Print

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

[GendoIkari]

Ill repeat it once more then: Lantern doesn't say what you says it says. You are interpreting and putting words there that aren't there. Just like me.

Lantern does not tell you do do something though... that's just the literal words on Lantern. It contains no instructions. I'm not putting any words on it; I'm pointing out what words are not on it.

*Edit* It's the difference between "At the start of your turn, +", and "You start your turns with ". The first one is a thing that you do. The second one is just a statement about how the game works for you.

In MTG terms, it's the difference between a triggered ability and a static ability. Static abilities are just statements that are always true; they don't ever "happen". Triggered abilities are things that happen.

[Jeebus]

You're not putting words on it? So you think we can literally follow it as is? You just agreed with Mxdata when he said the opposite. Again, see here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20199.msg828030#msg828030

[GendoIkari]

You're not putting words on it? So you think we can literally follow it as is? You just agreed with Mxdata when he said the opposite. Again, see here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20199.msg828030#msg828030

I'm saying we can't "follow" it ever, because it doesn't actually DO anything. It creates a new truth that is always true. You never do what Lantern says at any time. It doesn't have any instructions for you to follow. There is no question of timing, there's no "when" Lantern happens.

[Jeebus]

Okay. Going back to Chameleon and Enchantress, let's read as literally as we can:

Chameleon: "Instead of following this card's instructions: Follow this card's instructions; each time that would give you +Cards this turn, you get +$ instead, and vice-versa."
Enchantress: "when you play an Action card, you get +1 Card and +1 Action instead of following its instructions."

Did you play the Action card? Yes. Did you follow its instructions? According to Chameleon, yes. It literally says that Enchantress wins.

Let's compare with Tradering a Curse. Instead of gaining the Curse, you gain a Silver. But that means that Guildhall can trigger. The new thing that happened (gaining a Silver) still counts as what it is - gaining a Silver.

Chameleon does a new thing, but the new thing is the same thing. It's "follow the instructions". This is what Enchantress replaces. If it replaces it on Lantern, it replaces it here. Chameleon then triggers each time something happens during the card instructions and replaces it, exactly like Lantern.

[Jeebus]

You're not putting words on it? So you think we can literally follow it as is? You just agreed with Mxdata when he said the opposite. Again, see here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20199.msg828030#msg828030

I'm saying we can't "follow" it ever, because it doesn't actually DO anything. It creates a new truth that is always true. You never do what Lantern says at any time. It doesn't have any instructions for you to follow.

That is categorically false. That's how Lantern used to work, with shapeshifting. Now, Border Guards are untouched. Lantern triggers each time you play one, and then it has some effect on how you resolve the Border Guard. We can debate the timing there, but Lantern absolutely has instructions that you have to follow each time you play a Border Guard.

[GendoIkari]

Okay. Going back to Chameleon and Enchantress, let's read as literally as we can:

Chameleon: "Instead of follwing this card's instructions: Follow this card's instructions; each time that would give you +Cards this turn, you get +$ instead, and vice-versa."
Enchantress: "when you play an Action card, you get +1 Card and +1 Action instead of following its instructions."

Did you play the Action card? Yes. Did you follow its instructions? According to Chameleon, yes. It literally says that Enchantress wins.

Let's compare with Tradering a Curse. Instead of gaining the Curse, you gain a Silver. But that means that Guildhall can trigger. The new thing that happened (gaining a Silver) still counts as what it is - gaining a Silver.

Chameleon does a new thing, but the new thing is the same thing. It's "follow the instructions". This is what Enchantress replaces. If it replaces it on Lantern, it replaces it here. Chameleon then triggers each time something happens during the card instructions and replaces it, exactly like Lantern.

I think that's just the rule for replacement effects... when 2 things try to replace the same 1 thing, you get to choose which one it is. Once you make that choice once, the one you didn't choose can't then happen again. The choice is "replace A with B, or replace A with C". If you choose B, C can't happen. If you choose C, B can't happen.

[GendoIkari]

You're not putting words on it? So you think we can literally follow it as is? You just agreed with Mxdata when he said the opposite. Again, see here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=20199.msg828030#msg828030

I'm saying we can't "follow" it ever, because it doesn't actually DO anything. It creates a new truth that is always true. You never do what Lantern says at any time. It doesn't have any instructions for you to follow.

That is categorically false. That's how Lantern used to work, with shapeshifting. Now, Border Guards are untouched. Lantern triggers each time you play one, and then it has some effect on how you resolve the Border Guard. We can debate the timing there, but Lantern absolutely has instructions that you have to follow each time you play a Border Guard.

Is this based on a ruling that Donald gave? It doesn't follow from the wording on Lantern (either old or new wording). To me it seems like your way would have to be worded "when you play a Border guard, instead of following its instructions, follow its instructions except you reveal 3 cards and discard 2 cards".

[Jeebus]

I think that's just the rule for replacement effects... when 2 things try to replace the same 1 thing, you get to choose which one it is. Once you make that choice once, the one you didn't choose can't then happen again. The choice is "replace A with B, or replace A with C". If you choose B, C can't happen. If you choose C, B can't happen.

Hmm, I think you're skimming my posts. You don't seem to be replying to anything I said.

Is this based on a ruling that Donald gave? It doesn't follow from the wording on Lantern (either old or new wording). To me it seems like your way would have to be worded "when you play a Border guard, instead of following its instructions, follow its instructions except you reveal 3 cards and discard 2 cards".

The ruling is that Lantern doesn't shapeshift. So how can it cause Border Guard to be played differently if it doesn't do anything when you play Border Guard? You'll have to explain this theory in more detail.

[GendoIkari]

I'm trying to read it all like plain English. Stuff written on cards and events and Ways are things you could ask someone to do as a favor... "Do me a favor, draw 3 cards". (Of course, "draw" is shorthanded to "+" usually). "Do me a favor, take another turn after this one".

But with Lantern... "do me a favor; Border Guards you play reveal 3 cards and discard 2." It doesn't make sense as a sentence.

[Jeebus]

Ill repeat it once more then: Lantern doesn't say what you says it says. You are interpreting and putting words there that aren't there. Just like me.

Lantern does not tell you do do something though... that's just the literal words on Lantern. It contains no instructions. I'm not putting any words on it; I'm pointing out what words are not on it.

*Edit* It's the difference between "At the start of your turn, +", and "You start your turns with ". The first one is a thing that you do. The second one is just a statement about how the game works for you.

In MTG terms, it's the difference between a triggered ability and a static ability. Static abilities are just statements that are always true; they don't ever "happen". Triggered abilities are things that happen.

In Dominion we have ongoing abilities like Bridge. Bridge causes shapeshifting. Lantern does not. We also have ongoing abilities like Goons ("when you buy"). Goons enables a triggered ability to happen: When you buy a card, you follow Goon's instruction (take a VP token). This is like Lantern.

[Jeebus]

I'm trying to read it all like plain English. Stuff written on cards and events and Ways are things you could ask someone to do as a favor... "Do me a favor, draw 3 cards". (Of course, "draw" is shorthanded to "+" usually). "Do me a favor, take another turn after this one".

But with Lantern... "do me a favor; Border Guards you play reveal 3 cards and discard 2." It doesn't make sense as a sentence.

That's why I and others are saying that you can't follow it literally.

[GendoIkari]

I think that's just the rule for replacement effects... when 2 things try to replace the same 1 thing, you get to choose which one it is. Once you make that choice once, the one you didn't choose can't then happen again. The choice is "replace A with B, or replace A with C". If you choose B, C can't happen. If you choose C, B can't happen.

Hmm, I think you're skimming my posts. You don't seem to be replying to anything I said.

Not meaning to, but there is a lot to keep up with all around. I'm saying that when Enchantress says "instead of following that card's instructions", that event that was to be replaced has already had its chance to be replaced. Enchantress doesn't work on any time you are following the card's instructions, it only works on the one normal situation of following a card's instructions due directly to having played that card. Perhaps that's adding extra words to Enchantress, but it does say it only happens "the first time each other player plays an Action card", and I'm suggesting that this limits the scope of "instead of following its instructions" to be the normal "following its instructions" that you do as a direct result of playing a card. Not just any time you would follow its instructions while playing your first card.

Is this based on a ruling that Donald gave? It doesn't follow from the wording on Lantern (either old or new wording). To me it seems like your way would have to be worded "when you play a Border guard, instead of following its instructions, follow its instructions except you reveal 3 cards and discard 2 cards".

The ruling is that Lantern doesn't shapeshift. So how can it cause Border Guard to be played differently if it doesn't do anything when you play Border Guard? You'll have to explain this theory in more detail.

I guess I don't see how Lantern's wording can work via anything other than Shapeshifting. The difference between the old Lantern wording and new Lantern wording is which set of Border Guards are shapeshifted... it used to be "your" Border Guards", now its the ones you play. But the wording just doesn't make any sense to me if it isn't shapeshifting.

[GendoIkari]

I'm trying to read it all like plain English. Stuff written on cards and events and Ways are things you could ask someone to do as a favor... "Do me a favor, draw 3 cards". (Of course, "draw" is shorthanded to "+" usually). "Do me a favor, take another turn after this one".

But with Lantern... "do me a favor; Border Guards you play reveal 3 cards and discard 2." It doesn't make sense as a sentence.

That's why I and others are saying that you can't follow it literally.

You can follow it literally if you treat it like Bridge's shapeshifting.

[Jeebus]

I'm trying to read it all like plain English. Stuff written on cards and events and Ways are things you could ask someone to do as a favor... "Do me a favor, draw 3 cards". (Of course, "draw" is shorthanded to "+" usually). "Do me a favor, take another turn after this one".

But with Lantern... "do me a favor; Border Guards you play reveal 3 cards and discard 2." It doesn't make sense as a sentence.

That's why I and others are saying that you can't follow it literally.

You can follow it literally if you treat it like Bridge's shapeshifting.

But you can't, since it doesn't cause shapeshifting. There's no difference between "Bridge's shapeshifting" and the shapeshifting that pre-errata Lantern had, if that's what you think. Bridge changes the cost on the card. Pre-errata Lantern changed the card text on Border Guard. Post-errata Lantern doesn't. I can't see that have any argument here.

I guess I don't see how Lantern's wording can work via anything other than Shapeshifting. The difference between the old Lantern wording and new Lantern wording is which set of Border Guards are shapeshifted... it used to be "your" Border Guards", now its the ones you play. But the wording just doesn't make any sense to me if it isn't shapeshifting.

Maybe that has been part of the problem. Since it's not shapeshifting, it has to trigger when you play Border Guard, and then we're pretty close to the interpretation I've been saying.

[GendoIkari]

I'm trying to read it all like plain English. Stuff written on cards and events and Ways are things you could ask someone to do as a favor... "Do me a favor, draw 3 cards". (Of course, "draw" is shorthanded to "+" usually). "Do me a favor, take another turn after this one".

But with Lantern... "do me a favor; Border Guards you play reveal 3 cards and discard 2." It doesn't make sense as a sentence.

That's why I and others are saying that you can't follow it literally.

You can follow it literally if you treat it like Bridge's shapeshifting.

But you can't, since it doesn't cause shapeshifting. There's no difference between "Bridge's shapeshifting" and the shapeshifting that pre-errata Lantern had, if that's what you think. Bridge changes the cost on the card. Pre-errata Lantern changed the card text on Border Guard. Post-errata Lantern doesn't. I can't see that have any argument here.

What are you basing that on? A ruling from Donald? The text on Lantern, whether old or new, imply Shapeshifting if read literally.

[Jeebus]

What are you basing that on? A ruling from Donald? The text on Lantern, whether old or new, imply Shapeshifting if read literally.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19892.msg819683#msg819683

[GendoIkari]

What are you basing that on? A ruling from Donald? The text on Lantern, whether old or new, imply Shapeshifting if read literally.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=19892.msg819683#msg819683

Heh, even you said "It kinda sounds like it still is."

It finally occurs to me that our entire disagreement may have actually just been about whether Lantern was shapeshifting or not. If Lantern does not Shapeshift, as Donald said, then I don't see how that's consistent with his ruling here that it doesn't override Enchantress. I agree with you on that.

[GendoIkari]

Eight cards are getting errata. Four are "shapeshifters" - they can change what they are, or what something else is. These create lots of rules questions and a few problems, and are switching to be like Captain and Necromancer - they'll play a card instead of becoming the card.

Yeah this reads like Donald's intent was to make Lantern cause Border Guard to be played. He lists Lantern along with BoM and Inheritance  and Overlord, as if the change made to Lantern was the same as the change made to those three. I don't think that makes any sense though. I can't think of any re-wording or re-interpretation of Lantern's new text that acts equivalent to BoM / Inheritance / Overlord; causing Border Guard to be played.

*Edit* Hmm, still thinking about it. It can't be Border Guard that Lantern is causing to be played. It has to be more like Border Guard now plays a new card; one with these modified instructions. But even that version sounds like Shapeshifiting. I simply can't find any possible way for Lantern to actually work without Shapeshifting; despite Donald saying that the intent was that it doesn't shapeshift.

[Jeebus]

Eight cards are getting errata. Four are "shapeshifters" - they can change what they are, or what something else is. These create lots of rules questions and a few problems, and are switching to be like Captain and Necromancer - they'll play a card instead of becoming the card.

Yeah this reads like Donald's intent was to make Lantern cause Border Guard to be played. He lists Lantern along with BoM and Inheritance  and Overlord, as if the change made to Lantern was the same as the change made to those three. I don't think that makes any sense though. I can't think of any re-wording or re-interpretation of Lantern's new text that acts equivalent to BoM / Inheritance / Overlord; causing Border Guard to be played.

*Edit* Hmm, still thinking about it. It can't be Border Guard that Lantern is causing to be played. It has to be more like Border Guard now plays a new card; one with these modified instructions. But even that version sounds like Shapeshifiting. I simply can't find any possible way for Lantern to actually work without Shapeshifting; despite Donald saying that the intent was that it doesn't shapeshift.

I think he was just getting rid of all possible shapeshifting. So it was not related to causing a card to be played. Causing a card to be played was the solution for BoM etc, but not related to Lantern.

The interpretation would be what I've been saying in this thread: "when you play a Border Guard, you may instead follow its instructions revealing 3 cards instead of 2 and discarding 2 instead of 1"

Or it could be that it triggers several times, like Hhelibebcnofnena was saying already on page 1 of this thread.

In any case it's very similar to Chameleon.

[Jeebus]

Reading Chameleon's text more closely, it really seem like it's not replacing the instructions as a whole with something new.

It's telling you to follow the instructions, and then it's telling you what happens when you would get +Cards and +$ this turn. It's not telling you "Follow this card's instructions with +$ instead of +Cards and vice versa." (That wouldn't even work, because it's only supposed to be this-turn stuff.) It's saying "each time you would". It sounds like it's setting up stuff to happen as you're following the instructions.

I'm also realizing that it could matter (depending on which interpretation of Chameleon and Lantern we go with) whether it's the last applied effect that wins or the first applied. This is getting a bit too complicated with too much information missing.

[hhelibebcnofnena]

I've only been gone for a little over 24 hours! How did this fill more than a page in that time?

[crj]

It's telling you to follow the instructions, and then it's telling you what happens when you would get +Cards and +$ this turn. It's not telling you "Follow this card's instructions with +$ instead of +Cards and vice versa."

Indeed. If there was a hypothetical card which said "Each player gets +1 Card", when played via Way of the Chameleon you'd get +$1 and everyone else would get +1 Card.

I... assume?

[hhelibebcnofnena]

It's telling you to follow the instructions, and then it's telling you what happens when you would get +Cards and +$ this turn. It's not telling you "Follow this card's instructions with +$ instead of +Cards and vice versa."

Indeed. If there was a hypothetical card which said "Each player gets +1 Card", when played via Way of the Chameleon you'd get +$1 and everyone else would get +1 Card.

I... assume?

... Governor?

[GendoIkari]

It's telling you to follow the instructions, and then it's telling you what happens when you would get +Cards and +$ this turn. It's not telling you "Follow this card's instructions with +$ instead of +Cards and vice versa."

Indeed. If there was a hypothetical card which said "Each player gets +1 Card", when played via Way of the Chameleon you'd get +$1 and everyone else would get +1 Card.

I... assume?

... Governor?

Right, it’s been discussed that Chameleon only changes your own Governor effect, opponents still get the card.

[Jeebus]

It's telling you to follow the instructions, and then it's telling you what happens when you would get +Cards and +$ this turn. It's not telling you "Follow this card's instructions with +$ instead of +Cards and vice versa."

Indeed. If there was a hypothetical card which said "Each player gets +1 Card", when played via Way of the Chameleon you'd get +$1 and everyone else would get +1 Card.

I... assume?

Good point, but I was talking about the timing. I shouldn't have phrased it like that. I should have said:

It's telling you to follow the instructions, and then it's telling you what happens when you would get +Cards and +$ this turn. It's not telling you "Follow this card's instructions with +$ instead of +Cards for you this turn, and vice versa."

I was trying to say that it doesn't read like it's replacing the whole set of instructions up front, and then it's done (before you start following the instructions). It sounds like it's replacing the instructions with the same instructions and also setting up stuff to happen, so that when you start following the instructions and get to +$ or +Cards, Chameleon triggers and changes it.