Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Citadel and Enchantress  (Read 1504 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Citadel and Enchantress
« on: January 20, 2022, 11:01:58 am »
0

Unfortunately I discovered another potential problem with the newly worded Citadel:

The first time you play an Action card during each of your turns, play it twice instead.

It seems that this now has the same timing as Enchantress and Ways? That would mean that Citadel makes Enchantress fail, just like a Way does.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9696
  • Respect: +10731
    • View Profile
Re: Citadel and Enchantress
« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2022, 11:36:25 am »
+1

Unfortunately I discovered another potential problem with the newly worded Citadel:

The first time you play an Action card during each of your turns, play it twice instead.

It seems that this now has the same timing as Enchantress and Ways? That would mean that Citadel makes Enchantress fail, just like a Way does.

I don't think this is right. Ways make Enchantress fail because both the Way and Enchantress replace following the cards instructions with something else. New Citadel doesn't replace following a cards instructions with something else, it replaces playing the card with something else. And that something else still causes a card to be played. So instead of playing a card, you play it twice. When you play it the first of those two times, you go to follow its instructions, but doing so is replaced by Enchantress (or a Way).

For your concern to work, new Citadel would have to be worded "The first time you would follow the instructions on an Action card during each of your turns, follow those instructions twice instead."
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

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6347
  • Respect: +25608
    • View Profile
Re: Citadel and Enchantress
« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2022, 01:08:30 pm »
+1

Unfortunately I discovered another potential problem with the newly worded Citadel:

The first time you play an Action card during each of your turns, play it twice instead.

It seems that this now has the same timing as Enchantress and Ways? That would mean that Citadel makes Enchantress fail, just like a Way does.
I don't mind which way Citadel / Enchantress goes. Without thinking that through though, I can tell you that that Citadel has some other problem Ingix found, and the planned new wording is:

Citadel: Project, $8
The first time you play an Action card during each of your turns, replay it afterwards.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Citadel and Enchantress
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2022, 01:09:53 pm »
0

I don't think this is right. Ways make Enchantress fail because both the Way and Enchantress replace following the cards instructions with something else. New Citadel doesn't replace following a cards instructions with something else, it replaces playing the card with something else. And that something else still causes a card to be played. So instead of playing a card, you play it twice. When you play it the first of those two times, you go to follow its instructions, but doing so is replaced by Enchantress (or a Way).

For your concern to work, new Citadel would have to be worded "The first time you would follow the instructions on an Action card during each of your turns, follow those instructions twice instead."

We have to go by the intention of the timing, not what the cards literally say. Note that Enchantress does not say "would" either.

But thinking about, I think you're right. The card gets played twice; it's not just that its instructions get followed twice. Clearly the intention is that it counts as two played cards for Conspirator, and Adventures tokens would trigger twice, etc.

Then are we talking about a whole new timing? Does Citadel trigger before Moat, Kiln and Adventures tokens?
« Last Edit: January 20, 2022, 01:17:24 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Citadel and Enchantress
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2022, 01:16:45 pm »
0

I don't mind which way Citadel / Enchantress goes. Without thinking that through though, I can tell you that that Citadel has some other problem Ingix found, and the planned new wording is:

Citadel: Project, $8
The first time you play an Action card during each of your turns, replay it afterwards.

So Ingix found a problem in addition to the Captain problem I found? Can I read that somewhere?

So this is functionally the same as it was, right? (The only difference is "replay it" vs. "play it again".)

Does this mean you're changing the new "playing card" rule a la what I suggested in the Captain thread?

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9696
  • Respect: +10731
    • View Profile
Re: Citadel and Enchantress
« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2022, 01:19:40 pm »
0

I don't think this is right. Ways make Enchantress fail because both the Way and Enchantress replace following the cards instructions with something else. New Citadel doesn't replace following a cards instructions with something else, it replaces playing the card with something else. And that something else still causes a card to be played. So instead of playing a card, you play it twice. When you play it the first of those two times, you go to follow its instructions, but doing so is replaced by Enchantress (or a Way).

For your concern to work, new Citadel would have to be worded "The first time you would follow the instructions on an Action card during each of your turns, follow those instructions twice instead."

We have to go by the intention of the timing, not what the cards literally say. Note that Enchantress does not say "would" either.


I wasn't meaning to distinguish "when you would play" from "when you play"; but rather "when you play" from "when you follow a card's instructions".

Quote
Then are we talking about a whole new timing? Does Citadel trigger before Moat, Kiln and Adventures tokens?

If you mean Citadel's wording as quoted in your OP, then absolutely it does... it does something instead of playing it, just like old Trader does something instead of gaining a card. The original play never happened or triggered anything that would be triggered upon it happening.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2022, 01:23:17 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

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Citadel and Enchantress
« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2022, 01:27:39 pm »
0

I wasn't meaning to distinguish "when you would play" from "when you play"; but rather "when you play" from "when you follow a card's instructions".
But Enchantress doesn't say that either, it says exactly "when you play".

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9696
  • Respect: +10731
    • View Profile
Re: Citadel and Enchantress
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2022, 01:33:36 pm »
+1

I wasn't meaning to distinguish "when you would play" from "when you play"; but rather "when you play" from "when you follow a card's instructions".
But Enchantress doesn't say that either, it says exactly "when you play".

Note that Enchantress isn't trying to do something instead of playing though, it's trying to do something instead of following instructions. Maybe I read a clarity into that which isn't actually there, but it seemed clear to me based on the fact that Enchantress states specifically what it is that is being replaced ("instead of following its instructions"), while Citadel only states "instead". The natural English interpretation of "instead" without a "instead of ____" is that it is "instead" of the last verb that was being talked about; in this case playing the card. So I read

"The first time you play an Action card during each of your turns, play it twice instead." as having the exact same English meaning and rules meaning as "The first time you play an Action card during each of your turns, play it twice instead of playing it".
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

Ingix

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 328
  • Shuffle iT Username: Ingix
  • Respect: +424
    • View Profile
Re: Citadel and Enchantress
« Reply #8 on: January 21, 2022, 02:19:33 am »
+1

I don't mind which way Citadel / Enchantress goes. Without thinking that through though, I can tell you that that Citadel has some other problem Ingix found, and the planned new wording is:

Citadel: Project, $8
The first time you play an Action card during each of your turns, replay it afterwards.

So Ingix found a problem in addition to the Captain problem I found? Can I read that somewhere?

So this is functionally the same as it was, right? (The only difference is "replay it" vs. "play it again".)

Does this mean you're changing the new "playing card" rule a la what I suggested in the Captain thread?

No, I didn't find another problem (he may be remembering some objections I found to another rewording that was discussed, but never made it to the public). The main thing with the second new wording (above) is that "replay" (in my understanding) is supposed to become a keyword that, like Throne-likes, will be exempt from the "card must be where the playing effect expects it to be" rule.

Only Royal Carriage and Scepter use that word right now, and then Citadel will. Royal Carriage and Scepter have wordings that spell out the additional condition that the card must still be in play, so the special exemption for replay will not change them. Citadel's above wording does not have such text, so it can successfully replay a Horse, for example.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1635
    • View Profile
Re: Citadel and Enchantress
« Reply #9 on: January 21, 2022, 06:18:03 am »
0

Note that Enchantress isn't trying to do something instead of playing though, it's trying to do something instead of following instructions. Maybe I read a clarity into that which isn't actually there, but it seemed clear to me based on the fact that Enchantress states specifically what it is that is being replaced ("instead of following its instructions"), while Citadel only states "instead". The natural English interpretation of "instead" without a "instead of ____" is that it is "instead" of the last verb that was being talked about; in this case playing the card. So I read

"The first time you play an Action card during each of your turns, play it twice instead." as having the exact same English meaning and rules meaning as "The first time you play an Action card during each of your turns, play it twice instead of playing it".

Yes, I know all this, and I was addressing exactly that when I deleted what I wrote because I realized that you were right about the timing because of the intention of the card. I don't agree that the text necessarily must mean that (although it seems to say that); you can also compare with the explanation of Ways in the rulebook. Enchantress doesn't even say "would" although it means that. Which is the only thing I was actually pointing out. In any case, I won't go into more detail, since this is double-moot!

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9696
  • Respect: +10731
    • View Profile
Re: Citadel and Enchantress
« Reply #10 on: January 21, 2022, 10:33:14 am »
0

Note that Enchantress isn't trying to do something instead of playing though, it's trying to do something instead of following instructions. Maybe I read a clarity into that which isn't actually there, but it seemed clear to me based on the fact that Enchantress states specifically what it is that is being replaced ("instead of following its instructions"), while Citadel only states "instead". The natural English interpretation of "instead" without a "instead of ____" is that it is "instead" of the last verb that was being talked about; in this case playing the card. So I read

"The first time you play an Action card during each of your turns, play it twice instead." as having the exact same English meaning and rules meaning as "The first time you play an Action card during each of your turns, play it twice instead of playing it".

Yes, I know all this, and I was addressing exactly that when I deleted what I wrote because I realized that you were right about the timing because of the intention of the card. I don't agree that the text necessarily must mean that (although it seems to say that); you can also compare with the explanation of Ways in the rulebook. Enchantress doesn't even say "would" although it means that. Which is the only thing I was actually pointing out. In any case, I won't go into more detail, since this is double-moot!

Enchantress couldn't say "would" without other changes as well though... the sentence makes no sense if you just change "play " to "would play". The "would" should proceed "follow its instructions", because that's the thing that you would have been doing which you now aren't. So the whole card has to be

"the first time each other player plays an Action card would follow the instructions after playing an action card on their turn, they get +1 Card and +1 Action instead [of following its instructions]". The last part in brackets would just be optional and redundant at that point.

In other words, if you are using "would" with "instead", then both of those have to refer to the same action/verb. You can't combine "would play" with "instead of following its instructions".
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: Citadel and Enchantress
« Reply #11 on: January 21, 2022, 04:36:17 pm »
0

Check out page 110 in the document in my sig.
My point has been, the first thing you wrote, about how Citadel would have to be worded to work like Enchantress, is not true. Because Enchantress is not worded that way.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9696
  • Respect: +10731
    • View Profile
Re: Citadel and Enchantress
« Reply #12 on: January 21, 2022, 04:54:16 pm »
0

Check out page 110 in the document in my sig.
My point has been, the first thing you wrote, about how Citadel would have to be worded to work like Enchantress, is not true. Because Enchantress is not worded that way.

Ok yeah, we're on the same page then. And that page turns out to be page 110. I think most likely "when you play" and "when you would resolve" are both the same timing, just 2 different names for that 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
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.049 seconds with 21 queries.