going to explain before we start a game that Trader allows when-gain stuff to happen and Haggler triggers on when-gain, unlike what the cards say. And I expect other people to do that even less (out of those people who know about the changes). I don't imagine that most people that look up their card is fine with playing with a different card text that works differently. And I don't imagine that IRL tournaments include all the changed card texts unless the organizers actually bought all the new sets (and tournaments need rulings).

As I said, I don't think that's how anybody thinks it works, nor, I assume, how it was intended. I think instead it must be:

I would not lean on these "it must be" words like you do. We could also say, my rulings are inconceivable. Yet there they are.

I think the "anybody" who's thinking how things work, is not baffled by Way of the Sheep; it means you can play a card to make +$2, and that's how they use it. They're not possibly baffled by the minutiae that you're looking at but which they absolutely never are. They're not programming Dominion or writing a rules document for it.

Several people here are trying to explain how this ruling makes sense to them. (They are mostly following what I said it "must be" above.) Of course it's possible to just accept a ruling of how card A, B and C individually work with card D, E and F, but it's easier to parse if there were some commonality that could actually be understood, so that we could predict how the next card that is similar to A, B and C would also work with D, E and F without asking for another ruling. That's what I've been trying to get at, along with some other posters. Although they don't agree with me, we have all been trying to figure out how this actually works.

And that's saying that "following Ways/Ench's instructions" counts as "following the card's instructions". (I explained why at the end of my post.)

Yet again what it is actually saying is what I said, not what you say while saying "this is what you're saying." I again refuse to let you put new words into my mouth.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I was trying to find a way that I could explain it, and it lead to what it lead to. Since you were responding to that, I referred to it.

It would be nice if we were better at communicating with each other. I can share the blame but there's only so much time I have to devote to fixing it.

This may be the important point, but I have used up my ability to focus on these for the day. I'm not sure if you're arguing for a different ruling somewhere here or what.

When you try to come up with a new way to say what Harbor Village does, it just makes it so hard to try to follow it or agree to anything ever. Harbor Village does what it says and what I've explained; your terms for it just shut me down.

To me, I'm doing what we always do in these threads, going back to Ironworks/Trader or maybe earlier, and in threads about all games, figuring out how two things actually work in order to work out the interaction.

I get that you don't want to engage with this anymore. I actually thought you wouldn't even respond to that post; and in the end you didn't actually respond to its arguments.

[Jeebus]

So does anyone have a suggestion for a short, not necessarily technical, description of what Ways, Enchantress and Reckless actually do - so that Harbor Village and Moat work as intended? (Of course without mentioning Harbor Village or Moat.)

Using "give" doesn't work, since Moat doesn't say that, but I guess something with "make you"?

[AJD]

So does anyone have a suggestion for a short, not necessarily technical, description of what Ways, Enchantress and Reckless actually do - so that Harbor Village and Moat work as intended? (Of course without mentioning Harbor Village or Moat.)

Using "give" doesn't work, since Moat doesn't say that, but I guess something with "make you"?

How about, they change what a card's effect is?

(In addition to Ways, Enchantress, and Reckless, I suppose Highwayman and the late lamented Coppersmith also do that.)