Print

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

[Donald X.]

I was going to bring storyteller up as a joke, but actually it now allows you to play treasures during your turn for +$, which is legitimately useful. Unless the effect doesn't trigger because it says "draw cards" instead of "+X Cards" ...?

Correct, 2nd Edition Storyteller doesn't has "draw" instead of "+1 Card", so it's unaffected by Way of the Chameleon (other than the vanilla +1 Card). If you're playing IRL with 1st Edition Storyteller, then the +Cards will be converted to +$.

Oh man, that's awful. Why differenciate between draw cards and +cards? Now some cards were functionally changed with 2nd editions, retroactively.

If I've learned anything from reading of Donald's posts over the years, I would guess his answer is something like this: at the time, "drawing cards" seemed like better wording than "+Cards" and Way of the Chameleon's mechanism was unforeseen. While making Menagerie, the mechanism seemed neat enough to be worth the drawback of retroactively changing some first edition cards. While the mechanism could be worded to treat "drawing cards" and "+Cards" as the same, that was probably too wordy.

Not working with non-draw draw seems fine in general; it's clear, Farming Village isn't +1 Card. Having Cellar / Storeroom / Storyteller depend on which version you have is a bummer; it didn't kill Way of the Chameleon though.

For the second editions, I felt like I had a better wording on Cellar etc., and didn't know this thing was coming. The idea of switching around +'s predates the game being published, but surely that was never happening.

[Donald X.]

I was going to bring storyteller up as a joke, but actually it now allows you to play treasures during your turn for +$, which is legitimately useful. Unless the effect doesn't trigger because it says "draw cards" instead of "+X Cards" ...?

Correct, 2nd Edition Storyteller doesn't has "draw" instead of "+1 Card", so it's unaffected by Way of the Chameleon (other than the vanilla +1 Card). If you're playing IRL with 1st Edition Storyteller, then the +Cards will be converted to +$.

The last sentence seems strange to me. While I suppose every group will play it differently, I would expect that anyone who knows about the errata/change would generally choose to play with that errata. I only have first edition, but if I play with Throne Room, I’m making sure everyone knows that it actually says “may” even though it isn’t printed on the card. It seems silly to play with different rules based on whether or not your printed copy has old text.

Same goes for any game. I have first edition Carcassone, but when scoring I’m going to use the current farm scoring rules.

It's up to the players; for sure some people are going to play by the card in front of them, and not think about this, and that will be fine.

[mxdata]

I don’t think anyone was misunderstanding this. Yes Poor House would still remove other money you had earned from Peddler, etc... but often you won’t have any yet. Poor House by itself is now +4 cards, the possible drawback is avoided by not using it in a Peddler-type deck.

Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I dunno, "not using it in a Peddler-type deck" sounds like a condition to me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You're right, as written it doesn't change the minuses, so it's a card costing $1 that draws an unconditional 4 cards!

(emphasis mine)

I read “unconditional” as “always draws 4.” Compared to Scout, which can draw 4 but probably won’t. There’s a potential drawback, but not a condition. Either way it still sounds like a strong combo, and I think the people that were discussing it were aware of the drawback.

Yeah, that was what I meant by unconditional.  You draw 4 cards no matter what.  Depending on what you have in your hand,  and what you've already played, there might be a -coin cost, but nothing's blocking you from drawing four cards

[Donald X.]

Not working with non-draw draw seems fine in general; it's clear, Farming Village isn't +1 Card. Having Cellar / Storeroom / Storyteller depend on which version you have is a bummer; it didn't kill Way of the Chameleon though.

I left out Oracle. The plan is to change Oracle back though, meaning only some years worth of copies of Hinterlands will have the non-draw ones. It changed because of the centered +2 Cards confusing people; but the text could still say +2 Cards, why doesn't it.

[Jeebus]

My objection was not that you should have killed Way of the Chameleon, nor changed the card text. I just think that "give you +Cards" should have included all cards that let you draw cards. After all, the rules make it clear that "draw cards" and "+Cards" are the same.

EDIT: Of course not including Farming Village. The exact same set of cards that the -1 Card token interacts with.

[Donald X.]

My objection was not that you should have killed Way of the Chameleon, nor changed the card text. I just think that "give you +Cards" should have included all cards that let you draw cards. After all, the rules make it clear that "draw cards" and "+Cards" are the same.

EDIT: Of course not including Farming Village. The exact same set of cards that the -1 Card token interacts with.

Library interacts with the -1 Card token.

If I'd had a better wording I would have used it. It wasn't a case of not caring.

[GendoIkari]

My objection was not that you should have killed Way of the Chameleon, nor changed the card text. I just think that "give you +Cards" should have included all cards that let you draw cards. After all, the rules make it clear that "draw cards" and "+Cards" are the same.

EDIT: Of course not including Farming Village. The exact same set of cards that the -1 Card token interacts with.

Library interacts with the -1 Card token.

Come to think of it, if Chameleon did work with the word “draw”, then cards like Library would give you infinite money... you keep getting +$1 until you have 7 cards in hand, and you never reach 7 cards in hand.

[mxdata]

My objection was not that you should have killed Way of the Chameleon, nor changed the card text. I just think that "give you +Cards" should have included all cards that let you draw cards. After all, the rules make it clear that "draw cards" and "+Cards" are the same.

EDIT: Of course not including Farming Village. The exact same set of cards that the -1 Card token interacts with.

Library interacts with the -1 Card token.

Come to think of it, if Chameleon did work with the word “draw”, then cards like Library would give you infinite money... you keep getting +$1 until you have 7 cards in hand, and you never reach 7 cards in hand.

A simple solution there would just be to say that it only works if a specific number is given.  "Draw 2 cards" is equivalent to +2 Cards, but "draw until you have seven cards" is not equivalent to any +X Cards because X is conditional (and digging cards like Farming Village *definitely* don't count).  And, in fact, with Library is actually undefined until it's finished resolving - since you have the option of discarding Actions, there's no way of knowing how many cards you would've actually drawn, only what your final handsize would be

[Jeebus]

My objection was not that you should have killed Way of the Chameleon, nor changed the card text. I just think that "give you +Cards" should have included all cards that let you draw cards. After all, the rules make it clear that "draw cards" and "+Cards" are the same.

EDIT: Of course not including Farming Village. The exact same set of cards that the -1 Card token interacts with.

Library interacts with the -1 Card token.

If I'd had a better wording I would have used it. It wasn't a case of not caring.

Good point about Library. If Chameleon includes all card drawers, it includes Library.
So I guess the wording struggles were actually about making it more clear that it was only about "+Cards".

[Jeebus]

A simple solution there would just be to say that it only works if a specific number is given.  "Draw 2 cards" is equivalent to +2 Cards, but "draw until you have seven cards" is not equivalent to any +X Cards because X is conditional (and digging cards like Farming Village *definitely* don't count).  And, in fact, with Library is actually undefined until it's finished resolving - since you have the option of discarding Actions, there's no way of knowing how many cards you would've actually drawn, only what your final handsize would be

I think you make good point. Players would definitely not just assume that Library = infinite $. They would check the rulebook and find that it doesn't (along with Watchtower, Jack, etc).

[Donald X.]

My objection was not that you should have killed Way of the Chameleon, nor changed the card text. I just think that "give you +Cards" should have included all cards that let you draw cards. After all, the rules make it clear that "draw cards" and "+Cards" are the same.

EDIT: Of course not including Farming Village. The exact same set of cards that the -1 Card token interacts with.

Library interacts with the -1 Card token.

Come to think of it, if Chameleon did work with the word “draw”, then cards like Library would give you infinite money... you keep getting +$1 until you have 7 cards in hand, and you never reach 7 cards in hand.

A simple solution there would just be to say that it only works if a specific number is given.  "Draw 2 cards" is equivalent to +2 Cards, but "draw until you have seven cards" is not equivalent to any +X Cards because X is conditional (and digging cards like Farming Village *definitely* don't count).  And, in fact, with Library is actually undefined until it's finished resolving - since you have the option of discarding Actions, there's no way of knowing how many cards you would've actually drawn, only what your final handsize would be

Trying to make that distinction does not look better / clearer to me. Library etc. draw one card at a time.

It's very clear if a card says "+Cards" or doesn't. It does or it doesn't! It's not clear what the current wording of a card is, compared to the printing you bought, but you don't need to account for that, and I bet most people won't think to.

[mxdata]

If you're still taking requests about the next preview, I'd like to see what the "an unused action" from the teaser refers to.  I've been pondering it and I can't come up with a reasonable card or landscape that that phrase would make sense in.  It can't refer to an action card, because "unused" would be weirdly redundant there.  An "unused" card would be one that's still in your hand, or that you discarded/trashed/Exiled, so I'm guessing it means an Action that you haven't used.  But the "an" is what's confusing me, why would it be an unused Action and not something like "any unused Actions" or "each unused Action" in a clause like "if you have any unused Actions ..." or "per unused Action".  So I'm extremely curious to find out what that is!

[Donald X.]

If you're still taking requests about the next preview, I'd like to see what the "an unused action" from the teaser refers to.  I've been pondering it and I can't come up with a reasonable card or landscape that that phrase would make sense in.  It can't refer to an action card, because "unused" would be weirdly redundant there.  An "unused" card would be one that's still in your hand, or that you discarded/trashed/Exiled, so I'm guessing it means an Action that you haven't used.  But the "an" is what's confusing me, why would it be an unused Action and not something like "any unused Actions" or "each unused Action" in a clause like "if you have any unused Actions ..." or "per unused Action".  So I'm extremely curious to find out what that is!

I've made a list of requests, and they've piled up, even though a bunch are just "more Ways." So I probably won't get to further requests, though I can add them to the list.

[mxdata]

Chameleon + Governor would be funny.  One of the options becomes +$3 for yourself and +$1 for all other players - except that, of course, they wouldn't be able to use that coin on your turn!

[Gubump]

Chameleon + Governor would be funny.  One of the options becomes +$3 for yourself and +$1 for all other players - except that, of course, they wouldn't be able to use that coin on your turn!

Except that it's phrased "each time that would give you +Cards this turn, you get + instead, and vice-versa." Governor would still give everybody else +1 Card.

[mxdata]

Chameleon + Governor would be funny.  One of the options becomes +$3 for yourself and +$1 for all other players - except that, of course, they wouldn't be able to use that coin on your turn!

Except that it's phrased "each time that would give you +Cards this turn, you get + instead, and vice-versa." Governor would still give everybody else +1 Card.

Oh, right!  I missed that part, good point

[hhelibebcnofnena]

I was going to bring storyteller up as a joke, but actually it now allows you to play treasures during your turn for +$, which is legitimately useful. Unless the effect doesn't trigger because it says "draw cards" instead of "+X Cards" ...?

Correct, 2nd Edition Storyteller doesn't has "draw" instead of "+1 Card", so it's unaffected by Way of the Chameleon (other than the vanilla +1 Card). If you're playing IRL with 1st Edition Storyteller, then the +Cards will be converted to +$.

The last sentence seems strange to me. While I suppose every group will play it differently, I would expect that anyone who knows about the errata/change would generally choose to play with that errata. I only have first edition, but if I play with Throne Room, I’m making sure everyone knows that it actually says “may” even though it isn’t printed on the card. It seems silly to play with different rules based on whether or not your printed copy has old text.

Same goes for any game. I have first edition Carcassone, but when scoring I’m going to use the current farm scoring rules.

I'd like to play with the errata and 2E versions, but I'm never going to be keeping a mental list of cards which changed +cards to draw cards, because it has no functional change except with Way of the Chameleon. Throne Room I remember because even though the functional change doesn't usually matter, it's always there. I also don't feel like looking up a list of those cards every time I play.

The key difference here is that knowing the errata isn't what causes you to choose it. It's remembering the errata.

[Jeebus]

I'd like to play with the errata and 2E versions, but I'm never going to be keeping a mental list of cards which changed +cards to draw cards, because it has no functional change except with Way of the Chameleon. Throne Room I remember because even though the functional change doesn't usually matter, it's always there. I also don't feel like looking up a list of those cards every time I play.

The key difference here is that knowing the errata isn't what causes you to choose it. It's remembering the errata.

In my view the problem is that people could play a game with Chameleon and Storyteller where it was a great combo, then play another game with another physical set or play online, and it's completely different. If you're not attentive to that, it has consequences for you, and why would you ever be attentive to that? It could be that the players in the game have different prior experiences; some expect it to work one way, some another way.

[michaeljb]

I read “unconditional” as “always draws 4.” Compared to Scout, which can draw 4 but probably won’t. There’s a potential drawback, but not a condition. Either way it still sounds like a strong combo, and I think the people that were discussing it were aware of the drawback.

I agree that it looks strong, and I was wrong in my interpretation of "unconditional". But I still think the person I quoted wasn't aware of the drawback at the time, after all they later posted this:

Wait, Poor House can remove coins that came from other cards?  I thought the -coins only applied to its own bonus?

Hopefully this can conclude this silly side-conversation about whether my Princess Bride meme post was justified :p

[GendoIkari]

I read “unconditional” as “always draws 4.” Compared to Scout, which can draw 4 but probably won’t. There’s a potential drawback, but not a condition. Either way it still sounds like a strong combo, and I think the people that were discussing it were aware of the drawback.

I agree that it looks strong, and I was wrong in my interpretation of "unconditional". But I still think the person I quoted wasn't aware of the drawback at the time, after all they later posted this:

Wait, Poor House can remove coins that came from other cards?  I thought the -coins only applied to its own bonus?

Hopefully this can conclude this silly side-conversation about whether my Princess Bride meme post was justified :p

Fair, I didn’t notice that was one of the same people. And yeah, I remember a few people misunderstanding Poor House in that way in the past.

*Edit* lol I just now saw the hidden text thanks to the quote in this post.

[Wolphmaniac]

Can't wait to Chameleon a Market so I can say that I chameleoned ironically.

[mxdata]

Can't wait to Chameleon a Market so I can say that I chameleoned ironically.

There is actually a context where that would make sense.  As clarified in the original Ways post, Enchantress can be cancelled out by a Way.  So, even though a Chameleoned market is just a normal Market, it would block Enchantress' effect and let you actually use it as a Market

[FemurLemur]

I'd like to play with the errata and 2E versions, but I'm never going to be keeping a mental list of cards which changed +cards to draw cards, because it has no functional change except with Way of the Chameleon. Throne Room I remember because even though the functional change doesn't usually matter, it's always there. I also don't feel like looking up a list of those cards every time I play.

The key difference here is that knowing the errata isn't what causes you to choose it. It's remembering the errata.

In my view the problem is that people could play a game with Chameleon and Storyteller where it was a great combo, then play another game with another physical set or play online, and it's completely different. If you're not attentive to that, it has consequences for you, and why would you ever be attentive to that? It could be that the players in the game have different prior experiences; some expect it to work one way, some another way.

Sounds like Chameleon may be a definite pick for your online banlist

It seems like more generally you take issue with the existence of the 2E, as the problem you're describing already theoretically happens with various card combos between editions. Different players will have different expectations for how Possession, Masquerade, Trade Route- among others- combo with various cards based on the version they're used to.

Ultimately, I don't think this Chameleon issue is gonna be a very big deal. Those of us who are here are likely to care more than most, and we'll consequently probably learn the list of Chameleon exceptions pretty quickly.

Either way, I'd rather have it than not, because it's a pretty dang neat landscape

[Donald X.]

Bonus Preview 2: Way of the Rat

Here's another Way, for you people hungry for Ways. Despite Way of the Chameleon, they are mostly very simple, whether vanilla like Way of the Ox, or just, you know, simple, like Way of the Rat.



In games with Way of the Rat, everything can gain copies of itself. There you have it.

[silverspawn]

Rats will be shocked to find out that the way of the rats is different from the way of the rat.

I expect this will be useful late rather than early. Foregoing an early action card to gain a copy of it will rarely be worth it. On the other hand, if you have your entire deck in hand and some spare actions, it can be very strong.