Print

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

[Jeebus]

I don't get why Harbor Village gives you the bonus when you use Way of the Sheep. It's been established that you resolve the Way instead of resolving the played card, and that this does NOT mean that the played card now did the Way ability. It works the same as Enchantress, which means that you can't choose to get "+1 Card and +1 Action" from an Enchantress attack and then also apply Way of the Chameleon to get "+$1 and +1 Action" instead. It would seem that Harbor Village similarly would not see the +$ from Way of the Sheep as something the card gave you.

[Jeebus]

I see that Reckless also follows the established rule about Ways, unlike Harbor Village.

[AJD]

This is because Reckless"s text is specifically about following a card's instructions. If you're using a Way, you're not following the card's instructions at all (modulo Chameleon), so the Trait's instruction to follow them twice doesn't kick in. Harbor Village's text isn't about whether a card's instructions gave you +$; it's about whether the card did. When you play a card according to a Way, the card is what's giving you that effect, even though the card's instructions are not being followed.

[GendoIkari]

This is because Reckless"s text is specifically about following a card's instructions. If you're using a Way, you're not following the card's instructions at all (modulo Chameleon), so the Trait's instruction to follow them twice doesn't kick in. Harbor Village's text isn't about whether a card's instructions gave you +$; it's about whether the card did. When you play a card according to a Way, the card is what's giving you that effect, even though the card's instructions are not being followed.

But it seems a bit arbitrary about when a card is giving you something or not. If a card can give you something outside of just its own instructions giving it to you, then what about Adventures tokens? If you have the + token on a card, does Harbor Village count that? The token gave you the money, not the card (technically I think the effect that put that token on the pile did). But playing the card resulted in you getting money. Taking that even further, playing Throne Room and choosing Market gives you money too, but we don't say the card Throne Room gave you .

[AJD]

This is because Reckless"s text is specifically about following a card's instructions. If you're using a Way, you're not following the card's instructions at all (modulo Chameleon), so the Trait's instruction to follow them twice doesn't kick in. Harbor Village's text isn't about whether a card's instructions gave you +$; it's about whether the card did. When you play a card according to a Way, the card is what's giving you that effect, even though the card's instructions are not being followed.

But it seems a bit arbitrary about when a card is giving you something or not. If a card can give you something outside of just its own instructions giving it to you, then what about Adventures tokens? If you have the + token on a card, does Harbor Village count that? The token gave you the money, not the card (technically I think the effect that put that token on the pile did). But playing the card resulted in you getting money. Taking that even further, playing Throne Room and choosing Market gives you money too, but we don't say the card Throne Room gave you .

I agree that it's arbitrary, but it's consistent with the rules text, the text on the card-shaped things, and the rulings about interactions that Donald X. has made. (For instance, the Adventures rules booklet frames the effects of Adventures tokens as something that happens in addition to what the card does, whereas the Menagerie rules booklet frames the effects of Ways as changing what the card does.)

[Jeebus]

This is because Reckless"s text is specifically about following a card's instructions. If you're using a Way, you're not following the card's instructions at all (modulo Chameleon), so the Trait's instruction to follow them twice doesn't kick in. Harbor Village's text isn't about whether a card's instructions gave you +$; it's about whether the card did. When you play a card according to a Way, the card is what's giving you that effect, even though the card's instructions are not being followed.

Well, we're back to the same discussion. And you have never replied to this: "Market gives me $1", means "I get $1 from resolving the instructions on Market". As we know from things like Kiln and Adventures tokens, we can't say "I get $1 from playing Market", because you also get $1 from your +$1 token when playing Market. So it's the instructions on Market that do it. So what does "the card gives me $1" mean when it doesn't mean that resolving the card's instructions did it and it doesn't mean that playing the card did it?

Edit to clarify the question: "The card gives me $1" (using a Way) means "I get $1 from..."? (Complete the sentence.)

[Jeebus]

This is because Reckless"s text is specifically about following a card's instructions. If you're using a Way, you're not following the card's instructions at all (modulo Chameleon), so the Trait's instruction to follow them twice doesn't kick in. Harbor Village's text isn't about whether a card's instructions gave you +$; it's about whether the card did. When you play a card according to a Way, the card is what's giving you that effect, even though the card's instructions are not being followed.

But it seems a bit arbitrary about when a card is giving you something or not. If a card can give you something outside of just its own instructions giving it to you, then what about Adventures tokens? If you have the + token on a card, does Harbor Village count that? The token gave you the money, not the card (technically I think the effect that put that token on the pile did). But playing the card resulted in you getting money. Taking that even further, playing Throne Room and choosing Market gives you money too, but we don't say the card Throne Room gave you .

I agree that it's arbitrary, but it's consistent with the rules text, the text on the card-shaped things, and the rulings about interactions that Donald X. has made. (For instance, the Adventures rules booklet frames the effects of Adventures tokens as something that happens in addition to what the card does, whereas the Menagerie rules booklet frames the effects of Ways as changing what the card does.)

The rules specifically say the opposite, that the Way does not change what the card does. If it did, then it would be "shape-shifting", and replaying it with Royal Carriage would force you to use the Way again.

[AJD]

This is because Reckless"s text is specifically about following a card's instructions. If you're using a Way, you're not following the card's instructions at all (modulo Chameleon), so the Trait's instruction to follow them twice doesn't kick in. Harbor Village's text isn't about whether a card's instructions gave you +$; it's about whether the card did. When you play a card according to a Way, the card is what's giving you that effect, even though the card's instructions are not being followed.

But it seems a bit arbitrary about when a card is giving you something or not. If a card can give you something outside of just its own instructions giving it to you, then what about Adventures tokens? If you have the + token on a card, does Harbor Village count that? The token gave you the money, not the card (technically I think the effect that put that token on the pile did). But playing the card resulted in you getting money. Taking that even further, playing Throne Room and choosing Market gives you money too, but we don't say the card Throne Room gave you .

I agree that it's arbitrary, but it's consistent with the rules text, the text on the card-shaped things, and the rulings about interactions that Donald X. has made. (For instance, the Adventures rules booklet frames the effects of Adventures tokens as something that happens in addition to what the card does, whereas the Menagerie rules booklet frames the effects of Ways as changing what the card does.)

The rules specifically say the opposite, that the Ways do not change what the card does. If it did, then it would be "shape-shifting", and replaying it with Royal Carriage would force you to use the Way again.

The Menagerie rules say, exact quote: "Enchantress from Empires also changes what an Action card does when played." "Also", in this context, means in addition to Ways—so this sentence presupposes that what Ways do is, in fact, changing what an Action card does when played.

And yet, neither Enchantress nor Ways entail shape-shifting, for the reason you state. So, "changing what a card does when played" isn't shape-shifting. The instructions on the card don't change; just what the card does when played changes. Ordinarily when you play a card, what the card does is what is detailed in its instructions; when you use a Way or are under the influence of Enchantress what the card does is something else.

[Jeebus]

The Menagerie rules say, exact quote: "Enchantress from Empires also changes what an Action card does when played." "Also", in this context, means in addition to Ways—so this sentence presupposes that what Ways do is, in fact, changing what an Action card does when played.

And yet, neither Enchantress nor Ways entail shape-shifting, for the reason you state. So, "changing what a card does when played" isn't shape-shifting. The instructions on the card don't change; just what the card does when played changes. Ordinarily when you play a card, what the card does is what is detailed in its instructions; when you use a Way or are under the influence of Enchantress what the card does is something else.

I take that as short-hand for "makes you change what instructions you follow when you play the card", which we know is exactly what happens with both Enchantress and Ways. As I'm sure you know, the rules in the rulebooks use shorthand that is understandable for casual players and also usually accurate in the majority of situations, but not always technically accurate in all situations.

If what literally happens is that Ways change what a card does, what does that mean? How is "what a card does" different from the card's instructions? How are "the card's instructions" defined if not "what the card does when played"? This is what I asked a couple of posts up.

[AJD]

The Menagerie rules say, exact quote: "Enchantress from Empires also changes what an Action card does when played." "Also", in this context, means in addition to Ways—so this sentence presupposes that what Ways do is, in fact, changing what an Action card does when played.

And yet, neither Enchantress nor Ways entail shape-shifting, for the reason you state. So, "changing what a card does when played" isn't shape-shifting. The instructions on the card don't change; just what the card does when played changes. Ordinarily when you play a card, what the card does is what is detailed in its instructions; when you use a Way or are under the influence of Enchantress what the card does is something else.

I take that as short-hand for "makes you change what instructions you follow when you play the card", which we know is exactly what happens with both Enchantress and Ways. As I'm sure you know, the rules in the rulebooks use shorthand that is understandable for casual players and also usually accurate in the majority of situations, but not always technically accurate in all situations.

If what literally happens is that Ways change what a card does, what does that mean? How is "what a card does" different from the card's instructions? How are "the card's instructions" defined if not "what the card does when played"? This is what I asked a couple of posts up.

Yes, I agree, "changes what a card does" does mean "makes you change what instructions you follow when you play the card". So, to answer your question, how is "what a card does" different from the card's instructions?, well, as a first draft here, "what a card does" is the instructions you follow when you play the card, which may or may not be the instructions actually printed on the card (i.e., the card's instructions).

Or actually, let me revise that a bit: what the card does isn't quite the instructions you follow when you play the card, but perhaps it's actually the sequence of game moves players take as a result of following instructions upon playing a card. For instance, Steward's instructions are:

Choose one: +2 Cards; or +$2; or trash 2 cards from your hand.

And if I play a Steward and choose +$2, what Steward did was (1) caused me to make a choice and (2) gave me $2.

If I play Harbor Village and then Steward, choosing +$2, I get +$1 from Harbor Village because giving me coin is something the Steward did. If I play Harbor Village and then Steward, choosing +Cards, I get no coin from Harbor Village because Steward didn't give me any coin (even though +$2 is apparently part of Steward's instructions). And if I play Harbor Village and then Smithy, choosing to play Smithy according to the Way of the Sheep, Harbor Village gives me +$1 because giving me coin is something the Smithy did.

[AJD]

Oh hey, how does Harbor Village interact with the –$1 Adventures token?

[GendoIkari]

[Jeebus]

Or actually, let me revise that a bit: what the card does isn't quite the instructions you follow when you play the card, but perhaps it's actually the sequence of game moves players take as a result of following instructions upon playing a card.

And if I play a Steward and choose +$2, what Steward did was (1) caused me to make a choice and (2) gave me $2.

I don't think your distinction is necessary or relevant. If you play Steward and choose +Cards, "the instructions you follow when you play the card" are +Cards. Even though, with cards that have choices, you don't always follow all the card's instructions, all the instructions you do follow are the card's instructions. So again, "what the card does", in any particular case, are "the card's instructions" even though they might not be the totality of the card's instructions.* That doesn't hold with a Way: If you say that the card "does" the Way's instructions, that means that the card "does" instructions that are not the card's instructions (which doesn't seem to mean anything).

"what a card does" is the instructions you follow when you play the card, which may or may not be the instructions actually printed on the card (i.e., the card's instructions).

That definition for "what a card does" includes Adventures tokens etc.

I realize that "makes you change what instructions you follow when you play the card" is not accurate enough to convey the meaning, because of our disagreement. The problems is, as I've said many times, that "when you play the card", you also follow the instructions of Adventures tokens, Kiln and even Royal Carriage. So all those also change what instructions you follow when you play the card (and are not the card's instructions). But what I meant of course was that Ways "make you follow another set of instructions instead of the card's on-play instructions". I think we agree on this?

So your definition should read: "what a card does" is the on-play instructions you follow when you play the card.
But this can never include instructions not printed on the card.

If I play Harbor Village and then Steward, choosing +$2, I get +$1 from Harbor Village because giving me coin is something the Steward did. If I play Harbor Village and then Steward, choosing +Cards, I get no coin from Harbor Village because Steward didn't give me any coin (even though +$2 is apparently part of Steward's instructions). And if I play Harbor Village and then Smithy, choosing to play Smithy according to the Way of the Sheep, Harbor Village gives me +$1 because giving me coin is something the Smithy did.

As explained, you get +Cards or +$ from following Stewart's on-play instructions, that's why Stewart "does that". Sometimes following Stewart's on-play instructions can yield +$, sometimes not; i.e. sometimes Stewart "does" +$, sometimes not. Playing Smithy with Way of the Sheep makes you not follow Smithy's on-play instructions, i.e. Smithy "does" nothing.

I think your confusion comes from thinking that it's meaningful to say that a card "does something" that somehow is not the same as you following its instructions. That's why I have asked you to explain this.

* Actually you could also say that you do follow the card's instructions in their totality, since it's part of Steward's instructions to choose to get +$2 or to not get +$2. Non-mandatory instructions are completed in full whether you choose them or not, and you have followed the instructions fully as long as you made one of the valid choices and resolved it.