Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12  All

Author Topic: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat  (Read 18635 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #250 on: February 07, 2023, 09:23:28 am »
0

Okay, I see what you're saying. The way I have been thinking about it is that in step 4, the FTI is already replaced with (a modified version of) the FTI. So you're still FTI at that point.

Yeah I was reading it more like Trader 1st edition; you aren't getting a modified card gain instead of the original card gain; you're getting a brand new thing that just happens to also be a card gain.

Quote
Your interpretation is (I assume) what lead Donald X. to rule that Chameleoen does override Enchantress in the first place.

Maybe, but this isn't why I had thought the "Chameleon wins" ruling works. I thought it worked because Chameleon's instruction doesn't cause you to actually follow the card's instructions; despite the wording literally being "follow this card's instructions". I thought that the idea was that it was still Chameleon's instructions making you do everything, more like "the card's instructions" was shorthand for all the instructions printed on the card (so if you play Smithy with Chameleon, then Chameleon is saying "draw 3 cards; each time [...]"). But that was the extra mental gymnastics I was talking about a few posts ago; it's more natural to read it a simply you're now following the card's instructions (because the instruction on Chameleon told you to).

Quote
In order for the new (reversed) ruling to work, I think we'd have to say that Ways all are like Enchantress, they implicitly start with "when you would FTI after playing the card, instead do this..."; and with the new ruling, Chameleon instead implicitly says "when you would FTI after playing the card, do FTI but with these modifications...". In this way, Chameleon, unlike the other Ways, don't actually make you not FTI.

I think the new ruling is more intuitive for most players. But yeah, if we go into the technical workings, the old ruling probably makes a bit more sense. (But to keep the old ruling, Reckless should of course not work when Chameleon is applied either.)

Yeah I think that all makes sense, except that new ruling does still require an understanding that Enchantress is not limited to replacing "FTI as a result of playing a card"; or alternatively an understanding that when Chameleon makes you FTI, it still counts as FTI as a result of playing a card. Come to think of it, that second option is pretty much in-line with the entire main discussion in this thread, the ruling that Sheep's + counts as getting + from playing the card.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #251 on: February 07, 2023, 09:55:08 am »
+1

As I said earlier, I don't agree that any valid model can say that Ways and Ench/Highw trigger at different times. The original reasoning as to why they can override each other is that they trigger at the same time. This is of course also why Enchantress and Highwayman can override each other.

It's clear why Ways couldn't possibly trigger after Enchantress/Highwayman, but why does it not work to say that they trigger first? Leaving aside all the other complications of this thread, it's easy to have a model where Ways trigger frist, yet Enchantress or Ways can still win, player's choice:

1) Start to play a card.
2) Choose Way or no Way.
3) Get to the "when you would FTI" step.
3a) If you chose Way, Enchantress does nothing because you never get to FTI.
3b) If you chose no Way, Enchantress replaces the FTI when you get there.

Why does that not work? It allows Ways to override Enchantress without requiring them to both trigger at the same time.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

dane-m

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 158
  • Shuffle iT Username: dane-m
  • Respect: +196
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #252 on: February 07, 2023, 10:26:32 am »
0

Quote
- If you have Enchantress, you cantrip instead. There's no FTI.
The result matches, i.e. one cantrips, but the explanation of why it arises differs.  I don't think this has any impact on any existing cards, but were a future card to say something like "After the next Action you play this turn, if it gave you +card, …" there might be an issue, depending on what Donald X specified the result in that case to be.  My proposed explanation of the mechanism would cause it to trigger.

I don't really understand how your model works that makes the explanation of the interactions different (according to you). In this case, since Enchantress works like Way of the Sheep, your proposed future card should indeed work exactly like Harbor Village + Sheep - according to that ruling.
I was playing safe.  Donald X had included 'magically' in the explanation of the outcome of Harbor Village + Sheep.  I didn't want to assume the same magic would apply for some other hypothetical card.

Quote
Quote from: dane-m
Quote
- Lantern / Chameleon'd Border Guard: Lantern applies.
Matches so long as one considers the applied shape-shifting to be cumulative, i.e. Chameleon shape-shifts the instructions that are now 'on' the card after Lantern has had its way (or possibly in the opposite order).  Matches even more clearly if one doesn't consider Chameleon to be shape-shifting the card.

Lantern can never trigger before Way of the Chameleon; this has been ruled on. Chameleon, like all Ways, trigger before you FTI. Lantern, like Elder, trigger as you're following certain instructions. So there is no need for Lantern to shapeshift.
Fair enough.

Quote
When it comes to Chameleon, there is a clear ruling that none of these cards cause shapeshifting and that includes Chameleon. Possibly saying that Chameleon shapeshifts would make the new ruling on Enchantres/Highwayman + Chameleon "work better"; I haven't thought it through.

Shapeshifting instructions might cause problems that Donald X. wants to avoid, so he will probably never rule that way. I indicated earlier that it could cause problems with for instance Way of the Rat, but that's not the case, since "gaining a copy" instructions only care about the name. The potential problem would be for something like Capitalism, which looks at the "card text"; I have no idea how real this problem would be, it would depend on a lot of things.

My suggestion that Chameleon was causing shape-shifting was based on this ruling:
- Reckless + Way of the Chameleon
-- This could go either way, but I have ruled that it works, you get the flipped effect twice. (a reversal)
and the fact that Reckless tells you to FTI again, which might lead one to suspect that in the absence of shape-shifting the second FTI followed the card's instructions as written rather than the card's instructions with Chameleon's effect.  To get the desired result there are, however, almost certainly other explanations that most people, including me, would be happy with.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #253 on: February 07, 2023, 10:29:53 am »
0


Yeah I think that all makes sense, except that new ruling does still require an understanding that Enchantress is not limited to replacing "FTI as a result of playing a card"; or alternatively an understanding that when Chameleon makes you FTI, it still counts as FTI as a result of playing a card. Come to think of it, that second option is pretty much in-line with the entire main discussion in this thread, the ruling that Sheep's + counts as getting + from playing the card.

Well, I don't agree with the last part. It's rather the opposite: Per the ruling, Sheep's +$2 does not count as FTI. I've been suggesting that it should as one possible solution to the problem as I see it.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #254 on: February 07, 2023, 12:22:17 pm »
0


Yeah I think that all makes sense, except that new ruling does still require an understanding that Enchantress is not limited to replacing "FTI as a result of playing a card"; or alternatively an understanding that when Chameleon makes you FTI, it still counts as FTI as a result of playing a card. Come to think of it, that second option is pretty much in-line with the entire main discussion in this thread, the ruling that Sheep's + counts as getting + from playing the card.

Well, I don't agree with the last part. It's rather the opposite: Per the ruling, Sheep's +$2 does not count as FTI. I've been suggesting that it should as one possible solution to the problem as I see it.

No, I wasn't saying that Sheep's + counts as FTI. I was saying that Sheep's + counts as something that playing the card does, just like how Chameleon's "follow the instructions" counts as something that playing the card does.

In this case, the question wasn't whether Chameleon counted as following the instructions or not, it was the question of whether the FTI was a result of playing the card or not (due to the rule you quoted earlier that Enchantress only cares about FTI that results from playing the card).
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #255 on: February 08, 2023, 04:34:31 am »
0

As I said earlier, I don't agree that any valid model can say that Ways and Ench/Highw trigger at different times. The original reasoning as to why they can override each other is that they trigger at the same time. This is of course also why Enchantress and Highwayman can override each other.

It's clear why Ways couldn't possibly trigger after Enchantress/Highwayman, but why does it not work to say that they trigger first? Leaving aside all the other complications of this thread, it's easy to have a model where Ways trigger frist, yet Enchantress or Ways can still win, player's choice:

1) Start to play a card.
2) Choose Way or no Way.
3) Get to the "when you would FTI" step.
3a) If you chose Way, Enchantress does nothing because you never get to FTI.
3b) If you chose no Way, Enchantress replaces the FTI when you get there.

Why does that not work? It allows Ways to override Enchantress without requiring them to both trigger at the same time.

I was not saying it wouldn't "work" in the sense of matching the outcomes of current rulings. I was saying it doesn't match current rulings in how it works. As I wrote earlier:
The ruling on Ways/Ench/Highw has always been that they all work exactly the same in terms of effect and in terms of timing. Here is Donald X.'s original explanation of Enchantress's timing. Here is Donald X. saying that Ways and Enchantress have the same timing.

Nothing Donald X. has said here has remotely indicated that he changed when Ways trigger by creating a new timing window between "first" (Reactions) and Ench/Highw. There is nothing in the rules or on the cards suggesting this timing difference either, quite the contrary.

The reasoning for the ruling on what Ways/Ench/Highw do in relation to Harbor Village, Moat, etc., has nothing to do with a changed timing either.

And the new ruling on Chameleon works purely based on the fact that we're FTI with it; there is certainly no need to have it trigger earlier.

Making Ways trigger before Enchantress does not solve anything in terms of the Harbor Village ruling either. If one thinks that a card making you do something can be a completely separate phenomenon from you following the card's instructions, the ruling makes sense no matter the timing of Ways; and if one doesn't think that, the ruling doesn't make sense no matter the timing of Ways.

To repeat, Donald X. has from the start stated that Ways and Enchantress work the same, with the same timing. That is the original basis for the ruling. In this thread, after he decided that Ways cause the card to "make you do stuff", he said that it was desirable that Enchantress still work the same way as Ways, so Enchantress should cause that too. Nowhere did he say anything about changing the timing of Ways, and certainly not so that they have a different timing than Enchantress, since this would go against the desired similarity between Ways and Enchantress.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2023, 05:33:58 am by Jeebus »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #256 on: February 08, 2023, 04:58:09 am »
0


Yeah I think that all makes sense, except that new ruling does still require an understanding that Enchantress is not limited to replacing "FTI as a result of playing a card"; or alternatively an understanding that when Chameleon makes you FTI, it still counts as FTI as a result of playing a card. Come to think of it, that second option is pretty much in-line with the entire main discussion in this thread, the ruling that Sheep's + counts as getting + from playing the card.

Well, I don't agree with the last part. It's rather the opposite: Per the ruling, Sheep's +$2 does not count as FTI. I've been suggesting that it should as one possible solution to the problem as I see it.

No, I wasn't saying that Sheep's + counts as FTI. I was saying that Sheep's + counts as something that playing the card does, just like how Chameleon's "follow the instructions" counts as something that playing the card does.

In this case, the question wasn't whether Chameleon counted as following the instructions or not, it was the question of whether the FTI was a result of playing the card or not (due to the rule you quoted earlier that Enchantress only cares about FTI that results from playing the card).

I still say that the two things are fundamentally different.

Given the new Chameleon ruling, there is no question that we're following the card's instructions. The issue you brought up is just whether that counts as a result of playing the card. We always FTI as a result of playing a card, and the question is, does Chameleon change that or not.

That is not the question with the Sheep (Way) issue. Sheep definitely changes that. As Donald X. said, there's no FTI step.

The Sheep issue is about something the card "makes you do" at the time when you would normally FTI as a result of playing it. This is unlike the Chameleon issue. The problem I have with the Sheep ruling is that "what the card makes you do" consists of following instructions on another card. This is also unlike the Chameleon issue.

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #257 on: February 08, 2023, 05:22:13 am »
0

4. Either use a Way or follow the instructions on the card (in order, top to bottom, stop at a dividing line).  Whatever instructions actually get followed count as what the card does.
Quote
Enchantress and HighWayman trigger when one attempts to FTI.

So I guess the part I bolded is the essence of how your model "requires only rulings about mechanisms to change rather than rulings about results". But the problem is still that the instructions that actually get followed in that step include the second Cultist and the +$2 from Priest.

(Also, no need to change the timing of Ways.)

We would have to change it to something like this (the important part is the "instead"):

4. Follow the instructions on the card (in order, top to bottom, stop at a dividing line).  If you follow some other instructions instead, this also counts as something the card tells you to do.

Ways, Enchantress and HighWayman trigger when you attempt to FTI as a result of playing the card.

Of course, this requires a general rule about all abilities that tell you to do something else instead of FTI. There is no such rule for other abilities that tell you to do something else "instead", for instance for gaining. And in fact, there is no such rule for FTI either! So it works, but it's not the actual explanation. The actual explanation is only about these specific cards: Ways, Enchantress and HighWayman.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #258 on: February 08, 2023, 03:18:57 pm »
0


Yeah I think that all makes sense, except that new ruling does still require an understanding that Enchantress is not limited to replacing "FTI as a result of playing a card"; or alternatively an understanding that when Chameleon makes you FTI, it still counts as FTI as a result of playing a card. Come to think of it, that second option is pretty much in-line with the entire main discussion in this thread, the ruling that Sheep's + counts as getting + from playing the card.

Well, I don't agree with the last part. It's rather the opposite: Per the ruling, Sheep's +$2 does not count as FTI. I've been suggesting that it should as one possible solution to the problem as I see it.

No, I wasn't saying that Sheep's + counts as FTI. I was saying that Sheep's + counts as something that playing the card does, just like how Chameleon's "follow the instructions" counts as something that playing the card does.

In this case, the question wasn't whether Chameleon counted as following the instructions or not, it was the question of whether the FTI was a result of playing the card or not (due to the rule you quoted earlier that Enchantress only cares about FTI that results from playing the card).

I still say that the two things are fundamentally different.

Given the new Chameleon ruling, there is no question that we're following the card's instructions. The issue you brought up is just whether that counts as a result of playing the card. We always FTI as a result of playing a card, and the question is, does Chameleon change that or not.


Not following with the bold part, unless you're making "as a result of playing a card" into a more generic thing including "as a result of using a Way". We FTI because of anything we do which the game rules tell us causes FTI. Playing cards is one of those things. Buying an Event is another. Gaining a card with certain Projects having been purchased is another. The rules saying "when you play a card, FTI" is just one thing in the game that can cause us to FTI. And as per your quote earlier, Enchantress only cares about that sort of FTI, not other ones.

"Enchantress only triggers when you FTI as a result of playing the card" was the quote. Under a straight-forward interpretation of how Ways work, I wouldn't have thought that Chameleon telling you to FTI would count as "FTI as a result of playing the card". It's "FTI as a result of Chameleon telling you to". Just like how you've been arguing that the +$2 doesn't seem like "+ as a result of playing the card". The fact that playing the card is what allowed you to use Chameleon in the first place should be separate.

However, under Donald's ruling that "What a way does counts as what playing the card does", then the Chameleon + Enchantress thing is consistent with the Harbor Village + Sheep thing;

Quote
That is not the question with the Sheep (Way) issue. Sheep definitely changes that. As Donald X. said, there's no FTI step.

I think you're talking about the wrong "that" in the bolded word. Sheep changes it so you aren't FTI, yes. But in this case, nothing I'm saying deals with whether you are FTI or not. It deals purely with "what counts as part of what playing the card does". The ruling is that Sheep's instructions count as part of what playing the card does. And the same ruling also means that Chameleon's instructions count as part of what playing the card does. Which means that whether you use Chameleon or not, you're still following the card's instructions "as a result of playing the card".

Quote
The problem I have with the Sheep ruling is that "what the card makes you do" consists of following instructions on another card. This is also unlike the Chameleon issue.

Are you implying that when you use Chameleon, you aren't following the instructions on Chameleon? I'm saying Chameleon works the same way all Ways do: When you choose to use them, you follow their instructions. It just so happens that the first instruction on Chameleon is to follow the instructions on the card you played.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #259 on: February 08, 2023, 04:21:27 pm »
0


Yeah I think that all makes sense, except that new ruling does still require an understanding that Enchantress is not limited to replacing "FTI as a result of playing a card"; or alternatively an understanding that when Chameleon makes you FTI, it still counts as FTI as a result of playing a card. Come to think of it, that second option is pretty much in-line with the entire main discussion in this thread, the ruling that Sheep's + counts as getting + from playing the card.

Well, I don't agree with the last part. It's rather the opposite: Per the ruling, Sheep's +$2 does not count as FTI. I've been suggesting that it should as one possible solution to the problem as I see it.

No, I wasn't saying that Sheep's + counts as FTI. I was saying that Sheep's + counts as something that playing the card does, just like how Chameleon's "follow the instructions" counts as something that playing the card does.

In this case, the question wasn't whether Chameleon counted as following the instructions or not, it was the question of whether the FTI was a result of playing the card or not (due to the rule you quoted earlier that Enchantress only cares about FTI that results from playing the card).

I still say that the two things are fundamentally different.

Given the new Chameleon ruling, there is no question that we're following the played card's instructions. The issue you brought up is just whether that counts as a result of playing the card. We always FTI as a result of playing a card, and the question is, does Chameleon change that or not.

Not following with the bold part, unless you're making "as a result of playing a card" into a more generic thing including "as a result of using a Way". We FTI because of anything we do which the game rules tell us causes FTI. Playing cards is one of those things. Buying an Event is another. Gaining a card with certain Projects having been purchased is another. The rules saying "when you play a card, FTI" is just one thing in the game that can cause us to FTI. And as per your quote earlier, Enchantress only cares about that sort of FTI, not other ones.

What I meant: When playing a card, we always FTI as a result of playing the card, and the question is, does Chameleon change that or not: Does Chameleon make it so we don't FTI as a result of playing the card.

Note that whenever I use "FTI", I mean "follow the card's on-play instructions". That's what "FTI" is short-hand for. It's not about following the below-the-line ability or a Project's ability or even a Way's ability. "There is no FTI" means we're not following the card's on-play instructions. Of course we might be following other intructions (like on a Way), but that's not what that phrase expresses.

Maybe this will make my post clearer.

Quote from: GendoIkari
"Enchantress only triggers when you FTI as a result of playing the card" was the quote. Under a straight-forward interpretation of how Ways work, I wouldn't have thought that Chameleon telling you to FTI would count as "FTI as a result of playing the card". It's "FTI as a result of Chameleon telling you to". Just like how you've been arguing that the +$2 doesn't seem like "+ as a result of playing the card". The fact that playing the card is what allowed you to use Chameleon in the first place should be separate.

However, under Donald's ruling that "What a way does counts as what playing the card does", then the Chameleon + Enchantress thing is consistent with the Harbor Village + Sheep thing;

You seem to be confusing the two rulings when you talk about Chameleon. The general Way ruling that a Way means that the played card makes you do things is not enough to make the Chameleon + Enchantress ruling be true. Under that ruling alone, Chameleon can escape Enchantress. The Chameleon + Enchantress ruling is a separate thing.

You presented a good argument earlier for why even the Chameleon + Enchantress ruling could be seen as not enough to prevent Chameleon from escaping Enchantress. As I said then, we'd have to say that Chameleon does not cancel FTI, like other Ways do. Now you seem to be assuming that we don't view Chameleon this way. Well I do, because that's how the ruling makes sense.

Quote from: GendoIkari
Quote
That is not the question with the Sheep (Way) issue. Sheep definitely changes that. As Donald X. said, there's no FTI step.

I think you're talking about the wrong "that" in the bolded word. Sheep changes it so you aren't FTI, yes. But in this case, nothing I'm saying deals with whether you are FTI or not. It deals purely with "what counts as part of what playing the card does". The ruling is that Sheep's instructions count as part of what playing the card does. And the same ruling also means that Chameleon's instructions count as part of what playing the card does. Which means that whether you use Chameleon or not, you're still following the card's instructions "as a result of playing the card".

The ruling doesn't really say that Sheep's instructions count as part of what playing the card does. Playing the card does many things, including Adventures tokens. The ruling says that what you do when following Sheep's instructions counts as what the card makes you do. Yes, it's fuzzy and unclear, but that's the way this ruling is. It's about this undefined concept of the card "making you" do something. It's not about attributing instructions.

So, as I said above, the "Sheep ruling" does not mean that you're FTI as a result of playing the card with Chameleon. Rather, it's like you said a few posts ago, even with that ruling and with the new Chameleon ruling, we could think that Chameleon means we're not FTI. We need to think of Chameleon as different from the other Ways, like I said above.

Quote from: GendoIkari
Quote
The problem I have with the Sheep ruling is that "what the card makes you do" consists of following instructions on another card. This is also unlike the Chameleon issue.

Are you implying that when you use Chameleon, you aren't following the instructions on Chameleon?

No, read it again. Of course we're following the instructions on the Way, whether it's Chamleon or any other.
But the Sheep ruling is that "what the card makes you do" consists of following instructions on another card. That's not related to what the Chameleon ruling is about, as I explained.

Quote from: GendoIkari
I'm saying Chameleon works the same way all Ways do: When you choose to use them, you follow their instructions. It just so happens that the first instruction on Chameleon is to follow the instructions on the card you played.

That's not in accordance to how we have to see Chameleon to make the new ruling work. If you look at Chameleon that way, the way you just described, the new ruling does not work, as you explained a few posts ago.

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #260 on: February 08, 2023, 04:32:17 pm »
0

Just like how you've been arguing that the +$2 doesn't seem like "+ as a result of playing the card".

I have not been arguing that. Indeed it is +$2 as a result of playing the card, but so are Adventures tokens, Priest and other things. I have been arguing that "what the card makes you do" must mean "what the card instructs you to do" and so must mean that you're following the card's instructions; so either following a Way's instructions counts as following the card's instructions, or it means that the card is not making you do anything, only the Way is.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #261 on: February 08, 2023, 07:08:53 pm »
0

Quote
As I said then, we'd have to say that Chameleon does not cancel FTI, like other Ways do. Now you seem to be assuming that we don't view Chameleon this way. Well I do, because that's how the ruling makes sense.

I don’t get this. Of course chameleon cancels FTI just like any other Way would. But the result is different than other Ways because Chameleon’s own instruction then makes you FTI. But it’s not “the same” FTI that you would have had if you hadn’t used a Way. Just like how Trader 1 cancels your gain, but then replaces it with a new gain.

The FTI that you do when using Chameleon can’t be happening at the same time as the FTI you do when not using a Way. This is made clearer by my imaginary “+1 card” version of Chameleon. When using Chameleon, you’re already doing other things before you get to “when you would FTI”. It just so happens that with real Chameleon, no other events take place during this step. But if there were a card that has “when you would resolve a Way” kind of like Enchantress’s “when you would FTI”, that effect would have to trigger before Enchantress when you use Chameleon.

And I’m saying that the reason the new ruling still works with this idea of Chameleon is the same as the reason that the Harbor Village + Sheep works; because per Donald X’s explanation; what the Way does counts as part of what playing the card gives you. With Sheep, what you’re being given is +$2. With Chameleon, what you’re being given is an “FTI”, which is what Enchantress looks for.

Maybe imagine if Enchantress said “the next time an opponent plays a card, if it gives +$2, they cantrip instead”. Under the rulings, Sheep would trigger this Enchantress because Ways count as what the card gives you. Chameleon works the same way with real Enchantress.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2023, 07:19:23 pm by GendoIkari »
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #262 on: February 08, 2023, 07:10:06 pm »
0

Just like how you've been arguing that the +$2 doesn't seem like "+ as a result of playing the card".

I have not been arguing that. Indeed it is +$2 as a result of playing the card, but so are Adventures tokens, Priest and other things. I have been arguing that "what the card makes you do" must mean "what the card instructs you to do" and so must mean that you're following the card's instructions; so either following a Way's instructions counts as following the card's instructions, or it means that the card is not making you do anything, only the Way is.

Fair, I was using “what happens as a result of playing the card” to mean “what Harbor Village should see as being something the card gives you”. 
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

dz

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 209
  • Shuffle iT Username: DZ
  • Respect: +342
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #263 on: February 08, 2023, 11:58:48 pm »
+1

Chameleon + Enchantress: Yes, Reckless and Enchantress both look for FTI happening due to playing a card. If one sees the Chameleon FTI then they both do. I'm with you on this one. The Menagerie rulebook says that you can use a Way to dodge Enchantress. So the temptation is to reverse the Reckless ruling to match the rulebook there. Possibly though I reverse the rulebook ruling instead. The question then is which seems like it will make more sense to people.

So to double check, the reversed-rulebook ruling would go like this?

Your Chapel is Enchanted:
-use Chameleon: get +$1 +1 Action
-don't use Chameleon: get +1 Card +1 Action

If so, I give my thumbs up to that.
No. Enchantress's +1 Card +1 Action doesn't become the card's instructions. It's not a thing Chameleon looks at. Enchantress gives cantrip instead of FTI; Chameleon changes FTI.

what fingers can I get for this

You can have a 2nd thumbs up. You'll have to look elsewhere for more thumbs though. I would guess that a lot of players would get upset when they find out Chameleon loses to Enchantress; but I think even more players would get upset if Reckless Chameleon doesn't work twice, so these seem like the best rulings to me.

Also does this mean that Chameleon loses to Highwayman? I'd guess that Highwayman's wording is secretly a shorter version of Enchantress. The longer wording would be something like:

"Each turn, the first time each other player plays a Treasure card, they get +$0 instead of following its instructions"

Oh man how did my post spawn this discussion.

Anyways, Donald X. just confirmed on discord (and edited their list): if Chameleon loses to Enchantress, it also loses to Highwayman.
Logged

faust

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3376
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #264 on: February 09, 2023, 03:12:37 am »
0

Anyways, Donald X. just confirmed on discord (and edited their list): if Chameleon loses to Enchantress, it also loses to Highwayman.
"If rule X holds, then rule Y holds"? Has parsing the rules now become a logic puzzle?
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #265 on: February 09, 2023, 04:21:15 am »
0

Quote
As I said then, we'd have to say that Chameleon does not cancel FTI, like other Ways do. Now you seem to be assuming that we don't view Chameleon this way. Well I do, because that's how the ruling makes sense.

I don’t get this. Of course chameleon cancels FTI just like any other Way would.

I was referring to what I wrote here, where I concluded, "In this way, Chameleon, unlike the other Ways, don't actually make you not FTI." You replied, "Yeah I think that all makes sense". That's why I thought we were still talking about that.

I think we have been talking past each other since that post. I don't want to continue with the all the details anymore, since this is mostly a tangent anyway. But I thought that you were saying that the reasoning behind how Chameleon makes you FTI as a result of playing the card (under the new Chameleon ruling) was in-line with the reasoning behind the Way ruling. And I thought you were referring to the Chameleon reasoning that I had given (which you had said made sense). So that is not true (that those two things are in-line with each other). But I see now that you were saying something else: that the actual Sheep ruling directly means that Chameleon makes you FTI as a result of playing the card. So that's a different reasoning behind how it can work.

So, thinking about it, I see how that can be right. With the new Way ruling, Chameleon says something like: "when you would follow the instructions of a played Action card, you may instead choose to have it make you follow its instructions with +Cards instead of +$ and vice versa." So yeah, this could be an explanation that supports the ruling that Chameleon makes you FTI as a result of playing the card.

My explanation was that Chameleon doesn't cancel FTI like the other Ways, it just modifies FTI. (If it had "+1 Card" first, it would make you draw 1 card before you FTI.) This explanation doesn't rely on the new Way ruling in order to work. But since we do have the new Way ruling, your explanation seems to be all we need.

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #266 on: February 09, 2023, 04:41:26 am »
0

I just realized that Chameleon itself is a card that uses "give", but with the opposite meaning of what it's supposed to represent on Harbor Village. On Chameleon it clearly refers to what following the card's instructions would give you. Importantly, on Harbor Village it's supposed to represent what the card would give you, not what following the card's instructions would give you.

Also, Chameleon says "you get +$ instead" instead of "it gives you +$ instead". But since Ways per definition (according to the Way ruling) means that the card makes you do the things, it would be the card that makes you get $, so it still works, I guess.

joefarebrother

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56
  • Shuffle iT Username: joefarebrother
  • Respect: +145
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #267 on: February 09, 2023, 11:03:39 am »
0

Envious is also an effect that changes a card's instructions (into +$1). Previous rulings with highwayman state that highwayman wins and you get nothing. Is this still true, and does it fit consistently into the FTI model?

Coppersmith is also an effect that modifies a card's instructions, by adding +$1. Highwayman has also been ruled to make it do nothing. Though do rulings care about 1e cards?

Somewhere in this thread a hypothetical card was discussed that would give actions "an additional +$1" (and that this is distinct from "when you play an action, +$1). That's what coppersmith does. For consistency with the coppersmith ruling, does that mean that card + enchantress = cantrip, not peddler?
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #268 on: February 09, 2023, 11:43:37 am »
0

Quote
As I said then, we'd have to say that Chameleon does not cancel FTI, like other Ways do. Now you seem to be assuming that we don't view Chameleon this way. Well I do, because that's how the ruling makes sense.

I don’t get this. Of course chameleon cancels FTI just like any other Way would.

I was referring to what I wrote here, where I concluded, "In this way, Chameleon, unlike the other Ways, don't actually make you not FTI." You replied, "Yeah I think that all makes sense". That's why I thought we were still talking about that.

Important to note that I said "Yeah I think that all makes sense, except" and then went on to the thing that I've been talking about since; about how Chameleon gives you a new FTI instead of the original FTI.

Quote
I think we have been talking past each other since that post. I don't want to continue with the all the details anymore, since this is mostly a tangent anyway. But I thought that you were saying that the reasoning behind how Chameleon makes you FTI as a result of playing the card (under the new Chameleon ruling) was in-line with the reasoning behind the Way ruling. And I thought you were referring to the Chameleon reasoning that I had given (which you had said made sense). So that is not true (that those two things are in-line with each other). But I see now that you were saying something else: that the actual Sheep ruling directly means that Chameleon makes you FTI as a result of playing the card. So that's a different reasoning behind how it can work.

Right, I meant Donald X's reasoning, not yours. Even though he never specifically addressed the idea of what exactly it is about Chameleon's instructions that make Enchantress replace the FTI, the ruling he gave (that Enchantress wins) makes sense if you accept his prior logic about Sheep and Harbor Village.

Quote
So, thinking about it, I see how that can be right. With the new Way ruling, Chameleon says something like: "when you would follow the instructions of a played Action card, you may instead choose to have it make you follow its instructions with +Cards instead of +$ and vice versa." So yeah, this could be an explanation that supports the ruling that Chameleon makes you FTI as a result of playing the card.

My explanation was that Chameleon doesn't cancel FTI like the other Ways, it just modifies FTI. (If it had "+1 Card" first, it would make you draw 1 card before you FTI.) This explanation doesn't rely on the new Way ruling in order to work. But since we do have the new Way ruling, your explanation seems to be all we need.

Yeah I don't like the idea that Chameleon is somehow special or different than all other Ways. Different in terms of how it's actually activated and used mechanically, that is. It ends up having different interactions with Enchantress than others, but to me that's no different than saying that even though Sheep is activated and used mechanically exactly the same as Ox, yet it has a different interaction with Harbor Village. It's because Sheep gives you what Harbor Village looks for, while Ox doesn't. In the same way, Chameleon gives you what Enchantress looks for, while Ox and Sheep don't.

I'm reminded of first edition Band of Misfits. There was a time that it worked different than all other cards, or at least people thought it did. They thought that it's own instruction changed how it was played; rather than being an instruction that you followed when you played it. I don't remember if it was ever ruled that way originally, or if people just interpreted it that way. But eventually it was ruled that BoM works exactly like all other cards: you play it normally, and then you follow its instructions. It's first instruction was to play it as another card. This means that for the purposes of Conspirator, playing BoM from your hand resulted in 2 separate card plays. First edition Noble Brigand was also special and worked differently from all other action cards, though second edition changed that.

To rule or conclude that Chameleon is somehow special or different than all other Ways just seems unnecessary; it requires a rule outside of what is printed on the cards, a rule that would only apply to Chameleon. Right now the rule is, in my own wording: "if you choose to use a Way, you follow the instructions printed on the Way instead of the instructions printed on the card." Why add the complication of "except for Chameleon; that one does a slightly different thing".
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #269 on: February 10, 2023, 05:19:59 am »
0

Important to note that I said "Yeah I think that all makes sense, except" and then went on to the thing that I've been talking about since; about how Chameleon gives you a new FTI instead of the original FTI.

Ok, if you want to go back... You're making it sound like you had a disagreement with what I wrote, and then went on to explain an alternative mechanism that was better in that sense. That's not really an accurate description of what you wrote.

Let's take a look:
Yeah I think that all makes sense, except that new ruling does still require an understanding that Enchantress is not limited to replacing "FTI as a result of playing a card"; or alternatively an understanding that when Chameleon makes you FTI, it still counts as FTI as a result of playing a card. Come to think of it, that second option is pretty much in-line with the entire main discussion in this thread, the ruling that Sheep's + counts as getting + from playing the card.

You said that you think it makes sense, except that it requires an understanding of the reasoning behind it. That is not expressing any kind of disagreement, especially since this requirement also applies to your proposed mechanism.

The other thing is that it's not clear at all that you're proposing another mechanism in that post. The "second option" ("when Chameleon makes you FTI, it still counts as FTI as a result of playing a card") perfectly matches my proposed mechanism - and that's why I took it as applying to it. When you said that the second option is in-line with the Sheep/Way ruling, it reads as you saying that the reasoning behind what I proposed is in-line with the reasoning behind that ruling - which I subsequently objected to.

You should have made it clear that you're not supporting my mechanism and that you have an alternative. Instead you wrote that my mechanism makes sense to you except that it requires some understanding, and then went on to hint at something that requires the exact same understanding (so is no better in that sense) without clarifying that you were actually not talking about my thing anymore.

Quote from: GendoIkari
Right, I meant Donald X's reasoning, not yours. Even though he never specifically addressed the idea of what exactly it is about Chameleon's instructions that make Enchantress replace the FTI, the ruling he gave (that Enchantress wins) makes sense if you accept his prior logic about Sheep and Harbor Village.

It's false to say that your reasoning is Donald X.'s reasoning, since he never expressed one, as you also admit. It's very likely that he hasn't pondered the mechanism behind how it would work at all, especially since this ruling (Chameleon + Enchantress) was made because I made him aware that it should match the Chameleon + Reckless ruling, and that ruling was most likely made on the basis of what makes more sense to players.

Quote from: GendoIkari
Yeah I don't like the idea that Chameleon is somehow special or different than all other Ways. Different in terms of how it's actually activated and used mechanically, that is. It ends up having different interactions with Enchantress than others, but to me that's no different than saying that even though Sheep is activated and used mechanically exactly the same as Ox, yet it has a different interaction with Harbor Village. It's because Sheep gives you what Harbor Village looks for, while Ox doesn't. In the same way, Chameleon gives you what Enchantress looks for, while Ox and Sheep don't.

I'm reminded of first edition Band of Misfits. There was a time that it worked different than all other cards, or at least people thought it did. They thought that it's own instruction changed how it was played; rather than being an instruction that you followed when you played it. I don't remember if it was ever ruled that way originally, or if people just interpreted it that way. But eventually it was ruled that BoM works exactly like all other cards: you play it normally, and then you follow its instructions. It's first instruction was to play it as another card. This means that for the purposes of Conspirator, playing BoM from your hand resulted in 2 separate card plays. First edition Noble Brigand was also special and worked differently from all other action cards, though second edition changed that.

There are many cards that do something unique, and often technically obscure, in Dominion. Like Reckless, Elder, Lantern, the -Card token, the -$1 token, Animal Fair, Possession, Lich, and also Enchantress - even though it was later joined by Ways and Highwayman -, and even Chameleon itself for its "follow this card's instructions" effect, and several others. These often raise questions and require special rulings. This is not the thread to have a debate about their merits. I don't view my Chameleon explanation as substantially different than many of those. What I view as substantially different is this Way/Ench/Highw ruling, which also, to use your words, requires a rule outside of what is printed on the cards, and even in the rulebooks - a new concept of cards having effects which is expressed only as an ambiguous hint in a phrase in the Way rules and contradicted by both card texts and other rulebook descriptions (as well as not making sense technically).

Quote from: GendoIkari
To rule or conclude that Chameleon is somehow special or different than all other Ways just seems unnecessary; it requires a rule outside of what is printed on the cards, a rule that would only apply to Chameleon. Right now the rule is, in my own wording: "if you choose to use a Way, you follow the instructions printed on the Way instead of the instructions printed on the card." Why add the complication of "except for Chameleon; that one does a slightly different thing".

First of all, that is not an accurate description of the how Ways work anymore. If it were (which it used to be), it would not necessarily follow that Chameleon makes you FTI as a result of playing the card; the ruling used to be that it didn't. We need the new Way ruling too, which as I said is not printed anywhere.

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #270 on: February 10, 2023, 05:30:32 am »
0

Envious is also an effect that changes a card's instructions (into +$1). Previous rulings with highwayman state that highwayman wins and you get nothing. Is this still true, and does it fit consistently into the FTI model?

Coppersmith is also an effect that modifies a card's instructions, by adding +$1. Highwayman has also been ruled to make it do nothing. Though do rulings care about 1e cards?

Somewhere in this thread a hypothetical card was discussed that would give actions "an additional +$1" (and that this is distinct from "when you play an action, +$1). That's what coppersmith does. For consistency with the coppersmith ruling, does that mean that card + enchantress = cantrip, not peddler?

Yes, the ruling is that Envious and Coppersmith "shapeshifts" the card's instructions. (As far as I'm aware, the ruling still stands).

So with Envious, when playing a Silver/Gold it's exactly like playing a Copper*. Under the Highwayman attack, you get nothing.
With Coppersmith, when playing a Copper it's exactly like playing a Silver*. Under the Highwayman attack, you get nothing.

Rulings care about all cards. Removed cards are still supported according to Donald X.
I think previous versions of cards should be supported in the same way as removed cards are, but Donald X. has expressed a differing view.

(The "FTI model" is not a new ruling, it's just a way of describing how playing a card has always worked.)

*except for the name of the card of course.

« Last Edit: February 10, 2023, 05:32:16 am by Jeebus »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9701
  • Respect: +10741
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #271 on: February 10, 2023, 03:21:22 pm »
0

Important to note that I said "Yeah I think that all makes sense, except" and then went on to the thing that I've been talking about since; about how Chameleon gives you a new FTI instead of the original FTI.

Ok, if you want to go back... You're making it sound like you had a disagreement with what I wrote, and then went on to explain an alternative mechanism that was better in that sense. That's not really an accurate description of what you wrote.

Let's take a look:
Yeah I think that all makes sense, except that new ruling does still require an understanding that Enchantress is not limited to replacing "FTI as a result of playing a card"; or alternatively an understanding that when Chameleon makes you FTI, it still counts as FTI as a result of playing a card. Come to think of it, that second option is pretty much in-line with the entire main discussion in this thread, the ruling that Sheep's + counts as getting + from playing the card.

You said that you think it makes sense, except that it requires an understanding of the reasoning behind it. That is not expressing any kind of disagreement, especially since this requirement also applies to your proposed mechanism.

The other thing is that it's not clear at all that you're proposing another mechanism in that post. The "second option" ("when Chameleon makes you FTI, it still counts as FTI as a result of playing a card") perfectly matches my proposed mechanism - and that's why I took it as applying to it. When you said that the second option is in-line with the Sheep/Way ruling, it reads as you saying that the reasoning behind what I proposed is in-line with the reasoning behind that ruling - which I subsequently objected to.

You should have made it clear that you're not supporting my mechanism and that you have an alternative. Instead you wrote that my mechanism makes sense to you except that it requires some understanding, and then went on to hint at something that requires the exact same understanding (so is no better in that sense) without clarifying that you were actually not talking about my thing anymore.

The problem with all of this part was simply that I hadn't yet understood the differences between what you were saying and how I thought things worked when I originally said "makes sense, except requires..."

Quote
Quote from: GendoIkari
Right, I meant Donald X's reasoning, not yours. Even though he never specifically addressed the idea of what exactly it is about Chameleon's instructions that make Enchantress replace the FTI, the ruling he gave (that Enchantress wins) makes sense if you accept his prior logic about Sheep and Harbor Village.

It's false to say that your reasoning is Donald X.'s reasoning, since he never expressed one, as you also admit. It's very likely that he hasn't pondered the mechanism behind how it would work at all, especially since this ruling (Chameleon + Enchantress) was made because I made him aware that it should match the Chameleon + Reckless ruling, and that ruling was most likely made on the basis of what makes more sense to players.


True, it's fairly certain that Donald X's ruling is based on wanting to be consistent and wanting outcomes to match player expectations, not based on a technical understanding of how the whole model plays out.

Quote
Quote from: GendoIkari
Yeah I don't like the idea that Chameleon is somehow special or different than all other Ways. Different in terms of how it's actually activated and used mechanically, that is. It ends up having different interactions with Enchantress than others, but to me that's no different than saying that even though Sheep is activated and used mechanically exactly the same as Ox, yet it has a different interaction with Harbor Village. It's because Sheep gives you what Harbor Village looks for, while Ox doesn't. In the same way, Chameleon gives you what Enchantress looks for, while Ox and Sheep don't.

I'm reminded of first edition Band of Misfits. There was a time that it worked different than all other cards, or at least people thought it did. They thought that it's own instruction changed how it was played; rather than being an instruction that you followed when you played it. I don't remember if it was ever ruled that way originally, or if people just interpreted it that way. But eventually it was ruled that BoM works exactly like all other cards: you play it normally, and then you follow its instructions. It's first instruction was to play it as another card. This means that for the purposes of Conspirator, playing BoM from your hand resulted in 2 separate card plays. First edition Noble Brigand was also special and worked differently from all other action cards, though second edition changed that.

There are many cards that do something unique, and often technically obscure, in Dominion. Like Reckless, Elder, Lantern, the -Card token, the -$1 token, Animal Fair, Possession, Lich, and also Enchantress - even though it was later joined by Ways and Highwayman -, and even Chameleon itself for its "follow this card's instructions" effect, and several others. These often raise questions and require special rulings. This is not the thread to have a debate about their merits. I don't view my Chameleon explanation as substantially different than many of those. What I view as substantially different is this Way/Ench/Highw ruling, which also, to use your words, requires a rule outside of what is printed on the cards, and even in the rulebooks - a new concept of cards having effects which is expressed only as an ambiguous hint in a phrase in the Way rules and contradicted by both card texts and other rulebook descriptions (as well as not making sense technically).

All that said, it still doesn't give an argument for why we should consider Chameleon different than all the rest. If you interpret and play Chameleon exactly the same as you would all other Ways, the whole thing still works and is consistent.

Quote
Quote from: GendoIkari
To rule or conclude that Chameleon is somehow special or different than all other Ways just seems unnecessary; it requires a rule outside of what is printed on the cards, a rule that would only apply to Chameleon. Right now the rule is, in my own wording: "if you choose to use a Way, you follow the instructions printed on the Way instead of the instructions printed on the card." Why add the complication of "except for Chameleon; that one does a slightly different thing".

First of all, that is not an accurate description of the how Ways work anymore. If it were (which it used to be), it would not necessarily follow that Chameleon makes you FTI as a result of playing the card; the ruling used to be that it didn't. We need the new Way ruling too, which as I said is not printed anywhere.

Can you clarify what's inaccurate about it? I know it was my own wording and not actual rules wording, but what part of my description was wrong? Do Ways not make you follow their own instructions instead of the instructions on the card you played?
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #272 on: February 11, 2023, 05:42:40 am »
0

Quote from: GendoIkari
To rule or conclude that Chameleon is somehow special or different than all other Ways just seems unnecessary; it requires a rule outside of what is printed on the cards, a rule that would only apply to Chameleon. Right now the rule is, in my own wording: "if you choose to use a Way, you follow the instructions printed on the Way instead of the instructions printed on the card." Why add the complication of "except for Chameleon; that one does a slightly different thing".

First of all, that is not an accurate description of the how Ways work anymore. If it were (which it used to be), it would not necessarily follow that Chameleon makes you FTI as a result of playing the card; the ruling used to be that it didn't. We need the new Way ruling too, which as I said is not printed anywhere.

Can you clarify what's inaccurate about it? I know it was my own wording and not actual rules wording, but what part of my description was wrong? Do Ways not make you follow their own instructions instead of the instructions on the card you played?

It's what I said at the end: we need the Way ruling too. A correct descriptions of what Ways do needs to incorporate that ruling, which is also about Enchantress (and Highwayman, but it doesn't matter). I'll write another post.

dane-m

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 158
  • Shuffle iT Username: dane-m
  • Respect: +196
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #273 on: February 11, 2023, 07:43:27 am »
0

4. Either use a Way or follow the instructions on the card (in order, top to bottom, stop at a dividing line).  Whatever instructions actually get followed count as what the card does.
Quote
Enchantress and HighWayman trigger when one attempts to FTI.

So I guess the part I bolded is the essence of how your model "requires only rulings about mechanisms to change rather than rulings about results". But the problem is still that the instructions that actually get followed in that step include the second Cultist and the +$2 from Priest.
Perhaps I'd have done better to phrase 4 as "Do something: either use a Way or follow the instructions on the card (in order, top to bottom, stop at a dividing line)." to make it clear that the same scoping rules applied as before.

Quote
(Also, no need to change the timing of Ways.)
I'll believe that when/if you and Gendolkari come to an agreement about how the existing timing gives rise to the results that have been ruled to occur.  I find it hard to believe that you will, given that we were all previously perfectly happy that the existing timing meant that Chameleon could override Enchantress.  To prevent Chameleon overriding Enchantress with the existing timing requires Enchantress to trigger twice, once on the first attempt at FTI and again on Chameleon's attempt at FTI.  If we are to be happy with that arrangement now, why were we previously happy with it triggering only on the first attempt?
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #274 on: February 11, 2023, 08:09:07 am »
0

4. Either use a Way or follow the instructions on the card (in order, top to bottom, stop at a dividing line).  Whatever instructions actually get followed count as what the card does.
Quote
Enchantress and HighWayman trigger when one attempts to FTI.

So I guess the part I bolded is the essence of how your model "requires only rulings about mechanisms to change rather than rulings about results". But the problem is still that the instructions that actually get followed in that step include the second Cultist and the +$2 from Priest.
Perhaps I'd have done better to phrase 4 as "Do something: either use a Way or follow the instructions on the card (in order, top to bottom, stop at a dividing line)." to make it clear that the same scoping rules applied as before.

The thing is that "whatever instructions actually get followed" does need to include Enchantress.

Quote from: dane-m
Quote
(Also, no need to change the timing of Ways.)
I'll believe that when/if you and Gendolkari come to an agreement about how the existing timing gives rise to the results that have been ruled to occur.  I find it hard to believe that you will, given that we were all previously perfectly happy that the existing timing meant that Chameleon could override Enchantress.  To prevent Chameleon overriding Enchantress with the existing timing requires Enchantress to trigger twice, once on the first attempt at FTI and again on Chameleon's attempt at FTI.  If we are to be happy with that arrangement now, why were we previously happy with it triggering only on the first attempt?

Both GendoIkari and I presented an explanation for how the new Chameleon ruling can work; none of us changed the timing of Ways. Mine has the drawback of making Chameleon different from the other Ways in what it does. His follows from the new Way ruling, which is what you're attempting to describe anyway, so no problem there.

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12  All
 

Page created in 0.077 seconds with 21 queries.