Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - dane-m

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
Rules Questions / Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« on: April 09, 2024, 03:00:24 am »
* Sorcerer: +1 Card. +1 Action. Each other player names a card, then reveals the top card of their deck. If wrong, they gain a Curse.

No Curse. With a more written-out-for-clarity "if wrong" it would just match Bounty Hunter.
Which suggests that my thought process would go astray here too.

* Sorceress: +1 Action. Name a card. Reveal the top card of your deck and put it into your hand. If it's the named card, each other player gains a Curse.

No Curse.
But as far as I can see this works just like Giant and Barbarian: there isn't a revealed card, so it can't be the named, so the unwritten otherwise, i.e. nothing, occurs.

Doesn't the actual ruling follow from that same thought process in both cases? There isn't a revealed card, so it can't be the named, and it also can't be wrong.
For Sorcerer it depends on what "if wrong" is taken to mean (as Donald X has previously commented), i.e. how it is expanded:

"Each other player names a card, then reveals the top card of their deck. If it isn't the named card, they gain a Curse." would give out a Curse: there isn't a card so it wasn't the named card, so a Curse has to be gained (cf the way my thought process works for "if it doesn't cost from $3 to $6, gain a Curse; otherwise trash it").

"Each other player names a card, then reveals the top card of their deck. If it is something other than the named card, they gain a Curse." wouldn't give out a Curse: there isn't a card so it isn't something other than the named card, so a Curse has to be gained (cf the way my thought process works for "if it costs from $3 to $6, trash it; otherwise gain a Curse").

2
Rules Questions / Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« on: April 07, 2024, 04:44:54 pm »
But the point is that for humans reading cards, these two things mean the same:
"if it costs from $3 to $6, trash it; otherwise gain a Curse"
"if it doesn't cost from $3 to $6, gain a Curse; otherwise trash it"

My thought process when dealing with the first instance in the absence of a card is something like "There wasn't a card, so it isn't true that it costs from $3 to $6, so a Curse has to be gained."

My thought process when dealing with the second instance in the absence of a card is something like "There wasn't a card so it didn't cost from $3 to $6, so a Curse has to be gained."

For both phrasings my thought process in the absence of a card results in a Curse being gained.  Isn't your argument based on the premise that they should give different results?

I'm saying that they should give the same result; but based on the argument that the others were making in this thread - that "it costs from $3 to $6" and "it doesn't cost from $3 to $6" are both false - they give different results, because in both cases the "otherwise" clause would be the result.

OK, so you and I seem to agree that the natural interpretation of Giant is to curse when there is no card.  That's good, given that it coincides with Donald X's intepretation.  The same is true for Barbarian.  That leaves Bounty Hunter, Sorcerer and Sorceress.

Going from the wiki texts. Telling you my rulings for today, rather than e.g. what some particular software does or what my rulings would be with hypothetical wordings. And I haven't checked where this conflicts with the wiki or other posts.

If there's no card to do the thing with:

* Bounty Hunter: +1 Action. Exile a card from your hand. If you didn't have a copy of it in Exile, +$3.

You don't get the +$3.

Here my thought process seems to give the wrong answer, which is not to say that I think it should be giving +$3, merely that my thought process ("There wasn't a card so there couldn't have been a copy of in Exile, so +$3.") doesn't give the intended result.  Perhaps it's a pity that it's not phrased "+1 Action. Exile a card from your hand. If it is the first instance of it in Exile, +$3."

* Sorcerer: +1 Card. +1 Action. Each other player names a card, then reveals the top card of their deck. If wrong, they gain a Curse.

No Curse. With a more written-out-for-clarity "if wrong" it would just match Bounty Hunter.
Which suggests that my thought process would go astray here too.

* Sorceress: +1 Action. Name a card. Reveal the top card of your deck and put it into your hand. If it's the named card, each other player gains a Curse.

No Curse.
But as far as I can see this works just like Giant and Barbarian: there isn't a revealed card, so it can't be the named, so the unwritten otherwise, i.e. nothing, occurs.

3
Rules Questions / Re: Sorcerer attack with empty deck
« on: April 07, 2024, 03:06:52 am »
But the point is that for humans reading cards, these two things mean the same:
"if it costs from $3 to $6, trash it; otherwise gain a Curse"
"if it doesn't cost from $3 to $6, gain a Curse; otherwise trash it"

My thought process when dealing with the first instance in the absence of a card is something like "There wasn't a card, so it isn't true that it costs from $3 to $6, so a Curse has to be gained."

My thought process when dealing with the second instance in the absence of a card is something like "There wasn't a card so it didn't cost from $3 to $6, so a Curse has to be gained."

For both phrasings my thought process in the absence of a card results in a Curse being gained.  Isn't your argument based on the premise that they should give different results?

4
Dominion General Discussion / Re: How often do you buy new Base Cards
« on: April 02, 2024, 11:22:00 am »
I am thinking about sleeving my cards. Would you mind letting me know what sleeves you use?
Unlike the Mayday ones i bought, these allow easier shuffling, so Mayday are used for Randomizers, Horizontals, and other card-like objects.
Were your Mayday ones Standard or Premium?  I've been sleeving my cards with Mayday Premium sleeves from the outset.  I have, however, played with other people's sets that have been sleeved with the Standard ones.  I felt they were rather flimsy.  One criticism I would make of the Mayday cards is that quality control of size seems to be poor.  I've had some sets of sleeves that Dominion cards have only just fitted into, whereas others have been about 1mm or so wider.

5
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Interview with Donald X.
« on: March 22, 2024, 11:36:16 am »
Is 'Shop' a noun or a verb?
Some people actually wanted me to never answer this for Duplicate. Maybe I should respect that here too. Something that can safely be left a mystery.
And at least with Shop it makes no difference to the pronunciation, unlike for Duplicate.

6
Rules Questions / Re: Reshuffling for "reveal until"
« on: December 29, 2023, 02:13:04 pm »
This question came up playing this morning. The "War" Hex came up, which reads "Reveal cards from your deck until revealing one costing $3 or $4. Discard the rest". One of our players insists that since they ran out of cards in their deck (did not shuffle) without finding one costing $3-4, they do not have to shuffle the discard and continue. The discard contains Silvers.

The rest of the table agrees that the rule saying to reshuffle when revealing if the condition is not met clearly disproves this. Who is right?
The rest of the table are right, but the cards that have already been revealed do not get put in the discard before the reshuffle.  The revealed cards only get discarded once the condition has been met or there are no more cards left to reveal.

7
Thanks both - did not notice the in-game blocklist, which is helpful, and I'll be using that - though still no report there, which I'd say is probably more important for discouraging it.
I believe that in theory (I don't know to what extent it happens in practice) players are investigated if they get blocked by multiple other players.

I suspect that as you gain experience with the new cards and improve your rating, you will encounter fewer and fewer ill-mannered players.  Back when I was a new player, I fairly frequently found myself playing such people.  These days I rarely (but not never) encounter one.

8
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Am I a slow player
« on: May 16, 2023, 09:26:55 am »
I think you can safely assume that the other player was trying to wind you up.  Had you just beaten them?

More generally I get the impression that some players think that taking more than about two seconds for any card play is slow.  Either they never engage their brain to ask themselves the question "Which is the correct order to play these cards?" or they're so good that it comes naturally to them.

9
Has anyone else encountered problems with the Dominion Online forum in the last few days.  I can go to its home page okay, but if I click on 'UNREAD TOPICS' or 'NEW REPLIES' I get the following error message:

Unable to load Themes/default/Errors.template.php!

I think there's also an option missing to the left of 'UNREAD TOPICS'.

I've tried clearing my browser cache, but that didn't improve matters.

10
Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« on: February 12, 2023, 12:47:53 pm »
Enchantress is easier:
"When you would follow the instructions of a played Action card, it makes you instead get +1 Card and +1 Action."
This isn't true! I'm not saying that any of the rest of your post is true; time does not permit. I can tell you though that this part is not.

Way of the Sheep attributes the +$2 to the card, for e.g. Harbor Village to see.
Enchantress does not do this. It just happens on the side, like the +$1 from the Adventures token.

Given that Harbor Village wouldn't care about the Cantrip, and neither would Elder, and neither would Moat, is there anything that exists in the game currently for which the outcome would be different whether it were true or not? (Actually even if Elder looked for the Cantrip instead of looking for a choice, I don't think it would be possible since the card Elder plays can't be the card that Enchantress works on).
I think I've just realised why Donald X doesn't consider the Enchantress cantrip to be part of what the card is doing, unlike the +$2 from Way of the Sheep.  Now that the penny has dropped, it makes sense to me.  Just like Priest's +$2 from subsequent trashing, the Enchantress cantrip is an effect from a previously played card, though in this case one played by an opponent.

Edit: It has occurred to me that it's rather presumptuous to attribute thoughts to someone else without evidence.  I should have expressed the above as "Because Enchantress's cantrip isn't attributed to the card, I needed to come up with an explanation that made sense to me so that it wasn't just a case of remembering rulings.  The first explanation I thought of made so much sense that I'm mildly annoyed that I hadn't thought of it earlier.  Just like Priest's +$2 from subsequent trashing, the Enchantress cantrip is an effect from a previously played card, though in this case one played by an opponent."

11
Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« on: February 11, 2023, 07:43:27 am »
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?

12
Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« on: February 07, 2023, 10:26:32 am »
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.

13
Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« on: February 07, 2023, 05:02:37 am »
I'll have one more try and then stay shut up unless anyone requires something to be explained more fully.

First let me remind everyone that what I've been trying to do is come up with an explanation that gives all the required results, i.e. I have been trying to find a model, preferably as simple as possible, that would require only rulings about mechanisms to change rather than rulings about results.  I think the following reduces such changes to a minimum.

Treat Lantern and Way of the Chameleon as shape-shifting the instructions on the relevant cards.

Playing a card:
1. Announce it.
2. Move it to the "in play" area.
3. "When you play a card, first..." abilities trigger here.
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.
5. "When you play a card" abilities trigger here.

Enchantress and HighWayman trigger when one attempts to FTI.

Moat protects against what a card does.

Harbor Village cares about what a card did.


Now, in tedious detail, here is how the results of the above compare to the results Donald X has specified.
 
- Normally you FTI.
Matches (of course).
Quote
- if you have Reckless, you FTI twice.
Matches (of course).
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.
Quote
- If Highwayman hits it, you do nothing instead. There's no FTI.
Again the result matches but with a different explanation of why.  I don't think the different explanation could cause any problem for future cards.
Quote
- If you use Way of the Sheep, you get +$2 instead of the FTI. +$2 becomes what the card did.
Matches.
Quote
- If you use Chameleon, you FTI flipping cards/$. And this is what the card did.
Matches.
Quote
- Normally you FTI. Harbor Village sees this.
Matches.
Quote
- if you have Reckless, you FTI twice. Harbor Village sees both.
Matches.
Quote
- If you have Enchantress, you cantrip instead. Harbor Village is blind.
The result matches, but the explanation of it differs.  Harbor Village saw the card doing a cantrip, but it was irrelevant.
Quote
- If Highwayman hits it, you do nothing instead. Harbor Village is blind.
The result matches, but the explanation of it differs.  Harbor Village saw the card doing nothing.
Quote
- If you use Way of the Sheep, you get +$2 instead of the FTI. Harbor Village magically sees this +$2.
The result matches, but the explanation of it differs.  No magic is needed.  Harbor Village saw the card doing +$2.
Quote
- If you use Chameleon, you FTI flipping cards/$. Harbor Village sees the result.
Matches.
Quote
- Reckless + Enchantress
-- You just get one cantrip.
Matches.  When FTI was attempted, Enchantress triggered, so FTI did not occur, so Reckless can't FTI a second time (cf "If you skip following the instructions of the card then you don't follow them an extra time" in the rule book).
Quote
- Reckless + Highwayman
-- You just get one nothing.
Matches as per Reckless + Enchanted.
Quote
- Reckless + Way of the Sheep
-- You only get +$2.
Matches.  No FTI was even attempted, so Reckless can't FTI a second time.
Quote
- 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)
Matches.  I'd also tend to saying that it would match even if one didn't consider Way of the Chameleon to have shape-shifted the card, but some people might disagree.
Quote
- Enchantress + Highwayman
-- Your choice!
Matches.  Enchantress and Highwayman trigger at the same time, so you choose which order they apply in.
Quote
- Enchantress + Way of the Sheep
-- Your choice!
Matches, but for a different reason compared to the existing ruling about how Ways and the attacks interact.  If the Way was chosen, no FTI was attempted, so Enchantress never got the opportunity to trigger (but this was nonetheless still the first Action played).
Quote
- Enchantress + Way of the Chameleon
-- Used to be your choice; tentatively switching to, Enchantress wins.
Matches.  Enchantress triggers when Way of the Chameleon tries to FTI.
Quote
- Highwayman + Way of the Sheep
-- Your choice!
Matches as per Enchantress + Way of the Sheep (but this was nonetheless still the first Treasure played).
Quote
- Highwayman + Way of the Chameleon
-- Your choice!
I had failed to spot that this is one instance where my model gives the wrong result (I think Jeebus and Gendolkari might find the same oversight in their discussion).  When Way of the Chameleon tries to FTI, Highwayman would trigger and have the card do nothing.
Quote
- Way of the Sheep + Way of the Chameleon
-- Not recommended! But supported. Your choice!
Matches.
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.
Quote
- Lantern / Reckless Border Guard: Lantern applies both times.
Matches.
Quote
- Elder / Chameleon'd Minion: Elder applies.
Matches.
Quote
- Elder / Reckless Minion: Elder applies.
Matches.

14
Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« on: February 05, 2023, 06:20:59 pm »
If the reversal stands, then the attacks have to trigger before the choice to use a Way happens so that when Chameleon tries to FTI with $/cards reversed it finishes up doing whatever Enchantress or Highwayman said to do instead.

Wait, this isn’t why Enchantress can beat Chameleon under the ruling that it can. It’s not that the attack has already triggered and thus Chameleon fails to override it. It’s that Chameleon says to FTI, which would trigger the attack again (if we say that it also triggered originally when you chose to use the Way; if it’s as you say that Way triggered first, then Enchantress would only be triggering once; not twice).
OK, I understand the logic.

Quote
I’m not understanding your idea of the attack triggering before the choice to use a way; what does that mean? Enchantress pretty clearly only triggers when you would follow the instructions; that one is printed on the card. And how can that be something that happens before you choose to use a Way?
I had been thinking in terms of the attacks, when they triggered, setting up an effect that said "When you try to FTI, this is what you're going to do instead."  Having the attacks trigger before the Way choice would therefore override Chameleon, while having them trigger after the Way choice would allow Chameleon to work.

Now that I understand the logic behind the ruling reversal, it makes a lot of sense to me, and I think all the complications disappear just so long as one doesn't try, like Jeebus is doing, to make the Way choice and the attack triggers be synchronous and hence orderable.  Instead make the Way choice occur first and make the attacks trigger (as you have said) at the point at which one attempts to FTI.

15
Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« on: February 05, 2023, 07:54:47 am »
They all trigger at the same time, otherwise you can't order them. And they all trigger before you get to the FTI part, obviously. That's what the model I described says. And that's what Donald X. has said before, and he hasn't said otherwise now. What do you actually disagree with?
They do not all need to trigger at the same time.  Enchantress and Highwayman must trigger at the same time, but the decision to use a Way can occur at a separate time.  Indeed given that you evidently haven't been able to find an explanation for all the rulings that you consider compatible with them all triggering at the same time, it's quite possibly the case that it must occur at a separate time.

Let's go back to another extract from the Menagerie rule book:

The choice to use a Way or not happens after "first" abilities on cards like Moat and Kiln.

So in Donald X's 5-step outline of what playing a card involves, we know that choosing to use a Way comes after step 3, the triggering of "When you play a card, first..." abilities – that's why I inserted it as step 3˝ – but as far as I'm aware there's nothing in any of the rules that specify exactly when the triggering of the Highwayman and Enchantress attacks occur.  The Allies rules for Highwayman do say "If the Treasure is also an Action, a Way (from Menagerie) can still be used on it, and Enchantress (from Empires) can still work on it; the player who played the Treasure decides which effect applies" but that doesn't force the Way decision to be simultaneous with the attack effects.

How I continue this discussion depends on what the current state of play with Enchantress/Reckless and Way of the Chameleon is.  Earlier in this thread Donald X tentatively reversed the ruling on Enchantress and Chameleon, but has subsequently agreed that Reckless and Enchantress should match for Chameleon.  It's not clear to me, however, whether that has resulted in the tentative reversal being reversed.

If the reversal stands, then the attacks have to trigger before the choice to use a Way happens so that when Chameleon tries to FTI with $/cards reversed it finishes up doing whatever Enchantress or Highwayman said to do instead.  If on the other hand the reversal has been reversed, then the attacks have to trigger after the choice to use a Way happens so that when Chameleon tries to FTI with $/cards reversed it succeeds.  The model for the latter scenario is a bit cleaner than the one for the former, so I'll present it, continuing to number my introduced extra step as 3˝.

Playing a card:
1. Announce it.
2. Move it to the "in play" area.
3. "When you play a card, first..." abilities trigger here.
3˝. If it's an Action card, choose to use a Way if desired.
4. If a Way wasn't used, follow the instructions on the card (in order, top to bottom, stop at a dividing line) unless overridden by an attack.
5. "When you play a card" abilities trigger here.

(Edit: why do I always spot typos after I post rather than when I'm previewing?)

16
Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« on: February 04, 2023, 12:47:52 pm »
Let's not forget how Ways/Enchantress and Highwayman all work:

When you would follow the on-play instructions of the played card, instead follow <instructions>.

Ways: <instructions> = the Way's instructions
Enchantress: <instructions> = +1 Card, +1 Action
Highwayman: <instructions> = nothing

They all trigger at the same time, and per the normal rules, you choose which to resolve first. After resolving the first one, any others will fail to do anything because at that point you're not following the card's on-play instructions anymore.
Except that the above model is not what the rules actually say.  It's the model that we've been using to understand how the rules work.  Here's what the rules actually say about Ways:

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

The only place where 'would' appears in the rules about Ways is:

Enchantress from Empires also changes what an Action card does when played. If you are affected by Enchantress, you can use a Way instead of getting the +1 Card and +1 Action that Enchantress's effect would give you.

I've mentioned previously that sometimes the rules specify the outcome but not the mechanism by which the outcome is achieved.  That's all that's really needed, but we like to envisage a mechanism that helps us to understand the outcomes.  At some stage in the past the model you describe proved adequate to describe the mechanism by which Ways and Enchantress interacted.  It continued to prove adequate when Highwayman came along.  It has now hit a problem when confronted with Reckless.  All that proves is that the model has become inadequate, not that the rules make no sense.

(Edited to correct typo)

17
Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« on: February 04, 2023, 03:19:24 am »

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"

Hmm, given that there’s a FAQ ruling on Highwayman which says that Ways can be used to counter it, I think you’d have to be right. But it’s not how I would have read the text on Highwayman if I were just reading that; I’d have assumed you can’t choose to use a Way at all, because letting you choose a Way is something that playing a card “does”, and Highwayman says it does “nothing”.
I have an answer to this, but I need to reference something else to support (I hope) my argument:

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

Playing a card:
1. Announce it.
2. Move it to the "in play" area.
3. "When you play a card, first..." abilities trigger here.
4. Follow the instructions on the card (in order, top to bottom, stop at a dividing line).
5. "When you play a card" abilities trigger here.

There's nothing on the card to tell you to announce it, there's nothing on the card to tell you that you move it to the "in play" area, and there's nothing on the card to say that "When you play a card, first..." abilities trigger at this stage.  These are all things that the rules of the game are doing, not the card.  Similarly there's nothing on the card to say that you can choose a Way, so that is surely also something that the rules of the game are doing.  Effectively there's an extra step (3˝) in the above that says "Choose whether to FTI or use a Way." and step 4 becomes conditional on having made the appropriate choice in 3˝.   Consequently saying that the card does nothing doesn't affect the ability to choose a Way. 

18
Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« on: February 02, 2023, 03:21:08 pm »
Overnight I'd come up with a scenario that left me unsure exactly what Moat would defend against.  Player X plays a Rebuild.  Player Y reacts with Moat.  X trashes a 4-cost card and gains a Haunted Castle.  Moat protects Y from gaining a Curse. but does it also protect Y from topdecking cards, the effect of Haunted Castle having been gained?
(You mean Replace.)

No. Moat only protects you from the thing, not things triggering off of that.
Thanks.  Good.  That's what I thought the situation was, but I wanted to check.

19
Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« on: February 01, 2023, 03:34:43 am »
- 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)
My proposed method of explaining what was happening gets this wrong (and it would also have got Elder + Way of the Chameleon wrong).  Fortunately (for me at least) I can come up with a slight contortion that will get me to the right result for all the current rulings, though it might well go wrong when new cards cause more rulings.

Overnight I'd come up with a scenario that left me unsure exactly what Moat would defend against.  Player X plays a Rebuild.  Player Y reacts with Moat.  X trashes a 4-cost card and gains a Haunted Castle.  Moat protects Y from gaining a Curse. but does it also protect Y from topdecking cards, the effect of Haunted Castle having been gained?

20
Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« on: January 30, 2023, 11:50:27 am »
Priest triggers while you're in the middle of following the on-play instructions.
I was thinking in terms of distinguishing between what is given by the instructions followed (which Harbor Village cares about) and what is given by any effects triggered by the instructions followed (which Harbor Village ignores).  That would give the right result for any card that triggers the effect set up by Priest.  I hope it would also give the right result in other instances, but are there are situations in which it is unclear whether something is being given by the instructions or by an effect triggered by the instructions?

21
Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« on: January 30, 2023, 06:07:31 am »
For example I don't think (and I'll admit that I could well be wrong) that the mechanism by which Enchantress and Highwayman interact to give the result they do was ever spelled out in the rules, though the concept of being able to choose the order in which multiple 'simultaneous' effects are applied was well established, so was a natural way to envisage the mechanism.  Donald X's explanation of how Ways work has introduced (or brought to our attention, depending on how you look at it) the concept of there potentially being a choice of sets of instructions to follow when a card is played.  My explanation pushes that concept to the limit (and arguably beyond).
My further thought overnight was that the concept of choosing the order of effects was in fact still valid for Enchantress and Highwayman.  What needed revising was our interpretation of the mechanism by which Enchantress and Highwayman achieve what the rules say they do.  For the moment I'll ignore Reckless and try to come up with a fairly simple formulation that would give the right result (including the consequences for Harbor Village and Moat) for Ways, Enchantress and Highwayman.

When a card is played, the player may choose to follow either the instructions on the card or, in the case of Action cards, the instructions on the Way if there is one (the instructions implied by the Way in the case of Way of the Chameleon), but some effects, e.g. an Enchantress or Highwayman attack, cause alternative instructions to be followed instead of the ones on the card.

That leaves Reckless to be sorted out, and Jeebus will also want the explanation to cover why the +$1 from an Adventures token shouldn't count as far as Harbor Village is concerned.  I'll tackle the latter first.  We need to interpret "if it gave you" as meaning "if the instructions that were followed by playing it gave you" and we need "the instructions that were followed by playing it" not to include the "+$1" from the Adventures token.  To achieve the latter I'm going to point out that 'playing a card' tends to be used with slightly different meanings in various contexts (if it weren't, the rules would probably be a lot less readable).  The base rules say:

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

We've already seen that the third step, the instructions to follow, becomes more complicated once various expansions stick their oar in.  Now consider what Moat says:

When another player plays an Attack card, you may reveal a Moat from your hand, before the Attack does anything

so in that context "When another player plays an Attack card" evidently means "When another player announces playing an Attack card", i.e. it's referring specifically to the first of the three steps.

The rules for Adventures tokens say:

When the player whose token it is plays a card from that pile, that player first gets the bonus.

If we interpret this occurrence of 'plays a card' as also meaning 'announces playing a card' (an interpretation that seems eminently reasonable given the 'first') then the +$1 is not coming from the third step, the instructions followed.

Now for Reckless.  I think it's fairly straightforward.  The rules say:

When you play a Reckless card, you follow its instructions an extra time - follow them entirely, then follow them again - and when you discard one from play, you return it to its Supply pile.  With Duration cards those may not happen on the same turn. If you skip following the instructions of the card - for example by using a Way (from Menagerie) instead - then you don't follow them an extra time, but still return the card when discarding it from play.

"Its instructions" means "The instructions written on the card", so whenever a player uses a Way or the card is affected by Enchantress or Highwayman, following the instructions of the card has been skipped, so nothing happens a second time, in which case my formulation above that ignored Reckless is valid as it stands.

22
Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« on: January 29, 2023, 06:18:25 pm »
I think your explanation works (except the mistake with Reckless). But it requires that all that is in the general game rules, and of course it's not in the game rules. I was thinking about a way to actually describe what Ways and Enchantress do without having to change the rules of the game.
To some extent I was merely trying to come up with an explanation that was not contrary to the rules.  At one time we all knew (and I'm sure the original rulebook said) that playing a card meant following the instructions on the card.  As time has progressed things like Enchantress and Ways have come along that have changed that, but the rules have tended to specify the outcome, not the mechanism by which the outcome is reached.  For example I don't think (and I'll admit that I could well be wrong) that the mechanism by which Enchantress and Highwayman interact to give the result they do was ever spelled out in the rules, though the concept of being able to choose the order in which multiple 'simultaneous' effects are applied was well established, so was a natural way to envisage the mechanism.  Donald X's explanation of how Ways work has introduced (or brought to our attention, depending on how you look at it) the concept of there potentially being a choice of sets of instructions to follow when a card is played.  My explanation pushes that concept to the limit (and arguably beyond).

Edit: I've given some more thought to this overnight and now disagree with some of the above, but I don't currently have time to explain what and why.  I'll be back later.

23
Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« on: January 29, 2023, 11:38:35 am »
A fourth option is the instructions written on the card followed by the instructions written on the card.  This is only available if the card has the Reckless trait.  (Does this also require "and one is not subject to an Enchantress attack"?)
I've now read the Wiki about Reckless, so I know that it would require "and one is subject to neither an Enchantress attack or a Highwayman attack."  It's also occurred to me that my phrasing is careless since what matters is whether the card, not the player, is subject to the attack, so let's try the following instead:

Playing a card consists of following one of the available sets of instructions from the following list:
  • [Available only if the card is subject to an Enchantress attack] +1 Card and +1 Action.
  • [Available only if the card is subject to a Highwayman attack] nothing.
  • [Available only if the card has the Reckless trait and neither of the first two options are available] The instructions written on the card followed by the instructions written on the card.
  • [Available only if none of the first three options are available] The instructions written on the card.
  • [Available when Way of the Chameleon is in the game] The instructions on the card as modified by Way of the Chameleon
  • [Available when any other Way is in the game] The instructions written on the Way.
That's a rather more verbose way of listing the options than I would have liked, but I think the above now gets the details of what can and can't be done right (except that it doesn't cover Envious, and if one has bought Inheritance, it doesn't properly cover Estates, given that the instructions aren't on the Estates themselves).  I'm vaguely hopeful that it also leads to the right results as far as Harbor Village and Moat are concerned, but I might well have overlooked something.

24
Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« on: January 29, 2023, 03:06:26 am »
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.)
Playing a card consists of following a set of instructions.  Usually there is only one possible set of instructions, but sometimes there is more than one, in which case the player can choose which to follow.

The problem is that saying that all those things are the card's instructions means that Ways/Ench/Highw/Reckless will work on a card to which Ways/Ench/Highw has already been applied.
But my description doesn't say that they are the card's instructions.  It says that playing a card consists of following a set of instructions, one of the possible sets being the card's instructions.  scolapasta has correctly understood the distinction between "the card's instructions" and "the instructions followed when playing a card", whereas you persist in treating the two concepts as being identical.

There is one further word that needs adding to my description to eliminate a potential misunderstanding.  The first paragraph should read "Playing a card consists of following a set of instructions.  Usually there is only one possible set of instructions, but sometimes there is more than one, in which case the player can choose which one to follow."

My model for attempting to understand what's happening needs expanding to cover Highwayman.

The first option needs to be changed to "One option is the instructions written on the card.  This option is not available if (a) the card is a Treasure and one is subject to a Highwayman attack or (b) the card has the Reckless trait or (c) one is subject to an Enchantress attack."

Then a fifth option needs to be added; "A fifth option is a null set of instructions.  This is only available if one is subject to a Highwayman attack."

(Reckless does not substitute the instructions like the others, it horns in after you have followed them once and makes you do it an extra time.)
It seems to me that "Follow the instructions of played Reckless cards twice" can be considered as having the effect of creating a set of instructions that consists of the instructions on the card followed by the instructions on the card.  My only concern about considering it that way is whether it produces the correct result in terms of the rulings (in other words I'm trying to come up with an answer to your question of what does Reckless actually do, though see below).  If I've correctly understood the interaction of Ways and Reckless (the instructions on the Way only get followed once?), then it does at least get that right, but I'm unclear on what's supposed to happen with its interaction with Enchantress.

To answer your question "So does anyone have a suggestion for a short, not necessarily technical, description of what Ways, Enchantress and Reckless actually do?" literally I would have constructed my description something like:

A Way adds its instructions to the sets of instructions that can be chosen from when playing an Action card.

Enchantress adds "+1 card +1 action" to the sets of instructions that can be chosen from when playing an Action card and removes the card's instructions from the sets.

Reckless adds the card's instructions followed by the card's instructions to the sets of instructions that can be chosen from when playing an Action card and removes the card's instructions from the sets.

But although that's how I'd like to mentally picture it working if it gives the right rulings, it struck me as being less intelligible than the way I chose to describe my mental model.

25
Rules Questions / Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« on: January 28, 2023, 01:30:16 pm »
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"?
I have to confess that I am now somewhat unclear on how things are supposed to work.  No doubt buried within this thread there is all the necessary information, but the occasional reference to changed rulings means I'm far from convinced that I could identify the information even if I could winnow it out from the lengthy debates about what exactly various words ought to mean.  I had therefore been intending to ask to what extent, if any, the approach described below gives the right results.  If miraculously it gives all the right results, consider it an answer (though one that almost certainly be improved) to your request.  If as is more likely it doesn't, ignore it, though it would be helpful to my grasp of the various rulings if you'd point out which ones it gets wrong.  I'm particularly worried about the interaction between Reckless and Enchantress.

Playing a card consists of following a set of instructions.  Usually there is only one possible set of instructions, but sometimes there is more than one, in which case the player can choose which to follow.

One option is the instructions written on the card.  This option is not available if the card has the Reckless trait or one is subject to an Enchantress attack.

A second option is the instructions on a Way (or in the case of Way of Chameleon, the instructions on the card after rewriting as directed).  This is only available if there is a Way in the game.

A third option is +1 card, +1 action.  This is only available if one is subject to an Enchantress attack.

A fourth option is the instructions written on the card followed by the instructions written on the card.  This is only available if the card has the Reckless trait.  (Does this also require "and one is not subject to an Enchantress attack"?)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7

Page created in 0.075 seconds with 18 queries.