Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 12 [All]

Author Topic: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat  (Read 26520 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« on: December 29, 2022, 06:41:39 am »
+3



Hoping that Donald can reply to this.

With Enchantress, Highwayman and Ways, and the second iteration from Reckless, you're not following the on-play instructions of the played card.

Donald has ruled that Lantern and Elder care about the on-play instructions of the played card: If you don't follow those instructions, Lantern and Elder do nothing.

According to the Plunder rulebook, Harbor Village is different somehow. It works even when you don't follow the on-play instructions of the played card. If you followed some other instructions instead of the card's on-play instructions, Harbor Village cares about those instructions.

There has been no ruling on Moat (and Lighthouse, Champion, Guardian). I assume that the general assumption has been that it's like Harbor Village.

What is the difference between Lantern and Elder, and Harbor Village and Moat? None of them refer to the played card's instructions. They all refer to the played card doing something or having some effect. It absolutely seems to me like they should all work the same.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2022, 01:23:48 pm »
0

Hoping that Donald can reply to this.
I'll do what I can, Jeebu.

With Enchantress, Highwayman and Ways, and the second iteration from Reckless, you're not following the on-play instructions of the played card.

Donald has ruled that Lantern and Elder care about the on-play instructions of the played card: If you don't follow those instructions, Lantern and Elder do nothing.

According to the Plunder rulebook, Harbor Village is different somehow. It works even when you don't follow the on-play instructions of the played card. If you followed some other instructions instead of the card's on-play instructions, Harbor Village cares about those instructions.
The rules for Ways say: "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."

So when you play a card and use Way of the Sheep to get +$2, you "played the card" to get +$2. "...Play it to do what the Way says..."

Harbor Village asks if playing the Action gave you +$, and if you used Way of the Sheep, it did. That is the logic there.

There has been no ruling on Moat (and Lighthouse, Champion, Guardian). I assume that the general assumption has been that it's like Harbor Village.
I am not clear as to what the question is here. Moat happens before you decide to use a Way or not.

What is the difference between Lantern and Elder, and Harbor Village and Moat? None of them refer to the played card's instructions. They all refer to the played card doing something or having some effect. It absolutely seems to me like they should all work the same.
Elder should work the same as Harbor Village. If a Way said "choose one," Elder would give you an extra choice.

Lantern is a kludgy bit of nonsense, but its instructions make no sense if you aren't doing Border Guard's text, so it only applies when you are. It's specifically talking about the text on Border Guard.

I don't imagine that's done the trick, but that's this round of answers. It is not always clear what the question is.
Logged

dz

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 222
  • Shuffle iT Username: DZ
  • Respect: +380
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2022, 03:07:50 pm »
+1

I think the Moat question Jeebus is asking is:
-what happens if you Moat a Reckless attack? I'm still voting for: you can only reveal Moat once, at the start of the attack, and that single reveal blocks both iterations.
-how can Moat block a Chameleon'd Witch if you aren't following the Witch's instructions?

Actually while we're asking questions about Harbor Village: if you play Harbor Village, then Steward for +cards, then you Royal Carriage the Steward for +coins, does Harbor Village give +$1? I think not, as the Royal Carriage is a separate play. Meanwhile if you did the same thing with Reckless Steward, then I think Harbor Village should work.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2022, 04:45:41 pm »
+1

Yea with Moat, I think the question boils down to “what is the ‘it’ in ‘to be unaffected by it’?” I think Jeebus is thinking it means “unaffected by the card’s instructions”. But with Chameleon and Reckless, you aren’t following the card’s instructions.

If we look at the natural reading of the sentence, “it” seems to be “the playing of the attack card”. But where does that end exactly? If Cultist 1 plays Cultist 2 as part of playing Cultist 1, Cultist 2 can still affect you (unless you reveal Moat a second time when Cultist 2 is played). So what is the limit of the scope of what Moat protects you from?
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

Wizard_Amul

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 213
  • Respect: +220
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2022, 05:44:23 pm »
0

I'm not too sure about Moat vs the other cards Jeebus asked about, but like Donald X said, I thought Moat was pretty clear. Maybe I'm forgetting about some other ruling, but Moat doesn't care what the card says or which instructions you're following, just that you play a card with the type "Attack" on the bottom--since Moat says "first," it doesn't matter what happens with the Attack card once you put the Attack card in your play area, because you reveal the Moat before reading any instructions (wherever the instructions are coming from). So, for the Reckless attack, I think it should be what dz said--you can only reveal Moat once, at the start of the attack, and that single reveal blocks both iterations; you only put the attack card in play once, and then how many times you follow which instructions doesn't matter. This also agrees with the Cultist scenario by GendoIkari--even though Cultist 2 is put into play by Cultist 1, it the the playing of the Cultist 2 attack card that allows Moat to react to it, like how Moat can react to the playing of any other attack card.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #5 on: December 30, 2022, 06:56:58 am »
+1

Elder should work the same as Harbor Village. If a Way said "choose one," Elder would give you an extra choice.

So then you are changing the ruling about Elder with Chameleon and the ruling about Elder with Reckless?

Quote from: Donald X.
I am not clear as to what the question is here. Moat happens before you decide to use a Way or not.

The issue is "unaffected by it". Moat seem to be like Elder ("when it gives you..."), so if using Elder on a Chameleon'ed card does nothing (which was your earlier ruling), then using Moat on a Chameleon'ed card also should do nothing.

Quote from: Donald X.
The rules for Ways say: "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."

So when you play a card and use Way of the Sheep to get +$2, you "played the card" to get +$2. "...Play it to do what the Way says..."

Harbor Village asks if playing the Action gave you +$, and if you used Way of the Sheep, it did. That is the logic there.

I just don't understand how "playing the card does something" means anything beyond "the played card instructs you to do that thing". Cards don't actually do anything, right? The player is the one actually doing it. "Chapel trashes cards" is short-hand meaning that you trash cards because Chapel instructs you to.

Playing Smithy draws you 3 cards = On play, Smithy instructs you to draw 3 cards
Playing Monument gives you 1 VP token = On play, Monument instructs you to take 1 VP token
Playing Market gives you +$1 = On play, Market instructs you to get +$1

What about?: Playing Workshop with Way of the Sheep gives you +$2
This cannot mean: On play, Workshop instructs you to get +$2
What instructs you to get +$ is Way of the Sheep.

Yes, you can say that you "played Workshop" to get +$, but that is also true if you have your +$1 token on the Workshop pile. Both the Way and the token instruct you to get +$ and happen as a result of playing Workshop.

This should mean that Elder, Harbor Village and Moat all refer to what the played card instructs you to do. If something gets in there and tells you to do something else instead, it's like Ironworks/Trader, right? It's not what Elder, Harbor Village and Moat refer to.

***

I can see changing the ruling for Way of the Chameleon and Reckless so that "follow the instructions" actually means that you resolve the played card's instructions. (This is what everybody assumes anyway!) Then Moat, Elder and Harbor Village would work as expected with Chameleon and Reckless; although it would mean that Reckless repeats the Way. It would also mean that Chameleon can't prevent Enchantress's attack. Harbor Village would still not work with other Ways (like Sheep) though.

You could go further and change how Ways (+Enchantress, Highwayman) work, so that they count as resolving the played card's instructions for any ability that cares about that, but still don't actually modify the instructions (for replaying with Royal Village or gaining a copy). Then Harbor Village would work with Sheep. It wouldn't change much else (compared to the Chameleon/Reckless change above), and the rule for keeping Durations in play would make more sense.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2022, 12:38:17 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2022, 12:24:33 pm »
+1

although it would mean that Reckless repeats the Way.

I was with you until just here. Did you mean to say that reckless will repeat the card even when it was played with a Way? Or that reckless will actually repeat the Way (so with Sheep you get another +$2)? I’m not quite seeing how either options works… Reckless still only does something if you followed the instructions the first time. So it would work with Chameleon but not other Ways.

Unless of course you’re including the proposed “go further” option that is in the last paragraph.
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: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #7 on: December 30, 2022, 12:35:25 pm »
+1

although it would mean that Reckless repeats the Way.

I was with you until just here. Did you mean to say that reckless will repeat the card even when it was played with a Way? Or that reckless will actually repeat the Way (so with Sheep you get another +$2)? I’m not quite seeing how either options works… Reckless still only does something if you followed the instructions the first time. So it would work with Chameleon but not other Ways.

Unless of course you’re including the proposed “go further” option that is in the last paragraph.

You're absolutely right. I was confusing the two options. With the first option, Reckless will still work according to the rulebook:
Quote from: rulebook
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

With the "go further" option, Reckless will follow the Way instructions an extra time.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2022, 12:42:00 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #8 on: December 30, 2022, 12:42:31 pm »
+2

I'm not too sure about Moat vs the other cards Jeebus asked about, but like Donald X said, I thought Moat was pretty clear. Maybe I'm forgetting about some other ruling, but Moat doesn't care what the card says or which instructions you're following, just that you play a card with the type "Attack" on the bottom--since Moat says "first," it doesn't matter what happens with the Attack card once you put the Attack card in your play area, because you reveal the Moat before reading any instructions (wherever the instructions are coming from). So, for the Reckless attack, I think it should be what dz said--you can only reveal Moat once, at the start of the attack, and that single reveal blocks both iterations; you only put the attack card in play once, and then how many times you follow which instructions doesn't matter. This also agrees with the Cultist scenario by GendoIkari--even though Cultist 2 is put into play by Cultist 1, it the the playing of the Cultist 2 attack card that allows Moat to react to it, like how Moat can react to the playing of any other attack card.

No, it’s not an issue of revealing Moat, there’s no question that you can reveal a Moat each time an attack is played. The question is what is the extent of stuff that the Moat protects you from? Does it only prevent you from effects that result from following the card's instructions? Or does it protect you from other stuff that results from your opponent having played the card? If the first one, then you shouldn’t be protected from a Chameleon Militia. If the second one, then you should be protects from the second Cultist (even if you don’t reveal Moat when second Cultist is played).

Imagine a Way of the Militia that just says “each opponent discards down to 3 cards”. If you play a Smithy and choose to use Way of the Militia, then obviously your opponents can’t do anything about it; you never played an attack for them to reveal Moat to. But what if you play Witch, they reveal Moat, and you choose to use Way of the Militia? Does the Moat protect them? If so, why? They're protected from Witch, but Witch isn’t the thing attacking them. Chameleon and Reckless, under the latest/current rulings, should work the same as Way of the Militia.
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: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #9 on: December 30, 2022, 01:31:32 pm »
+1

I think the Moat question Jeebus is asking is:
-what happens if you Moat a Reckless attack? I'm still voting for: you can only reveal Moat once, at the start of the attack, and that single reveal blocks both iterations.
-how can Moat block a Chameleon'd Witch if you aren't following the Witch's instructions?
- Correct; again Ways specifically change what a card does when played; you're playing the card to do the Way. This is just me continuing to refer to that rulebook text I quoted.
- Again the rulebook text says that Way change what a card does - A Way of the Sheep'd Witch results in Witch making $2, Witch is making the $2, that's what the Way rules say. So Moat means you're unaffected by that.

Actually while we're asking questions about Harbor Village: if you play Harbor Village, then Steward for +cards, then you Royal Carriage the Steward for +coins, does Harbor Village give +$1? I think not, as the Royal Carriage is a separate play. Meanwhile if you did the same thing with Reckless Steward, then I think Harbor Village should work.
Harbor Village is referring to that play of the card; further plays don't interest it.

Reckless's extra follow-instructions is part of the play of the card.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #10 on: December 30, 2022, 02:00:12 pm »
+2

So then you are changing the ruling about Elder with Chameleon and the ruling about Elder with Reckless?
Elder with Chameleon: I hadn't re-read the Way rules; re-reading them it's clear that, let's quote it again (from the wiki but I trust them):

"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."

It's easy to make the mistake - a mistake I have made repeatedly - of thinking "Ways replace what would have happened with a new thing and you're sure not playing the card anymore, anymore than you're gaining the card Ironworks would have gained when you use an original-printing Trader on it." That's all wrong though. Ways change what you get out of playing the card; instead of playing Smithy for +3 Cards, you use Way of the Sheep and are playing Smithy for +$2. You're playing Smithy for +$2! Smithy is giving you +$2, he repeated, trying to drive this home. So Moat stops that +$2 from hurting you and Elder looks at it for chooses and Harbor Village sees if that includes +$.

Reckless: Oh man it's three things. Let's copy them over.

What does Reckless actually do though, and what's the timing? Is it timed like Enchantress and Ways, effectively being like Chameleon and saying "follow the card's instructions twice instead of once"? Or does it trigger after you have follow the instructions once?
The timing is "after following the instructions of a Reckless card due to playing it." And what it does then is, it has you follow the instructions again.

So, Reckless's "follow the instructions" works like Way of the Chameleon's "follow the instructions"?
So when you have Reckless Border Guard, Lantern affects the first iteration but not the second?
And when you use Elder to play a Reckless card, Elder affects the first iteration but not the second?
Tentatively yes to those.

I said: The timing is "after following the instructions of a Reckless card due to playing it." And what it does then is, it has you follow the instructions again. That sure sounds accurate still.

Quote
So, Reckless's "follow the instructions" works like Way of the Chameleon's "follow the instructions"?
I guess a better answer here is, "I don't know what you mean." I really don't. Reckless is like Reckless and Way of the Chameleon is like Way of the Chameleon and "follow the instructions" means "follow the instructions." "Follow the instructions" is the same everywhere it appears, and everything else that's different is different in whatever way it's different in each place.

Quote
So when you have Reckless Border Guard, Lantern affects the first iteration but not the second?
Tentatively Lantern affects both. Sweet, now you can quote either post to get the answer you want.

Quote
And when you use Elder to play a Reckless card, Elder affects the first iteration but not the second?
Tentatively Elder affects both iterations.

Reckless, like a Way, changes what playing the card does for you. In the weird cases where we refer to what a card does for you, Reckless has changed what the card does for you.

I'm going to hope that that somehow did the trick; you'll tell me if it didn't.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #11 on: December 30, 2022, 04:49:06 pm »
0

Quote
So, Reckless's "follow the instructions" works like Way of the Chameleon's "follow the instructions"?
I guess a better answer here is, "I don't know what you mean." I really don't. Reckless is like Reckless and Way of the Chameleon is like Way of the Chameleon and "follow the instructions" means "follow the instructions." "Follow the instructions" is the same everywhere it appears, and everything else that's different is different in whatever way it's different in each place.

What I meant is, if "follow the card's instructions" works the same, the following is true:
- If Lantern works on Chameleon'ed Border Guard, Lantern works on Reckless Border Guard's second iteration.
- If Elder works on Chameleon'ed card, Elder works on Reckless card's second iteration.

Quote from: Donald X.
Quote
So when you have Reckless Border Guard, Lantern affects the first iteration but not the second?
Tentatively Lantern affects both. Sweet, now you can quote either post to get the answer you want.

So that really sounds like Lantern also affects Chameleon'ed Border Guard? (Previously you ruled that it didn't.)
« Last Edit: December 30, 2022, 04:50:37 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #12 on: December 31, 2022, 04:13:45 pm »
+2

Quote
So, Reckless's "follow the instructions" works like Way of the Chameleon's "follow the instructions"?
I guess a better answer here is, "I don't know what you mean." I really don't. Reckless is like Reckless and Way of the Chameleon is like Way of the Chameleon and "follow the instructions" means "follow the instructions." "Follow the instructions" is the same everywhere it appears, and everything else that's different is different in whatever way it's different in each place.

What I meant is, if "follow the card's instructions" works the same, the following is true:
- If Lantern works on Chameleon'ed Border Guard, Lantern works on Reckless Border Guard's second iteration.
- If Elder works on Chameleon'ed card, Elder works on Reckless card's second iteration.

Quote from: Donald X.
Quote
So when you have Reckless Border Guard, Lantern affects the first iteration but not the second?
Tentatively Lantern affects both. Sweet, now you can quote either post to get the answer you want.

So that really sounds like Lantern also affects Chameleon'ed Border Guard? (Previously you ruled that it didn't.)
I do not recommend having any "if x then y" logic that involves Lantern; it's a kludgy mess that does not really work. It's a shapeshifter in a world where I got rid of them.

Lantern: Border Guards you play reveal 3 cards and discard 2. (It takes all 3 being Actions to take the Horn.)
Border Guard: +1 Action. Reveal the top 2 cards of your deck. Put one into your hand and discard the other. If both were Actions, take the Lantern or Horn.
Elder: +$2. You may play an Action card from your hand. When it gives you a choice of abilities (e.g. “choose one”) this turn, you may choose an extra (different) option.
Way of the Chameleon: Follow this card's instructions; each time that would give you +Cards this turn, you get +$ instead, and vice-versa.
Reckless: Follow the instructions of played Reckless cards twice. When discarding one from play, return it to its pile.

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.


Lantern looks for a played Border Guard that says "Reveal the top 2 cards... discard the other..." That specific thing. And it changes it to revealing 3, discarding 2. It could have been some other similar thing that has no issues, but no, what it is is this very specific ability-changing thing.

Let us briefly note that Border Guard's text does not interact with Way of the Chameleon; Lantern / Chameleon questions are for your personal understanding and not actually answering a rules question from any hypothetical game ever.

Lantern / Chameleon'd Border Guard: Well, Chameleon didn't actually change the text, and Ways are still you playing the card, so tentatively Lantern applies to it.
Lantern / Reckless Border Guard: Tentatively Lantern applies both times. I don't see how there's a real answer buried in the card texts. How specific is Lantern here really? IRL everyone would guess that you Lantern'd both times.
Elder / Chameleon'd Minion: Chameleon is still you playing Minion, so Elder applies.
Elder / Reckless Minion: Reckless's extra instructions is still part of you playing Minion, so Elder applies.
Logged

dz

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 222
  • Shuffle iT Username: DZ
  • Respect: +380
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #13 on: December 31, 2022, 05:10:34 pm »
0

So how does Reckless work with Ways/Enchantress/Highwayman then? The rulebook says:

"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."

Is that still correct?

I would guess the following is the most consistent:
-Reckless card is Enchanted: you get +1 Card +1 Action (once)
-Reckless card is Highwaymanned: you get nothing
-Reckless card is Way of the Sheep'd: you get +$2 (once)
-Reckless card is Way of the Chameleon'd: you get 2 iterations

It may be Reckless to think this, but let's all hope this is the end of the Reckless saga.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2022, 05:12:20 pm by dz »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #14 on: January 01, 2023, 12:55:12 pm »
0

I do not recommend having any "if x then y" logic that involves Lantern; it's a kludgy mess that does not really work. It's a shapeshifter in a world where I got rid of them.

Actually, Lantern got errata in 2019 so that it's no longer a shapeshifter. But I don't think it matters for the present questions.

Quote from: Donald X.
Let us briefly note that Border Guard's text does not interact with Way of the Chameleon; Lantern / Chameleon questions are for your personal understanding and not actually answering a rules question from any hypothetical game ever.

I think they do interact, in a game with Chameleon, Border Guard and Enchantress - going by the ruling that using Chameleon prevents the Enchantress attack: You're Enchanted and you're playing a Border Guard, so you naturally use Chameleon. And you have Lantern.

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #15 on: January 01, 2023, 01:11:12 pm »
0

It's easy to make the mistake - a mistake I have made repeatedly - of thinking "Ways replace what would have happened with a new thing and you're sure not playing the card anymore, anymore than you're gaining the card Ironworks would have gained when you use an original-printing Trader on it." That's all wrong though. Ways change what you get out of playing the card; instead of playing Smithy for +3 Cards, you use Way of the Sheep and are playing Smithy for +$2. You're playing Smithy for +$2! Smithy is giving you +$2, he repeated, trying to drive this home. So Moat stops that +$2 from hurting you and Elder looks at it for chooses and Harbor Village sees if that includes +$.

So I'm going to go back to the post where you asked if that did the trick; and unfortunately it didn't quite do it. The issue is still the part of my earlier post that you didn't address: the difference between "what the card does" and "the card's instructions".

To recap it: Cards don't actually do anything, right? The player is the one actually doing it. So if "Smithy is giving you +$2", that can't mean anything other than "Smithy instructs you to get +$2". (Compare with "Smithy is drawing you cards": Smithy instructs you to draw cards.)

So if Smithy instructs you to do something, that must count as Smithy's instructions. This means that Ways and Enchantress actually change the instructions. Also, you compared Enchantress to Ironworks/Trader before, but now you're saying that is wrong. So it seems you're changing how to interpret Ways/Enchantress. This would mean that you could still override Enchantress with a Way (you just apply the Way last), but Chameleon can't prevent Enchantress, only change it into "+$1 and +1 Action". And Reckless makes you follow the Enchantress's or Way's instructions an extra time. (As I wrote above, this would also make the Duration rules for Ways make sense with no special ruling.)

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #16 on: January 01, 2023, 01:18:57 pm »
+1

So how does Reckless work with Ways/Enchantress/Highwayman then? The rulebook says:

"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."

Is that still correct?
Yes; Reckless looks for a play of a card causing its instructions to be followed. If you Way of the Sheep a Reckless card, Reckless does not trigger there.

I would guess the following is the most consistent:
-Reckless card is Enchanted: you get +1 Card +1 Action (once)
-Reckless card is Highwaymanned: you get nothing
-Reckless card is Way of the Sheep'd: you get +$2 (once)
-Reckless card is Way of the Chameleon'd: you get 2 iterations

It may be Reckless to think this, but let's all hope this is the end of the Reckless saga.
Any of those but Chameleon, you didn't follow-the-instructions, so Reckless doesn't trigger.

With Chameleon, you don't do the normal following-of-instructions, but you do directly follow the instructions, and you're playing the card to do that, because that's what Ways do. This one question requires, basically, specifically saying whether Reckless works or not; the computer code that we don't have for Reckless, does it see Chameleon as "well you played the card to follow its instructions," or is it, "but we didn't follow the instructions, we replaced that with Chameleon, which just happens to follow the instructions"? For me at 10:18 AM Pacific time, it makes more sense that we didn't follow the instructions, and Reckless doesn't kick in.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #17 on: January 01, 2023, 01:34:24 pm »
+1

So I'm going to go back to the post where you asked if that did the trick; and unfortunately it didn't quite do it. The issue is still the part of my earlier post that you didn't address: the difference between "what the card does" and "the card's instructions".

To recap it: Cards don't actually do anything, right? The player is the one actually doing it. So if "Smithy is giving you +$2", that can't mean anything other than "Smithy instructs you to get +$2". (Compare with "Smithy is drawing you cards": Smithy instructs you to draw cards.)

So if Smithy instructs you to do something, that must count as Smithy's instructions. This means that Ways and Enchantress actually change the instructions. Also, you compared Enchantress to Ironworks/Trader before, but now you're saying that is wrong. So it seems you're changing how to interpret Ways/Enchantress. This would mean that you could still override Enchantress with a Way (you just apply the Way last), but Chameleon can't prevent Enchantress, only change it into "+$1 and +1 Action". And Reckless makes you follow the Enchantress's or Way's instructions an extra time. (As I wrote above, this would also make the Duration rules for Ways make sense with no special ruling.)
The key problem is, if I attach meaning to e.g. "what the card does" then you may say "aha that overturns ruling 3XB," because previously I was just talking using English, not computer code. It's not concrete enough to be sure it's consistent the way you appear to want it to be. It's not jargon so that I can define it. Sadly this post is then all about how I can't define non-jargon for you. When a card says "foo" I can define "foo" and we can be happy, but at some point here we are reduced to words that are not jargon and can be used colloquially and may not always mean the same thing. In the computer program everything is precise, one way or another; in English, not always.

"Follow the instructions" means to do the text on the card that happens when playing the card; you stop at a dividing line. Some cards have no such text e.g. Estate. "Follow the instructions" is jargon, it occurs in card texts to mean a specific thing, and we need to be very clear on exactly what that means. I have no issue there; you can poke at it and we can make it as precise as it has to be.

"The card's instructions," that's a hand-waving reference to this text, the text that "follow the instructions" refers to. Maybe in some context it's been used in some other way; I can't pin that down for you because it's not actually jargon. It feels like something we could pin down, but I mean, I don't want to create jargon I don't have to.

Smithy doesn't "instruct, the jargon word" you to do anything, because there's no such jargon in Dominion.

"Cards don't do anything," colloquially, is of course nonsense; cards do all sorts of things. I can't turn that into jargon for you.

So if Smithy instructs you to do something, that must count as Smithy's instructions. This means that Ways and Enchantress actually change the instructions. Also, you compared Enchantress to Ironworks/Trader before, but now you're saying that is wrong. So it seems you're changing how to interpret Ways/Enchantress. This would mean that you could still override Enchantress with a Way (you just apply the Way last), but Chameleon can't prevent Enchantress, only change it into "+$1 and +1 Action". And Reckless makes you follow the Enchantress's or Way's instructions an extra time. (As I wrote above, this would also make the Duration rules for Ways make sense with no special ruling.)
"That must count as Smithy's instructions" is a poor line of reasoning here. I don't follow it, I don't agree to it. Smithy's instructions, colloquially, are "+3 Cards." "Follow the instructions" for Smithy makes you draw 3 cards.

I don't think I've changed anything about Ways / Enchantress.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #18 on: January 02, 2023, 05:41:34 am »
+1

I read your post several times, and I think I understand what you're saying. The thing is, there are cards that talk about cards "doing things" or "giving things", namely the cards on top of this thread - let's focus on Harbor Village. So it must have a meaning in Dominion. I don't think the "jargon" matters; I'm sure it could be described in several ways. But we need to be clear on exactly what it means, just as you say about "follow the card's instructions".

I would think "the card's instructions" is self-evident. It's referred to in the rulebook: "Playing an Action card [means] ... following the instructions on it, in order, top to bottom."

The phrase ("cards do something") is actually used a lot "colloquially" (as you also say) in the rulebooks, but there it always refers to the same as following the card's instructions:

(A) Smithy draws 3 cards.
(B) You follow Smithy's instructions to draw 3 cards.

I don't understand how (A) and (B) can be different. (B) is just a more technically accurate way of expressing (A). That's how it's used everywhere.

But you're saying that with Ways/Enchantress, (A) is happening divorced from (B). That a card can "draw cards" or "give $" without it meaning that you're following the card's instructions to do it. But clearly, you're following the instructions on some other card to do it (the Way or Enchantress).

The rules for Ways say: "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."

We have established what Enchantress and Ways do: when you would resolve the on-play instructions of the played card, you instead follow other instructions. So that must be what that rulebook text is referring to. It says that you can play the Action card and choose to do what the Way says to do, in other words, follow the instructions on the Way. It doesn't actually say that this means that the card "did" something. (It does say that you resolve the Way when playing the card, but as I said above, you also resolve your +$1 token when playing the card.)

Again, I don't understand what (A) technically means when it doesn't mean (B). Again, technically cards don't draw cards, the players do it because they're following instructions.

Just for clarity: If (A) and (B) are the same, then either
* Enchantress and Ways don't change the card's instructions (as with Ironworks/Trader) - and the played card didn't "do" anything since you didn't follow its instructions;
or
* Enchantress and Ways do change the card's instructions - and Harbor Village works with Sheep, Enchantress can change Chameleon's change etc.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2023, 05:49:37 am by Jeebus »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #19 on: January 02, 2023, 01:23:53 pm »
+1

(A) Smithy draws 3 cards.
(B) You follow Smithy's instructions to draw 3 cards.

I don't understand how (A) and (B) can be different. (B) is just a more technically accurate way of expressing (A). That's how it's used everywhere.
It's colloquially fine to say, "you follow Smithy's instructions to draw 3 cards." When you play Smithy, you follow its instructions, these tell you to draw 3 cards, you do that.

I'm protecting myself with "colloquially" there just because, I don't want to define more terms than I have to, or make it hard to have rules conversations because every word is laden with technical meaning.

But you're saying that with Ways/Enchantress, (A) is happening divorced from (B). That a card can "draw cards" or "give $" without it meaning that you're following the card's instructions to do it. But clearly, you're following the instructions on some other card to do it (the Way or Enchantress).
Ways specifically say, that bit I've quoted over and over, that you *play the card* to do the Way.

Enchantress does not say that. It says that you get cantrip instead of following the card's instructions. So, from just that, it's not clear that getting the cantrip means you in some technical sense "played the card to do that." You did, in real life, colloquially, play the Smithy to get +1 Card and +1 Action. But, technically, it's not so clear. If we need to know "what is giving you this cantrip," well, it looks like Enchantress is.

Enchantress: Until your next turn, the first time each other player plays an Action card on their turn, they get +1 Card and +1 Action instead of following its instructions.

The rulebook FAQ, however, attributes the cantrip to the action. "While this is in play, the first Action each other player plays on each of their turns will give them +1 Card +1 Action instead of what it would have normally done."

The fact that Enchantress makes it look like the Smithy didn't give you cantrip - instead making it look like Enchantress did - no doubt has caused confusion for me and maybe one other person through these years. Of course it's great to have Enchantress and Ways work the same way if possible though.

We have established what Enchantress and Ways do: when you would resolve the on-play instructions of the played card, you instead follow other instructions. So that must be what that rulebook text is referring to. It says that you can play the Action card and choose to do what the Way says to do, in other words, follow the instructions on the Way. It doesn't actually say that this means that the card "did" something. (It does say that you resolve the Way when playing the card, but as I said above, you also resolve your +$1 token when playing the card.)
But the Way rulebook text doesn't say anything about +$1 tokens, and it very specifically says, that you are playing the card to do the Way effect. So e.g. Harbor Village cares about Way of the Sheep. I'm not sure if you're arguing against that or what, but, that's my ruling there.

Just for clarity: If (A) and (B) are the same, then either
* Enchantress and Ways don't change the card's instructions (as with Ironworks/Trader) - and the played card didn't "do" anything since you didn't follow its instructions;
or
* Enchantress and Ways do change the card's instructions - and Harbor Village works with Sheep, Enchantress can change Chameleon's change etc.
"Change the card's instructions" sounds like dangerous territory. Nothing "changes" card instructions, not even Lantern these days as I forgot. Way of the Sheep causes you to not follow Smithy's instructions, but they're still +3 Cards. But "Way of the Sheep doesn't change a card's instructions" doesn't change the fact that it does work with Harbor Village; Ways specifically say that you are playing the card for e.g. the +$2, which is what Harbor Village cares about.

Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #20 on: January 02, 2023, 02:15:02 pm »
+1

For me at 10:18 AM Pacific time, it makes more sense that we didn't follow the instructions, and Reckless doesn't kick in.

I know there's a couple posts after this which I haven't read yet, but...the problem is that this seems like a direct contradiction to what you said less than 24 hours before this. That when you use a Way, you did in fact "play the card to do what the way does".

It seems like the problem at its core is that you want 3 separate ideas of what it means for playing a card to get you something... There's a clear line between when you're looking at "were the card's instructions followed?" (Reckless with Ways doesn't work) , and when you're looking at "what events resulted from playing the card?" (When Cultist plays a Cultist, the second Cultist play isn't included in Moat protects you from if you revealed Moat to original Cultist).

But you want a third option, somewhere in between those 2... something where using a Way means that you didn't follow the card's instructions, yet somehow it's still part of what Moat protects against (and what Elder can affect, etc). But we already know that "stuff that results from playing the card which isn't the card's instructions" don't count. So what exactly is this third, in-between thing? Are we defining "what a card does" to specifically mean "its set of instructions, as well as any possible Ways that were used for it. But not including any other triggered abilities or other card plays that happen when you play 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

Jack Rudd

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1330
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jack Rudd
  • Respect: +1392
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #21 on: January 02, 2023, 02:20:02 pm »
0

I can come up with a "solution" of sorts: each card intrinsically has its native instructions and its shadow instructions (swapping round +Card and +Coin), the latter of which can only be accessed via Way of the Chameleon. Playing Moat protects you against both the native instructions and the shadow instructions.
Logged
Centuries later, archaeologists discover the remains of your ancient civilization.

Evidence of thriving towns, Pottery, roads, and a centralized government amaze the startled scientists.

Finally, they come upon a stone tablet, which contains but one mysterious phrase!

'ISOTROPIC WILL RETURN!'

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #22 on: January 02, 2023, 02:25:55 pm »
+1

For me at 10:18 AM Pacific time, it makes more sense that we didn't follow the instructions, and Reckless doesn't kick in.

I know there's a couple posts after this which I haven't read yet, but...the problem is that this seems like a direct contradiction to what you said less than 24 hours before this. That when you use a Way, you did in fact "play the card to do what the way does".

It seems like the problem at its core is that you want 3 separate ideas of what it means for playing a card to get you something... There's a clear line between when you're looking at "were the card's instructions followed?" (Reckless with Ways doesn't work) , and when you're looking at "what events resulted from playing the card?" (When Cultist plays a Cultist, the second Cultist play isn't included in Moat protects you from if you revealed Moat to original Cultist).

But you want a third option, somewhere in between those 2... something where using a Way means that you didn't follow the card's instructions, yet somehow it's still part of what Moat protects against (and what Elder can affect, etc). But we already know that "stuff that results from playing the card which isn't the card's instructions" don't count. So what exactly is this third, in-between thing? Are we defining "what a card does" to specifically mean "its set of instructions, as well as any possible Ways that were used for it. But not including any other triggered abilities or other card plays that happen when you play it."?

I guess what I really want to know is; what's the difference between Way of the Sheep and your + token? There are clear rulings (in the Plunder rulebook) that say Way of the Sheep counts as Smithy giving you , but your token on the pile does not count as Smithy giving you . Is this just a special unnamed thing that Ways do, which make them different from any other effect that happens when you play a card?
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: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #23 on: January 03, 2023, 04:53:44 am »
0

For me at 10:18 AM Pacific time, it makes more sense that we didn't follow the instructions, and Reckless doesn't kick in.

I know there's a couple posts after this which I haven't read yet, but...the problem is that this seems like a direct contradiction to what you said less than 24 hours before this. That when you use a Way, you did in fact "play the card to do what the way does".

It seems like the problem at its core is that you want 3 separate ideas of what it means for playing a card to get you something... There's a clear line between when you're looking at "were the card's instructions followed?" (Reckless with Ways doesn't work) , and when you're looking at "what events resulted from playing the card?" (When Cultist plays a Cultist, the second Cultist play isn't included in Moat protects you from if you revealed Moat to original Cultist).

But you want a third option, somewhere in between those 2... something where using a Way means that you didn't follow the card's instructions, yet somehow it's still part of what Moat protects against (and what Elder can affect, etc). But we already know that "stuff that results from playing the card which isn't the card's instructions" don't count. So what exactly is this third, in-between thing? Are we defining "what a card does" to specifically mean "its set of instructions, as well as any possible Ways that were used for it. But not including any other triggered abilities or other card plays that happen when you play it."?

Yes, I think Donald is saying:
(1) Ways (including Chameleon) and Enchantress make you not follow the card's instructions.
(2) Ways, Enchantress and Reckless refer to the card's instructions, and if you're not following the card's instructions, those three don't do anything.
(3) Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village and Moat, on the other hand, refer to "effects from playing the card" - which of course includes following the card's instructions, but also includes what Ways do (and maybe what Enchantress does?).

The problem is that "effects from playing the card" should also include your +$1 token, League of Shopkeepers, and a Cultist played by Cultist. So it's like Ways have some special, undefined ability to trick Harbor Village, Moat, etc. Otherwise we'd have to say that that "effects from playing the card" only means following the card's on-play instructions; but that would make (2) untrue: Ways, Enchantress and Reckless would work on a card affected by a Way or Enchantress.

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #24 on: January 03, 2023, 05:49:41 am »
+1

(A) Smithy draws 3 cards.
(B) You follow Smithy's instructions to draw 3 cards.

I don't understand how (A) and (B) can be different. (B) is just a more technically accurate way of expressing (A). That's how it's used everywhere.
It's colloquially fine to say, "you follow Smithy's instructions to draw 3 cards." When you play Smithy, you follow its instructions, these tell you to draw 3 cards, you do that.

My point is that (A) always means (B). (I don't think you've explained how it can mean anything else.) This means that Harbor Village's "if the card gave you +$" can only mean "if you followed the card's instructions to get +$".

Quote from: Donald X.
Ways specifically say, that bit I've quoted over and over, that you *play the card* to do the Way.

As I said, Ways have been defined to do this: when you would resolve the on-play instructions of the played card, you instead follow other instructions. So that must be what "play the card to do what the Way says to do" is referring to. You play the card and choose to do what the Way says to do, in other words, follow the instructions on the Way.

Quote from: Donald X.
The fact that Enchantress makes it look like the Smithy didn't give you cantrip - instead making it look like Enchantress did - no doubt has caused confusion for me and maybe one other person through these years. Of course it's great to have Enchantress and Ways work the same way if possible though.

When Ways were introduced, they were supposed to work like Enchantress, meaning the Way does the effects, not the Action card.
Even the rulebooks say that Ways, Enchantress and Highwayman do the same thing, so in any case I think it would be a mistake to say that they are different:
Quote from: Menagerie rulebook
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.

Quote from: Donald X.
(It does say that you resolve the Way when playing the card, but as I said above, you also resolve your +$1 token when playing the card.)
But the Way rulebook text doesn't say anything about +$1 tokens, and it very specifically says, that you are playing the card to do the Way effect. So e.g. Harbor Village cares about Way of the Sheep. I'm not sure if you're arguing against that or what, but, that's my ruling there.

It's not relevant what the Way rules say about the +$1 token. It's Harbor Village's interaction with Ways and with the +$1 token we're talking about. If Harbor Village cares about what instructions you resolved when you played the card (including things that are not the card's instructions), why wouldn't that include the +$1 token's instructions (and League of Shopkeepers's instructions) as well as the Way's instructions?

Quote from: Donald X.
"Change the card's instructions" sounds like dangerous territory.

I know we don't want it to be shape-shifting, which I guess would mainly cause problems for "gain a copy" (for instance with Way of the Rat). That's why I think the first option I wrote about at the bottom of this post is better. The second option tries to create some middle-ground where it's not shape-shifting but it still counts are resolving the card's instructions somehow. I'd be happy to list what each change would entail for different card combinations, but I don't think you agree with me about the necessity for any of these options.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #25 on: January 04, 2023, 01:40:00 pm »
+1

For me at 10:18 AM Pacific time, it makes more sense that we didn't follow the instructions, and Reckless doesn't kick in.

I know there's a couple posts after this which I haven't read yet, but...the problem is that this seems like a direct contradiction to what you said less than 24 hours before this. That when you use a Way, you did in fact "play the card to do what the way does".

It seems like the problem at its core is that you want 3 separate ideas of what it means for playing a card to get you something... There's a clear line between when you're looking at "were the card's instructions followed?" (Reckless with Ways doesn't work) , and when you're looking at "what events resulted from playing the card?" (When Cultist plays a Cultist, the second Cultist play isn't included in Moat protects you from if you revealed Moat to original Cultist).

But you want a third option, somewhere in between those 2... something where using a Way means that you didn't follow the card's instructions, yet somehow it's still part of what Moat protects against (and what Elder can affect, etc). But we already know that "stuff that results from playing the card which isn't the card's instructions" don't count. So what exactly is this third, in-between thing? Are we defining "what a card does" to specifically mean "its set of instructions, as well as any possible Ways that were used for it. But not including any other triggered abilities or other card plays that happen when you play it."?

I guess what I really want to know is; what's the difference between Way of the Sheep and your + token? There are clear rulings (in the Plunder rulebook) that say Way of the Sheep counts as Smithy giving you , but your token on the pile does not count as Smithy giving you . Is this just a special unnamed thing that Ways do, which make them different from any other effect that happens when you play a card?
It's because the rulebook rules for Ways say, and I quote: "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."

whereas the rulebook rules for the +$1 token say: "When the player whose token it is plays a card from that pile, that player first gets the bonus."

The Way says you are playing the card to do the thing; so something that cares about playing the card counts that thing. The +$1 token rules do not say that; they just trigger on you playing a card. Similarly, Champion gives you +1 Action when playing a card; it doesn't cause the card to be giving you the +1 Action, in case some card is reckless enough to check for that.

Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #26 on: January 04, 2023, 01:46:47 pm »
+1

My point is that (A) always means (B). (I don't think you've explained how it can mean anything else.) This means that Harbor Village's "if the card gave you +$" can only mean "if you followed the card's instructions to get +$".
This just doesn't follow at all.

Harbor Village looks for a card giving you +$. Way of the Sheep specifically says that the card is giving you the +$2. Specifically saying it means it's happening. So Harbor Village sees it.

+$2 is not part of the instructions for Smithy. It doesn't have to be either.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #27 on: January 04, 2023, 02:08:40 pm »
0

My point is that (A) always means (B). (I don't think you've explained how it can mean anything else.) This means that Harbor Village's "if the card gave you +$" can only mean "if you followed the card's instructions to get +$".
This just doesn't follow at all.

Harbor Village looks for a card giving you +$. Way of the Sheep specifically says that the card is giving you the +$2. Specifically saying it means it's happening. So Harbor Village sees it.

+$2 is not part of the instructions for Smithy. It doesn't have to be either.

Is it accurate then (until new cards with new abilities come out) to say that "what a card does" consists of both its instructions (when they're followed) and a Way's instructions (when that's used), but not any other things that result from a card being played?

And is it accurate to say that Moat works the same as Harbor Village, in that what it cares about is "what a card does"? So that Moat does protect you from Ways, but doesn't protect you from the other non-instruction things that happen when your opponent plays an attack card?
« Last Edit: January 04, 2023, 02:14:49 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: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #28 on: January 04, 2023, 03:04:22 pm »
0

My point is that (A) always means (B). (I don't think you've explained how it can mean anything else.) This means that Harbor Village's "if the card gave you +$" can only mean "if you followed the card's instructions to get +$".
This just doesn't follow at all.

It does, but I didn't explain it in the post you quoted. I've explained it several other places in this thread.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2023, 03:06:36 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #29 on: January 05, 2023, 06:23:35 am »
+1

Donald has changed how he interprets what Ways do. Before, the Way didn't count as something the card did (same as Enchantress). That was the basis for the original ruling on Lantern and Elder. Now Donald is saying that it does count as something the card does. I'm still not convinced that interpretation makes sense.

Whenever we, or the rules, talk about something a card "does", it means that you do it following the card's instructions. There has never been a case of a card doing something without it meaning that it's actually the player doing it following that card's instructions. Chapel trashes cards always means that you trash cards following Chapel's instructions. Donald is now saying that Ways are different than all other abilities, in that they make a card "do" something that the player does following some other instructions.

The rules for Ways say: "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."

So, when you play the Action card (actually when you get to following its instructions) you get two options:
1) do what it normally does
2) do what the Way says to do
"What it normally does" is its instructions. "What the Way says to do" is the Way's instructions. You either follow the card's or the Way's instructions. That's what the rules say. It doesn't say that when you follow the Way's instructions, the card "does" it somehow.

It does say that you "play" the card "to" follow the Way's instructions.
* Actually you first play the card, then choose which instructions to follow. (This is in the rulebook. Reactions happen before you choose.) So this can't be technically accurate enough to base a ruling on.
* You can also play a Throne Room to play a Market Twice, but that doesn't mean that the Throne Room gives you +$1. You can play a Stonemason to trash a Nomads, but that doesn't mean that the Stonemason gives you +$2.* I don't think Harbor Village should recognize the +$ from the Throne Room or the Stonemason in these scenarios.

*Example from Menagerie rulebook: "You play Stonemason to trash a card"

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #30 on: January 05, 2023, 03:01:38 pm »
0

Is it accurate then (until new cards with new abilities come out) to say that "what a card does" consists of both its instructions (when they're followed) and a Way's instructions (when that's used), but not any other things that result from a card being played?
I think for the moment I will need more context to answer that. What's the text of the card that's asking "what a card does"? Again I don't want to define new jargon if I can avoid it; I don't know what other things may use it, without realizing it, because there was no jargon and they were just trying to communicate clearly in English.

And is it accurate to say that Moat works the same as Harbor Village, in that what it cares about is "what a card does"? So that Moat does protect you from Ways, but doesn't protect you from the other non-instruction things that happen when your opponent plays an attack card?
That sounds okay. Moat does protect you from Smithy's +3 Cards or Way of the Sheep's +$2, and not from the +$1 token's +$1.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #31 on: January 05, 2023, 03:03:49 pm »
+1

My point is that (A) always means (B). (I don't think you've explained how it can mean anything else.) This means that Harbor Village's "if the card gave you +$" can only mean "if you followed the card's instructions to get +$".
This just doesn't follow at all.

It does, but I didn't explain it in the post you quoted. I've explained it several other places in this thread.
This post is extremely unhelpful. I'm trying to answer your questions to your satisfaction; you saying "nuh huh" and "go read my posts" is not going anywhere. Studying your previous posts is beyond the scope for me. When what you've got left to say is "you're wrong, go read my posts," we're done, hooray, because man, I have other things to do.

Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #32 on: January 05, 2023, 03:24:36 pm »
+1

Donald
There is no-one here who goes by "Donald." There isn't! Anymore than there is someone here who goes by "Jeebu."

When trying to get people to do work for you, it's helpful to show them some respect.

has changed how he interprets what Ways do. Before, the Way didn't count as something the card did (same as Enchantress). That was the basis for the original ruling on Lantern and Elder. Now Donald is saying that it does count as something the card does. I'm still not convinced that interpretation makes sense.
Well. Before, there was no Harbor Village. Some questions have waited until now to be asked because nothing previously generated them. No-one asked if Moat could stop the +$1 token because why would you ask that?

The rulebook text for Ways attributes the +$2 of Way of the Sheep to the card played using a Way. The card is played to do the +$2, as I've said many times here. Where possible I like rulings to match the rulebooks. So far that seems possible here. So, Smithy played using Way of the Sheep is Smithy giving you +$2 as far as Harbor Village is concerned.

I don't know how consistent the other rulebooks are here towards this attitude; odds are they have lots of colloquial English that did not expect to be scrutinized as the computer code it cannot be. But I mean as always I try to make everything hang together as neatly as possible and answer the questions people have, even the ones that are not about actual played games of Dominion.

Whenever we, or the rules, talk about something a card "does", it means that you do it following the card's instructions. There has never been a case of a card doing something without it meaning that it's actually the player doing it following that card's instructions. Chapel trashes cards always means that you trash cards following Chapel's instructions. Donald is now saying that Ways are different than all other abilities, in that they make a card "do" something that the player does following some other instructions.
Obv. the players do everything that happens in the game; the cards don't have hands. But when Harbor Village asks, did the card do it, well we have to answer that question. The answer isn't possibly going to be "the card never does it, because cards can't do things, only people can." Harbor Village then Militia means you somehow get the +$1, even though the Militia is inert cardboard.

The rules for Ways say: "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."
At last, something easy to agree with.

So, when you play the Action card (actually when you get to following its instructions) you get two options:
1) do what it normally does
2) do what the Way says to do
"What it normally does" is its instructions. "What the Way says to do" is the Way's instructions. You either follow the card's or the Way's instructions. That's what the rules say. It doesn't say that when you follow the Way's instructions, the card "does" it somehow.

It does say that you "play" the card "to" follow the Way's instructions.
* Actually you first play the card, then choose which instructions to follow. (This is in the rulebook. Reactions happen before you choose.) So this can't be technically accurate enough to base a ruling on.
* You can also play a Throne Room to play a Market Twice, but that doesn't mean that the Throne Room gives you +$1. You can play a Stonemason to trash a Nomads, but that doesn't mean that the Stonemason gives you +$2.* I don't think Harbor Village should recognize the +$ from the Throne Room or the Stonemason in these scenarios.

*Example from Menagerie rulebook: "You play Stonemason to trash a card"
"Playing" a card can refer either to the full process, or not, depending again on friendly English just being friendly. "When you play a Treasure," means "After you finish doing everything that's part of that process," but "When another player plays an Attack card, first..." means, "Right after another player announced playing an Attack card, but it hasn't done anything yet." Again, this is "we are dealing endlessly with English sentences trying to be clear to English speakers, rather than computer code." For computer code, you would want Moat to say e.g. "When another player announced an Attack" or something. Taken literally as-is, Moat doesn't work, because we finish the attack before it kicks in. But we don't take it literally. We recognize that it means "play" a different way and that "first" is rules jargon to narrow things down for us here.

Sure, Throning a Market doesn't mean Throne gave you +$. Throne gave you two plays of Market. You don't get +$ from Harbor Village if you Stonemason a Nomads or Throne Room a Market.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #33 on: January 05, 2023, 04:55:25 pm »
0

No-one asked if Moat could stop the +$1 token because why would you ask that?

But people should have asked if Moat could stop a Militia that was played using Way of the Chameleon, because it's essentially the same question; I think we just all missed it back then. Because while it seems intuitive and obvious, and people would for sure complain if Chameleon got around the Moat, the technical rules for how Ways and Moat work do in fact make it not so clear how Moat manages to do that, beyond just "it does because it does".
« Last Edit: January 05, 2023, 04:56:33 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

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3329
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4507
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #34 on: January 05, 2023, 06:44:30 pm »
0

No-one asked if Moat could stop the +$1 token because why would you ask that?

But people should have asked if Moat could stop a Militia that was played using Way of the Chameleon, because it's essentially the same question; I think we just all missed it back then. Because while it seems intuitive and obvious, and people would for sure complain if Chameleon got around the Moat, the technical rules for how Ways and Moat work do in fact make it not so clear how Moat manages to do that, beyond just "it does because it does".

I kind of disagree with this—I don't think anyone should have ever asked if Way of the Chameleon can circumvent Moat. It's obvious that it can't. Your last question is the right one—how or why does Chameleon fail to circumvent Moat.

(And the answer, as always, is that using a Way means that the Way ability is what playing the card does.)
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #35 on: January 06, 2023, 03:05:55 am »
+1

My point is that (A) always means (B). (I don't think you've explained how it can mean anything else.) This means that Harbor Village's "if the card gave you +$" can only mean "if you followed the card's instructions to get +$".
This just doesn't follow at all.

It does, but I didn't explain it in the post you quoted. I've explained it several other places in this thread.
This post is extremely unhelpful. I'm trying to answer your questions to your satisfaction; you saying "nuh huh" and "go read my posts" is not going anywhere. Studying your previous posts is beyond the scope for me. When what you've got left to say is "you're wrong, go read my posts," we're done, hooray, because man, I have other things to do.

I phrased that last sentence poorly. I should have said: I explained it in the message you were originally replying to.

My problem is, I can either write short replies like the one you said doesn't follow, in which case you tend to read it out of context of the previous discussion; or I can write longer replies where I restate everything more fully, in which case you tend to respond partially, without always addressing the point I was making.

You have no obligation to answer my questions in any way except how you want of course. But we are both just humans here, and I do think that taking the time to consider carefully, and even going back in the thread to see things in context, is more respectful to the other party and also saves time (all in all), saves words, and makes for a more fruitful discussion.

« Last Edit: January 06, 2023, 04:02:08 am by Jeebus »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #36 on: January 06, 2023, 03:48:34 am »
0

Donald
There is no-one here who goes by "Donald." There isn't! Anymore than there is someone here who goes by "Jeebu."

When trying to get people to do work for you, it's helpful to show them some respect.

Oh, I didn't get that you were trying to disrespect me back by calling me "Jeebu".
Well, I didn't intend to disrespect you. People have been calling you "Donald" for years in these forums and I haven't caught any comments from you about it. But I will certainly only refer to you by your full user name from now on.

Quote from: Donald X.
Whenever we, or the rules, talk about something a card "does", it means that you do it following the card's instructions. There has never been a case of a card doing something without it meaning that it's actually the player doing it following that card's instructions. Chapel trashes cards always means that you trash cards following Chapel's instructions. Donald is now saying that Ways are different than all other abilities, in that they make a card "do" something that the player does following some other instructions.
Obv. the players do everything that happens in the game; the cards don't have hands. But when Harbor Village asks, did the card do it, well we have to answer that question. The answer isn't possibly going to be "the card never does it, because cards can't do things, only people can." Harbor Village then Militia means you somehow get the +$1, even though the Militia is inert cardboard.

My point was this part: Donald X. is now saying that Ways are different than all other abilities, in that they make a card "do" something that the player does following some other instructions.

"What it normally does" is its instructions. "What the Way says to do" is the Way's instructions. You either follow the card's or the Way's instructions. That's what the rules say. It doesn't say that when you follow the Way's instructions, the card "does" it somehow.

It does say that you "play" the card "to" follow the Way's instructions.
* Actually you first play the card, then choose which instructions to follow. (This is in the rulebook. Reactions happen before you choose.) So this can't be technically accurate enough to base a ruling on.
You didn't address this part (above).

Quote from: Donald X.
"Playing" a card can refer either to the full process, or not, depending again on friendly English just being friendly. "When you play a Treasure," means "After you finish doing everything that's part of that process," but "When another player plays an Attack card, first..." means, "Right after another player announced playing an Attack card, but it hasn't done anything yet." Again, this is "we are dealing endlessly with English sentences trying to be clear to English speakers, rather than computer code." For computer code, you would want Moat to say e.g. "When another player announced an Attack" or something. Taken literally as-is, Moat doesn't work, because we finish the attack before it kicks in. But we don't take it literally. We recognize that it means "play" a different way and that "first" is rules jargon to narrow things down for us here.

I agree with everything you wrote here. In order to figure out how Moat works in interaction with other cards, such as timing, we need to define the "computer code" though (even though we can actually express it in plain English, like you're doing now). I think this is what you've been doing many times in order to answer rules questions. It's the same thing we're trying to do here. We don't need to define "jargon", but we need to define the technical meaning of mechanics and cards. That's what rulebooks do too, although the Dominion rulebooks are not exhaustive here (like my document tries to be... well, almost).

"Play the Action card to do what the Way says to do" is an non-technical English sentence which can be interpreted several ways. As I have explained, I fail to see how it can technically mean that the card does what the Way does (or even what that means). But in any case, it would be just as fine, in non-technical English, and quite normal, to say that you play a Smithy to get +$1 and draw 3 cards, if you have your Adventures token on Smithy. Since we know that this doesn't technically mean that the Smithy "gives" you +$, there is no reason to conclude that it has to mean that the Smithy "gives" you +$ when played with Sheep either.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #37 on: January 06, 2023, 03:42:44 pm »
0

I phrased that last sentence poorly. I should have said: I explained it in the message you were originally replying to.

My problem is, I can either write short replies like the one you said doesn't follow, in which case you tend to read it out of context of the previous discussion; or I can write longer replies where I restate everything more fully, in which case you tend to respond partially, without always addressing the point I was making.

You have no obligation to answer my questions in any way except how you want of course. But we are both just humans here, and I do think that taking the time to consider carefully, and even going back in the thread to see things in context, is more respectful to the other party and also saves time (all in all), saves words, and makes for a more fruitful discussion.
I read your posts and address what I have to address. I don't answer rules questions as often as I used to, because there are so many other people now to spring up and answer them for me, but I still answer them all the time. Today I answered some Nefarious questions pm'd to me on BGG.

I am way more interested in dealing with situations that have come up in games than ones that are just poking at the rules. I see the value in poking at the rules though, and try to answer all of your questions. Here I am, taking time away from every other activity to do this.

You've done good work for me, compiling rules and rulings; it's hard for me to really feel the real value of it, I don't have people saying to me, "that rules document really answered my questions." I've linked to it some though.

If I don't answer some part of your post, odds are either I thought I was in fact answering it, or that it no longer was relevant based on what I actually answered. I'm not just ignoring it. When I can though I sure have to hope that I can answer one thing and then not have to endlessly repeat myself or consider specific situations that might be covered now or whatever it is.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #38 on: January 06, 2023, 04:01:37 pm »
+1

Well, I didn't intend to disrespect you. People have been calling you "Donald" for years in these forums and I haven't caught any comments from you about it. But I will certainly only refer to you by your full user name from now on.
I have endlessly corrected people when they're talking to me, but have not covered every instance on the internet.

My point was this part: Donald X. is now saying that Ways are different than all other abilities, in that they make a card "do" something that the player does following some other instructions.
This is the kind of thing that I don't ever like to agree to because it will turn out that the blanket statement was wrong somehow, and in fact in this particular case Enchantress does the same thing, it's phrased in the current rulebook as the card giving the player +1 Card +1 Action. Ways are not "different than all other abilities"; let's never go there, there will be future cards too. Ways cause the card to do a different thing, that part is solid.

"What it normally does" is its instructions. "What the Way says to do" is the Way's instructions. You either follow the card's or the Way's instructions. That's what the rules say. It doesn't say that when you follow the Way's instructions, the card "does" it somehow.

It does say that you "play" the card "to" follow the Way's instructions.
* Actually you first play the card, then choose which instructions to follow. (This is in the rulebook. Reactions happen before you choose.) So this can't be technically accurate enough to base a ruling on.
You didn't address this part (above).
I don't know what you're looking for from me here.

Again, "play" is used two or more different ways in rulebook and card text. On Moat it really means "announce"; on Landing Party it means "do all of it, put the card on the table and do its stuff and be done." For being super technical, it would be clearer if those were two different words; it might even be clearer for casual players. It isn't two different words today though.

You first announce a card; you've started playing it, but you haven't finished yet. Some things latch on here. You choose Way or not somewhere in here. Later you "do" "stuff" and then still later you're done and "when you play a card" sans-"first" triggers.

Your "somehow" suggests that you think it's this bizarre thing that "the card" "does" something. But I mean. That's how it is with the +3 Cards on Smithy too. The card "does" it, which isn't something we ever need to think about until Harbor Village says "hey what did the card do."

Quote from: Donald X.
"Playing" a card can refer either to the full process, or not, depending again on friendly English just being friendly. "When you play a Treasure," means "After you finish doing everything that's part of that process," but "When another player plays an Attack card, first..." means, "Right after another player announced playing an Attack card, but it hasn't done anything yet." Again, this is "we are dealing endlessly with English sentences trying to be clear to English speakers, rather than computer code." For computer code, you would want Moat to say e.g. "When another player announced an Attack" or something. Taken literally as-is, Moat doesn't work, because we finish the attack before it kicks in. But we don't take it literally. We recognize that it means "play" a different way and that "first" is rules jargon to narrow things down for us here.

I agree with everything you wrote here. In order to figure out how Moat works in interaction with other cards, such as timing, we need to define the "computer code" though (even though we can actually express it in plain English, like you're doing now). I think this is what you've been doing many times in order to answer rules questions. It's the same thing we're trying to do here. We don't need to define "jargon", but we need to define the technical meaning of mechanics and cards. That's what rulebooks do too, although the Dominion rulebooks are not exhaustive here (like my document tries to be... well, almost).

"Play the Action card to do what the Way says to do" is an non-technical English sentence which can be interpreted several ways. As I have explained, I fail to see how it can technically mean that the card does what the Way does (or even what that means). But in any case, it would be just as fine, in non-technical English, and quite normal, to say that you play a Smithy to get +$1 and draw 3 cards, if you have your Adventures token on Smithy. Since we know that this doesn't technically mean that the Smithy "gives" you +$, there is no reason to conclude that it has to mean that the Smithy "gives" you +$ when played with Sheep either.
It would be fine to have the Adventures +$1 token work with Harbor Village; it only doesn't do to me looking at rulebook and card text and having to make rulings based on that stuff. The +$1 token triggers at a particular time but doesn't attribute anything to the card itself; similarly Champion triggers at a particular time but doesn't attribute anything to the card itself. Ways actually attribute something to the card, and Harbor Village has the text it has and etc.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #39 on: January 06, 2023, 04:44:07 pm »
+1

But I mean. That's how it is with the +3 Cards on Smithy too. The card "does" it, which isn't something we ever need to think about until Harbor Village says "hey what did the card do."

But Moat always wanted to know what a card "did" also, right? Moat needed to know if the Militia was making you discard down to 3, as opposed to some other by-product of playing the card causing you to discard down to 3. Or as a more realistic example, Moat needed to know that your opponent's Cultist was making you gain a Ruins, but it was not making you gain a second ruins when it made your opponent play another Cultist.
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: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #40 on: January 06, 2023, 04:51:11 pm »
0

You first announce a card; you've started playing it, but you haven't finished yet. Some things latch on here. You choose Way or not somewhere in here. Later you "do" "stuff" and then still later you're done and "when you play a card" sans-"first" triggers.

Your "somehow" suggests that you think it's this bizarre thing that "the card" "does" something. But I mean. That's how it is with the +3 Cards on Smithy too. The card "does" it, which isn't something we ever need to think about until Harbor Village says "hey what did the card do."

No, I don't think that's bizarre. I think it's bizarre that the card "does" something without it meaning that the card told you to do it. That's what it means with Smithy and all other cards (except Ways and Enchantress apparently). If Smithy "does" +$2, it should mean that the Smithy tells you to do it. And of course "Smithy tells you to do it" just means that you follow Smithy's instructions to do it. It doesn't compute for me that a card can tell you to do something that is not its instructions, because that's what "tell you to do something" means.

Quote from: Donald X.
"Play the Action card to do what the Way says to do" is an non-technical English sentence which can be interpreted several ways. As I have explained, I fail to see how it can technically mean that the card does what the Way does (or even what that means). But in any case, it would be just as fine, in non-technical English, and quite normal, to say that you play a Smithy to get +$1 and draw 3 cards, if you have your Adventures token on Smithy. Since we know that this doesn't technically mean that the Smithy "gives" you +$, there is no reason to conclude that it has to mean that the Smithy "gives" you +$ when played with Sheep either.
It would be fine to have the Adventures +$1 token work with Harbor Village; it only doesn't do to me looking at rulebook and card text and having to make rulings based on that stuff. The +$1 token triggers at a particular time but doesn't attribute anything to the card itself; similarly Champion triggers at a particular time but doesn't attribute anything to the card itself. Ways actually attribute something to the card, and Harbor Village has the text it has and etc.

Again, the rules don't say that the card "does" it, and they don't actually say that the Way attributes anything to the card. They say the same as the Enchantress rules, that you do the Way/Enchantress instructions instead of the card's instructions; that's all. The non-technical phrase "play the card to do what the Way says to do" doesn't in itself suggest that it's different than "play the card to get $1 from your Adventures token"; that's what I was saying.

scolapasta

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 588
  • Respect: +757
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #41 on: January 06, 2023, 04:54:42 pm »
+1

I hesitate to get in the middle of all this, but one thing to notice (which I don't think has been mentioned, unless I missed it) is how the text on Ways is written - they* refer to "this" and "this card". In other words that text doesn't refer to the Way, but to the card being played as the Way. Which to me fits with the ruling that playing a card as a way is something the card does, unlike enchantress and adventure tokens.

* well, those that have a reference; obviously, Ways like Way of the Ox, that are just "+2 Cards" don't refer to "this"

Really hoping that doesn't muddy anything...
« Last Edit: January 06, 2023, 06:48:46 pm by scolapasta »
Logged
Feel free to join us at scolapasta's cards for discussion on any of my custom cards.

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #42 on: January 06, 2023, 05:02:50 pm »
0

I hesitate to get in the middle of all this, but one thing to notice (which I don't think has been mentioned, unless I missed it) is how the text on Ways is written - they* all refer to "this" and "this card". In other words that text doesn't refer to the Way, but to the card being played as the Way. Which to me fits with the ruling that playing a card as a way is something the card does, unlike enchantress and adventure tokens.

* well, those that have a reference; obviously, Ways like Way of the Ox, that are just "+2 Cards" don't refer to "this"

Really hoping that doesn't muddy anything...

Yep, I know. That's something I have considered a special rule, just like the rule for keeping Durations in play with Ways. If we say that following the Way's instructions counts as following the card's instructions, those two things make more sense. That technically is pretty much the same as saying that Ways change the card's instructions ("shape-shifting"), which we don't want, so then we just have to invent a rule that says that it counts as following the card's instructions for abilities that care about what instructions are being following, but not for cards that care about the instructions per se (like gaining a copy with Way of the Rat). The problem is that Ways, Enchantress and Reckless care about what instructions are being followed, so this should mean that they work differently (than the current rulings) when applied to the same card.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2023, 05:03:58 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #43 on: January 07, 2023, 03:21:40 pm »
0

But I mean. That's how it is with the +3 Cards on Smithy too. The card "does" it, which isn't something we ever need to think about until Harbor Village says "hey what did the card do."

But Moat always wanted to know what a card "did" also, right? Moat needed to know if the Militia was making you discard down to 3, as opposed to some other by-product of playing the card causing you to discard down to 3. Or as a more realistic example, Moat needed to know that your opponent's Cultist was making you gain a Ruins, but it was not making you gain a second ruins when it made your opponent play another Cultist.
Yes, Moat always wanted to know it, but I mean you must know everything there is to say here. There isn't an attacking Way. Enchantress's cantrip isn't an attack.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #44 on: January 07, 2023, 03:24:22 pm »
+1

No, I don't think that's bizarre. I think it's bizarre that the card "does" something without it meaning that the card told you to do it.
Well somehow that's exactly what the Way rules say. The card does the thing.

Again, the rules don't say that the card "does" it, and they don't actually say that the Way attributes anything to the card. They say the same as the Enchantress rules, that you do the Way/Enchantress instructions instead of the card's instructions; that's all. The non-technical phrase "play the card to do what the Way says to do" doesn't in itself suggest that it's different than "play the card to get $1 from your Adventures token"; that's what I was saying.
I'm stuck interpreting the rulebook and card texts. The Way rules attribute the +$2 to the card; that's my interpretation of that line of text. Harbor Village triggers on it.

I do not find it preferable to rule that the Way rulebook text instead means "the card didn't do it."
Logged

dane-m

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 166
  • Shuffle iT Username: dane-m
  • Respect: +199
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #45 on: January 08, 2023, 06:07:32 am »
0

But I mean. That's how it is with the +3 Cards on Smithy too. The card "does" it, which isn't something we ever need to think about until Harbor Village says "hey what did the card do."

But Moat always wanted to know what a card "did" also, right?
In one sense, namely that it merely wanted to know whether the card had 'Attack' written at the bottom, no.  I get the point, however, that there is the question of scope when it comes to Cultists playing Cultists.  Naively I would have thought that if card X says "You may play card Y", then card X doesn't finish being played until after card Y has finished being played.  Thus I'd have expected a Moat revealed on the first Cultist to provide protection against the entire chain of Cultists, but there would be nothing to prevent the Moat being revealed on the second or subsequent Cultist if it hadn't been revealed on a previous one.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #46 on: January 08, 2023, 01:11:10 pm »
+1

But I mean. That's how it is with the +3 Cards on Smithy too. The card "does" it, which isn't something we ever need to think about until Harbor Village says "hey what did the card do."

But Moat always wanted to know what a card "did" also, right? Moat needed to know if the Militia was making you discard down to 3, as opposed to some other by-product of playing the card causing you to discard down to 3. Or as a more realistic example, Moat needed to know that your opponent's Cultist was making you gain a Ruins, but it was not making you gain a second ruins when it made your opponent play another Cultist.
Yes, Moat always wanted to know it, but I mean you must know everything there is to say here. There isn't an attacking Way. Enchantress's cantrip isn't an attack.

There is an attacking Way. Since Chameleon functions as the other Ways, playing Militia with Chameleon is equivalent to using a Way that says, "+2 Cards, each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand" (when playing a card with the Attack type of course).

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #47 on: January 08, 2023, 01:24:36 pm »
+2

My last attempt at explaining my point and hopefully getting somebody to fill in the blanks and make this make sense.

Saying "the card trashes a card" or "the cards gives +$2" is fine, but we have to know exactly what that means in the game. If we just say "Junk Dealer trashes a card" and that's all it means, then you don't get +1 VP from Tomb, since it says "when you trash a card".

So "Junk Dealer trashes a card" means "you trash a card from playing Junk Dealer".

I would think everything above is uncontroversial?

***

* So normally, you draw 3 cards from playing Smithy. Playing Smithy does that.
* With your +$1 token on Smithy, you draw 3 cards and get +$1 from playing Smithy. Then playing Smithy does that. Playing Smithy means you follow both Smithy's instructions and the token's instructions.
* With Way of the Sheep, you get +$2 from playing Smithy. Then playing Smithy does that. Playing Smithy means you only follow Way of the Sheep's instructions.

I hope everybody agrees to this.

Harbor Village checks if Smithy "gave you +$". Again, what does that means in the game? It must mean, "if you got +$ from playing Smithy". But playing Smithy can make you do several things other than following what Smithy says: Adventures tokens, League of Shopkeepers, Champion, Kiln. So if any of those make you get +$, it should count for Harbor Village - but this is wrong.

So clearly, just saying "from playing Smithy" is not precise enough. Harbor Village must mean "if you got +$ from following Smithy's instructions" - in order to exclude other abilities that trigger when you played Smithy. What else could it mean?

***

So, with your +$1 token, is +$1 something the Smithy tells you to do? No, it's the token that tells you. So more precisely: With your +$1 token on Smithy, when playing Smithy, you get +$ from following the token's instructions.

With Way of the Sheep, is +$2 something the Smithy tells you to do? According to Donald X.'s ruling, it is. Then what is the precise description of playing Smithy with Way of the Sheep? Is it the following?
With Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Smithy's instructions.
If not, what is it?

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #48 on: January 08, 2023, 02:12:27 pm »
0

But I mean. That's how it is with the +3 Cards on Smithy too. The card "does" it, which isn't something we ever need to think about until Harbor Village says "hey what did the card do."

But Moat always wanted to know what a card "did" also, right?
In one sense, namely that it merely wanted to know whether the card had 'Attack' written at the bottom, no.

That part is only relevant to whether or not you can reveal Moat when a card is played. It doesn't end up relating to what the Moat actually does when it gets revealed.

Quote
I get the point, however, that there is the question of scope when it comes to Cultists playing Cultists.  Naively I would have thought that if card X says "You may play card Y", then card X doesn't finish being played until after card Y has finished being played.  Thus I'd have expected a Moat revealed on the first Cultist to provide protection against the entire chain of Cultists, but there would be nothing to prevent the Moat being revealed on the second or subsequent Cultist if it hadn't been revealed on a previous one.

For sure card X doesn't finish being played until after card Y has finished. Matters with stuff like Royal Carriage* But Cultist #1 being "not yet finished" doesn't end up mattering in this case; the rule is that the second Cultist's instructions are not part of what the first Cultist does; not part of what Moat protects you from. Moat protects you from "what the card does", just like how Harbor Village looks to see "what the card does". The whole question we're trying to get at here is "what specifically is the scope of what a card does?" We now know that it's neither "it does what its instructions say it does" nor "it does things that happen as a direct result of playing it". It's some third option that includes its own instructions and also Ways.


*If you Throne Room a Smithy while 2 Royal Carriages are on your Tavern Mat, and you want to repeat both the Throne Room and Smithy, you'd have to call Royal Carriage on Smithy first, because "directly after playing Smithy" happens before "directly after playing Throne Room".
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: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #49 on: January 08, 2023, 04:05:28 pm »
0

But I mean. That's how it is with the +3 Cards on Smithy too. The card "does" it, which isn't something we ever need to think about until Harbor Village says "hey what did the card do."

But Moat always wanted to know what a card "did" also, right? Moat needed to know if the Militia was making you discard down to 3, as opposed to some other by-product of playing the card causing you to discard down to 3. Or as a more realistic example, Moat needed to know that your opponent's Cultist was making you gain a Ruins, but it was not making you gain a second ruins when it made your opponent play another Cultist.
Yes, Moat always wanted to know it, but I mean you must know everything there is to say here. There isn't an attacking Way. Enchantress's cantrip isn't an attack.

There is an attacking Way. Since Chameleon functions as the other Ways, playing Militia with Chameleon is equivalent to using a Way that says, "+2 Cards, each other player discards down to 3 cards in hand" (when playing a card with the Attack type of course).

The lesson as always is, don't reply to posts that don't need a reply. GendoIkari's post was doing fine, it didn't need me chiming in.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2023, 04:13:30 pm by Donald X. »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #50 on: January 08, 2023, 04:13:05 pm »
+1

* With your +$1 token on Smithy, you draw 3 cards and get +$1 from playing Smithy. Then playing Smithy does that. Playing Smithy means you follow both Smithy's instructions and the token's instructions.
Speaking colloquially, not rules-technically, of course playing Smithy with the Adventures token can be communicated via "playing Smithy got you +3 Cards and +$1."

Speaking rules-technically, no, not so, sorry. Similarly with Champion out, playing Smithy gets you +3 Cards and +1 Action in a non-technical sense, but technically Champion gave you +1 Action, Smithy did not. And that's where things stand!

Harbor Village does not check "did Smithy in a vague colloquial sense give you +$1." It checks the technical sense. Smithy with the +$1 token did not give you +$1 in the technical sense.

So clearly, just saying "from playing Smithy" is not precise enough. Harbor Village must mean "if you got +$ from following Smithy's instructions" - in order to exclude other abilities that trigger when you played Smithy. What else could it mean?
For sure Harbor Village may not have the best phrasing to communicate what it does (and, I wouldn't care how these rulings fell for a fixed phrasing).

Again the line from the rulebook about Ways. The Ways cause it to be that Smithy produced $2 via Way of the Sheep. Harbor Village does not (colloquially and anthropomorphizing) expect to see such a thing, but Ways generate this situation.

I feel like the key difference for us here is that I see the rulebook text for Ways as meaning what I keep saying it means, and you feel like it does not mean that.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #51 on: January 08, 2023, 04:34:03 pm »
+1

Speaking rules-technically, no, not so, sorry. Similarly with Champion out, playing Smithy gets you +3 Cards and +1 Action in a non-technical sense, but technically Champion gave you +1 Action, Smithy did not. And that's where things stand!

I know, that's what I concluded further down in my post, saying that we needed to be more precise. For the token it would be: With your +$1 token on Smithy, when playing Smithy, you get +$ from following the token's instructions. For Champion it would be the same.
That's exactly why I arrived at the question in my last paragraph.

Jack Rudd

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1330
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jack Rudd
  • Respect: +1392
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #52 on: January 09, 2023, 08:45:24 am »
+7

Oooh, I've just thought of another fun Moat v Ways effect. You play an Attack, I Moat it, you then decide to use Way of the Mouse; the Mouse card is Duchess. Do I get to do the deck-inspection thing?
Logged
Centuries later, archaeologists discover the remains of your ancient civilization.

Evidence of thriving towns, Pottery, roads, and a centralized government amaze the startled scientists.

Finally, they come upon a stone tablet, which contains but one mysterious phrase!

'ISOTROPIC WILL RETURN!'

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3329
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4507
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #53 on: January 09, 2023, 10:20:38 am »
+1

Oooh, I've just thought of another fun Moat v Ways effect. You play an Attack, I Moat it, you then decide to use Way of the Mouse; the Mouse card is Duchess. Do I get to do the deck-inspection thing?

I think yes, for the same as the chained-Cultist reasoning where Moating the first Cultist doesn't protect you against the second Cultist. If you play an Attack as Way of the Mouse in this scenario, Duchess is in a position comparable to that of the second Cultist: a separate card that the first Attack causes you to play.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #54 on: January 09, 2023, 11:14:06 am »
+1

Oooh, I've just thought of another fun Moat v Ways effect. You play an Attack, I Moat it, you then decide to use Way of the Mouse; the Mouse card is Duchess. Do I get to do the deck-inspection thing?

I think yes, for the same as the chained-Cultist reasoning where Moating the first Cultist doesn't protect you against the second Cultist. If you play an Attack as Way of the Mouse in this scenario, Duchess is in a position comparable to that of the second Cultist: a separate card that the first Attack causes you to play.

Yeah... if the Mouse literally had Duchess's text instead of telling you to play a Duchess, then I think the Moat would stop Mouse from working.
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

joefarebrother

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 62
  • Shuffle iT Username: joefarebrother
  • Respect: +160
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #55 on: January 09, 2023, 11:34:25 am »
0

So how I interpret all this:

When you play a card:
- Move it to the play area
- Effects that trigger on playing a card happen: adventures tokens, people revealing moat, etc.
- Then you determine how to resolve the card, which involves choosing between the following applicable options:
-- The default mode, "follow it's instructions". Reckless effects this.
-- Enchantress.
-- Highwayman. Either of these options being available prevents the default mode from being chosen.
-- A Way. This can be chameleon, which says "Follow its instructions", but isn't affected by reckless, because it's not the default mode, nor is affected by enchantress or highwayman.
- Once one of those is chosen, that determines what to actually do.
- Other effects can then look for things that happen as a direct result of that; e.g. harbour village can look for getting money, moat can look for things that would affect players who revealed it, elder can look for choices, and lantern can look for a specific string and change it for something else. Indirect effects, such as via other effects that get triggered, or by playing another card, don't get seen by these things.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #56 on: January 09, 2023, 12:36:39 pm »
0

So how I interpret all this:

When you play a card:
- Move it to the play area
- Effects that trigger on playing a card happen: adventures tokens, people revealing moat, etc.
- Then you determine how to resolve the card, which involves choosing between the following applicable options:
-- The default mode, "follow it's instructions". Reckless effects this.
-- Enchantress.
-- Highwayman. Either of these options being available prevents the default mode from being chosen.
-- A Way. This can be chameleon, which says "Follow its instructions", but isn't affected by reckless, because it's not the default mode, nor is affected by enchantress or highwayman.
- Once one of those is chosen, that determines what to actually do.
- Other effects can then look for things that happen as a direct result of that; e.g. harbour village can look for getting money, moat can look for things that would affect players who revealed it, elder can look for choices, and lantern can look for a specific string and change it for something else. Indirect effects, such as via other effects that get triggered, or by playing another card, don't get seen by these things.

Adventures tokens, Reactions etc. are more precisely "things that happen before the played card is resolved".
Royal Carriage and League of Shopkeepers should come before the Harbor Village step. (Moat, Elder and Lantern don't happen in this step.)
These things all "trigger on playing a card", and so do Ways, Enchantress and Highwayman. The difficulty here is defining which are "indirect effects".

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #57 on: January 09, 2023, 05:46:36 pm »
+1

With Way of the Sheep, is +$2 something the Smithy tells you to do? According to Donald X.'s ruling, it is. Then what is the precise description of playing Smithy with Way of the Sheep? Is it the following?
With Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Smithy's instructions.
If not, what is it?
Smithy's instructions stay "+3 Cards," so I would not describe Way of the Sheep's +$2 as something you get "from following Smithy's instructions."

+$2 is something you got from playing Smithy, specifically attributed to playing Smithy via the Way rules. It doesn't change Smithy's instructions. Ways mean you can play a card to follow its instructions, or to do the Way.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #58 on: January 10, 2023, 04:59:40 am »
0

With Way of the Sheep, is +$2 something the Smithy tells you to do? According to Donald X.'s ruling, it is. Then what is the precise description of playing Smithy with Way of the Sheep? Is it the following?
With Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Smithy's instructions.
If not, what is it?
Smithy's instructions stay "+3 Cards," so I would not describe Way of the Sheep's +$2 as something you get "from following Smithy's instructions."

If the Way doesn't change Smithy's instructions, I agree. But then how can we technically describe it to match your ruling?

Quote from: Donald X.
+$2 is something you got from playing Smithy, specifically attributed to playing Smithy via the Way rules. It doesn't change Smithy's instructions. Ways mean you can play a card to follow its instructions, or to do the Way.

To me, "follow its instructions, or do the Way" must mean "follow its instructions or follow the Way's instructions". The Way has instructions, and you follow them. (Everything the players do in Dominion is following instructions, whether in the rules or on cards.)

That makes the technical definition: "With Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Way of the Sheep's instructions."
Again, if not, what is it?

faust

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3448
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5333
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #59 on: January 10, 2023, 07:03:01 am »
0

A related problem that a haven't seen come up in this thread:

If the +3 cards and +$2 (via Way of the Sheep) both come from Smithy itself somehow (and not Way of the Sheep), then is it not the case that, when playing Smithy, it offers me a choice of abilities (either +3 cards or +$2) - so when I play Elder on Smithy with Way of the Sheep in the kingdom, should I not be able to get both +3 cards and +$2?
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3329
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4507
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #60 on: January 10, 2023, 10:48:51 am »
+1

Elder responds specifically to the instruction to "choose one", not to any time you make a choice. For instance, Barge certainly makes you choose one of two effects, but since it doesn't say "choose one", Elder doesn't let you do both.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2023, 01:20:28 pm by AJD »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #61 on: January 10, 2023, 02:27:16 pm »
0

With Way of the Sheep, is +$2 something the Smithy tells you to do? According to Donald X.'s ruling, it is. Then what is the precise description of playing Smithy with Way of the Sheep? Is it the following?
With Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Smithy's instructions.
If not, what is it?
Smithy's instructions stay "+3 Cards," so I would not describe Way of the Sheep's +$2 as something you get "from following Smithy's instructions."

If the Way doesn't change Smithy's instructions, I agree. But then how can we technically describe it to match your ruling?

Quote from: Donald X.
+$2 is something you got from playing Smithy, specifically attributed to playing Smithy via the Way rules. It doesn't change Smithy's instructions. Ways mean you can play a card to follow its instructions, or to do the Way.

To me, "follow its instructions, or do the Way" must mean "follow its instructions or follow the Way's instructions". The Way has instructions, and you follow them. (Everything the players do in Dominion is following instructions, whether in the rules or on cards.)

That makes the technical definition: "With Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Way of the Sheep's instructions."
Again, if not, what is it?

When you use Way of the Sheep, you are certainly following Way of the Sheep's instructions.
Logged

faust

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3448
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5333
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #62 on: January 11, 2023, 02:07:27 am »
0

Elder responds specifically to the instruction to "choose one", not to any time you make a choice. For instance, Barge certainly makes you choose one of two effects, but since it doesn't say "choose one", Elder doesn't let you do both.
I don't think that follows. The text in Elder is
Quote
When it gives you a choice of abilities (e.g. “choose one”) this turn, you may choose an extra (different) option.    Allies
"Choose one" is only an example; this is clear since it also works on Pawn and Scrap.

It doesn't work on Barge presumably since that doesn't give you a choice of ability, but only of timing.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3329
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4507
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #63 on: January 11, 2023, 03:16:33 am »
0

What the Elder FAQ in the rulebook says is, "Elder doesn't affect all choices, just ones that say 'choose' and have a list of options." So since the choice between playing a card normally or using a Way doesn't involve anything being worded in this way, Elder doesn't apply to it. That's all I meant. The reason it doesn't work on Barge really isn't because the choice is a choice of timing, but because the list of options isn't stated with the word "choose".
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #64 on: January 11, 2023, 05:09:34 am »
0

With Way of the Sheep, is +$2 something the Smithy tells you to do? According to Donald X.'s ruling, it is. Then what is the precise description of playing Smithy with Way of the Sheep? Is it the following?
With Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Smithy's instructions.
If not, what is it?
Smithy's instructions stay "+3 Cards," so I would not describe Way of the Sheep's +$2 as something you get "from following Smithy's instructions."

If the Way doesn't change Smithy's instructions, I agree. But then how can we technically describe it to match your ruling?

Quote from: Donald X.
+$2 is something you got from playing Smithy, specifically attributed to playing Smithy via the Way rules. It doesn't change Smithy's instructions. Ways mean you can play a card to follow its instructions, or to do the Way.

To me, "follow its instructions, or do the Way" must mean "follow its instructions or follow the Way's instructions". The Way has instructions, and you follow them. (Everything the players do in Dominion is following instructions, whether in the rules or on cards.)

That makes the technical definition: "With Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Way of the Sheep's instructions."
Again, if not, what is it?

When you use Way of the Sheep, you are certainly following Way of the Sheep's instructions.

The thing is, that definition doesn't match your conclusion that Smithy "does what the Way does". The other definition ("with Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Smithy's instructions") does match that ruling. I still don't see a third option; this has been my point.

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #65 on: January 11, 2023, 05:26:13 am »
0

I just thought of this. When having played Priest, you could certainly say non-technically that playing Chapel gives you +$2 (via Priest). Harbor Village says non-technically that it checks whether you got +$ from playing Chapel, but what it means technically is that it checks if you got +$ from following Chapel's instructions. You didn't, since technically playing Chapel gives you +$2 from following Priest's instructions.

And of course, Way of the Sheep says non-technically that playing Chapel gives you +$2 (via Way of the Sheep). As above, this should mean technically that playing Chapel gives you +$2 from following the Way's instructions.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #66 on: January 11, 2023, 10:19:39 am »
+1

The reason it doesn't work on Barge really isn't because the choice is a choice of timing, but because the list of options isn't stated with the word "choose".

Absolutely. Barge could have been worded differently:

Choose one: +3 Cards and +1 Buy; or at the start of your next turn, +3 Cards and +1 Buy.

And if it were, then Elder would allow you to choose both.

(Side note, it bugs me a bit that situations where one wording is chosen over another due to reasons of what sounds best or clearest can end up having an impact on how a card functions, even when either wording would function 100% identical when a card is played normally. We saw the same thing with Patron and "Reveal", as well as Capitalism and +. Come to think of it... we've had this since the very beginning with Chancellor avoiding saying "discard your deck. Somehow it didn't bother me back then.")
« Last Edit: January 11, 2023, 10:48:10 am 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

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #67 on: January 11, 2023, 10:29:50 am »
0

With Way of the Sheep, is +$2 something the Smithy tells you to do? According to Donald X.'s ruling, it is. Then what is the precise description of playing Smithy with Way of the Sheep? Is it the following?
With Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Smithy's instructions.
If not, what is it?
Smithy's instructions stay "+3 Cards," so I would not describe Way of the Sheep's +$2 as something you get "from following Smithy's instructions."

If the Way doesn't change Smithy's instructions, I agree. But then how can we technically describe it to match your ruling?

Quote from: Donald X.
+$2 is something you got from playing Smithy, specifically attributed to playing Smithy via the Way rules. It doesn't change Smithy's instructions. Ways mean you can play a card to follow its instructions, or to do the Way.

To me, "follow its instructions, or do the Way" must mean "follow its instructions or follow the Way's instructions". The Way has instructions, and you follow them. (Everything the players do in Dominion is following instructions, whether in the rules or on cards.)

That makes the technical definition: "With Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Way of the Sheep's instructions."
Again, if not, what is it?

When you use Way of the Sheep, you are certainly following Way of the Sheep's instructions.

The thing is, that definition doesn't match your conclusion that Smithy "does what the Way does".

But why not? I think it's been made clear at this point that Smithy can "do" things that aren't part of its instructions. Though the only thing that exists in the game currently that a card can "do" other than its instructions is a Way's instructions.

I do think after all this conversation that "a card does X" is still colloquial talk that has no technical rules meaning or usage. Cards still don't "do" things, as you originally started off saying. But the question for Harbor Village isn't technically "did Smithy give you ", it's "did playing Smithy give you ." And playing a card gives you everything that a Way used with that card gives you, through the Way's 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

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #68 on: January 11, 2023, 10:46:20 am »
+1

I just thought of this. When having played Priest, you could certainly say non-technically that playing Chapel gives you +$2 (via Priest). Harbor Village says non-technically that it checks whether you got +$ from playing Chapel, but what it means technically is that it checks if you got +$ from following Chapel's instructions. You didn't, since technically playing Chapel gives you +$2 from following Priest's instructions.


I feel like Donald X has tried to make it quite clear that the bolded text is wrong. It doesn't care if you got the from following Chapel's instructions. It cares if you got the from playing Chapel.

Quote
And of course, Way of the Sheep says non-technically that playing Chapel gives you +$2 (via Way of the Sheep). As above, this should mean technically that playing Chapel gives you +$2 from following the Way's instructions.

Yes, this is correct. Playing Chapel and choosing Sheep gives you + from following the Way's instructions. And following the Way's instructions are part of what you were given from playing Chapel.

To me, the simplest technical rules wording is a new term that Harbor Village introduced: "Give". (Though it uses the past tense).

"Give": Playing a card Gives you any resources that the card's instructions tell you take, as well as any resources that a Way's instructions tell you to take if a Way is used to play the card.
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

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3329
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4507
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #69 on: January 11, 2023, 10:52:42 am »
0

To me, the simplest technical rules wording is a new term that Harbor Village introduced: "Give". (Though it uses the past tense).

"Give": Playing a card Gives you any resources that the card's instructions tell you take, as well as any resources that a Way's instructions tell you to take if a Way is used to play the card.

(The "as well as" here can't quite be right, since the card gives you one or the other, not both. And, you know, Steward's instructions tell you to take  +$2, and they tell you to take +2 cards, but obviously it doesn't give you both of those at the same time (outside Elder scenarios).)
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3329
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4507
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #70 on: January 11, 2023, 11:00:59 am »
+1

To me, the simplest technical rules wording is a new term that Harbor Village introduced: "Give". (Though it uses the past tense).

"Give": Playing a card Gives you any resources that the card's instructions tell you take, as well as any resources that a Way's instructions tell you to take if a Way is used to play the card.

(The "as well as" here can't quite be right, since the card gives you one or the other, not both. And, you know, Steward's instructions tell you to take  +$2, and they tell you to take +2 cards, but obviously it doesn't give you both of those at the same time (outside Elder scenarios).)

(So, "resources that you get as a result of following either the card's instructions or a Way used to play the card" would be closer to what you're getting at here, I think. I don't remember whether Enchantress effects need to be included here too.)
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #71 on: January 11, 2023, 12:01:12 pm »
+1

To me, the simplest technical rules wording is a new term that Harbor Village introduced: "Give". (Though it uses the past tense).

"Give": Playing a card Gives you any resources that the card's instructions tell you take, as well as any resources that a Way's instructions tell you to take if a Way is used to play the card.

(The "as well as" here can't quite be right, since the card gives you one or the other, not both. And, you know, Steward's instructions tell you to take  +$2, and they tell you to take +2 cards, but obviously it doesn't give you both of those at the same time (outside Elder scenarios).)

(So, "resources that you get as a result of following either the card's instructions or a Way used to play the card" would be closer to what you're getting at here, I think. I don't remember whether Enchantress effects need to be included here too.)

Yeah. And while I don't think anything cares about whether or not playing Smithy when Enchanted means that playing Smithy gave you +1 Action, the wording on Enchantress sounds to me like it would. Then there's also the question of what a "resource" even is under this definition... I suppose the whole thing could be limited to only talking about since that's the only thing we ever need to know if you were "given".

Related to all of this, we need to know what Moat protects you from. And since Moat protects you from a Chameleon Militia, but not from a Cultist's Cultist, Moat appears to protect you from the same set of things that have the potential to "give" you .
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

chipperMDW

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 371
  • Respect: +826
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #72 on: January 11, 2023, 12:21:07 pm »
+1

When you use Way of the Sheep, you are certainly following Way of the Sheep's instructions.

The thing is, that definition doesn't match your conclusion that Smithy "does what the Way does". The other definition ("with Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Smithy's instructions") does match that ruling. I still don't see a third option; this has been my point.


I've been trying to find the disconnect and I'm wondering if you're maybe missing a noun in your mental model; it doesn't have a great name, but it's this thing (bolding mine):
If we look at the natural reading of the sentence, “it” seems to be “the playing of the attack card”.
Harbor Village is referring to that play of the card; further plays don't interest it.

Reckless's extra follow-instructions is part of the play of the card.
Yes; Reckless looks for a play of a card causing its instructions to be followed.

Let's call this not-well-named thing an "Instance of playing a card." When we talk about what a card does, we're really talking about what an Instance of playing a card does. Each Instance of playing a card causes a sequence of instructions to be followed. Whatever directly happens in those instructions (i.e. not things that are triggered because of abilities set up elsewhere, so no +$1 Token or Priest) is what that Instance of playing the card "does" for the purposes of Harbor Village, Moat, etc.

When a card is played normally, the sequence of instructions followed in that Instance is the one printed on the card. When a card is instead played "using" a Way, the sequence of instructions followed in that Instance is the one printed on the Way. That doesn't change the card's instructions (no card was shapeshifted; Smithy's instructions are still +3 Cards), but it changes which instructions are followed.


I think a key point here is that it doesn't matter where instructions are printed. It matters what is telling a player to follow them. Like, in your recent example with Priest, the reason the +$2 is coming from "Priest" instead of "Chapel" is not specifically because that instruction is printed on Priest cards; it's because a prior Instance of playing Priest is what told the player to follow it. By contrast, with Way of the Sheep (or any Way), it doesn't matter that the instructions were printed on the Way; the Instance of playing Chapel really is what's telling the player to follow them.

Or, more simply: Priest's +$2 is triggered; Way of the Sheep's +$2 is not.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #73 on: January 11, 2023, 03:09:22 pm »
0

The thing is, that definition doesn't match your conclusion that Smithy "does what the Way does". The other definition ("with Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Smithy's instructions") does match that ruling. I still don't see a third option; this has been my point.
I don't agree. I don't think I have another way to say it. As you noted, maybe you can find another person to chime in and think this through.

Edit: * looks up *
« Last Edit: January 11, 2023, 03:11:48 pm by Donald X. »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #74 on: January 12, 2023, 04:08:40 am »
0

With Way of the Sheep, is +$2 something the Smithy tells you to do? According to Donald X.'s ruling, it is. Then what is the precise description of playing Smithy with Way of the Sheep? Is it the following?
With Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Smithy's instructions.
If not, what is it?
Smithy's instructions stay "+3 Cards," so I would not describe Way of the Sheep's +$2 as something you get "from following Smithy's instructions."

If the Way doesn't change Smithy's instructions, I agree. But then how can we technically describe it to match your ruling?

Quote from: Donald X.
+$2 is something you got from playing Smithy, specifically attributed to playing Smithy via the Way rules. It doesn't change Smithy's instructions. Ways mean you can play a card to follow its instructions, or to do the Way.

To me, "follow its instructions, or do the Way" must mean "follow its instructions or follow the Way's instructions". The Way has instructions, and you follow them. (Everything the players do in Dominion is following instructions, whether in the rules or on cards.)

That makes the technical definition: "With Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Way of the Sheep's instructions."
Again, if not, what is it?

When you use Way of the Sheep, you are certainly following Way of the Sheep's instructions.

The thing is, that definition doesn't match your conclusion that Smithy "does what the Way does".

But why not? I think it's been made clear at this point that Smithy can "do" things that aren't part of its instructions. Though the only thing that exists in the game currently that a card can "do" other than its instructions is a Way's instructions.

Why not: Because that definition, as I'm sure you'll agree if you read it again, doesn't say that Smithy "does" or "gives" +$2. It says that the Way does it.

I do think after all this conversation that "a card does X" is still colloquial talk that has no technical rules meaning or usage. Cards still don't "do" things, as you originally started off saying. But the question for Harbor Village isn't technically "did Smithy give you ", it's "did playing Smithy give you ." And playing a card gives you everything that a Way used with that card gives you, through the Way's instructions.

I've brought up several times how "playing a card gives you" is also colloquial talk that has no technical rules meaning. (Directly continued in my next post)

« Last Edit: January 12, 2023, 04:42:04 am by Jeebus »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #75 on: January 12, 2023, 04:11:14 am »
0

I just thought of this. When having played Priest, you could certainly say non-technically that playing Chapel gives you +$2 (via Priest). Harbor Village says non-technically that it checks whether you got +$ from playing Chapel, but what it means technically is that it checks if you got +$ from following Chapel's instructions. You didn't, since technically playing Chapel gives you +$2 from following Priest's instructions.

I feel like Donald X has tried to make it quite clear that the bolded text is wrong. It doesn't care if you got the from following Chapel's instructions. It cares if you got the from playing Chapel.

As I've shown many times, you get many things from "playing Chapel", including Adventures tokens and the +$2 via Priest. How do we define the difference except by looking at exactly which card instructed us to get +$? Maybe you (or anybody!) can go through this post and tell me exactly where I'm wrong?

To me, the simplest technical rules wording is a new term that Harbor Village introduced: "Give". (Though it uses the past tense).

"Give": Playing a card Gives you any resources that the card's instructions tell you take, as well as any resources that a Way's instructions tell you to take if a Way is used to play the card.

But it was not introduced by Harbor Village. As we see in this thread, Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village and Moat all use this concept*. And it's all kinds of instructions, not just things that can be vaguely referred to as "resourses". Moat works on a Chameleon'ed Militia, even though it's not the Militia telling you to make each other player discard cards.

*Donald X. used to look at Enchantress and Ways just like Ironwords/Trader; that's why he originally ruled that Lantern and Elder don't work on a Chameleon'ed card, and why he's changed those rulings now.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2023, 04:43:15 am by Jeebus »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #76 on: January 12, 2023, 04:19:47 am »
0

I think a key point here is that it doesn't matter where instructions are printed. It matters what is telling a player to follow them. Like, in your recent example with Priest, the reason the +$2 is coming from "Priest" instead of "Chapel" is not specifically because that instruction is printed on Priest cards; it's because a prior Instance of playing Priest is what told the player to follow it. By contrast, with Way of the Sheep (or any Way), it doesn't matter that the instructions were printed on the Way; the Instance of playing Chapel really is what's telling the player to follow them.

Or, more simply: Priest's +$2 is triggered; Way of the Sheep's +$2 is not.

But Way of the Sheep's +$2 is triggered. Even Donald X. acknowledged that you're following Way of the Sheep's instructions.

You're saying that a prior Instance of playing Priest tells you to follow the Priest's instructions. But that's not accurate. The rulebook tells you that when you play a card you follow the card's on-play instructions. It's true that the printing doesn't matter: if something cancels a printed instruction (like Snowy Villager or Trader 1E), then it was never followed even though you did play the card. But +$2 is Priest's instructions, not Chapel's, that's what matters. In other words, Priest told you to do it, not Chapel.

You're saying that the Instance of playing Chapel tells you to follow Way of the Sheep's instructions. Again, it's the rulebook, specifically the rule for Ways, that tells you that. (Or, for Enchantress, it's Enchantress's instructions that tell you to follow "+1 Card, +1 Action" instead of following the card's instructions.)
What the Way rules say is, when you play Chapel, instead of the normal rule of following the on-play instructions of Chapel, you follow the instructions of Way of the Sheep. Do you disagree with this? When you follow Way of the Sheep's instructions, Way of the Sheep tells you to do stuff. I mean, that's what instructions are, in all games, text telling you to do something.

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #77 on: January 12, 2023, 04:36:56 am »
0

Just to clarify something, I assume that Ways, Enchantress and Reckless all work the same way, namely that their instructions (+$2 on Way of the Sheep; +1 Action and +1 Card on Enchantress; +3 Cards on Reckless when used on Smithy) are all "done" by the played card?

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #78 on: January 12, 2023, 11:00:02 am »
+2

With Way of the Sheep, is +$2 something the Smithy tells you to do? According to Donald X.'s ruling, it is. Then what is the precise description of playing Smithy with Way of the Sheep? Is it the following?
With Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Smithy's instructions.
If not, what is it?
Smithy's instructions stay "+3 Cards," so I would not describe Way of the Sheep's +$2 as something you get "from following Smithy's instructions."

If the Way doesn't change Smithy's instructions, I agree. But then how can we technically describe it to match your ruling?

Quote from: Donald X.
+$2 is something you got from playing Smithy, specifically attributed to playing Smithy via the Way rules. It doesn't change Smithy's instructions. Ways mean you can play a card to follow its instructions, or to do the Way.

To me, "follow its instructions, or do the Way" must mean "follow its instructions or follow the Way's instructions". The Way has instructions, and you follow them. (Everything the players do in Dominion is following instructions, whether in the rules or on cards.)

That makes the technical definition: "With Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Way of the Sheep's instructions."
Again, if not, what is it?

When you use Way of the Sheep, you are certainly following Way of the Sheep's instructions.

The thing is, that definition doesn't match your conclusion that Smithy "does what the Way does".

But why not? I think it's been made clear at this point that Smithy can "do" things that aren't part of its instructions. Though the only thing that exists in the game currently that a card can "do" other than its instructions is a Way's instructions.

Why not: Because that definition, as I'm sure you'll agree if you read it again, doesn't say that Smithy "does" or "gives" +$2. It says that the Way does it.


I think this alone is the single problem/disconnect. Whether or not I agree, Donald X certainly doesn't agree. And I don't think his way of thinking is incompatible with the rules of English or game rule concepts. "With Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Way of the Sheep's instructions." is correct. This is a correct technical definition. It is also correct that when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from playing Smithy. You are very stuck on the point that "what a card does" and "what a card's instructions are" are both the same thing, even though those have been specifically defined as 2 separate but related things. A card can do things other than its instructions. How? Because the rules of Dominion say they can. If it doesn't match up with your understanding of the English definition of "what a card does", then the solution has to be to expand your scope of allowed possible English meanings.

Maybe that leaves you with the opinion that Donald X used poor English wordings in his rules, but he's allowed to do that. He could have defined a in-game action called "discard" which means to take a card from your draw pile and put it in your hand. Sure you could complain forever "but discard can only mean that we put a card into our discard pile!" yet that doesn't make the rule illogical or impossible... it just makes the terminology bad.

So when you say "X can only mean Y", I think that's where the problem lies. Donald X has redefined X within his own rules framework to mean something else.

Quote
doesn't say that Smithy "does" or "gives" +$2. It says that the Way does it.

Within the world of building rules, it doesn't have to be one or the other. A rule is free to say "the Way gave you , and Smithy also gave you ." I don't think we ever need to know or care if the Way counts as having given you also, but the doesn't have to have been given by just 1 single entity.
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: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #79 on: January 12, 2023, 11:48:12 am »
+1

With Way of the Sheep, is +$2 something the Smithy tells you to do? According to Donald X.'s ruling, it is. Then what is the precise description of playing Smithy with Way of the Sheep? Is it the following?
With Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Smithy's instructions.
If not, what is it?
Smithy's instructions stay "+3 Cards," so I would not describe Way of the Sheep's +$2 as something you get "from following Smithy's instructions."

If the Way doesn't change Smithy's instructions, I agree. But then how can we technically describe it to match your ruling?

Quote from: Donald X.
+$2 is something you got from playing Smithy, specifically attributed to playing Smithy via the Way rules. It doesn't change Smithy's instructions. Ways mean you can play a card to follow its instructions, or to do the Way.

To me, "follow its instructions, or do the Way" must mean "follow its instructions or follow the Way's instructions". The Way has instructions, and you follow them. (Everything the players do in Dominion is following instructions, whether in the rules or on cards.)

That makes the technical definition: "With Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Way of the Sheep's instructions."
Again, if not, what is it?

When you use Way of the Sheep, you are certainly following Way of the Sheep's instructions.

The thing is, that definition doesn't match your conclusion that Smithy "does what the Way does".

But why not? I think it's been made clear at this point that Smithy can "do" things that aren't part of its instructions. Though the only thing that exists in the game currently that a card can "do" other than its instructions is a Way's instructions.

Why not: Because that definition, as I'm sure you'll agree if you read it again, doesn't say that Smithy "does" or "gives" +$2. It says that the Way does it.

I think this alone is the single problem/disconnect. Whether or not I agree, Donald X certainly doesn't agree. And I don't think his way of thinking is incompatible with the rules of English or game rule concepts. "With Way of the Sheep, when playing Smithy, you get +$2 from following Way of the Sheep's instructions." is correct. This is a correct technical definition.

I meant that definiton as the complete definition of how Ways work. Are you saying that that definiton alone tells us that Smithy "does" +$2?

If so, then what about: "With your +$1 token on Smithy, when playing Smithy, you get +$ from following the token's instructions."
Is that a wrong definition? If it's correct, how do you explain that it's exactly the same definition as for Ways and they still work differently according to Donald X.'s ruling?

Quote from: GendoIkari
You are very stuck on the point that "what a card does" and "what a card's instructions are" are both the same thing, even though those have been specifically defined as 2 separate but related things. A card can do things other than its instructions. How? Because the rules of Dominion say they can. If it doesn't match up with your understanding of the English definition of "what a card does", then the solution has to be to expand your scope of allowed possible English meanings.

No, you have the completely wrong idea. I have no problem with the way the Way rules are phrased or how Harbor Village is phrased. This is not about the English (non-technical) definition of "what a card does". As I have said, and explained in detail, it's fine to say that. The problem lies solely in finding the correct technical definitions.

Regarding the argument "because the rules say so":
You could introduce a rule that says that gaining a Province means that Salvager, Smithy and Chapel don't cost an Action to play for the rest of your turn, and that rule would work. But that rule could not be explained in a technical way without listing those cards. So sure, we can list Ways and Enchantress, and then list Moat, Harbor Village, Elder and Lantern, and formulate the rule of how they interact, but (so far) we can't technically describe it without listing all those cards. But yes, we can have that rule. I just don't see it written in the rulebook.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2023, 11:49:41 am by Jeebus »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #80 on: January 12, 2023, 02:09:37 pm »
0

I meant that definiton as the complete definition of how Ways work. Are you saying that that definiton alone tells us that Smithy "does" +$2?

If so, then what about: "With your +$1 token on Smithy, when playing Smithy, you get +$ from following the token's instructions."
Is that a wrong definition? If it's correct, how do you explain that it's exactly the same definition as for Ways and they still work differently according to Donald X.'s ruling?

Ah. No, I just meant that the definition isn't contradictory to the ruling, not that the definition was sufficient for the ruling. The ruling relies on another non-written-in-the-rules definition of what it means for a card to "give" you something. When a Way gives you something, it counts as the card giving you that thing. (Similar but not the same as your proposed idea of saying that following a Way's instructions could count as having followed a card's instructions).

The fact that the definition applies to both tokens and ways shows that the definition is not sufficient for the ruling. Yes, the definition is correct/true, but it's not what creates the interaction between Ways and Harbor Village.

And yeah, my attempt at coming up with a definition of "give" (which AJD improved upon) did require calling out Ways specifically.

FWIW, I combed through the Adventures rulebook and RGG listing to find something that might say that tokens modify what a card "does." That closes I found was "including tokens that modify cards." Nothing to say in the technical sense that the +1 card token makes it so that Militia gives you a card or makes you draw a card. Just that when playing Militia, you first get the bonus. Whereas Menagerie rules refer to "playing an Action card for a Way ability". I think that sentence is highly open to interpretation, but I can see Donald X's interpretation as a reasonable option there. And tokens don't have that same wording in the rules (though they certainly end up getting that wording through casual usage).
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: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #81 on: January 12, 2023, 03:53:02 pm »
+1

I meant that definiton as the complete definition of how Ways work. Are you saying that that definiton alone tells us that Smithy "does" +$2?

If so, then what about: "With your +$1 token on Smithy, when playing Smithy, you get +$ from following the token's instructions."
Is that a wrong definition? If it's correct, how do you explain that it's exactly the same definition as for Ways and they still work differently according to Donald X.'s ruling?

Ah. No, I just meant that the definition isn't contradictory to the ruling, not that the definition was sufficient for the ruling. The ruling relies on another non-written-in-the-rules definition of what it means for a card to "give" you something. When a Way gives you something, it counts as the card giving you that thing. (Similar but not the same as your proposed idea of saying that following a Way's instructions could count as having followed a card's instructions).

The fact that the definition applies to both tokens and ways shows that the definition is not sufficient for the ruling. Yes, the definition is correct/true, but it's not what creates the interaction between Ways and Harbor Village.

And yeah, my attempt at coming up with a definition of "give" (which AJD improved upon) did require calling out Ways specifically.

But I meant that you also have to refer to Moat, Harbor Village, etc, directly.

FWIW, I combed through the Adventures rulebook and RGG listing to find something that might say that tokens modify what a card "does." That closes I found was "including tokens that modify cards." Nothing to say in the technical sense that the +1 card token makes it so that Militia gives you a card or makes you draw a card. Just that when playing Militia, you first get the bonus. Whereas Menagerie rules refer to "playing an Action card for a Way ability". I think that sentence is highly open to interpretation, but I can see Donald X's interpretation as a reasonable option there. And tokens don't have that same wording in the rules (though they certainly end up getting that wording through casual usage).

"Nothing to say in the technical sense that the +1 card token makes it so that Militia gives you a card or makes you draw a card."
Here is where there is confusion. As you have admitted, "Militia gives you a card or makes you draw a card" has no meaning in the technical sense, it's a colloquial expression that we would need to define technically.

Go back to that post where I ask about the (full!) technical definition of what a Way does. As you will see, there is nothing in the Way rules that demand that we have to define a new concept of "give". It's perfectly reasonable and possible to just interpret the Way rules as exactly what I said, which doesn't include introducing this new concept.

« Last Edit: January 12, 2023, 03:54:57 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #82 on: January 12, 2023, 04:25:51 pm »
0

Just to clarify something, I assume that Ways, Enchantress and Reckless all work the same way, namely that their instructions (+$2 on Way of the Sheep; +1 Action and +1 Card on Enchantress; +3 Cards on Reckless when used on Smithy) are all "done" by the played card?
Without re-reading or re-considering everything, tentatively yes.
Logged

chipperMDW

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 371
  • Respect: +826
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #83 on: January 12, 2023, 04:34:33 pm »
+4

But Way of the Sheep's +$2 is triggered.
No, I don't think it is.

When you play Chapel for "Trash up to 4...," do you call that triggered? I don't. Sure, you can describe it as "When you play a card, you follow the instructions printed on it," but that doesn't mean it works the same way as what we call triggered abilities. It's just the rules for playing a card.

So when you play Chapel for "+$2" (which is a thing you can do when WotS is in the game), why would you call that triggered? It's the same thing. You can describe it as "When you play a card, choose one: follow the instructions printed on it or follow the instructions printed on a Way being used in the game," but that doesn't mean it works the same as triggered abilities do. It's just the rules for playing a card (which were expanded to accommodate Ways).

Quote
Even Donald X. acknowledged that you're following Way of the Sheep's instructions.
So, the possessive could be interpreted in at least two different ways in that sentence:

1) The instructions are printed on WotS
2) WotS is the thing issuing (or causing or "doing") the instructions.

I feel like you're interpreting it as #2 because you're using it as a justification for WotS being "triggered"; you're saying that WotS is telling a player to do stuff, so something must have "transferred control" to WotS.

But I think Donald X. meant it only as #1. You're following instructions that are printed on WotS (as opposed to, like, instructions on a card that's been shapeshifted). But the Instance of playing Chapel is what's issuing the instructions or "doing" things. WotS is not an "active" object here and it's not capable of "doing" things; it's just a container of instructions. Nothing "transfers control" to Ways.

It's like if I have a tattoo that says "Eat a sandwich" and the blackboard has "Throw a ball" written on it and someone tells me to issue to you either the instructions on my tattoo or the instructions on the board. Yeah, the sandwich instruction is "mine" and the ball instruction is "the blackboard's" by virtue of where they're printed. But whichever instruction I give you, it's mine in that I'm the one who issues it to you. Even if I say "Throw a ball," the blackboard isn't what gave you the instruction; I did.

Quote
You're saying that the Instance of playing Chapel tells you to follow Way of the Sheep's instructions. Again, it's the rulebook, specifically the rule for Ways, that tells you that. (Or, for Enchantress, it's Enchantress's instructions that tell you to follow "+1 Card, +1 Action" instead of following the card's instructions.)
What the Way rules say is, when you play Chapel, instead of the normal rule of following the on-play instructions of Chapel, you follow the instructions of Way of the Sheep. Do you disagree with this?
If "the instructions of Way of the Sheep" means "the instructions printed on WotS," then no, I don't disagree.

If "the instructions of Way of the Sheep" means "the instructions WotS gave," then yes, I disagree. Again, WotS never gives any instructions or "does" anything. It just sits there holding instructions.

Quote
When you follow Way of the Sheep's instructions, Way of the Sheep tells you to do stuff.
But that sentence is where I disagree for sure. WotS is not telling me to do stuff; an Instance of playing Chapel is still what's telling me to do stuff. It's just telling me to do stuff that's printed on WotS instead of what's printed on Chapel, like Instances of Chapel usually tell me to do.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #84 on: January 12, 2023, 04:38:39 pm »
+2

As you will see, there is nothing in the Way rules that demand that we have to define a new concept of "give". It's perfectly reasonable and possible to just interpret the Way rules as exactly what I said, which doesn't include introducing this new concept.

Well no, the fact that Harbor Village uses the word "give" (technically "gave") means that we have to define the new term. It's like if Dominion had never had the word "Gain" in the first place, and then one day a card says "when you gain this, trash a card from your hand". We'd have to ask "what does 'gain' mean?" And we could take the most straight-forward English definition, in which case we'd say "it means that you went from not having it be one of your cards to having it be one of your cards". But then Donald X comes along and says "well no, because if you're passed that card with Masquerade, that doesn't count as gaining it". Here, we could go with the most common English understanding of "give" (I didn't have a resource before playing a card, and I do now that I've finished playing that card, so playing the card gave me that resource), but the ruling is that no, that's not what it means for a card to give you something.
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: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #85 on: January 13, 2023, 03:53:53 am »
0

When you play Chapel for "Trash up to 4...," do you call that triggered? I don't. Sure, you can describe it as "When you play a card, you follow the instructions printed on it," but that doesn't mean it works the same way as what we call triggered abilities. It's just the rules for playing a card.

So when you play Chapel for "+$2" (which is a thing you can do when WotS is in the game), why would you call that triggered? It's the same thing. You can describe it as "When you play a card, choose one: follow the instructions printed on it or follow the instructions printed on a Way being used in the game," but that doesn't mean it works the same as triggered abilities do. It's just the rules for playing a card (which were expanded to accommodate Ways).

First of all, Ways are Enchantress are, and need to be defined as, triggered abilities, with specific timings. They trigger when you would resolve the on-play instructions, and you then decide which to resolve first. This is key, and I touched on this before:

It does say that you "play" the card "to" follow the Way's instructions.
* Actually you first play the card, then choose which instructions to follow. (This is in the rulebook. Reactions happen before you choose.) So this can't be technically accurate enough to base a ruling on.

So the rules for playing a card have not been expanded for Ways. The rules are the same: Announce it, put it in play, [Reactions etc. trigger], follow the instructions. When you would follow the instructions, Ways, Enchantress and Highwayman trigger - that's what the rules say. They tell you (because that's their instructions) to do something else instead (to follow other instructions). The rules for gaining a card were not changed by Trader 1E; it just triggered when you would gain a card and made you do something else instead. Any other ability that Ways or Enchantress would have is an additional rule/ruling imbued in the instruction to "follow other instructions". It could be defined as "following the Way's/Enchantress's instructions counts as following the card's instructions", but that would not match the current rulings either (in other ways). No other technical meaning has been suggested.

Quote from: chipperMDW
Quote
Even Donald X. acknowledged that you're following Way of the Sheep's instructions.
So, the possessive could be interpreted in at least two different ways in that sentence:

1) The instructions are printed on WotS
2) WotS is the thing issuing (or causing or "doing") the instructions.

I feel like you're interpreting it as #2 because you're using it as a justification for WotS being "triggered"; you're saying that WotS is telling a player to do stuff, so something must have "transferred control" to WotS.

But I think Donald X. meant it only as #1. You're following instructions that are printed on WotS (as opposed to, like, instructions on a card that's been shapeshifted). But the Instance of playing Chapel is what's issuing the instructions or "doing" things. WotS is not an "active" object here and it's not capable of "doing" things; it's just a container of instructions. Nothing "transfers control" to Ways.

It's like if I have a tattoo that says "Eat a sandwich" and the blackboard has "Throw a ball" written on it and someone tells me to issue to you either the instructions on my tattoo or the instructions on the board. Yeah, the sandwich instruction is "mine" and the ball instruction is "the blackboard's" by virtue of where they're printed. But whichever instruction I give you, it's mine in that I'm the one who issues it to you. Even if I say "Throw a ball," the blackboard isn't what gave you the instruction; I did.

I mean the instructions printed on Way of the Sheep (not considering shape-shifting). But this is of course the same as what the Way is telling/instructing you to do.

Quote from: chipperMDW
But I think Donald X. meant it only as #1. You're following instructions that are printed on WotS (as opposed to, like, instructions on a card that's been shapeshifted).

Sidenote: Your parenthesis is dead wrong. If a card has been shapeshifted, anything referring to the instructions of that card (or in any way talking about the effects of it) only sees the shapeshifted instructions. That much is beyond any doubt. That is the whole reason why shapeshifting was practically eliminated.

You're using a lot of quotation marks, but not saying anything substantive. We need technical descriptions in a rules debate about the technical function of cards.

People have conflicting ideas in this debate (I don't mean just with me). Some people say that cards actually "do" things or "give" things, others say that's wrong, but playing a card "does" or "gives" things. Neither defines what that means, but it refers to the same undefined concept. Now you're saying that this concept can be expressed as "the card tells you to do things". I would strongly advise against such confusing language. Cards have instructions, and in English and in common sense, following instructions means following something you're being told to do; issuing instructions means telling someone to do something. As I said (and you deleted): that's what instructions are, in all games, text telling you to do something.

This confusion leads you to describe something that is actually what Chameleon and Reckless do, namely tell you to follow other instructions. The instructions of Chameleon/Reckless are to follow other instructions. (In your example, I will skip the "someone tells you" part, because I think by mistake you added an unnecessary first step in the chain.) If you tell me to follow the instructions on the blackboard/tattoo, then it's your instructions to follow those instructions. This is exactly what Chameleon/Reckless do. And you conclude the same as Donald X., that this counts as your instructions / Chameleon's/Reckless's instructions. (I'm not arguing against that btw.) But if that were how Ways work when you follow their instructions instead of the card's instructions, then it would be shapeshifting: It would be the card's instructions.

Quote from: chipperMDW
Quote
You're saying that the Instance of playing Chapel tells you to follow Way of the Sheep's instructions. Again, it's the rulebook, specifically the rule for Ways, that tells you that. (Or, for Enchantress, it's Enchantress's instructions that tell you to follow "+1 Card, +1 Action" instead of following the card's instructions.)
What the Way rules say is, when you play Chapel, instead of the normal rule of following the on-play instructions of Chapel, you follow the instructions of Way of the Sheep. Do you disagree with this?
If "the instructions of Way of the Sheep" means "the instructions printed on WotS," then no, I don't disagree.

If "the instructions of Way of the Sheep" means "the instructions WotS gave," then yes, I disagree. Again, WotS never gives any instructions or "does" anything. It just sits there holding instructions.

Again, I mean both, based on them being the same thing.

We can't get anywhere until everybody understands that everything that happens in a game, including Dominion, is the players following instructions, either in the rules or on cards (or tokens). So any technical definition of "the card does" or "playing a card does" has to include the player following a set of instructions. I have provided this, but nobody else has.

Quote from: chipperMDW
Quote
When you follow Way of the Sheep's instructions, Way of the Sheep tells you to do stuff.
But that sentence is where I disagree for sure. WotS is not telling me to do stuff; an Instance of playing Chapel is still what's telling me to do stuff. It's just telling me to do stuff that's printed on WotS instead of what's printed on Chapel, like Instances of Chapel usually tell me to do.

"Instances of Chapel" don't tell you to follow the instructions on Chapel. The rules tell you that. I already explained this, and you didn't reply.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2023, 11:06:12 am by Jeebus »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #86 on: January 13, 2023, 05:39:42 am »
0

As you will see, there is nothing in the Way rules that demand that we have to define a new concept of "give". It's perfectly reasonable and possible to just interpret the Way rules as exactly what I said, which doesn't include introducing this new concept.

Well no, the fact that Harbor Village uses the word "give" (technically "gave") means that we have to define the new term. It's like if Dominion had never had the word "Gain" in the first place, and then one day a card says "when you gain this, trash a card from your hand". We'd have to ask "what does 'gain' mean?" And we could take the most straight-forward English definition, in which case we'd say "it means that you went from not having it be one of your cards to having it be one of your cards". But then Donald X comes along and says "well no, because if you're passed that card with Masquerade, that doesn't count as gaining it". Here, we could go with the most common English understanding of "give" (I didn't have a resource before playing a card, and I do now that I've finished playing that card, so playing the card gave me that resource), but the ruling is that no, that's not what it means for a card to give you something.

First of all, I referred to the wrong post. I meant this.

As you can see there, the Way rules themselves (forget about Harbor Village!) don't demand or imply that there is any new concept of a card "doing" something or "giving" something, or that playing a card "does" something or "gives" something.

These have been colloquial terms before of course. They have always referred to what happens when you follow the card's instructions. So it's not that these notions are new colloquially. The basegame rulebook says: "Some cards give +1 Action". It's clear that it talks about following instructions. So it's completely false to say that it's a new term on Harbor Village. Before Ways (really, before this new ruling; and remember that Enchantress was ruled as working exactly like Ironworks/Trader) there was no way that Harbor Village could mean anything other than "if you got +$ from following the card's instructions". I mean, the two things meant the same! (And on Moat, this was important, otherwise it would block the second Cultist.)

"Pass" on Masquerade is defined technically, as something the players do.
"Give" or similar (as a different thing than following the card's instructions) is undefined.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2023, 05:52:53 am by Jeebus »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #87 on: January 13, 2023, 05:56:58 am »
+1

Since nobody else has, I'll try to define the ruling technically.

When you play a card:
- Announce the card and put it in play.
- Reactions (etc.) trigger and are resolved.
- Now, when you would follow the instructions, Ways (and Enchantress) trigger. You can now choose to follow the Way's instructions instead.
- If you didn't choose to follow the Way (and if Enchantress didn't trigger), you follow the card's instructions.
- Royal Carriage etc. triggers.

I don't think anybody objects to this?
As I have shown, the Way rules don't imply anything beyond this. But if the new concept is to be accomodated here, how do we do it?

I can think of only one way, we create a "tag" (in the same vein as the "Bane" tag) for the instructions, let's call it "Intrusive". We have to redefine Ways, Enchantress and Reckless, plus Moat, Harbor Village, Lantern and Elder.

***

Ways: "When you would follow the card's instructions, you may follow the Way's instructions instead; those instructions are Intrusive."
Enchantress: "When you would follow the card's instructions, instead get +1 Card and +1 Action; those instructions are Intrusive."
Reckless: "When you follow the card's instructions, follow them an extra time. 'Follow them an extra time' are Intrusive instructions."

Moat: "You are unaffected by the other player's following the instructions on the Attack card and Intrusive instructions."
Harbor Village: "If you got +$ from following the instructions on the Action card or Intrusive instructions, +$1."
etc. (Lantern and Elder)

(Since these cards need to talk about which instructions are being followed, it's important that "Intrusive instructions" are actually instructions.)

But actually, this doesn't work either, because "Intrusive instructions" is not specific enough. Imagine playing Harbor Village and then Throne Room playing a Smithy, using Way of the Sheep with the Smithy. When Harbor Village checks, you didn't get +$ from following Throne Room, but you did get it from the Intrusive instructions of Way of the Sheep.

So we have to link the Intrusive instructions to the played card:
Ways: "When you would follow the card's instructions, you may follow the Way's instructions instead; those instructions are the card's Intrusive instructions."
etc.
Moat: "You are unaffected by the other player's following the instructions and Intrusive instructions on the Attack card."
etc.

Now Ways are "attributing something to the card", exactly as Donald X. said.

This means we have to introduce a new rule: A card's Intrusive instructions are not that card's instructions. Otherwise it would mean that we give the card extra instructions permanently (shapeshifting), to be followed when we play the card later. That rule is self-contradictory though, so we actually (instead) have to say that cards now have Normal instructions and Intrusive instructions, and wherever "instructions" are mentioned with no modifier, Normal instructions are meant. (This is really shapeshifting anyway of course; we're creating a new card stat in addition to cost, name, type, instructions.)

***

This is the technical meaning of this new ruling. I can't see a simpler way. It's the same as the "give" concept from GendoIkari, but described technically. (The "give" concept is in essence just like a tag, but it's described insufficiently to actually work.)

Of course, none of the rules and terms I defined above actually exist. So the ruling seems to exist only as a special-case ruling for each card interaction which can't be technically described. (I don't believe that's how Donald X. sees it, I believe he sees it as what the printed Way rules dictate, and I have explained in detail why I disagree with that. This post mainly addresses the claim by GendoIkari and others that the ruling works technically somehow.)

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #88 on: January 13, 2023, 10:19:19 am »
0

Quote from: chipperMDW
It's like if I have a tattoo that says "Eat a sandwich" and the blackboard has "Throw a ball" written on it and someone tells me to issue to you either the instructions on my tattoo or the instructions on the board. Yeah, the sandwich instruction is "mine" and the ball instruction is "the blackboard's" by virtue of where they're printed. But whichever instruction I give you, it's mine in that I'm the one who issues it to you. Even if I say "Throw a ball," the blackboard isn't what gave you the instruction; I did.

I mean the instructions printed on Way of the Sheep (not considering shape-shifting). But this is of course the same as what the Way is telling/instructing you to do.

I have a problem with this bit. chipper went into detail explaining why he feels that instructions printed on Way of the Sheep is not the same as what the Way is telling you to do, and your reply simply says "this is of course the same".
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: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #89 on: January 13, 2023, 11:03:43 am »
0

Quote from: chipperMDW
It's like if I have a tattoo that says "Eat a sandwich" and the blackboard has "Throw a ball" written on it and someone tells me to issue to you either the instructions on my tattoo or the instructions on the board. Yeah, the sandwich instruction is "mine" and the ball instruction is "the blackboard's" by virtue of where they're printed. But whichever instruction I give you, it's mine in that I'm the one who issues it to you. Even if I say "Throw a ball," the blackboard isn't what gave you the instruction; I did.

I mean the instructions printed on Way of the Sheep (not considering shape-shifting). But this is of course the same as what the Way is telling/instructing you to do.

I have a problem with this bit. chipper went into detail explaining why he feels that instructions printed on Way of the Sheep is not the same as what the Way is telling you to do, and your reply simply says "this is of course the same".

I addressed that further down in the post, as well as (a little bit) in the previous post. ("That's what instructions are, in all games, text telling you to do something.") I have also mentioned it several times: A card has instructions to you > it instructs you to do things > it tells you to do things; these are synonymous.

chipperMDW

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 371
  • Respect: +826
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #90 on: January 13, 2023, 10:06:36 pm »
0

First of all, Ways are Enchantress are, and need to be defined as, triggered abilities, with specific timings...
Ok, I think I see why. I had missed that Enchantress and Highwayman are supposed to be "reorderable" with Ways. The way I believed Ways worked (which was the way I thought Donald X. was describing them to work), you would not have been able to "override" an Enchantress with a Way.  Given that you're supposed to be able to do that, I agree with you that Ways do need to "trigger."

But I think that's beside the point. What I'm saying is that triggering WotS is not what directly "gives" "+$2." And that triggering Enchantress is not what directly "gives" "+1 Card +1 Action." Like, the +$2 hasn't even happened by the time WotS has finished doing stuff.

I'm saying that triggering WotS or Enchantress merely changes which instructions the Instance of playing a card is going to have you follow. (Not changes the card, and not changes the instructions themselves, but changes the Instance's idea of which instructions.) Then, a tiny bit later, the Instance of playing the card actually has you follow the instructions (meaning that Instance "gives" whatever for HV).

So...

You play a card:
1. An Instance of playing a card is created.  It has an attribute we'll call "instructions to be followed."  That attribute is set to point at the instructions printed on the card that was played (not a copy of those instructions, but a direct reference to them).
2. Ways/Enchantress/etc. may trigger.  (This step can occur multiple times, I guess.)
  2.1. This may result in the Instance's "instructions to be followed" attribute being changed to point at instructions printed on a Way or on Enchantress (again, not a copy, but a reference).
3. You resolve the Instance by following its "instructions to be followed," whether that's still the ones printed on the card or something printed somewhere else.
  3.1. Anything that happens here counts as what the Instance "gives" for the purposes of Harbor Village.
4. (The Instance goes away 'cuz it's not needed anymore.)

Note again that I'm not saying that anything is shapeshifting a card. The only thing being modified is the Instance of playing a card (which is why I keep belaboredly using that term). You change which instructions that Instance is going to have you follow. Like, imagine you have a wire running to each set of instructions and you flip a switch in the Instance to select which set of instructions it's connected to. And when you press the "resolve" button, the instructions that are selected by the switch get executed. If you want to call that shapeshifting the instance, fine (then does giving a player +1 buy shapeshift the player?); but nowhere am I describing shapeshifting a card or modifying what any instructions say. I promise.

And all instructions that the Instance has you follow (whether they're printed on the card on on a Way or wherever) are the things it "does" for the purposes of Harbor Village. If you want, you can imagine that each instruction "given" by an Instance includes an ID uniquely associated with that Instance, so things like HV can check for the "source" of the instruction.

I know the rulebook doesn't actually spell that procedure out, and you'll probably quote the rulebook to show how it says stuff that's a direct contradiction to it, but that seems, to me, like the cleanest and most straightforward way to describe what people actually want to happen. Maybe it doesn't actually work that way and you'll need intrusive instructions to explain everything. Only Donald X. can say, I guess.

Quote
So the rules for playing a card have not been expanded for Ways...
Ok, agreed. I was mistaken there.

Quote
Quote from: chipperMDW
But I think Donald X. meant it only as #1. You're following instructions that are printed on WotS (as opposed to, like, instructions on a card that's been shapeshifted).
Sidenote: Your parenthesis is dead wrong. If a card has been shapeshifted, anything referring to the instructions of that card (or in any way talking about the effects of it) only sees the shapeshifted instructions. That much is beyond any doubt. That is the whole reason why shapeshifting was practically eliminated.
No, you completely misinterpreted the bit in parentheses. I was not saying "In a different manner from what would happen if you tried to read instructions from a shapeshifted card." I was saying "Not in any alternate location you might propose, including, for example, a hypothetical card that has been shapeshifted to have Way of the Sheep's instructions (primarily because such a card does not exist in this scenario as no shapeshifting has occurred)."

Quote
As I said (and you deleted): that's what instructions are, in all games, text telling you to do something.
Yes, I deleted that because I agreed with it and didn't feel like I needed to respond. But ok, I agree with all the things: instructions are text telling players to do stuff, players are the only ones that "really" do stuff, and all instructions are ultimately followed because players are following instructions in the rulebook.

Quote
(In your example, I will skip the "someone tells you" part, because I think by mistake you added an unnecessary first step in the chain.)
No, I actually added the first step because the rulebook is ultimately what tells anyone to do anything. I figured if me-pretending-to-be-a-card gave an instruction without any prompting, you'd tell me that cards have no free will and could not simply decide to give an instruction out of the blue, and that my "doing" anything must have been a result of someone following a rulebook-derived instruction somewhere else. 'Cuz the analogy was always meant to be super accurate (it was not meant to be super accurate).
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #91 on: January 16, 2023, 07:11:02 am »
0

First of all, Ways are Enchantress are, and need to be defined as, triggered abilities, with specific timings...
Ok, I think I see why. I had missed that Enchantress and Highwayman are supposed to be "reorderable" with Ways. The way I believed Ways worked (which was the way I thought Donald X. was describing them to work), you would not have been able to "override" an Enchantress with a Way.  Given that you're supposed to be able to do that, I agree with you that Ways do need to "trigger."

But I think that's beside the point. What I'm saying is that triggering WotS is not what directly "gives" "+$2." And that triggering Enchantress is not what directly "gives" "+1 Card +1 Action." Like, the +$2 hasn't even happened by the time WotS has finished doing stuff.

I'm saying that triggering WotS or Enchantress merely changes which instructions the Instance of playing a card is going to have you follow. (Not changes the card, and not changes the instructions themselves, but changes the Instance's idea of which instructions.) Then, a tiny bit later, the Instance of playing the card actually has you follow the instructions (meaning that Instance "gives" whatever for HV).

So...

You play a card:
1. An Instance of playing a card is created.  It has an attribute we'll call "instructions to be followed."  That attribute is set to point at the instructions printed on the card that was played (not a copy of those instructions, but a direct reference to them).
2. Ways/Enchantress/etc. may trigger.  (This step can occur multiple times, I guess.)
  2.1. This may result in the Instance's "instructions to be followed" attribute being changed to point at instructions printed on a Way or on Enchantress (again, not a copy, but a reference).
3. You resolve the Instance by following its "instructions to be followed," whether that's still the ones printed on the card or something printed somewhere else.
  3.1. Anything that happens here counts as what the Instance "gives" for the purposes of Harbor Village.
4. (The Instance goes away 'cuz it's not needed anymore.)

Note again that I'm not saying that anything is shapeshifting a card. The only thing being modified is the Instance of playing a card (which is why I keep belaboredly using that term). You change which instructions that Instance is going to have you follow. Like, imagine you have a wire running to each set of instructions and you flip a switch in the Instance to select which set of instructions it's connected to. And when you press the "resolve" button, the instructions that are selected by the switch get executed. If you want to call that shapeshifting the instance, fine (then does giving a player +1 buy shapeshift the player?); but nowhere am I describing shapeshifting a card or modifying what any instructions say. I promise.

And all instructions that the Instance has you follow (whether they're printed on the card on on a Way or wherever) are the things it "does" for the purposes of Harbor Village. If you want, you can imagine that each instruction "given" by an Instance includes an ID uniquely associated with that Instance, so things like HV can check for the "source" of the instruction.

I know the rulebook doesn't actually spell that procedure out, and you'll probably quote the rulebook to show how it says stuff that's a direct contradiction to it, but that seems, to me, like the cleanest and most straightforward way to describe what people actually want to happen. Maybe it doesn't actually work that way and you'll need intrusive instructions to explain everything. Only Donald X. can say, I guess.

I agree that with Ways and Enchantress, first which instructions you're going to follow is changed, then you follow those instructions.
For Ways, it's the rules for Ways that change which instructions you're following, and for Enchantress, it's Enchantress itself. But the actual instructions you end up following, are instructions given on Enchantress ("+1 Card, +1 Action") and on the Way card. This is straight-forward.

1. True, when you play a card, there is a default "instructions to be followed", and true, not a copy but a reference. This is given in the Dominion rules.
2. Enchantress, or the Way rules (not the Way itself) may trigger here.
2.1. - agreed
3. - sure
3.1. With Ways/Enchantress, you're following the Way's/Enchantress's instructions (pretty sure everybody has agreed with this). Why does that count as something the Instance "does" anymore than Adventures tokens would?

If "Instance of a card" is whatever you end up doing as a result of playing that card, then Adventures tokens, Priest's +$2, another Cultist, etc., are all included.
If "Instance of a card" is supposed to exclude all those things, then it has to refer to just the card's instructions. If it's also supposed to include instructions from Ways or Enchantress, then we would have to define that specifically somehow (either with tagging instructions, or by calling out Ways/Enchantress by name or similar).

***

EDIT:
To illustrate the problem with your model: Let's say gaining a card with Ironworks creates an Instance of gaining a card, which is set to the card you've chosen to gain, and then Trader 1E triggers and changes the Instance's pointer to Silver instead. So the Instance of gaining which was "gain a Mill" is now "gain a Silver" instead. Is the card you gained with Ironworks Silver? Well, that would mean Ironworks gives you +$1 for gaining a Treasure. And if Ways worked like that, it would mean the Way's instructions count as the card's instructions. What if there were a Farber Village that asked if playing the Ironworks made you gain a Silver? The answer should be no, but with the Instance model it seems to be yes.

« Last Edit: January 16, 2023, 08:10:17 am by Jeebus »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #92 on: January 16, 2023, 09:32:25 am »
0

Let's focus on Harbor Village and Moat.

1
"+$1", "+1 Card", "trash a card", "each other player discards" - these are all instructions.

2
They are instructions to the players (to whomever ends up following them).

3
To "give +$" (on Harbor Village) means to give an instruction. Consider if there were a Barber Village that said, "if it made you trash a card". Or we could phrase it similarly to Harbor Village: "if it gave you 'trash a card'". Either way, Barber Village asks if it (playing the Action card) gave you an instruction - an instruction to trash a card. Similarly, Harbor Village asks if it (playing the Action card) gave you an instruction to get $ (or, the instruction "+$").

4
- Harbor Village's "if it [playing the Action card] gave you +$" means "if it [playing the Action card] made you follow an instruction to get $".
- Moat's "unaffected by it [the other player playing the Attack card]" means "unaffected by the instructions the other player follows playing the Attack card".

But which instructions are included in "the instructions you follow playing a card"?

Clearly, it includes the card's instructions. And certainly the most straight-forward, obvious answer is that it only includes the card's instructions. (Since it does not include Adventures tokens, Cultist played by Cultist, etc.)

But we somehow want it to include the Way's instructions, Enchantress's instructions "+1 Card and +1 Action" and Reckless's instructions to "follow the card's instructions an extra time". But, we don't want to say that those instructions in any way are, or count as, the card's instructions. Then how the frack do we solve it*? It's remarkable to me that nobody can answer this and still claim that this ruling makes any sense.

*without saying "the card's instructions, or a Way's instructions if you follow those instead, or Enchantress's instructions if you follow those instead, and Reckless's instructions if you follow those in addition"
« Last Edit: January 16, 2023, 10:02:22 am by Jeebus »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #93 on: January 16, 2023, 01:53:02 pm »
+1

Similarly, Harbor Village asks if it (playing the Action card) gave you an instruction to get $ (or, the instruction "+$").
This is something you have created; it's not what Harbor Village actually says or does. It asks if the card gave you +$; it doesn't mention instructions.

Normally (in fact almost always), when playing a card gets you +$, that's due to following its instructions, but that's not the only way things can happen, and Harbor Village doesn't refer to any such thing.

For example, consider a hypothetical "This turn, when you play an Action card, it also gives you +$1." That clearly causes Harbor Village to trigger. We don't "follow card instructions" to get that +$1; it's a trigger waiting around, from instructions followed earlier.

Whereas of course "This turn, when you play an Action card, +$1" does not attribute the +$ to the card-play and so would not trigger Harbor Village.

How does the game possibly have anything like that first hypothetical? But it does, e.g. Way of the Sheep.
Logged

chipperMDW

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 371
  • Respect: +826
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #94 on: January 16, 2023, 09:31:48 pm »
+2

For Ways, it's the rules for Ways that change which instructions you're following, and for Enchantress, it's Enchantress itself.
Ok, I agree. Ways don't trigger directly; the rules for ways set up a delayed ability.

Quote
But the actual instructions you end up following, are instructions given on Enchantress ("+1 Card, +1 Action") and on the Way card. This is straight-forward.
They are printed on those things, but they are not given by those things. "Printed on" and "given by" need not be equivalent. You keep saying they have to be, and I keep saying they don't. I think you have to allow for them being different concepts in order the get a clean solution, here. I dunno; let's see if the script at the end of this post helps out at all.

Quote
3.1. With Ways/Enchantress, you're following the Way's/Enchantress's instructions (pretty sure everybody has agreed with this). Why does that count as something the Instance "does" anymore than Adventures tokens would?
You're following the instructions printed on Way/Enchantress, but the Instance is what's issuing the instructions. Why does it count as something the instance does? Well, I guess it's because the instance is what was going to do something all along, and the Way came along and changed what it was going to do. Why doesn't that apply to Adventures tokens? Because there, the triggered effect is not to change what instructions the instance is going to "do"; the triggered effect is to actually do the thing (e.g. +$1) itself.

Quote
If "Instance of a card" is whatever you end up doing as a result of playing that card, then Adventures tokens, Priest's +$2, another Cultist, etc., are all included.
It's not everything that happens "as a result of" playing that card; it's every instruction issued by the instance, and nothing that triggered as a result.

Quote
If "Instance of a card" is supposed to exclude all those things, then it has to refer to just the card's instructions.
It doesn't have to specifically refer to the card's instructions; it refers to whichever instructions the instance is going to issue. Maybe instructions printed on the card, and maybe instructions printed on a Way.

Quote
If it's also supposed to include instructions from Ways or Enchantress, then we would have to define that specifically somehow (either with tagging instructions, or by calling out Ways/Enchantress by name or similar).
Or by saying that the instance issues instructions that are printed on a Way/Enchantress. By separating those concepts.

Quote
To illustrate the problem with your model: Let's say gaining a card with Ironworks creates an Instance of gaining a card, which is set to the card you've chosen to gain, and then Trader 1E triggers and changes the Instance's pointer to Silver instead. So the Instance of gaining which was "gain a Mill" is now "gain a Silver" instead. Is the card you gained with Ironworks Silver? Well, that would mean Ironworks gives you +$1 for gaining a Treasure. And if Ways worked like that, it would mean the Way's instructions count as the card's instructions. What if there were a Farber Village that asked if playing the Ironworks made you gain a Silver? The answer should be no, but with the Instance model it seems to be yes.
Why would we use the Instance model for gaining, though? As you demonstrated, it doesn't give the intended results there. If we use an Instance model for playing cards because it gives the intended results there, why would that mean we were forced to use it in other places?

Then how the frack do we solve it*? It's remarkable to me that nobody can answer this and still claim that this ruling makes any sense.

I mean, I feel like I explained a way it can work. The ultimate test, I guess, is can I explain it to a computer and have it give the expected results?

So I threw together a little Python script both as a sanity check and an attempt to explain what I'm trying to say. It's supposed to represent a player playing Smithy under four different circumstances. That player's +$1 Token is on the Smithy pile the whole time, so it always gives +$1. Way of the Sheep is in the setup, and it asks the user to choose on each play, so I alternate between playing Smithy normally and using the Way. The first two times, Harbor Village isn't involved; the second two times, we'll say that a Harbor Village was played just before the Smithy. (I don't actually simulate playing HV; I fake it.)

Here's the output:
Code: [Select]
$ python demo.py
Player 1 plays Smithy:
        Play as Way of the Sheep? n
        Player 1 gets +$1 [issued by delayed ability set up by +$1 Token rules]
        Player 1 draws 3 cards [issued by instance #0 (of Smithy)]
Player 1 plays Smithy:
        Play as Way of the Sheep? y
        Player 1 gets +$1 [issued by delayed ability set up by +$1 Token rules]
        Player 1 gets +$2 [issued by instance #1 (of Smithy)]
Player 1 plays Smithy:
        Play as Way of the Sheep? n
        Player 1 gets +$1 [issued by delayed ability set up by +$1 Token rules]
        Player 1 draws 3 cards [issued by instance #2 (of Smithy)]
Player 1 plays Smithy:
        Play as Way of the Sheep? y
        Player 1 gets +$1 [issued by delayed ability set up by +$1 Token rules]
        Player 1 gets +$2 [issued by instance #3 (of Smithy)]
        Player 1 gets +$1 [issued by delayed ability set up by Harbor Village]

The first play is a normal play, so it draws cards, and the token gives +$1 beforehand. Note that the Instance is listed as the issuer of the +cards instructions and the token rules are listed as the issuer of the +$1 instruction.

The second play is a Way play, so it gives coins. The token gives its extra beforehand. Note that the Instance is listed as the issuer of the +$2 instruction and the token rules are still the issuer of the +$1 instruction.

The third play is a normal play "under the influence of" Harbor Village. It draws cards, but first gets a coin from the token. Note that the issuers of these instructions are the same as for the first play. Note also that, because the Instance never issued a +coins instruction (the +coins instruction was issued by the token rules), Harbor Village does not trigger and no additional coin is produced.

The fourth play is a Way play "under the influence of" Harbor Village. It gives coins and first gets an extra one from the token. Note that the issuers of these instructions are the same as for the second play. Note also that, because the Instance this time issued a +coins instruction, Harbor Village does trigger afterwards and produces an additional coin; the delayed ability set up by the Harbor Village is what issues that +coin instruction.

Are those the expected results?


And here's the script itself. It should run on any Python installation. I'm not sure if this is something you know how to read or not. If you need me to explain parts of it in English, I can do that; it's just that English wasn't helping us much before.
Code: [Select]
class Card:
    def __init__(self, name, instructions):
        self.name = name
        self.instructions = instructions

class Way:
    def __init__(self, name, instructions):
        self.name = name
        self.instructions = instructions

class Trigger:
    def __init__(self, cond, effect):
        self.condition = cond
        self.effect = effect

def handle_triggers(triggers, player, card, instance):
    for trigger in triggers:
        if trigger.condition(player, card, instance):
            trigger.effect(player, card, instance)

class Instance:
    id = 0

    def __init__(self, card, player):
        self.id = Instance.id
        Instance.id += 1
        self.name = "instance #{} (of {})".format(self.id, card.name)
        self.instructions_to_follow = card.instructions
        self.player = player

    def resolve(self):
        self.instructions_to_follow(self.player, self.name)

# just a log of instances that gave coins (for Harbor Village)
coin_log = []

class Player:
    def __init__(self, id):
        self.id = id

    def plus_cards(self, count, issuer):
        print "\tPlayer {} draws {} cards [issued by {}]".format(
            self.id, count, issuer)

    def plus_coins(self, count, issuer):
        print "\tPlayer {} gets +${} [issued by {}]".format(
            self.id, count, issuer)

        global coin_log
        coin_log.append(issuer)

    def play_a_card(self):
        # player always plays Smithy in this example
        the_card = smithy

        print "Player {} plays {}:".format(self.id, the_card.name)
        instance = Instance(the_card, self)

        # Handle "when you play, instead" triggers
        handle_triggers(on_play_instead_triggers, self, the_card, instance)

        # Handle "when you play, first" triggers
        handle_triggers(on_play_first_triggers, self, the_card, instance)

        instance.resolve()

        # Handle "after you play" triggers
        handle_triggers(after_play_triggers, self, the_card, instance)

#
# Smithy definition
#

def smithy_instructions(player, issuer):
    player.plus_cards(3, issuer)

smithy = Card("Smithy", smithy_instructions)

#
# +$1 Token definition
#

def token_trigger_cond(player, card, instance):
    return player.id == 1 and card.name == "Smithy"

def token_trigger_instructions(player, card, instance):
    player.plus_coins(1, "delayed ability set up by +$1 Token rules")

on_play_first_triggers = [
    Trigger(token_trigger_cond, token_trigger_instructions)]

#
# Way of the Sheep definition
#

def way_of_the_sheep_instructions(player, issuer):
    player.plus_coins(2, issuer)

ways = [Way("Way of the Sheep", way_of_the_sheep_instructions)]

#
# General rule for Ways
#

def way_trigger_cond(player, card, instance):
    global way_save

    for way in ways:
        if raw_input("\tPlay as {}? ".format(way.name))[:1] == 'y':
            way_save = way
            return True

    return False

def way_trigger_instructions(player, card, instance):
    global way_save
    instance.instructions_to_follow = way_save.instructions

on_play_instead_triggers = [
    Trigger(way_trigger_cond, way_trigger_instructions)]

#
# Harbor Village delayed ability definition
#

def harbor_village_trigger_cond(player, card, instance):
    return True

def harbor_village_trigger_instructions(player, card, instance):
    global coin_log

    if instance.name in coin_log:
        player.plus_coins(1, "delayed ability set up by Harbor Village")

    coin_log = []

#
# Main program
#

# first two plays don't use Harbor Village
after_play_triggers = []

p = Player(1)

p.play_a_card()
p.play_a_card()

# second two plays do use Harbor Village
after_play_triggers = [
    Trigger(harbor_village_trigger_cond, harbor_village_trigger_instructions)]

p.play_a_card()
p.play_a_card()

Some notable points:

 - A player is given an instruction by calling a method on a Player object. (This script only considers +cards and +coins instructions.) Each such method accepts a parameter for the issuer of the instruction. An Instance "does" something when its (unique) name is passed as the issuer. In fact, in this script, that's the definition of an Instance "doing" anything: having its name passed as the "issuer" parameter to a method that represents giving a player an instruction to do that thing.

 - Things that are not Instances can also be issuers of instructions in this script. Like delayed abilities from previous plays of cards or from the rules themselves. You can also imagine events and projects to be valid "issuers" of instructions. Is that concept really needed in Dominion? Well, nothing in the game (that I know of) cares about any of those things "doing" stuff, so... no, it's not needed yet, anyway. But using them here lets me print things that hopefully clarify what I'm saying, so I did.

 - Harbor Village triggers after playing a card, so it has to go back and check what happened in the past. I do that by having the plus_coins method log the issuer of the instruction, then when Harbor Village actually triggers, it can go back and check the log to see if the Instance in question issued a plus_coins instruction. I clear the log after each play. That's not actually a correct way to do it in a real implementation; if I Throne a card, then I shouldn't clear the log after either play of that card because the Throne Room is still being played. But it's close enough for this toy program.

 - See how the Instance has a resolve method? Every instance is resolved in the same way: issue the instructions that it's most recently been told to use. It could issue instructions printed on a card (Smithy), or instructions printed on a Way (WotS). It issues them to the player whose playing of a card produced that Instance. It passes its own name as the issuer.

 - But, I hear you saying, Smithy just says "+3 Cards"; it doesn't say anything about an "issuer." I've just added a bunch of stuff that the card doesn't actually have printed on it. Well, the card doesn't say anything about Player 1, either. Even if it said "you," that wouldn't mean anything without further context. Who's "you"? Is it Bob? Is Bob even in a game right now? Is the card? The instructions written on Smithy (or any card) are unbound; they require further context in order to be interpreted. The instance binds them to a context. For sure, the instructions need the context of who played the card; they might also need the context of the card itself (the instructions might say to trash "this"). So why is it so weird to acknowledge that part of that context needed for some instructions is an implicit "issuer"? Especially when it's been established that some cards (like HV) are definitely looking for such a thing?

 - I completely half-assed passing the chosen Way around using a global (way_save). It's ugly and bad, but it's probably more readable this way than the alternative.

 - Don't ask me what Way of the Chameleon looks like in this or I'll have to make it self-modifying and then nobody'll be able to read it.


I dunno if any of that helped or not. I'm trying.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #95 on: January 17, 2023, 04:14:44 am »
0

Similarly, Harbor Village asks if it (playing the Action card) gave you an instruction to get $ (or, the instruction "+$").
This is something you have created; it's not what Harbor Village actually says or does. It asks if the card gave you +$; it doesn't mention instructions.

Normally (in fact almost always), when playing a card gets you +$, that's due to following its instructions, but that's not the only way things can happen, and Harbor Village doesn't refer to any such thing.

For example, consider a hypothetical "This turn, when you play an Action card, it also gives you +$1." That clearly causes Harbor Village to trigger. We don't "follow card instructions" to get that +$1; it's a trigger waiting around, from instructions followed earlier.

I'm saying that "+$1" is an instruction (which means "you get $1" -- $1 being the resource you get). I'm saying that you can never do anything without following an instruction to do so. Would you say the same about Barber Village - "if it made you trash a card", that this doesn't mention instructions?

What about, "at the start of your next turn, you may play this form your hand" (Clerk) or "at the start of your next turn, discard 2 cards" (Tide Pools)? According to your logic, the bolded phrases are not instructions when you get to the start of your next turn? According to me, they are. And what is giving you those instructions is Clerk/Tide Pools. Note that you have to follow the instruction "discard 2 cards" at the start of the turn, because you don't even know what cards you might discard before then. (The same is of course true for "+$1". It's an act of increasing the player's pool of $ which has to be performed by the player at the correct time.)

Quote from: Donald X.
Whereas of course "This turn, when you play an Action card, +$1" does not attribute the +$ to the card-play and so would not trigger Harbor Village.

So to try to understand your logic:
CardA: "This turn, when you play an Action card, it also gives you +$1."  ... The card-play of the Action card "gives" you +$1. The card-play of CardA does not.
CardB: "This turn, when you play an Action card, +$1" ... The card-play of the Action card does not "give" you +$1. Neither does the card-play of CardB. So no card "gives" you +$1?

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #96 on: January 17, 2023, 05:47:07 am »
+1

Quote
But the actual instructions you end up following, are instructions given on Enchantress ("+1 Card, +1 Action") and on the Way card. This is straight-forward.
They are printed on those things, but they are not given by those things. "Printed on" and "given by" need not be equivalent. You keep saying they have to be, and I keep saying they don't. I think you have to allow for them being different concepts in order the get a clean solution, here.

The instructions are given on the Way card. The Way card has instructions, those instructions are for the players, so the players are being given instructions to follow by the card. Even if it were somehow the case that the "Instance of the card" caused you to follow those instructions, the instructions would still be given by the Way card.

Quote from: chipperMDW
Quote
If "Instance of a card" is whatever you end up doing as a result of playing that card, then Adventures tokens, Priest's +$2, another Cultist, etc., are all included.
It's not everything that happens "as a result of" playing that card; it's every instruction issued by the instance, and nothing that triggered as a result.

Ways and Enchantress specifically triggered as a result.

Quote from: chipperMDW
Why would we use the Instance model for gaining, though? As you demonstrated, it doesn't give the intended results there. If we use an Instance model for playing cards because it gives the intended results there, why would that mean we were forced to use it in other places?

Because there is nothing in the rules that say that they are different. If "Instance of playing a card" refers to whatever we were going to do from that and ALSO something that has been substituted, why shouldn't the same be true for "Instance of gaining a card"?

Quote from: chipperMDW
I mean, I feel like I explained a way it can work. The ultimate test, I guess, is can I explain it to a computer and have it give the expected results?

So I threw together a little Python script both as a sanity check and an attempt to explain what I'm trying to say.

You have defined "Instance" as something that is created when you play a card, and points to which instructions to follow when you get to the "follow the card's on-play instructions" part. And Ways are special-coded to change that pointer in the Instance. And then you have Harbor Village check what you got from following the Instance's instructions. Of course you get the intended result in that case. Note that you would also have to special-code Enchantress and Reckless in the same way - and Reckless is not "instead".

You have decided that Ways get hooked to the Instance, but you could have programmed that however you wanted. Why doesn't the Adventures token get hooked to the Instance? Why doesn't Priest's "+$2"? Why does Reckless's "follow the instructions an extra time"?
By making these choices, you decide what cards/tokens that will count as "things you get from playing the card" and which won't. But there is no explanation in the program for why, it's just chosen arbitrarily to be that way. I don't see that the program answers anything.

You have defined "Instance of playing the card" for the sole purpose of interactions with Harbor Village, Moat, Elder and Lantern. Other abilities (as far as we have found) don't care. Imagine that Harbor Village was actually ruled to check everything that happens from announcing the card until you are done with everything that triggered off of that. And Moat could be ruled the same way, which means it would protect you from the whole chain of Cultists. Same with Elder and Lantern. Then we would have to define "Instance of the card" differently, to include everything. There would be nothing in the rules to proclude such a definition either, and it would work in accordance with those rulings. I get that that's what you're trying to do, with the actual rulings. But defining the concept of Instance to match exactly the rulings doesn't actually address the problems I have brought up.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2023, 05:48:41 am by Jeebus »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #97 on: January 17, 2023, 08:58:41 am »
+3

You have decided that Ways get hooked to the Instance, but you could have programmed that however you wanted. Why doesn't the Adventures token get hooked to the Instance? Why doesn't Priest's "+$2"? Why does Reckless's "follow the instructions an extra time"?
By making these choices, you decide what cards/tokens that will count as "things you get from playing the card" and which won't. But there is no explanation in the program for why, it's just chosen arbitrarily to be that way. I don't see that the program answers anything.

These were choices based on Donald X's rulings, and Donald X's rulings are based on his interpretations of the English wording of the rulesbooks. The point of the program was to show how the rulings can work. The whole thing is an exercise in taking non-specific English language that's used in the rulebooks and translating it to a technical framework. The rules for Ways include wording that, in Donald X's interpretation, make them act differently than tokens.
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: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #98 on: January 17, 2023, 10:13:44 am »
0

You have decided that Ways get hooked to the Instance, but you could have programmed that however you wanted. Why doesn't the Adventures token get hooked to the Instance? Why doesn't Priest's "+$2"? Why does Reckless's "follow the instructions an extra time"?
By making these choices, you decide what cards/tokens that will count as "things you get from playing the card" and which won't. But there is no explanation in the program for why, it's just chosen arbitrarily to be that way. I don't see that the program answers anything.

These were choices based on Donald X's rulings, and Donald X's rulings are based on his interpretations of the English wording of the rulesbooks. The point of the program was to show how the rulings can work. The whole thing is an exercise in taking non-specific English language that's used in the rulebooks and translating it to a technical framework. The rules for Ways include wording that, in Donald X's interpretation, make them act differently than tokens.

The question is why do HV/Moat/Lantern/Elder look for certain "things you get from playing the card" and not others. It has been said that Ways/Ench/Reckless count as "things you get from [playing the card] that HV/Moat/Lantern/Elder look for". As I have said, we can have that rule, but so far I don't see any technical description for it that doesn't involve listing the card interactions; or defining a tag like I showed earlier. And actually, the "Instance" model is exactly the same as the tag model! It creates a node for hooking certain cards (Ways/Ench/Reckless) and then defines certain other cards (HV/Moat/Lantern/Elder) as referencing that node. It's just a more complicated way of saying "Ways/Ench/Reckless count as things you get from [playing the card] that HV/Moat/Lantern/Elder look for". It describes the premise for the question, but doesn't answer it.

« Last Edit: January 17, 2023, 10:42:16 am by Jeebus »
Logged

Gdan0

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +10
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #99 on: January 17, 2023, 10:17:24 am »
0

   Whenever the player plays an action, the player decides to have that action be resolved for its printed text, or to resolve the printed text of a Way. Harbor Village cares about changes to the game state that are attributed to the next action played. Harbor Village, specifically, looks for +$ that has been attributed to the resolution of the next action played. It doesn't necessarily only look for +$ printed on the action, but any +$ gained from the resolution of that action that is also attributed to the resolution of that action. The Adventures +$1 token, per its rules in the Adventures Rulebook, does not attribute its +$1 to the action played.

Quote from: Adventures Rulebook
"Four tokens give +1 of something: +1 Action, +1 Buy, +1 Card, +$1. These tokens go on Action Supply piles. When the player whose token it is plays a card from that pile, that player first gets the bonus."

"When the player … plays a card … , that player first gets the bonus." The rules here do not attribute the $1 to the resolution of the card, it is a bonus you receive first. You could even say you are resolving the token.

   Traits, from my understanding essentially modify how the kingdom card is resolved. Reckless in particular simply has the player, when resolving a card, carry out "its instructions twice". Typically when a card in this game refers to "its instructions" it is referring to the printed text of a card. Enchantress cares if the player is going to resolve their first action for "its instructions" or more specifically, its printed text. It does this so it can have you resolve Enchantress's cantrip instead. Reckless cares if the player is going to resolve the card for "its instructions" or more specifically, its printed text. It does this so the card can resolve twice. This is why when the player plays their first action, they may choose to resolve a Way to override Enchantress's effect. You are no longer resolving the "instructions" that Enchantress would replace. Similarly if the player resolve a Reckless card as a Way, the player is no longer resolving the "instructions" that Reckless would affect.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2023, 10:25:32 am by Gdan0 »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #100 on: January 17, 2023, 10:33:05 am »
0

   Whenever the player plays an action, the player decides to have that action be resolved for its printed text, or to resolve the printed text of a Way. Harbor Village cares about changes to the game state that are attributed to the next action played. Harbor Village, specifically, looks for +$ that has been attributed to the resolution of the next action played. It doesn't necessarily only look for +$ printed on the action, but any +$ gained from the resolution of that action that is also attributed to the resolution of that action. The Adventures +$1 token, per its rules in the Adventures Rulebook, does not attribute its +$1 to the action played.

Quote from: Adventures Rulebook
"Four tokens give +1 of something: +1 Action, +1 Buy, +1 Card, +$1. These tokens go on Action Supply piles. When the player whose token it is plays a card from that pile, that player first gets the bonus."

"When the player … plays a card … , that player first gets the bonus." The rules here do not attribute the $1 to the resolution of the card, it is a bonus you receive first. You could even say you are resolving the token.

   Traits, from my understanding essentially modify how the kingdom card is resolved. Reckless in particular simply has the player, when resolving a card, carry out "its instructions twice". Typically when a card in this game refers to "its instructions" it is referring to the printed text of a card. Enchantress cares if the player is going to resolve their first action for "its instructions" or more specifically, its printed text. It does this so it can have you resolve Enchantress's cantrip instead. Reckless cares if the player is going to resolve the card for "its instructions" or more specifically, its printed text. It does this so the card can resolve twice. This is why when the player plays their first action, they may choose to resolve a Way to override Enchantress's effect. You are no longer resolving the "instructions" that Enchantress would replace. Similarly if the player resolve a Reckless card as a Way, the player is no longer resolving the "instructions" that Reckless would affect.

Where specifically am I wrong here? http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=21600.msg899855#msg899855
Or if I'm not wrong, how do you explain your idea based on that?
« Last Edit: January 17, 2023, 10:34:27 am by Jeebus »
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3329
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4507
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #101 on: January 17, 2023, 10:33:56 am »
0

Whereas of course "This turn, when you play an Action card, +$1" does not attribute the +$ to the card-play and so would not trigger Harbor Village.

So to try to understand your logic:
CardA: "This turn, when you play an Action card, it also gives you +$1."  ... The card-play of the Action card "gives" you +$1. The card-play of CardA does not.
CardB: "This turn, when you play an Action card, +$1" ... The card-play of the Action card does not "give" you +$1. Neither does the card-play of CardB. So no card "gives" you +$1?

No, I'm pretty sure we know this one: CardB gives you the $1. The existing Priest/Chameleon interaction seems to clarify this; Priest is worded similarly to CardB and Priest/Chameleon causes you to draw 2 cards if you trash later in the turn, meaning that it's Priest that would be giving you the $2 for trashing.
Logged

Gdan0

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +10
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #102 on: January 17, 2023, 11:12:05 am »
0

Let's focus on Harbor Village and Moat.

1
"+$1", "+1 Card", "trash a card", "each other player discards" - these are all instructions.

2
They are instructions to the players (to whomever ends up following them).

3
To "give +$" (on Harbor Village) means to give an instruction. Consider if there were a Barber Village that said, "if it made you trash a card". Or we could phrase it similarly to Harbor Village: "if it gave you 'trash a card'". Either way, Barber Village asks if it (playing the Action card) gave you an instruction - an instruction to trash a card. Similarly, Harbor Village asks if it (playing the Action card) gave you an instruction to get $ (or, the instruction "+$").

4
- Harbor Village's "if it [playing the Action card] gave you +$" means "if it [playing the Action card] made you follow an instruction to get $".
- Moat's "unaffected by it [the other player playing the Attack card]" means "unaffected by the instructions the other player follows playing the Attack card".

But which instructions are included in "the instructions you follow playing a card"?

Clearly, it includes the card's instructions. And certainly the most straight-forward, obvious answer is that it only includes the card's instructions. (Since it does not include Adventures tokens, Cultist played by Cultist, etc.)

But we somehow want it to include the Way's instructions, Enchantress's instructions "+1 Card and +1 Action" and Reckless's instructions to "follow the card's instructions an extra time". But, we don't want to say that those instructions in any way are, or count as, the card's instructions. Then how the frack do we solve it*? It's remarkable to me that nobody can answer this and still claim that this ruling makes any sense.

*without saying "the card's instructions, or a Way's instructions if you follow those instead, or Enchantress's instructions if you follow those instead, and Reckless's instructions if you follow those in addition"

1: Sure, these are instructions, but relevance and context matters in how they are applied. It could be printed text on a card, it could be a game mechanic or rule that attributes these specific changes to the game state to a particular card.

2: This is irrelevant to me.

3: I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at here. If Harbor Village said "If it(the action) gave(any changes to the game state that are attributed to the resolving of the action) +1 card, +$1." If this hypothetical Harbor Village was played and then followed up with Wood Cutter played as Way of the Pig, then Harbor Village would give you +$1. Harbor Village is not necessarily asking if the played action is instructing the player to do anything like you are assuming. It isn't asking if the played action was resolved for its printed text either. It doesn't care about that, nor does it need to. It is asking if at any point during the resolution of the action was there are gain of $ and was it attributed to the resolution of the action.

4: Based on my clarifications in my original post and my follow up here, I wouldn't consider these descriptions accurate.

« Last Edit: January 17, 2023, 12:03:55 pm by Gdan0 »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #103 on: January 17, 2023, 12:16:45 pm »
0

3: I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at here. If Harbor Village said "If it(the action) gave(any changes to the game state that are attributed to the resolving of the action) +1 card, +$1." If this hypothetical Harbor Village was played and then followed up with Wood Cutter played as Way of the Pig, then Harbor Village would give you +$1. Harbor Village is not necessarily asking if the played action is instructing the player to do anything like you are assuming. It isn't asking if the played action was resolved for its printed text either. It doesn't care about that, nor does it need to. It is asking if at any point during the resolution of the action was there are gain of $ and was it attributed to the resolution of the action.

What I'm getting at is that we have to consider everything as instructions that the player is following. Then we can try to figure out the context of how they are applied. "Gives" is technically useless (that's where point 2 is relevant). If you get +$1, it means you followed some instruction to get it. If you trash a card, it means you followed some instruction to trash it. I posited Barber Village: "if it made you trash a card". I said, Barber Village asks if it (playing the Action card) made you follow an instruction - an instruction to trash a card.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2023, 12:19:02 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

Gdan0

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +10
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #104 on: January 17, 2023, 12:45:57 pm »
0

3: I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at here. If Harbor Village said "If it(the action) gave(any changes to the game state that are attributed to the resolving of the action) +1 card, +$1." If this hypothetical Harbor Village was played and then followed up with Wood Cutter played as Way of the Pig, then Harbor Village would give you +$1. Harbor Village is not necessarily asking if the played action is instructing the player to do anything like you are assuming. It isn't asking if the played action was resolved for its printed text either. It doesn't care about that, nor does it need to. It is asking if at any point during the resolution of the action was there are gain of $ and was it attributed to the resolution of the action.

What I'm getting at is that we have to consider everything as instructions that the player is following. Then we can try to figure out the context of how they are applied. "Gives" is technically useless (that's where point 2 is relevant). If you get +$1, it means you followed some instruction to get it. If you trash a card, it means you followed some instruction to trash it. I posited Barber Village: "if it made you trash a card". I said, Barber Village asks if it (playing the Action card) made you follow an instruction - an instruction to trash a card.

I very much disagree that "gives" is technically useless here. It essentially means that there was a change to the game state that is attributable to the action played and you are in some way were affected. The fact a card, rule, or mechanic gave instructions is incidental and irrelevant when it comes to Harbor Village. That is why I mentioned relevance in point 1, because with some other cards or mechanics it may be relevant. Whether or not the +$ is a result of the player following instructions is irrelevant. All that matters is $ was received and it's attributed to the action played. Intrinsically, the player carries out instructions while resolving cards. If Harbor Village stated "If it(the action) made you trash a card (a change in game state from having resolved the action while also being attributed to that action)" Then Way of the Goat would have Harbor Village gain you +$1. We can colloquially call whatever the player does as following instructions, but that does not mean it necessarily has any relevance to how any given card resolves.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2023, 12:47:19 pm by Gdan0 »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #105 on: January 17, 2023, 01:03:10 pm »
0

The fact is that all cards have instructions. All game rules are also instructions. Nothing can be done by the players that is not following instructions. As you conceded, "+$1" is an instruction. And as you said, intrinsically, the player carries out instructions while resolving cards (and tokens). This is technically true. You're not addressing what I wrote in step 3, you're jumping to your conclusion. Since you can't trash a card without following an instruction, it must be technically true to say that "if it made you trash a card" asks if it made you follow an instruction to trash a card.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #106 on: January 17, 2023, 01:04:20 pm »
0

Similarly, Harbor Village asks if it (playing the Action card) gave you an instruction to get $ (or, the instruction "+$").
This is something you have created; it's not what Harbor Village actually says or does. It asks if the card gave you +$; it doesn't mention instructions.

Normally (in fact almost always), when playing a card gets you +$, that's due to following its instructions, but that's not the only way things can happen, and Harbor Village doesn't refer to any such thing.

For example, consider a hypothetical "This turn, when you play an Action card, it also gives you +$1." That clearly causes Harbor Village to trigger. We don't "follow card instructions" to get that +$1; it's a trigger waiting around, from instructions followed earlier.

I'm saying that "+$1" is an instruction (which means "you get $1" -- $1 being the resource you get). I'm saying that you can never do anything without following an instruction to do so. Would you say the same about Barber Village - "if it made you trash a card", that this doesn't mention instructions?

What about, "at the start of your next turn, you may play this form your hand" (Clerk) or "at the start of your next turn, discard 2 cards" (Tide Pools)? According to your logic, the bolded phrases are not instructions when you get to the start of your next turn? According to me, they are. And what is giving you those instructions is Clerk/Tide Pools. Note that you have to follow the instruction "discard 2 cards" at the start of the turn, because you don't even know what cards you might discard before then. (The same is of course true for "+$1". It's an act of increasing the player's pool of $ which has to be performed by the player at the correct time.)

Quote from: Donald X.
Whereas of course "This turn, when you play an Action card, +$1" does not attribute the +$ to the card-play and so would not trigger Harbor Village.

So to try to understand your logic:
CardA: "This turn, when you play an Action card, it also gives you +$1."  ... The card-play of the Action card "gives" you +$1. The card-play of CardA does not.
CardB: "This turn, when you play an Action card, +$1" ... The card-play of the Action card does not "give" you +$1. Neither does the card-play of CardB. So no card "gives" you +$1?

It does not seem like this poking at the word "instructions" is helping us communicate. Harbor Village doesn't say "instructions" on it.

Maybe we can give it a while and see if more people chime in.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #107 on: January 17, 2023, 01:12:03 pm »
0

It does not seem like this poking at the word "instructions" is helping us communicate. Harbor Village doesn't say "instructions" on it.

It's the core of my point though - when we are referring to things that happen we are referring to instructions having been followed. Almost no cards say "instructions", but everything on them (in the area in the middle) are still instructions, per the rulebook.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #108 on: January 17, 2023, 02:13:49 pm »
+2

It does not seem like this poking at the word "instructions" is helping us communicate. Harbor Village doesn't say "instructions" on it.

It's the core of my point though - when we are referring to things that happen we are referring to instructions having been followed. Almost no cards say "instructions", but everything on them (in the area in the middle) are still instructions, per the rulebook.
This didn't get me anywhere. I feel like this is "let's define jargon that means that some things said colloquially can be poked at" and I mean it's not helping me get rulings or communicate with you.

I feel like I have a set of rulings that's consistent and working. At the same time there is a communication issue, me trying to get you to feel like there's a set of rulings that's consistent and working. I have put some time into it. Let's see if someone else gets anywhere.

Maybe someone will ultimately reveal that I am mistaken, maybe hugely mistaken. I don't mind, I'll roll with that punch. But I can only put so much energy into trying to communicate clearly with you.
Logged

Gdan0

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +10
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #109 on: January 17, 2023, 02:17:27 pm »
+1

The fact is that all cards have instructions. All game rules are also instructions. Nothing can be done by the players that is not following instructions. As you conceded, "+$1" is an instruction. And as you said, intrinsically, the player carries out instructions while resolving cards (and tokens). This is technically true. You're not addressing what I wrote in step 3, you're jumping to your conclusion. Since you can't trash a card without following an instruction, it must be technically true to say that "if it made you trash a card" asks if it made you follow an instruction to trash a card.

I haven't conceded anything as I haven't change my position on anything I've said thus far. I've been using the word, "resolve" more than the word "instruction," because it is so very easy to conflate what instruction means to the game and what instruction means in the colloquial sense. I have addressed what you said in step 3 in almost every post so far: I disagree with your conclusion that Harbor Village looks for instructions. To be specific, Harbor Village does not specifically say "instructions" You claim I'm jumping to conclusions, but I've clearly and plainly posted my reasoning as to why Harbor Village doesn't care about if instructions are followed. I said resolving the action is intrinsically following instructions because following instructions is innate, nothing more. That doesn't mean Harbor Village looks for instructions being followed. It's incidental that instructions are being followed. This is a matter of relevance. Harbor Village cares only about results. It's looking for results that are attributed to the action being resolved. The action being resolved by the player carrying out various rules and instructions. To contrast, I've brought on up in my first post, Enchantress and Reckless care if a card is being resolved specifically for "its instructions." "Its instructions" being the printed text on the card.

Quote from: Jeebus
Since you can't trash a card without following an instruction, it must be technically true to say that "if it made you trash a card" asks if it made you follow an instruction to trash a card.

It must also be technically true to say that Harbor Village produces $1 if by resolving the next played action the player receives $ that is also attributed to that action.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #110 on: January 17, 2023, 04:02:52 pm »
0

I haven't conceded anything as I haven't change my position on anything I've said thus far. I've been using the word, "resolve" more than the word "instruction," because it is so very easy to conflate what instruction means to the game and what instruction means in the colloquial sense. I have addressed what you said in step 3 in almost every post so far: I disagree with your conclusion that Harbor Village looks for instructions. To be specific, Harbor Village does not specifically say "instructions" You claim I'm jumping to conclusions, but I've clearly and plainly posted my reasoning as to why Harbor Village doesn't care about if instructions are followed. I said resolving the action is intrinsically following instructions because following instructions is innate, nothing more. That doesn't mean Harbor Village looks for instructions being followed. It's incidental that instructions are being followed. This is a matter of relevance. Harbor Village cares only about results. It's looking for results that are attributed to the action being resolved. The action being resolved by the player carrying out various rules and instructions. To contrast, I've brought on up in my first post, Enchantress and Reckless care if a card is being resolved specifically for "its instructions." "Its instructions" being the printed text on the card.

I meant "agreed", not "conceded".

I mean instructions in the technical sense. That's why it's irrelevant that the colloquial text on HV doesn't have the word "instructions" in it.

I have replied to everything you're saying so many times in this thread that I don't care to adress it in detail even more times. That's why I asked you to specifically adress the post I made. In adressing step 3, you're jumping to your conclusion instead of directly adressing my point in that step. Sure, Harbor Village is asking about results, but "+$1" is an instruction followed by a player, and HV cares how that player ended up following an instruction to get $.

Quote from: Gdan0
Quote from: Jeebus
Since you can't trash a card without following an instruction, it must be technically true to say that "if it made you trash a card" asks if it made you follow an instruction to trash a card.

It must also be technically true to say that Harbor Village produces $1 if by resolving the next played action the player receives $ that is also attributed to that action.

So if you agree that it's true, you have conceded that step 3 is true. And step 4 too.

Gdan0

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +10
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #111 on: January 17, 2023, 05:33:35 pm »
0

Quote from: Jeebus
Quote from: Gdan0
Quote from: Jeebus
Since you can't trash a card without following an instruction, it must be technically true to say that "if it made you trash a card" asks if it made you follow an instruction to trash a card.

It must also be technically true to say that Harbor Village produces $1 if by resolving the next played action the player receives $ that is also attributed to that action.

So if you agree that it's true, you have conceded that step 3 is true. And step 4 too.

This actually concedes nothing. In your quote both "if it(the action) made you trash a card" and "if it (the action) made you follow an instruction to trash the card" mean almost the same thing. Both attribute trashing to the action,  because as we discussed, following instructions is innate. However,  Harbor Village does not say,  "instruction." Your use of "an instruction" is vague enough to allow for any rule or mechanic that attributes itself to the resolution of an action to satisfy the if clause. It's actually redundant here. This is why I responded to that quote with what I said. What I said is similar to the two things you said,  only mine describes what Harbor Village actually does and asks.

Quote from: Jeebus
I have replied to everything you're saying so many times in this thread that I don't care to adress it in detail even more times. That's why I asked you to specifically adress the post I made. In adressing step 3, you're jumping to your conclusion instead of directly adressing my point in that step. Sure, Harbor Village is asking about results, but "+$1" is an instruction followed by a player, and HV cares how that player ended up following an instruction to get $.

So we agree,  that Harbor Village cares about the result of the action. "+$1" is incidentally an instruction, but Harbor Village only cares so much that the resolution of the action "gives"(any changes to the game state that are attributed to the resolving of the action.) Whether or not instructions are followed are not within Harbor Villages scope, because it does not say "instruction" explicitly.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2023, 06:33:50 pm by Gdan0 »
Logged

chipperMDW

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 371
  • Respect: +826
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #112 on: January 17, 2023, 09:52:45 pm »
+1

Quote
Quote from: chipperMDW
Quote
If "Instance of a card" is whatever you end up doing as a result of playing that card, then Adventures tokens, Priest's +$2, another Cultist, etc., are all included.
It's not everything that happens "as a result of" playing that card; it's every instruction issued by the instance, and nothing that triggered as a result.

Ways and Enchantress specifically triggered as a result.

Correct; they do trigger as a result of playing the card. And we can point at what they do when they trigger:
Code: [Select]
def way_trigger_instructions(player, card, instance):
    global way_save
    instance.instructions_to_follow = way_save.instructions
They change what instructions are going to be followed. And that's all.

Notably, WotS doesn't give +$2 when the Ways rules trigger (or ever). The instance does that when it carries out its "instructions to follow" in its resolve method (and it takes credit for it). So my saying the instance does "nothing that triggered as a result" is indeed correct (in the model I'm suggesting), and is exactly what I meant.


Quote
Quote from: chipperMDW
Why would we use the Instance model for gaining, though? As you demonstrated, it doesn't give the intended results there. If we use an Instance model for playing cards because it gives the intended results there, why would that mean we were forced to use it in other places?

Because there is nothing in the rules that say that they are different. If "Instance of playing a card" refers to whatever we were going to do from that and ALSO something that has been substituted, why shouldn't the same be true for "Instance of gaining a card"?

First of all, somewhere along the way, you seem to have started interpreting "Instance of playing a card" as "the stuff that results from playing a card" rather than "a particular playing of a card," the latter being what I have always intended it to mean. I see that you used it that way in the innermost quote of the last section (and in another sentence that isn't quoted), and I didn't correct you then because I assumed it was a typo. Maybe I misused it somewhere and gave you the wrong idea?

If you want a name for "the stuff that results from playing a card," I would call that its "results" or its "effects." That just seems like not what the word "instance" means.

But I think you're saying that, if, during the resolution of Ironworks, it proposed an "instance of gaining a card" that had a target of a Village, and 1E Trader triggered and modified the target of that gaining-instance to Silver, then the gaining-instance "resolved," then Ironworks would see that as "its own" gain and give you a coin. And, yeah, I could see it working that way. That would be a valid model via which the rules could work. But the thing is, Donald X. (eventually) ruled that it worked otherwise. Blue dog and everything. So... we don't (didn't) describe it that way.


Quote
Quote from: chipperMDW
I mean, I feel like I explained a way it can work. The ultimate test, I guess, is can I explain it to a computer and have it give the expected results?

So I threw together a little Python script both as a sanity check and an attempt to explain what I'm trying to say.

You have defined "Instance" as something that is created when you play a card, and points to which instructions to follow when you get to the "follow the card's on-play instructions" part. And Ways are special-coded to change that pointer in the Instance. And then you have Harbor Village check what you got from following the Instance's instructions. Of course you get the intended result in that case. Note that you would also have to special-code Enchantress and Reckless in the same way - and Reckless is not "instead".

You have decided that Ways get hooked to the Instance, but you could have programmed that however you wanted. Why doesn't the Adventures token get hooked to the Instance? Why doesn't Priest's "+$2"? Why does Reckless's "follow the instructions an extra time"?
By making these choices, you decide what cards/tokens that will count as "things you get from playing the card" and which won't. But there is no explanation in the program for why, it's just chosen arbitrarily to be that way. I don't see that the program answers anything.

You have defined "Instance of playing the card" for the sole purpose of interactions with Harbor Village, Moat, Elder and Lantern. Other abilities (as far as we have found) don't care. Imagine that Harbor Village was actually ruled to check everything that happens from announcing the card until you are done with everything that triggered off of that. And Moat could be ruled the same way, which means it would protect you from the whole chain of Cultists. Same with Elder and Lantern. Then we would have to define "Instance of the card" differently, to include everything. There would be nothing in the rules to proclude such a definition either, and it would work in accordance with those rulings. I get that that's what you're trying to do, with the actual rulings. But defining the concept of Instance to match exactly the rulings doesn't actually address the problems I have brought up.

(You're still using "instance" to describe something more like "effects" here.)

So, this all sounds like "You only programmed it that way because that's how Donald X. said it worked." And, well, you're correct. I thought the issue was that you were having trouble imagining a model in which what Donald X. described was consistent and possible. From what you say here, it seems more like the issue is that you don't see how Donald X. arrived at the conclusions he did from what the cards/rulebooks say.

Quote
Note that you would also have to special-code Enchantress and Reckless in the same way - and Reckless is not "instead".

So, is the complaint just that Reckless would use the same mechanism as the others but doesn't use the same wording? Or perhaps that "instead of playing" would "replace" the playing even though "instead of gaining" didn't replace the gaining (and they both use "instead")?

EDIT: My last question there is worded pretty poorly, so I struck it out. Of course they both replace the thing in some way; and also, there's not really an "instead of playing," but an "instead of following instructions." What I meant was more like: is the problem that these two things both use the word "instead," but "instead of following instructions" functions by changing what an old thing (the instance) is about to do and "instead of gaining" functions by stopping the old thing (the gain) and directly making a new thing (another gain) happen in its place? Or, to say it a shorter way, that you consider them to be using the same wording, but operating via different mechanisms?
« Last Edit: January 18, 2023, 02:14:01 am by chipperMDW »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #113 on: January 18, 2023, 03:02:23 am »
0

It does not seem like this poking at the word "instructions" is helping us communicate. Harbor Village doesn't say "instructions" on it.

It's the core of my point though - when we are referring to things that happen we are referring to instructions having been followed. Almost no cards say "instructions", but everything on them (in the area in the middle) are still instructions, per the rulebook.
This didn't get me anywhere. I feel like this is "let's define jargon that means that some things said colloquially can be poked at" and I mean it's not helping me get rulings or communicate with you.

I feel like I have a set of rulings that's consistent and working. At the same time there is a communication issue, me trying to get you to feel like there's a set of rulings that's consistent and working. I have put some time into it. Let's see if someone else gets anywhere.

Maybe someone will ultimately reveal that I am mistaken, maybe hugely mistaken. I don't mind, I'll roll with that punch. But I can only put so much energy into trying to communicate clearly with you.

I really don't see that I'm defining any jargon at all (unlike most other posters). "Instructions" are well-established in Dominion and is simply what a card tells you to do at a specific time. Moat has two sets of instructions, one that you follow when you play it and one that you follow when you react with it. Cards like Enchantress specifically refer to following these instructions. Furthermore, everything players do in all games is following instructions. Games are made up of instructions! Games consist wholly of instructions to the players - what to do and when. Whenever you're checking if a player did something, it refers to that player having followed some instructions. I just can't believe that's controversial.

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #114 on: January 18, 2023, 03:34:56 am »
0

Quote from: Jeebus
Quote from: Gdan0
Quote from: Jeebus
Since you can't trash a card without following an instruction, it must be technically true to say that "if it made you trash a card" asks if it made you follow an instruction to trash a card.

It must also be technically true to say that Harbor Village produces $1 if by resolving the next played action the player receives $ that is also attributed to that action.

So if you agree that it's true, you have conceded that step 3 is true. And step 4 too.

This actually concedes nothing. In your quote both "if it(the action) made you trash a card" and "if it (the action) made you follow an instruction to trash the card" mean almost the same thing. Both attribute trashing to the action,  because as we discussed, following instructions is innate. However,  Harbor Village does not say,  "instruction." Your use of "an instruction" is vague enough to allow for any rule or mechanic that attributes itself to the resolution of an action to satisfy the if clause. It's actually redundant here. This is why I responded to that quote with what I said. What I said is similar to the two things you said,  only mine describes what Harbor Village actually does and asks.

(I assume that with "action" you mean "Action card".)

Yes, they mean the same thing. "Being made to do something" means that you followed an instruction to do it. Nothing else could make you do it! If you'll read more closely, you'll see that I did not mean "if it(the action) made you trash a card" but rather "if it (playing the Action card) made you trash a card". It's vague because in step 3 we have not yet asked the question of exactly what made you trash a card (which is the same as saying "what instructions you followed to trash a card").

The reason I'm defining "it" as playing the card instead of the card itself, is that it allows for more interpretations, including that the card itself did it.

"Receives $ that is attributed to the Action card" is vague.
Barber Village is much easier to use, since then this whole "giving a resource" thing is not confusing people.
"Receives 'trash a card' that is attributed to the Action card" is vague. You're "attributing" an instruction to a card without saying what that means technically. The only way to be technically accurate is to talk about the player following instructions. It's never "redundant" to be more technically accurate, and any rules explanation has to be able to withstand the most technical description.

Quote from: Jeebus
I have replied to everything you're saying so many times in this thread that I don't care to adress it in detail even more times. That's why I asked you to specifically adress the post I made. In adressing step 3, you're jumping to your conclusion instead of directly adressing my point in that step. Sure, Harbor Village is asking about results, but "+$1" is an instruction followed by a player, and HV cares how that player ended up following an instruction to get $.

So we agree,  that Harbor Village cares about the result of the action. "+$1" is incidentally an instruction, but Harbor Village only cares so much that the resolution of the action "gives"(any changes to the game state that are attributed to the resolving of the action.) Whether or not instructions are followed are not within Harbor Villages scope, because it does not say "instruction" explicitly.

The thing is, Barber Village caring about the result of "trash a card" (which is an instruction) is the same as saying that Barber Village cares about the player trashing a card. But of course it cares about what made the player trash a card; in other words, what instructions the player followed to trash a card.

You say "resolving of the Action card", but of course "resolving" means following instructions. What else are we resolving?

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #115 on: January 18, 2023, 03:58:05 am »
+1

Quote
If "Instance of a card" is whatever you end up doing as a result of playing that card, then Adventures tokens, Priest's +$2, another Cultist, etc., are all included.
If "Instance of a card" is supposed to exclude all those things, then it has to refer to just the card's instructions. If it's also supposed to include instructions from Ways or Enchantress, then we would have to define that specifically somehow (either with tagging instructions, or by calling out Ways/Enchantress by name or similar).
It's not everything that happens "as a result of" playing that card; it's every instruction issued by the instance, and nothing that triggered as a result.

I will give you a new answer to this. (Note that I restored the full text of what I wrote in the innermost quote.)
I'm asking how we define which instructions the Instance should include. You're answer is "every instruction issued by the instance". This is circular.

Quote from: chipperMDW
Quote
Quote from: chipperMDW
Why would we use the Instance model for gaining, though? As you demonstrated, it doesn't give the intended results there. If we use an Instance model for playing cards because it gives the intended results there, why would that mean we were forced to use it in other places?

Because there is nothing in the rules that say that they are different. If "Instance of playing a card" refers to whatever we were going to do from that and ALSO something that has been substituted, why shouldn't the same be true for "Instance of gaining a card"?

First of all, somewhere along the way, you seem to have started interpreting "Instance of playing a card" as "the stuff that results from playing a card" rather than "a particular playing of a card," the latter being what I have always intended it to mean. I see that you used it that way in the innermost quote of the last section (and in another sentence that isn't quoted), and I didn't correct you then because I assumed it was a typo. Maybe I misused it somewhere and gave you the wrong idea?

If you want a name for "the stuff that results from playing a card," I would call that its "results" or its "effects." That just seems like not what the word "instance" means.

I just used a short-hand there. I didn't mean that the term "Instance of playing a card" refers to whatever we were going to do from that, but rather that the actual Instance refers to (points to) what we were going to do.

When it comes to the innermost quote, you had taken it out of context.

I never meant that "Instance of playing a card" means the results.

Quote from: chipperMDW
But I think you're saying that, if, during the resolution of Ironworks, it proposed an "instance of gaining a card" that had a target of a Village, and 1E Trader triggered and modified the target of that gaining-instance to Silver, then the gaining-instance "resolved," then Ironworks would see that as "its own" gain and give you a coin. And, yeah, I could see it working that way. That would be a valid model via which the rules could work. But the thing is, Donald X. (eventually) ruled that it worked otherwise. Blue dog and everything. So... we don't (didn't) describe it that way.

I can only repeat what I said: There is nothing in the rules that say that they are different. Why would we have an "Instance of playing a card" and an "Instance of gaining a card" that work in opposite ways? There is certainly nothing in the rules to suggest it. Yes, Donald has ruled that Ways/Ench/Reckl work a particular way, but that is not because there is something special about the act of playing cards itself that is different than all other things you can do in Dominion.

Quote from: chipperMDW
Quote
You have decided that Ways get hooked to the Instance, but you could have programmed that however you wanted. Why doesn't the Adventures token get hooked to the Instance? Why doesn't Priest's "+$2"? Why does Reckless's "follow the instructions an extra time"?
By making these choices, you decide what cards/tokens that will count as "things you get from playing the card" and which won't. But there is no explanation in the program for why, it's just chosen arbitrarily to be that way. I don't see that the program answers anything.

You have defined "Instance of playing the card" for the sole purpose of interactions with Harbor Village, Moat, Elder and Lantern. Other abilities (as far as we have found) don't care. Imagine that Harbor Village was actually ruled to check everything that happens from announcing the card until you are done with everything that triggered off of that. And Moat could be ruled the same way, which means it would protect you from the whole chain of Cultists. Same with Elder and Lantern. Then we would have to define "Instance of the card" differently, to include everything. There would be nothing in the rules to proclude such a definition either, and it would work in accordance with those rulings. I get that that's what you're trying to do, with the actual rulings. But defining the concept of Instance to match exactly the rulings doesn't actually address the problems I have brought up.

(You're still using "instance" to describe something more like "effects" here.)

So, this all sounds like "You only programmed it that way because that's how Donald X. said it worked." And, well, you're correct. I thought the issue was that you were having trouble imagining a model in which what Donald X. described was consistent and possible. From what you say here, it seems more like the issue is that you don't see how Donald X. arrived at the conclusions he did from what the cards/rulebooks say.[/i]

No, I did imagine a model, the "tag model". See what I replied to GendoIkari above. You have created another version of my "tag model". It has the same problems.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2023, 04:33:03 am by Jeebus »
Logged

chipperMDW

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 371
  • Respect: +826
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #116 on: January 18, 2023, 12:59:40 pm »
+2

I can only repeat what I said: There is nothing in the rules that say that they are different. Why would we have an "Instance of playing a card" and an "Instance of gaining a card" that work in opposite ways? There is certainly nothing in the rules to suggest it. Yes, Donald has ruled that Ways/Ench/Reckl work a particular way, but that is not because there is something special about the act of playing cards itself that is different than all other things you can do in Dominion.

I think the question you mean to ask there is "Why would we have an 'instance of playing a card' when we don't have an 'instance of gaining a card'?" Since, if we did have an "instance of gaining a card" (that worked the way you're proposing), they would not work in opposite ways.

My answer there would be that, if Donald X. says that playing a card works a certain way that defies your expectations given how he says other things work, then maybe playing a card is special and different from those other things. You say that the rules don't say they should work differently; but Donald X.'s posts seem to have said they should.


I asked before and you didn't answer: Is this just a matter of you being dissatisfied that similar wordings are being used to describe dissimilar mechanisms (Ways vs. 1E Trader)? Or that dissimilar wordings are being used to describe similar mechanisms (Ways vs. Reckless)? Are you just looking for the wording in the rulebooks/rulings to be more precise and consistent?
Logged

Gdan0

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +10
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #117 on: January 18, 2023, 02:11:37 pm »
0

Quote from: Jeebus
You say "resolving of the Action card", but of course "resolving" means following instructions. What else are we resolving?

I'm glad you asked. If I say "follow instructions of the action card" it could be vague. It could be interpreted as everything that goes into playing an action or it could be interpreted as specifically the printed text on the card. When an action is played many game mechanics can happen. Playing the action as a Way. There are other effects like durations, tokens, or effects on other card that may do things during the playing of that action. When I say "resolve an action" that would mean to encompass all possible things that could occur. However, not everything that occurs at this time is attributable to the playing or instruction following of that action.

Quote from: Jeebus
"Receives $ that is attributed to the Action card" is vague.

This isn't vague as we already have rules are rulings that demonstrate this. I'm simply describing it. Ways attribute their effect to the action. Actions, of course, attribute their own effect to themselves. Adventures tokens, per their rules, do not attribute their effect to the action. Effects that can happen as you play an action or during resolving it may or may not be attributed to the action. It depends on the effect's specific wording. Donald X. gave a great example for this one.

Quote from: Jeebus
"Receives 'trash a card' that is attributed to the Action card" is vague. You're "attributing" an instruction to a card without saying what that means technically.

I don't think that is vague at all. I could try to describe it differently.
 
The player carries out the effect "trash a card" during the playing of the action whose source is the action.
The player carries out the effect "trash a card" during the playing of the action whose source is not the action.
The player carries out the effect "+$1" during the playing of the action whose source is the action.
The player carries out the effect "+$1" during the playing of the action whose source is not the action.

I'm a bit wary about using "source", just so long as its agreed that here it means "from where it is obtained." In addition an effect or rule may say an action is to be considered "from where it is obtained."
Also note I can remove, "The player carries out the effect" in all of these since it's implicit.

The player having to trash a card can happen for any number of reasons. This only matters if there is a hypothetical card that cares if an action is trashing a card. To be more technical an action that has "trash a card" be attributed to it. For example, if there was a trashing token in addition to the +1 card, +1 action, +1 buy, and +$1 tokens in Adventures that behaved exactly like those tokens. We'd have a situation where playing an action would first have you trash a card, but the trashing is not attributed to the action per the rules in the Adventures Rulebook. The trashing would not be attributed to the playing of the action, to the resolving of the action, or to following the instructions of the action. It would thus not give +$1 on our hypothetical Harbor Village that cares about trashing.

Quote from: Jeebus
The only way to be technically accurate is to talk about the player following instructions.

I'll soft disagree with this notion as the player following any instruction written anywhere or any game really, be it a rule, a ruling, a card, is so innate. It is so implicit and engrained into what makes a game. If the player following instructions has to be explicitly mentioned to be accurate when describing a card, then that must mean the player following instructions is explicitly mentioned on the card for a specific reason, otherwise its redundant and irrelevant. Harbor Village does not say "instruction." It doesn't need to. Harbor Village isn't looking for instructions being followed. It simply doesn't mention it explicitly at all. If you try to expand what Harbor Village means, in order for it to fall in line with how it's ruled would be. "If the next action and any attributable effects to the action gave you $, +$1" I'll expand it further. "If the player followed an instruction on the next action or an instruction that is attributed to the action and received $ as a result, +$1" I could word it like my example earlier. "If the player carried out instructions for "+$" whose source is the next action, +$1" Harbor Village could say something like this and be this long, but a lot of this is redundant because of rules and rulings that exist to govern the players and how cards are played. Harbor Village exists as its written and it is in line with how it is intended and ruled upon.

Quote from: Jeebus
It's never "redundant" to be more technically accurate, and any rules explanation has to be able to withstand the most technical description.

The reason why I say the phrasing is redundant is because "an instruction" would have it fall in line with all existing rules and rulings. Its already implicit that the player is going to follow instructions of some kind. The phrase "an instruction" can be any and all instructions in the game because of how vague it is. It is assumed that some instructions are being followed to do things. Only Harbor Village doesn't care about that, just the results and if those results were attributed to the action. It looks for "if it gave". "Gave" meaning whatever effect the player carried out that is attributed to the action. If there was an effect the player carried out during the resolving of said action, that the action didn't do, then the action didn't "give" it. Throughout all of this, of course, the player is carrying out "an instruction."

Quote from: Jeebus
Yes, they mean the same thing. "Being made to do something" means that you followed an instruction to do it. Nothing else could make you do it! If you'll read more closely, you'll see that I did not mean "if it(the action) made you trash a card" but rather "if it (playing the Action card) made you trash a card". It's vague because in step 3 we have not yet asked the question of exactly what made you trash a card (which is the same as saying "what instructions you followed to trash a card").

So long as you mean "if it(playing the action card) made you trash a cards" means "if carrying out the action's effects including all effects that are attributed to it made you trash a card." If you are trying to say "if it made you trash a card" to mean "if the card and nothing but its printed text made you trash the card", then I'd disagree.



Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #118 on: January 19, 2023, 02:42:28 am »
0

I can only repeat what I said: There is nothing in the rules that say that they are different. Why would we have an "Instance of playing a card" and an "Instance of gaining a card" that work in opposite ways? There is certainly nothing in the rules to suggest it. Yes, Donald has ruled that Ways/Ench/Reckl work a particular way, but that is not because there is something special about the act of playing cards itself that is different than all other things you can do in Dominion.

I think the question you mean to ask there is "Why would we have an 'instance of playing a card' when we don't have an 'instance of gaining a card'?" Since, if we did have an "instance of gaining a card" (that worked the way you're proposing), they would not work in opposite ways.

My answer there would be that, if Donald X. says that playing a card works a certain way that defies your expectations given how he says other things work, then maybe playing a card is special and different from those other things. You say that the rules don't say they should work differently; but Donald X.'s posts seem to have said they should.

If there is such a thing as "Instance if playing a card", it must mean "what the rules tell us to do when playing a card", and it follows that we also have "Instance of gaining a card" and everything else you can do in Dominion. But I see that you are inventing this concept as something special for playing cards, a node for hooking instructions into. As I said, it's my "tag model" all over again. This is my main argument against your model, which I have explained in different ways.

Quote from: chipperMDW
I asked before and you didn't answer: Is this just a matter of you being dissatisfied that similar wordings are being used to describe dissimilar mechanisms (Ways vs. 1E Trader)? Or that dissimilar wordings are being used to describe similar mechanisms (Ways vs. Reckless)? Are you just looking for the wording in the rulebooks/rulings to be more precise and consistent?

I didn't answer because I wasn't sure what specific argument of mine you were referring to. And because I explained everything so thoroughly already. The answer is no to all those three questions. I'll just quote myself and see if that helps you:
I have no problem with the way the Way rules are phrased or how Harbor Village is phrased. This is not about the English (non-technical) definition of "what a card does". As I have said, and explained in detail, it's fine to say that. The problem lies solely in finding the correct technical definitions.

I have explained my point in a succinct way here. (And several other times in more verbose ways.)

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #119 on: January 19, 2023, 03:46:34 am »
0

Quote from: Jeebus
You say "resolving of the Action card", but of course "resolving" means following instructions. What else are we resolving?

I'm glad you asked. If I say "follow instructions of the action card" it could be vague. It could be interpreted as everything that goes into playing an action or it could be interpreted as specifically the printed text on the card. When an action is played many game mechanics can happen. Playing the action as a Way. There are other effects like durations, tokens, or effects on other card that may do things during the playing of that action. When I say "resolve an action" that would mean to encompass all possible things that could occur. However, not everything that occurs at this time is attributable to the playing or instruction following of that action.

"Instructions of a card" means one thing and is not vague. Just like the cost, name and types of the card it is an attribute of the card. (They are printed on the card, yes, but they can be "shapeshifted", meaning changed. Bridge changes the cost of cards. Inheritance changes the instructions of Estates. Envious changes the instructions of Silver and Gold. There used to be more "shapeshifters", like Band of Misfits, but they were errataed away.) Enchantress for instance directly refers to the instructions of the card. It has a clear definition.

If we say "the instructions you follow as a result of playing a card", it can mean any of the different instructions, like tokens, etc. But "the card's instructions that you follow when you play it" can of course only mean the card's instructions. You say "resolve an Action card" and mean the first thing, but that is very unclear and confusing language. Then you should say at least "resolve the playing of an Action card".

But aside from that terminology, I see that we agree about this part.

Quote from: Gdan0
Quote from: Jeebus
"Receives $ that is attributed to the Action card" is vague.

This isn't vague as we already have rules are rulings that demonstrate this. I'm simply describing it. Ways attribute their effect to the action. Actions, of course, attribute their own effect to themselves. Adventures tokens, per their rules, do not attribute their effect to the action. Effects that can happen as you play an action or during resolving it may or may not be attributed to the action. It depends on the effect's specific wording. Donald X. gave a great example for this one.

We have a ruling, but this debate is about whether the ruling makes sense within the framework of how Dominion works in general and how games work in general. You can't explain why a ruling makes sense by saying that it's because we have that ruling. This is circular argumentation.

I'll note that neither Ways nor Harbor Village use the word "attribute". If you attribute something to a card, you are giving it an attribute, a property. Cards have that, as I said, their instructions, cost, name and types. You are giving it another. See my "tag model"!

Quote from: Gdan0
Quote from: Jeebus
"Receives 'trash a card' that is attributed to the Action card" is vague. You're "attributing" an instruction to a card without saying what that means technically.

I don't think that is vague at all. I could try to describe it differently.
 
The player carries out the effect "trash a card" during the playing of the action whose source is the action.
The player carries out the effect "trash a card" during the playing of the action whose source is not the action.
The player carries out the effect "+$1" during the playing of the action whose source is the action.
The player carries out the effect "+$1" during the playing of the action whose source is not the action.

I'm a bit wary about using "source", just so long as its agreed that here it means "from where it is obtained." In addition an effect or rule may say an action is to be considered "from where it is obtained."
Also note I can remove, "The player carries out the effect" in all of these since it's implicit.

"Source" is not defined anywhere, neither is "obtained". Note that I'm using the words "player" and "instructions" and "follow instructions", all defined in Dominion and also generally defined and understood in all games. Use these terms only and see where it gets you.

Quote from: Gdan0
Quote from: Jeebus
The only way to be technically accurate is to talk about the player following instructions.

I'll soft disagree with this notion as the player following any instruction written anywhere or any game really, be it a rule, a ruling, a card, is so innate. It is so implicit and engrained into what makes a game. If the player following instructions has to be explicitly mentioned to be accurate when describing a card, then that must mean the player following instructions is explicitly mentioned on the card for a specific reason, otherwise its redundant and irrelevant.

The point is not to have card texts themselves be unnecessarily more spesific, like mentioning "instructions" or "player" when it's not needed. But here we have a disagreement about card interactions, and the only way to get anywhere is to be technically specific when we talk about them.

Quote from: Gdan0
Harbor Village does not say "instruction." It doesn't need to. Harbor Village isn't looking for instructions being followed. It simply doesn't mention it explicitly at all.

Enchantress doesn't say "when you would follow the card's on-play instructions" either, but that's what it means according to the ruling. Cards use colloquial language a lot of the time, not technically accurate language.

Quote from: Gdan0
If you try to expand what Harbor Village means, in order for it to fall in line with how it's ruled would be. "If the next action and any attributable effects to the action gave you $, +$1" I'll expand it further. "If the player followed an instruction on the next action or an instruction that is attributed to the action and received $ as a result, +$1"

"Attributable" or "attributed to" would not be technically accurate, since they have no defined meaning. As I said, they are not used anywhere. We could use them of course, for talking about this, but then we have to define them. An attribute of a card seems to be a thing like its cost, name, etc., and as I said, you're then doing my tag model.

You're actually following my tag model exactly: "an instruction on the card or an instruction that is attributed to the card" is the same as "the instructions on the card or the card's Intrusive instructions", since I defined Ways as giving the card Intrusive instructions (in your parlance, "attributing the instructions to the card"). Note that this means that cards can have both instructions and "attributed instructions", so two types of instructions. As I wrote further down in that post, we then have to define a new rule to make it work: wherever "instructions" are mentioned with no modifier, the normal instructions are meant, not "attributed instructions".

Quote from: Gdan0
Quote from: Jeebus
Yes, they mean the same thing. "Being made to do something" means that you followed an instruction to do it. Nothing else could make you do it! If you'll read more closely, you'll see that I did not mean "if it(the action) made you trash a card" but rather "if it (playing the Action card) made you trash a card". It's vague because in step 3 we have not yet asked the question of exactly what made you trash a card (which is the same as saying "what instructions you followed to trash a card").

So long as you mean "if it(playing the action card) made you trash a cards" means "if carrying out the action's effects including all effects that are attributed to it made you trash a card." If you are trying to say "if it made you trash a card" to mean "if the card and nothing but its printed text made you trash the card", then I'd disagree.

In step 3, I am actually saying neither, as I have explained. I'm being as vague as Barber Village is. It just asks if playing the card made you trash a card. You are again jumping to the conclusion and reading into it. Again, if you read that post a little closer, you'll see that after the definitions in 3 and 4, THEN I'm addressing which instructions should be included in what Moat and Harbor Village is looking for. Once you've gotten past 3 and 4, you can address that.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2023, 04:06:24 am by Jeebus »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #120 on: January 19, 2023, 09:27:07 am »
+1

An attribute of a card seems to be a thing like its cost, name, etc

I could be mistaken, but it sounds like you're talking about a completely unrelated meaning of the word "attribute"; not even pronounced the same. You're talking about attribute, with emphasis on the a, a noun. He's talking about attribute, with emphasis on "tri", a verb.

Verb: regard something as being caused by (someone or something).
Noun: a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.
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: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #121 on: January 19, 2023, 09:44:34 am »
0

An attribute of a card seems to be a thing like its cost, name, etc

I could be mistaken, but it sounds like you're talking about a completely unrelated meaning of the word "attribute"; not even pronounced the same. You're talking about attribute, with emphasis on the a, a noun. He's talking about attribute, with emphasis on "tri", a verb.

Verb: regard something as being caused by (someone or something).
Noun: a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.

I know it's a verb and pronounced differently. But there is also this meaning of the verb: to consider as a quality or characteristic of the person, thing, group, etc.
That's how I interpreted it. You might be right that he meant it the other way, but that doesn't exactly work, because he said that Ways "attribute" their effects to the card, and that describes the Way as actively affecting the card, not just "regarding" the effects as caused by the card. Ways are what makes it happen; Harbor Village is what checks it.

Udzu

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 148
  • Respect: +186
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #122 on: January 19, 2023, 09:47:10 am »
0

-how can Moat block a Chameleon'd Witch if you aren't following the Witch's instructions?
- Again the rulebook text says that Way change what a card does - A Way of the Sheep'd Witch results in Witch making $2, Witch is making the $2, that's what the Way rules say. So Moat means you're unaffected by that.

Apologies if I misunderstood, but does this mean that you've finally had to rule on how Masquerade would behave as a Moatable Attack? I.e. what happens if you play an Attack, someone Moats it, then you use Way of the Mouse to play a set aside Masquerade?
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #123 on: January 19, 2023, 11:23:58 am »
+2

An attribute of a card seems to be a thing like its cost, name, etc

I could be mistaken, but it sounds like you're talking about a completely unrelated meaning of the word "attribute"; not even pronounced the same. You're talking about attribute, with emphasis on the a, a noun. He's talking about attribute, with emphasis on "tri", a verb.

Verb: regard something as being caused by (someone or something).
Noun: a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.

I know it's a verb and pronounced differently. But there is also this meaning of the verb: to consider as a quality or characteristic of the person, thing, group, etc.
That's how I interpreted it. You might be right that he meant it the other way, but that doesn't exactly work, because he said that Ways "attribute" their effects to the card, and that describes the Way as actively affecting the card, not just "regarding" the effects as caused by the card. Ways are what makes it happen; Harbor Village is what checks it.

It was Donald X who originally brought up "attribute", and he definitely meant it as in the verb definition I quoted. I have been under the impression that the whole thing about Harbor Village has been colloquially "who gets credit for the effect", which is another way of saying "whom to we attribute the effect to". The fact that cards have attributes (noun) doesn't come into play at all there.
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

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #124 on: January 19, 2023, 11:27:07 am »
+1

-how can Moat block a Chameleon'd Witch if you aren't following the Witch's instructions?
- Again the rulebook text says that Way change what a card does - A Way of the Sheep'd Witch results in Witch making $2, Witch is making the $2, that's what the Way rules say. So Moat means you're unaffected by that.

Apologies if I misunderstood, but does this mean that you've finally had to rule on how Masquerade would behave as a Moatable Attack? I.e. what happens if you play an Attack, someone Moats it, then you use Way of the Mouse to play a set aside Masquerade?

No, see similar question about Mouse and Duchess here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=21600.msg899501#msg899501. The difference is that Mouse causes you to play a card, so that card's effects are separate from the original played card's effects. If Mouse had Masquerade's text printed on it directly, then yes a Moat would protect you from Masquerade (which would cause all sorts of issues).
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

Udzu

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 148
  • Respect: +186
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #125 on: January 19, 2023, 11:58:26 am »
+1

-how can Moat block a Chameleon'd Witch if you aren't following the Witch's instructions?
- Again the rulebook text says that Way change what a card does - A Way of the Sheep'd Witch results in Witch making $2, Witch is making the $2, that's what the Way rules say. So Moat means you're unaffected by that.

Apologies if I misunderstood, but does this mean that you've finally had to rule on how Masquerade would behave as a Moatable Attack? I.e. what happens if you play an Attack, someone Moats it, then you use Way of the Mouse to play a set aside Masquerade?

No, see similar question about Mouse and Duchess here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=21600.msg899501#msg899501. The difference is that Mouse causes you to play a card, so that card's effects are separate from the original played card's effects. If Mouse had Masquerade's text printed on it directly, then yes a Moat would protect you from Masquerade (which would cause all sorts of issues).

Interesting, thanks. So you're "not affected" by Mouse's playing of Masquerade, but you are affected by Masquerade itself.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #126 on: January 19, 2023, 12:29:10 pm »
0

-how can Moat block a Chameleon'd Witch if you aren't following the Witch's instructions?
- Again the rulebook text says that Way change what a card does - A Way of the Sheep'd Witch results in Witch making $2, Witch is making the $2, that's what the Way rules say. So Moat means you're unaffected by that.

Apologies if I misunderstood, but does this mean that you've finally had to rule on how Masquerade would behave as a Moatable Attack? I.e. what happens if you play an Attack, someone Moats it, then you use Way of the Mouse to play a set aside Masquerade?

No, see similar question about Mouse and Duchess here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=21600.msg899501#msg899501. The difference is that Mouse causes you to play a card, so that card's effects are separate from the original played card's effects. If Mouse had Masquerade's text printed on it directly, then yes a Moat would protect you from Masquerade (which would cause all sorts of issues).

Interesting, thanks. So you're "not affected" by Mouse's playing of Masquerade, but you are affected by Masquerade itself.

Right, just like how you're affected by the second Cultist, but revealing Moat to the first Cultist doesn't help you there.
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: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #127 on: January 19, 2023, 01:17:23 pm »
+1

An attribute of a card seems to be a thing like its cost, name, etc

I could be mistaken, but it sounds like you're talking about a completely unrelated meaning of the word "attribute"; not even pronounced the same. You're talking about attribute, with emphasis on the a, a noun. He's talking about attribute, with emphasis on "tri", a verb.

Verb: regard something as being caused by (someone or something).
Noun: a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.

I know it's a verb and pronounced differently. But there is also this meaning of the verb: to consider as a quality or characteristic of the person, thing, group, etc.
That's how I interpreted it. You might be right that he meant it the other way, but that doesn't exactly work, because he said that Ways "attribute" their effects to the card, and that describes the Way as actively affecting the card, not just "regarding" the effects as caused by the card. Ways are what makes it happen; Harbor Village is what checks it.

It was Donald X who originally brought up "attribute", and he definitely meant it as in the verb definition I quoted. I have been under the impression that the whole thing about Harbor Village has been colloquially "who gets credit for the effect", which is another way of saying "whom to we attribute the effect to". The fact that cards have attributes (noun) doesn't come into play at all there.

Okay, but I think the separation between the two senses of "attributed to" is a little fluid here. We are not talking about something that innately has the credit, but something that is given the credit by something else. The Way rules (per this ruling) tell us to do what the Way says and then credit the card as the thing that "does" it (really: tells us to do it). So the card is being given credit by a special rule. That's why I interpret "attributed to" (as said by Donald X. and Gdan0) as not always just meaning "seen as having the credit" but also "actively given the credit".
« Last Edit: January 19, 2023, 01:18:59 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

Gdan0

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +10
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #128 on: January 19, 2023, 02:31:04 pm »
+1

Quote from: Gdan0
Quote from: Jeebus
"Receives $ that is attributed to the Action card" is vague.

This isn't vague as we already have rules are rulings that demonstrate this. I'm simply describing it. Ways attribute their effect to the action. Actions, of course, attribute their own effect to themselves. Adventures tokens, per their rules, do not attribute their effect to the action. Effects that can happen as you play an action or during resolving it may or may not be attributed to the action. It depends on the effect's specific wording. Donald X. gave a great example for this one.

We have a ruling, but this debate is about whether the ruling makes sense within the framework of how Dominion works in general and how games work in general. You can't explain why a ruling makes sense by saying that it's because we have that ruling. This is circular argumentation.

I'll note that neither Ways nor Harbor Village use the word "attribute". If you attribute something to a card, you are giving it an attribute, a property. Cards have that, as I said, their instructions, cost, name and types. You are giving it another. See my "tag model"!

Quote from: Menagerie Rulebook
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.

GendoIkari has it correct when I'm saying "attribute." Playing an action for what it normally does, innately, has their abilities attributed itself. A rule or text (i.e. "That action also gives +$1") on a card may attribute effects to other actions.

An action is still played regardless of if you are following "its instructions*" or following the Way for its ability. This means any results from playing that action for the Way's ability is attributed to that action, because playing an action encompasses following the Way's ability. If you disagree that the text doesn't mean that, well that is why we have rulings by Donald X. to provide clarity.

*I quoted "its instructions" because there is precedent in this game where "instructions" is explicitly used to mean what the Action normally does. See Enchantress, Reckless.

This brings us back to Harbor Village. You are inserting meaning into Harbor Village when it doesn't say anything about "instructions".  In my opinion, Harbor Village isn't vague. "The next action gave" has clear meaning. For an action "to give" would mean to follow some instruction in the game that is from "playing that action." This, however, doesn't mean Harbor Village cares about if instructions are followed. Instruction following is incidental and not a determining factor in satisfying Harbor Village's if clause. (if the next action gave) The rules for Ways say "playing an Action card for a Way ability" This implies that the action is giving whatever the Way ability does. We have more than implications though. A ruling to clarify that it does indeed that.

Quote from: Jeebus
Quote from: Gdan0
Quote from: Jeebus
"Receives 'trash a card' that is attributed to the Action card" is vague. You're "attributing" an instruction to a card without saying what that means technically.

I don't think that is vague at all. I could try to describe it differently.
 
The player carries out the effect "trash a card" during the playing of the action whose source is the action.
The player carries out the effect "trash a card" during the playing of the action whose source is not the action.
The player carries out the effect "+$1" during the playing of the action whose source is the action.
The player carries out the effect "+$1" during the playing of the action whose source is not the action.

I'm a bit wary about using "source", just so long as its agreed that here it means "from where it is obtained." In addition an effect or rule may say an action is to be considered "from where it is obtained."
Also note I can remove, "The player carries out the effect" in all of these since it's implicit.

"Source" is not defined anywhere, neither is "obtained". Note that I'm using the words "player" and "instructions" and "follow instructions", all defined in Dominion and also generally defined and understood in all games. Use these terms only and see where it gets you.

Sure. When playing an action, the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does or what the Way's instruction does. In addition the player follows instructions of any abilities that are given to the action and the player follows instructions of any other abilities that may happen before, during, or after the playing of that action. Pretty simple, just wordy.

Quote from: Jeebus
Quote from: Gdan0
Quote from: Jeebus
The only way to be technically accurate is to talk about the player following instructions.

I'll soft disagree with this notion as the player following any instruction written anywhere or any game really, be it a rule, a ruling, a card, is so innate. It is so implicit and engrained into what makes a game. If the player following instructions has to be explicitly mentioned to be accurate when describing a card, then that must mean the player following instructions is explicitly mentioned on the card for a specific reason, otherwise its redundant and irrelevant.

The point is not to have card texts themselves be unnecessarily more spesific, like mentioning "instructions" or "player" when it's not needed. But here we have a disagreement about card interactions, and the only way to get anywhere is to be technically specific when we talk about them.

Quote from: Gdan0
Harbor Village does not say "instruction." It doesn't need to. Harbor Village isn't looking for instructions being followed. It simply doesn't mention it explicitly at all.

Enchantress doesn't say "when you would follow the card's on-play instructions" either, but that's what it means according to the ruling. Cards use colloquial language a lot of the time, not technically accurate language.

Enchantress indeed doesn't say that explicitly, but through its ruling it is clarified to mean exactly that. The ruling also happens to make sense. On this precedent if a card explicitly says "its instruction" or "instruction" it should be assumed that it is referring to its normal text, unless noted otherwise by context in which "its instruction" is used or other rules and rulings. Harbor Village says "if it(the next played action) gave you $" is ruled the way it is because it would take a lot of warping of its interpretation to have it behave any other way than its printed meaning. There are two concepts called Rules as Written and Rules as Intended. Sometimes something may be written in a vague way (and I'm not saying Harbor Village necessarily is) it then takes the developer to clarify what is intended. In this case what is written and what is intended are in line with each other. The only matter is what it means for an action to give and well, I've been describing that. There are elements in this game that could have the player carry out instructions during the playing of an action that are not attributed to that action. (i.e. Adventures tokens or an effect that says, "when you play an action, +$1")

I'll respond to the remainder of the post when I have time. The "attribute" portion is mostly defunct now that the meaning of "attribute" was clarified by GendoIkari.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2023, 04:17:02 pm by Gdan0 »
Logged

Gdan0

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +10
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #129 on: January 19, 2023, 07:04:38 pm »
+1

Quote from: Jeebus
Quote from: Gdan0
If you try to expand what Harbor Village means, in order for it to fall in line with how it's ruled would be. "If the next action and any attributable effects to the action gave you $, +$1" I'll expand it further. "If the player followed an instruction on the next action or an instruction that is attributed to the action and received $ as a result, +$1"

"Attributable" or "attributed to" would not be technically accurate, since they have no defined meaning. As I said, they are not used anywhere. We could use them of course, for talking about this, but then we have to define them. An attribute of a card seems to be a thing like its cost, name, etc., and as I said, you're then doing my tag model.

You're actually following my tag model exactly: "an instruction on the card or an instruction that is attributed to the card" is the same as "the instructions on the card or the card's Intrusive instructions", since I defined Ways as giving the card Intrusive instructions (in your parlance, "attributing the instructions to the card"). Note that this means that cards can have both instructions and "attributed instructions", so two types of instructions. As I wrote further down in that post, we then have to define a new rule to make it work: wherever "instructions" are mentioned with no modifier, the normal instructions are meant, not "attributed instructions".

I'm definitely not using "attribute" as a noun. Especially not to describe qualities of a card. The context in how I'm using it should of been sufficient to determine that I'm using it in the way GendoIkari mentioned. I would probably use "characteristic" when describing a card so there wouldn't be any ambiguous language.  The rest is based on your conclusion of what you thought I meant, so I don't feel the need to comment. However:
 
Quote from: Jeebus
we then have to define a new rule to make it work: wherever "instructions" are mentioned with no modifier, the normal instructions are meant, not "attributed instructions".

Is this not already precisely how Enchantress and Reckless are ruled upon? If so, the precedent already exists as I've mentioned.

Quote from: Jeebus
But which instructions are included in "the instructions you follow playing a card"?

Clearly, it includes the card's instructions. And certainly the most straight-forward, obvious answer is that it only includes the card's instructions. (Since it does not include Adventures tokens, Cultist played by Cultist, etc.)

But we somehow want it to include the Way's instructions, Enchantress's instructions "+1 Card and +1 Action" and Reckless's instructions to "follow the card's instructions an extra time". But, we don't want to say that those instructions in any way are, or count as, the card's instructions. Then how the frack do we solve it*? It's remarkable to me that nobody can answer this and still claim that this ruling makes any sense.

I disagree with your conclusion when you say, "it only includes the card's instructions." And I'm assuming here you mean the literal text of the card.  Why? When Enchantress is in play it replaces what you would normally do while playing an action card with the cantrip, but this is only if you play the action card for what it normally does. The cantrip is also given by the played action, per the official FAQ. Playing the action for the Way's ability isn't playing the action for what it normally does. Remember, per the rules in Menagerie's Rulebook, you are still playing the action. Reckless has you carry out what a card would normally do, only twice. If you aren't doing what a card normally would do, Reckless would not apply. You are still playing that card,  however. It should also be put into consideration other hypothical effects that can say things similar to, "If an action you played met some criteria, the action also gives you some effect." That would mean the action is doing or giving something that it doesn't normally do when played. The ruling makes sense because both the rules and cards are being interpreted in a reasonable way. It is not reasonable to say "instructions you follow playing the card" to only mean "it only includes the card's instructions" because there are rules, that when interpreted in a reasonable way, contradict this.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #130 on: January 20, 2023, 06:03:41 am »
0

An action is still played regardless of if you are following "its instructions*" or following the Way for its ability. This means any results from playing that action for the Way's ability is attributed to that action, because playing an action encompasses following the Way's ability. If you disagree that the text doesn't mean that, well that is why we have rulings by Donald X. to provide clarity.

Again, circular argumentation.

Quote from: Gdan0
This brings us back to Harbor Village. You are inserting meaning into Harbor Village when it doesn't say anything about "instructions".  In my opinion, Harbor Village isn't vague. "The next action gave" has clear meaning. For an action "to give" would mean to follow some instruction in the game that is from "playing that action."

That definition includes Adventures tokens and other things, as I have said many times.

Quote from: Gdan0
This, however, doesn't mean Harbor Village cares about if instructions are followed. Instruction following is incidental and not a determining factor in satisfying Harbor Village's if clause. (if the next action gave)

I have never said that Harbor Village cares whether instructions are followed to get $. That would be a silly thing for me to say, since "+$" can't happen without an instruction being followed. Harbor Village implicitly cares if the "+$" instruction is being followed, and importantly, it cares where that instruction comes from.

Quote from: Gdan0
The rules for Ways say "playing an Action card for a Way ability" This implies that the action is giving whatever the Way ability does. We have more than implications though. A ruling to clarify that it does indeed that.

Again, circular argumentation.
I will also note that Donald X. originally ruled that Enchantress and Ways did not "attribute" anything to the played Action card. He just recently reinterpreted the rules. So I think we can be pretty sure that he didn't intend one way or another when he originally formulated the rules or card texts for Ways and Enchantress; he's just reading and interpreting them after the fact.

Quote from: Gdan0
Quote from: Jeebus
"Source" is not defined anywhere, neither is "obtained". Note that I'm using the words "player" and "instructions" and "follow instructions", all defined in Dominion and also generally defined and understood in all games. Use these terms only and see where it gets you.

Sure. When playing an action, the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does or what the Way's instruction does. In addition the player follows instructions of any abilities that are given to the action and the player follows instructions of any other abilities that may happen before, during, or after the playing of that action. Pretty simple, just wordy.

You included the Way thing in two different ways there, I guess by mistake.
"Follow a card's instructions for what another card's instruction does" is nonsensical.
You are using "given" when the point was to not use any of these undefined terms. (As I said before, "attributed" is also not defined anywhere and not used in the rulebooks or on cards.)

Quote from: Gdan0
Quote from: Jeebus
Quote from: Gdan0
Harbor Village does not say "instruction." It doesn't need to. Harbor Village isn't looking for instructions being followed. It simply doesn't mention it explicitly at all.

Enchantress doesn't say "when you would follow the card's on-play instructions" either, but that's what it means according to the ruling. Cards use colloquial language a lot of the time, not technically accurate language.

Enchantress indeed doesn't say that explicitly, but through its ruling it is clarified to mean exactly that. The ruling also happens to make sense. On this precedent if a card explicitly says "its instruction" or "instruction" it should be assumed that it is referring to its normal text, unless noted otherwise by context in which "its instruction" is used or other rules and rulings. Harbor Village says "if it(the next played action) gave you $" is ruled the way it is because it would take a lot of warping of its interpretation to have it behave any other way than its printed meaning.

From the base game rulebook, a card "giving you +1 Action" is used to refer to the player following the card's instructions. It would certainly not be "warping" to rule that that's what it still means. "Giving you +1 Action" must mean "making you get +1 Action". Just like "giving you 'trash a card'" must mean "making you trash a card". So to say that "a card making you trash a card" is the same as "following a card's instructions to trash a card" would not be warping anything, but a perfectly reasonable ruling.

Priest says "when you trash a card, +$2". Supposedly, if there were a card (Marble Village) that triggered when trashing a card "gives you $", it would not trigger from Priest's "+$2". According to Donald X., if Priest said "when you trash a card, it gives you $2", Marble Village would trigger from that. But note that the rulebook does use this term for Priest: "trashing a card from your hand will give you +$2". So the terms ("+$2" and "give you +$2") have been used colloquially to mean the same thing. There is no reason why it has to have one of the two specific meanings just based on the text on Harbor Village. And for me it would be way more reasonable if they still meant the same thing.

I don't see that you have technically described "to give". What needs to be technically described though is what it means for a card to "make you" do something without it entailing you following the card's instructions. Note that "do something" always means following some instructions, so to rephrase the question: What does it mean for a card to "make you" follow some instructions that are not the card's instructions?

Actually, it would seem that this is exactly what Chameleon does - it says to "follow this card's instructions" (so it makes you follow those instructions). But that is because "follow this card's instructions" is Chameleon's instructions. So if Smithy makes you trash a card (via Way of the Goat) it would seem that we have shapeshifted Smithy's instructions to "follow Way of the Goat's instructions".

Quote from: Jeebus
we then have to define a new rule to make it work: wherever "instructions" are mentioned with no modifier, the normal instructions are meant, not "attributed instructions".

Is this not already precisely how Enchantress and Reckless are ruled upon? If so, the precedent already exists as I've mentioned.

No, they just mention "instructions". For instance, if the instructions where changed (shapeshifted), they would refer to the new instructions. If a card was given two sets of instructions, we would need that rule.

Quote from: Gdan0
Quote from: Jeebus
But which instructions are included in "the instructions you follow playing a card"?

Clearly, it includes the card's instructions. And certainly the most straight-forward, obvious answer is that it only includes the card's instructions. (Since it does not include Adventures tokens, Cultist played by Cultist, etc.)

But we somehow want it to include the Way's instructions, Enchantress's instructions "+1 Card and +1 Action" and Reckless's instructions to "follow the card's instructions an extra time". But, we don't want to say that those instructions in any way are, or count as, the card's instructions. Then how the frack do we solve it*? It's remarkable to me that nobody can answer this and still claim that this ruling makes any sense.

I disagree with your conclusion when you say, "it only includes the card's instructions."

That was not my conclusion there. You seems to have skipped the last paragraph.

Quote from: Gdan0
And I'm assuming here you mean the literal text of the card.  Why? When Enchantress is in play it replaces what you would normally do while playing an action card with the cantrip, but this is only if you play the action card for what it normally does. The cantrip is also given by the played action, per the official FAQ. Playing the action for the Way's ability isn't playing the action for what it normally does. Remember, per the rules in Menagerie's Rulebook, you are still playing the action. Reckless has you carry out what a card would normally do, only twice. If you aren't doing what a card normally would do, Reckless would not apply. You are still playing that card,  however. It should also be put into consideration other hypothical effects that can say things similar to, "If an action you played met some criteria, the action also gives you some effect." That would mean the action is doing or giving something that it doesn't normally do when played. The ruling makes sense because both the rules and cards are being interpreted in a reasonable way. It is not reasonable to say "instructions you follow playing the card" to only mean "it only includes the card's instructions" because there are rules, that when interpreted in a reasonable way, contradict this.

Again, circular. You keep saying "the rulings work becuase the rulings say so".

You seem to be confusing two aspects of Enchantress/Reckless here. I was talking about the effect of those cards ("+1 Card and +1 Action", "follow the card's instructions an extra time"), while you are talking about when those cards apply.

You argue that "you are still playing the card". Yes, of course you are playing the card, but that has very little to do with Ways and Enchantress. They trigger when you get to "when you would resolve the card's instructions". Other things trigger from playing the card too.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2023, 06:04:57 am by Jeebus »
Logged

Gdan0

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +10
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #131 on: January 20, 2023, 01:22:48 pm »
+1

Quote from: Jeebus
I will also note that Donald X. originally ruled that Enchantress and Ways did not "attribute" anything to the played Action card. He just recently reinterpreted the rules. So I think we can be pretty sure that he didn't intend one way or another when he originally formulated the rules or card texts for Ways and Enchantress; he's just reading and interpreting them after the fact.

I would disagree with the previous ruling based on what the rules and FAQ say. The current ruling is in line with what a reasonable interpretation of the rules and FAQ say.

Quote from: Jeebus
Quote from: Gdan0
Sure. When playing an action, the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does or what the Way's instruction does. In addition the player follows instructions of any abilities that are given to the action and the player follows instructions of any other abilities that may happen before, during, or after the playing of that action. Pretty simple, just wordy.
You included the Way thing in two different ways there, I guess by mistake.
"Follow a card's instructions for what another card's instruction does" is nonsensical.
You are using "given" when the point was to not use any of these undefined terms. (As I said before, "attributed" is also not defined anywhere and not used in the rulebooks or on cards.)

No mistake here, I mentioned Ways intentionally because it is part of playing an action.
Where at all did I say that?
"Give" is a basic English word that is used countless times in the rulebooks and FAQ. Its context matters.

Quote from: Jeebus
Priest says "when you trash a card, +$2". Supposedly, if there were a card (Marble Village) that triggered when trashing a card "gives you $", it would not trigger from Priest's "+$2". According to Donald X., if Priest said "when you trash a card, it gives you $2", Marble Village would trigger from that. But note that the rulebook does use this term for Priest: "trashing a card from your hand will give you +$2". So the terms ("+$2" and "give you +$2") have been used colloquially to mean the same thing. There is no reason why it has to have one of the two specific meanings just based on the text on Harbor Village. And for me it would be way more reasonable if they still meant the same thing.

Yeah, you need to clean up the wording of what this "Marble Village" does. Is it supposed to be worded like Harbor Village? i.e. "If the next played action gave you $ from trashing a card, +$1" If so, I'm in agreement that the "when you trash a card" effect of Priest wouldn't cause this if clause to be satisfied. The $2 on Priest isn't attributed to any card being played. The FAQ for Priest indeed says "trashing a card from your hand will give you +$." The player is given $2. The player is given $2 from what though? By the player trashing a card of course. This is completely divorced from whatever may have instructed the player to trash a card.

Quote from: Jeebus
So the terms ("+$2" and "give you +$2") have been used colloquially to mean the same thing. There is no reason why it has to have one of the two specific meanings just based on the text on Harbor Village. And for me it would be way more reasonable if they still meant the same thing.

This is a stretch. You are using the verb "give" without having a noun, pronoun, or present participle to provide proper context. i.e. "trashing a card from your hand will give you +$" "if the next action played gave you $, +$1" Specific meaning occurs because additional text provides context, this is a basic quality of written language. You are saying you want "give" to be used the same way every time, even though it is used essentially the same every time. It seems you want to ignore context in which "give" is used. I find that unreasonable. The use of "give" isn't changing, the context in where it is used is changing.

Quote from: Jeebus
I don't see that you have technically described "to give". What needs to be technically described though is what it means for a card to "make you" do something without it entailing you following the card's instructions.

"Give" is a basic English word. It's also used many times in the rulebook and FAQ.

Quote from: Jeebus
Note that "do something" always means following some instructions, so to rephrase the question: What does it mean for a card to "make you" follow some instructions that are not the card's instructions?

I'm assuming here you mean "not the card's the on-play instructions" when you say "not the card's instructions" It means that there are some instructions the player is following that are attributed to the card and its playing.

Quote from: Jeebus
Actually, it would seem that this is exactly what Chameleon does - it says to "follow this card's instructions" (so it makes you follow those instructions). But that is because "follow this card's instructions" is Chameleon's instructions. So if Smithy makes you trash a card (via Way of the Goat) it would seem that we have shapeshifted Smithy's instructions to "follow Way of the Goat's instructions".

Incorrect. Chameleon doesn't make you follow the on-play instructions in the same way you normally would when playing an action. The moment the player has decided to play an action for Chameleon, the player is no longer playing the action for what it normally does. This does not mean the on-play text of the card changes. Only you aren't carrying out the on-play instructions, but the instructions of the Way. (I'll also reiterate the rules of Ways: "you can play the Action … to do what the Way says to do." and "Playing an Action card for a Way ability means not doing anything the Action card said to do when played.")

Quote from: Jeebus
Quote from: Gdan0
Quote from: Jeebus
But which instructions are included in "the instructions you follow playing a card"?

Clearly, it includes the card's instructions. And certainly the most straight-forward, obvious answer is that it only includes the card's instructions. (Since it does not include Adventures tokens, Cultist played by Cultist, etc.)

But we somehow want it to include the Way's instructions, Enchantress's instructions "+1 Card and +1 Action" and Reckless's instructions to "follow the card's instructions an extra time". But, we don't want to say that those instructions in any way are, or count as, the card's instructions. Then how the frack do we solve it*? It's remarkable to me that nobody can answer this and still claim that this ruling makes any sense.

I disagree with your conclusion when you say, "it only includes the card's instructions."

That was not my conclusion there. You seems to have skipped the last paragraph.

You really need to reword all of that then. You begin by posing the question, "But which instructions are included in "the instructions you follow playing a card"?". You then answer it with a conclusion that I disagree with(based on what the rules already say). The last paragraph is then led with "but" following that conclusion. This indicates you are using that conclusion as a premise to the final paragraph. Then you pose a question whose basis lies in that premise you made. If I disagree with the premise of the last paragraph (that you explicitly stated, "And certainly the most straight-forward, obvious answer is that it only includes the card's instructions.") then I can't comment on the question you pose in the last paragraph.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #132 on: January 20, 2023, 04:18:46 pm »
0

Quote from: Jeebus
Quote from: Gdan0
Sure. When playing an action, the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does or what the Way's instruction does. In addition the player follows instructions of any abilities that are given to the action and the player follows instructions of any other abilities that may happen before, during, or after the playing of that action. Pretty simple, just wordy.
You included the Way thing in two different ways there, I guess by mistake.
"Follow a card's instructions for what another card's instruction does" is nonsensical.
You are using "given" when the point was to not use any of these undefined terms. (As I said before, "attributed" is also not defined anywhere and not used in the rulebooks or on cards.)

No mistake here, I mentioned Ways intentionally because it is part of playing an action.

Your second sentence includes "any abilities that are given to the action" which are (according to you) supposed to include the Way's instructions, so it's redundant to mention the Way's instructions in the first sentence also. I'm surprised you don't realize this is a mistake.

Quote from: Gdan0
Where at all did I say that?

"the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does or what the Way's instruction does."
So either "the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does" or "the player follows the action's instruction for what the Way's instruction does".
The Way is another card, so "the player follows the action's instruction for what another card's instruction does".

I'll stop there.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #133 on: January 20, 2023, 04:38:35 pm »
+2

Quote from: Jeebus
Quote from: Gdan0
Sure. When playing an action, the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does or what the Way's instruction does. In addition the player follows instructions of any abilities that are given to the action and the player follows instructions of any other abilities that may happen before, during, or after the playing of that action. Pretty simple, just wordy.
You included the Way thing in two different ways there, I guess by mistake.
"Follow a card's instructions for what another card's instruction does" is nonsensical.
You are using "given" when the point was to not use any of these undefined terms. (As I said before, "attributed" is also not defined anywhere and not used in the rulebooks or on cards.)

No mistake here, I mentioned Ways intentionally because it is part of playing an action.

Your second sentence includes "any abilities that are given to the action" which are (according to you) supposed to include the Way's instructions, so it's redundant to mention the Way's instructions in the first sentence also. I'm surprised you don't realize this is a mistake.

Quote from: Gdan0
Where at all did I say that?

"the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does or what the Way's instruction does."
So either "the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does" or "the player follows the action's instruction for what the Way's instruction does".
The Way is another card, so "the player follows the action's instruction for what another card's instruction does".

I'll stop there.

Just to throw on a different reading of the "or" given here:

"the player follows [the action's instruction for what it normally does] or [what the Way's instruction does]".

Not sure if this is what Gdan0 meant, but it makes more sense to me than your reading as:

"the player follows the action's instruction for [what it normally does] or [what the Way's instruction does]".

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

Gdan0

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +10
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #134 on: January 20, 2023, 05:19:10 pm »
+1

Quote from: Jeebus
Quote from: Gdan0
Sure. When playing an action, the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does or what the Way's instruction does. In addition the player follows instructions of any abilities that are given to the action and the player follows instructions of any other abilities that may happen before, during, or after the playing of that action. Pretty simple, just wordy.
You included the Way thing in two different ways there, I guess by mistake.
"Follow a card's instructions for what another card's instruction does" is nonsensical.
You are using "given" when the point was to not use any of these undefined terms. (As I said before, "attributed" is also not defined anywhere and not used in the rulebooks or on cards.)

No mistake here, I mentioned Ways intentionally because it is part of playing an action.

Your second sentence includes "any abilities that are given to the action" which are (according to you) supposed to include the Way's instructions, so it's redundant to mention the Way's instructions in the first sentence also. I'm surprised you don't realize this is a mistake.

Quote from: Gdan0
Where at all did I say that?

"the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does or what the Way's instruction does."
So either "the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does" or "the player follows the action's instruction for what the Way's instruction does".
The Way is another card, so "the player follows the action's instruction for what another card's instruction does".

I'll stop there.

The second sentence is there to cover any non-way effects that may be given to the action. i.e. "This turn, your actions also give $+1" So, no mistakes here.

Ways may physically be cards, but they aren't cards the player plays. I recall Donald X. describing them as vessels to hold instructions. Calling landscapes "cards" in the same way we call cards that we play "cards" is
Logged

Gdan0

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +10
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #135 on: January 20, 2023, 05:31:56 pm »
+2

Quote from: GendoIkari
Just to throw on a different reading of the "or" given here:

"the player follows [the action's instruction for what it normally does] or [what the Way's instruction does]".

Not sure if this is what Gdan0 meant, but it makes more sense to me than your reading as:

"the player follows the action's instruction for [what it normally does] or [what the Way's instruction does]".

That's pretty close. I'll revise it to add more clarity. I really want to stress that the "When playing an action" is part of both sides of the "or".
It's meant to be read as "When playing an action, the player may follow the action's instruction for what it normally says to do. -or- When playing an action, the player may follow the Way's instruction for what the Way says to do." Either way it's the action doing the effect.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #136 on: January 21, 2023, 03:56:01 am »
0

Quote from: GendoIkari
Just to throw on a different reading of the "or" given here:

"the player follows [the action's instruction for what it normally does] or [what the Way's instruction does]".

Not sure if this is what Gdan0 meant, but it makes more sense to me than your reading as:

"the player follows the action's instruction for [what it normally does] or [what the Way's instruction does]".

That's pretty close. I'll revise it to add more clarity. I really want to stress that the "When playing an action" is part of both sides of the "or".
It's meant to be read as "When playing an action, the player may follow the action's instruction for what it normally says to do. -or- When playing an action, the player may follow the Way's instruction for what the Way says to do." Either way it's the action doing the effect.

Okay, GendoIkari's interpretation certainly makes more sense, but that's not how it naturally read. And I actually think you did mean something closer to what I wrote, because of what you're saying now.

But I'll focus on your new version. Since "the Action's instructions" = "what it normally says to do", and "the Way's instructions" = "what the Way says to do", then what you're saying is: "When playing an action, the player may follow the Action's instructions or the Way's instructions." Which is the same thing that I have said, the same definition we had from before the new ruling, and doesn't help explain anything.

Quote from: Jeebus
Quote from: Gdan0
Sure. When playing an action, the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does or what the Way's instruction does. In addition the player follows instructions of any abilities that are given to the action and the player follows instructions of any other abilities that may happen before, during, or after the playing of that action. Pretty simple, just wordy.
You included the Way thing in two different ways there, I guess by mistake.
"Follow a card's instructions for what another card's instruction does" is nonsensical.
You are using "given" when the point was to not use any of these undefined terms. (As I said before, "attributed" is also not defined anywhere and not used in the rulebooks or on cards.)

No mistake here, I mentioned Ways intentionally because it is part of playing an action.

Your second sentence includes "any abilities that are given to the action" which are (according to you) supposed to include the Way's instructions, so it's redundant to mention the Way's instructions in the first sentence also. I'm surprised you don't realize this is a mistake.

Quote from: Gdan0
Where at all did I say that?

"the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does or what the Way's instruction does."
So either "the player follows the action's instruction for what it normally does" or "the player follows the action's instruction for what the Way's instruction does".
The Way is another card, so "the player follows the action's instruction for what another card's instruction does".

I'll stop there.

The second sentence is there to cover any non-way effects that may be given to the action. i.e. "This turn, your actions also give $+1" So, no mistakes here.

Dude, that sentence also covers Way effects! Ways are supposed to make the Action card "give" you stuff, remember? That's the whole point here, I mean your point. Mentioning Ways in the first sentence is redundant and makes your definition even worse than it already needs to be. But I think part of the problem here is also that you're not sure what you're definining. What we were actually talking about was Barber Village's technical definition. Somehow you're now conflating it with the definition of using a Way. I think that's why we're getting stuff double up.

Quote from: Gdan0
Ways may physically be cards, but they aren't cards the player plays. I recall Donald X. describing them as vessels to hold instructions. Calling landscapes "cards" in the same way we call cards that we play "cards" is

The Way's instructions are on the Way card, that much is obviously true. But it's completely irrelevant anyway, call it "game object" for all I care, it doesn't change anything.

« Last Edit: January 21, 2023, 04:00:53 am by Jeebus »
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1678
  • Respect: +1613
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #137 on: January 21, 2023, 03:59:54 am »
+1

Ways ain’t cards. For all that arbitrary definitions and jargon you make up to cover weird rule edge cases that are utterly irrelevant it is beyond strange to ignore existing definitions.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #138 on: January 21, 2023, 04:07:23 am »
0

Ways ain’t cards. For all that arbitrary definitions and jargon you make up to cover weird rule edge cases that are utterly irrelevant it is beyond strange to ignore existing definitions.

For all the things you could object to, you chose something completely irrelevant and ALSO moot. (But if you want to have that debate, you can start another thread.)

I'm actually pretty much the only person here not making up definitions and jargon. What jargon have I made up?

And I don't think how two cards (gasp! I said cards!) actually work together is utterly irrelevant. That's a strange thing to say. If you only care about how cards work in a vacuum, then why are you even playing Dominion?

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1678
  • Respect: +1613
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #139 on: January 21, 2023, 04:17:06 am »
+1

Huh? You made up stuff like instructions and so on. Lots of quotation marks flying around here.

Anyway, the designer already said everything relevant. Does not lead anywhere.

And if you get basic stuff wrong like cards and landscapes wrong, it is beyond unlikely that whatever funky stuff you make up will solve obscure theoretically rule issues.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #140 on: January 21, 2023, 04:43:18 am »
+1

Huh? You made up stuff like instructions and so on. Lots of quotation marks flying around here.

"And so on"? You mentioned one thing, "instructions". That is not made up, it's clearly defined in the base game rulebook and on cards. I can give you the relevant quotes, but I don't think you're being serious and honest here.

I have put quotation marks around card text and technical descriptions. When it comes to terms or jargon, I have put quotation marks around other people's jargon, like "Instance", "attribute", "source", "give" etc.
Other people sure have used quotation marks around their new jargon though.

I really think you're making this stuff up.

And you didn't address what I said about interactions between two cards. Of course.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2023, 05:21:41 am by Jeebus »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #141 on: January 21, 2023, 04:49:08 am »
+1



Rulebook page 6:
Action cards all have a text box with instructions; sometimes other cards do.

Rulebook page 4:
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.

Here we can see that the card's instructions actually consist of separate instructions that you follow one by one; first the first instruction and so on. This is of course important in terms of the timing of triggered abilities. Each instruction can cause several things to trigger, before you move on to the next instruction. We see clearly how "+$1", "draw a card" and "trash a card" each is an instruction.

Instructed is also used, page 8:
"Look at a card" - You get to see the card; other players do not. After looking at it, return it to wherever it was (unless otherwise instructed).

Clearly instructed here is referring to the instructions: whether the instructions tell you otherwise.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2023, 04:58:55 am by Jeebus »
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1678
  • Respect: +1613
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #142 on: January 21, 2023, 05:03:58 am »
+1

True that, I fucked that up. Like you fucked up landscapes and cards. The again I am not obsessing over rules so pardon me for not knowing the rule book by heart.

Now tell me, what non-existing rule issue did YOU solve here? Last time I checked your obsession about instructions did not do anything for DXV.

I never saw a rule issue in the OP, only you being lost in irrelevant details. Like the forest and the trees, hence your confusion about basic stuff like Ways being landscapes.

You know, I PLAY games. If a rule issue comes up, you look it up or house rule on the way. In how many games you play do unclear rule issues appear and what do you do then? Freeze the game until DXV replied or house rule as well?
« Last Edit: January 21, 2023, 05:05:22 am by segura »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #143 on: January 21, 2023, 05:19:40 am »
0

True that, I fucked that up. Like you fucked up landscapes and cards. The again I am not obsessing over rules so pardon me for not knowing the rule book by heart.

Now tell me, what non-existing rule issue did YOU solve here? Last time I checked your obsession about instructions did not do anything for DXV.

I never saw a rule issue in the OP, only you being lost in irrelevant details. Like the forest and the trees, hence your confusion about basic stuff like Ways being landscapes.

You know, I PLAY games. If a rule issue comes up, you look it up or house rule on the way. In how many games you play do unclear rule issues appear and what do you do then? Freeze the game until DXV replied or house rule as well?

Okay, you wrote:
Ways ain’t cards. For all that arbitrary definitions and jargon you make up to cover weird rule edge cases that are utterly irrelevant it is beyond strange to ignore existing definitions.

So you fucked up "arbitrary definitions and jargon you make up". (Oh, and also the thing about quotation marks.)
You fucked up "weird rule edge cases that are utterly irrelevant".
And "Ways ain’t cards" is totally irrelevant in this debate, and also moot after Gdan0 rephrased his definition. But of course it's the only thing you have left, so you cling to it. As I said, I'm happy to debate it with you in another thread. Quit spewing silly trash talk here and be constructive.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2023, 05:21:04 am by Jeebus »
Logged

segura

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1678
  • Respect: +1613
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #144 on: January 21, 2023, 05:25:50 am »
+1

Well, unlike you I own my mistakes. About instructions not being in the rules, the rest you claimed I fucked up is not a fuck up but a characterization of what you are doing here.
Self delusion is unhealthy dude, DXV chimed out, what you are doing is not constructive or useful for fixing the rules.

I am done here, discussing with you is like discussing with a lawyer who lives in a cell, never had to represent a client in court and obsesses about irrelevant details and holes in the law.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2023, 05:28:14 am by segura »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #145 on: January 21, 2023, 05:37:50 am »
+2

Well, unlike you I own my mistakes. About instructions not being in the rules, the rest you claimed I fucked up is not a fuck up but a characterization of what you are doing here.
Self delusion is unhealthy dude, DXV chimed out, what you are doing is not constructive or useful for fixing the rules.

I am done here, discussing with you is like discussing with a lawyer who lives in a cell, never had to represent a client in court and obsesses about irrelevant details and holes in the law.

You are "characterizing" my rules questions as "weird rule edge cases that are utterly irrelevant", and I told you that they are about card interactions involving two cards, and I asked you if you think that's irrelevant. If so, all questions in the rules forum are irrelevant. You never replied, and certainly never "owned" your mistake.

You said I make up arbitrary jargon, but you had one example, which was false. So that whole claim was wrong. I haven't seen you "owning" it.

If you think I don't own my mistakes, you haven't seen all the times I've been wrong in this forum and admitted it. It's a bit embarrassing sometimes.

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #146 on: January 21, 2023, 05:42:54 am »
0

I've been really trying to make a functional definition of this new ruling.

But then I realized two things:

1) Enchantress

Normally (in fact almost always), when playing a card gets you +$, that's due to following its instructions, but that's not the only way things can happen, and Harbor Village doesn't refer to any such thing.

For example, consider a hypothetical "This turn, when you play an Action card, it also gives you +$1." That clearly causes Harbor Village to trigger. We don't "follow card instructions" to get that +$1; it's a trigger waiting around, from instructions followed earlier.

Whereas of course "This turn, when you play an Action card, +$1" does not attribute the +$ to the card-play and so would not trigger Harbor Village.

How does the game possibly have anything like that first hypothetical? But it does, e.g. Way of the Sheep.

Donald X. here explained an important difference in wording. But actually, Enchantress has the second wording, not the first. Enchantress says that when the player plays the card, "they get +1 Card and +1 Action", not "it gives them +1 Card and +1 Action". (If Enchantress instead had Way of the Goat's effect, it would say "they trash a a card", not "it makes them trash a card".)

So according to the card text on Enchantress, it works as the old ruling, not the new ruling. (The rulebook does have one instance of "the Action will give them +1 Card +1 Action", but I would think the actual card text saying the opposite should take precedence.)

***

2) Reckless

Then there is the question of why Reckless follows the new ruling. This question is based on how Donald X. said Reckless works timing-wise, namely that it kicks in after you have followed the instructions once, and make you follow them an extra time. That seems very different from what Ways or Enchantress do, which is making you do something else instead.

All three share the trait (no pun intended) of triggering when you are in the "following instructions" part of playing a card (after Reactions and before Royal Carriage). But we can easily imagine another Trait that does this. Reckless triggers "when you follow the instructions", making you follow them an extra time. So, with the same timing as Reckless:
Moneygiving: When you follow the instructions of a played Moneygiving card, +$2.
Should the +$2 be seen something the card gives you? If not, why does Reckless?

Moneygiving2: When a played Moneygiving2 card makes you trash a card, +$2.
This triggers right in the middle of the "following instructions" part. Should the +$2 be seen something the card gives you? It's the same timing as Priest's +$2.

Maybe the answer is that since those Traits don't say "it gives you +$2", the +$2 is not seen as something the card gives you. But does Reckless say that? It just says "follow the instructions", it doesn't say that the card makes you do it. Neither does the rulebook: "When you play a Reckless card, you follow its instructions an extra time", not "it makes you follow its instructions an extra time".

Gdan0

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +10
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #147 on: January 21, 2023, 01:10:25 pm »
+1

Quote from: Jeebus
Dude, that sentence also covers Way effects! Ways are supposed to make the Action card "give" you stuff, remember? That's the whole point here, I mean your point. Mentioning Ways in the first sentence is redundant and makes your definition even worse than it already needs to be. But I think part of the problem here is also that you're not sure what you're definining. What we were actually talking about was Barber Village's technical definition. Somehow you're now conflating it with the definition of using a Way. I think that's why we're getting stuff double up.

This is the second time I've explained this. Yes the second sentence covers Way effects, but there are possible effects that aren't ways that are not covered by the first sentence. Hence saying "non-ways."

Donald X. here explained an important difference in wording. But actually, Enchantress has the second wording, not the first. Enchantress says that when the player plays the card, "they get +1 Card and +1 Action", not "it gives them +1 Card and +1 Action". (If Enchantress instead had Way of the Goat's effect, it would say "they trash a a card", not "it makes them trash a card".)

So according to the card text on Enchantress, it works as the old ruling, not the new ruling. (The rulebook does have one instance of "the Action will give them +1 Card +1 Action", but I would think the actual card text saying the opposite should take precedence.)

As Donald X. has said, the new ruling considers what the official FAQ for Enchantress says "While this is in play, the first Action each other player plays on each of their turns will give them +1 Card +1 Action instead of what it would have normally done." I've also mentioned this in my posts as well.

Quote from: Jeebus
ll three share the trait (no pun intended) of triggering when you are in the "following instructions" part of playing a card (after Reactions and before Royal Carriage). But we can easily imagine another Trait that does this. Reckless triggers "when you follow the instructions", making you follow them an extra time. So, with the same timing as Reckless:
Moneygiving: When you follow the instructions of a played Moneygiving card, +$2.
Should the +$2 be seen something the card gives you? If not, why does Reckless?

Moneygiving2: When a played Moneygiving2 card makes you trash a card, +$2.
This triggers right in the middle of the "following instructions" part. Should the +$2 be seen something the card gives you? It's the same timing as Priest's +$2.

Maybe the answer is that since those Traits don't say "it gives you +$2", the +$2 is not seen as something the card gives you. But does Reckless say that? It just says "follow the instructions", it doesn't say that the card makes you do it. Neither does the rulebook: "When you play a Reckless card, you follow its instructions an extra time", not "it makes you follow its instructions an extra time".

The use of "when" is what makes the difference between your "Moneygiving" examples and what Reckless says. "When you follow instructions" is a conjunction that is followed by a participle clause. Another way to write it is, "When following instructions." Reckless does not say "When you follow the instructions, do X" It says "Follow the instructions of played Reckless cards twice." Meaning the (one) Reckless card does its effect twice. The FAQ for Reckless says "when" but not in the same context you are using it. "When you play a Reckless card, you follow its instructions an extra time." or "When playing a Reckless card, follow its(the card's) instruction an extra time." It does not say "when you follow the instructions". There is a subtle, but distinct, difference.
As we have already discussed when you are following a card's on-play effect, its instructions, the on-play effect is attributed to the card played. You are just doing the on-play effect twice.

As an aside, you are correct, your Moneygiving doesn't say "it(the card played) gives you +$2" the +$2 wouldn't be attributed to the card. It's not explicitly stated. However, it would be weird to have a Trait that is worded like Moneygivings since the point of Traits are to affect the kingdom pile.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2023, 01:45:11 pm by Gdan0 »
Logged

dane-m

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 166
  • Shuffle iT Username: dane-m
  • Respect: +199
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #148 on: January 21, 2023, 01:28:51 pm »
+1

Normally (in fact almost always), when playing a card gets you +$, that's due to following its instructions, but that's not the only way things can happen, and Harbor Village doesn't refer to any such thing.

For example, consider a hypothetical "This turn, when you play an Action card, it also gives you +$1." That clearly causes Harbor Village to trigger. We don't "follow card instructions" to get that +$1; it's a trigger waiting around, from instructions followed earlier.

Whereas of course "This turn, when you play an Action card, +$1" does not attribute the +$ to the card-play and so would not trigger Harbor Village.

How does the game possibly have anything like that first hypothetical? But it does, e.g. Way of the Sheep.

Donald X. here explained an important difference in wording. But actually, Enchantress has the second wording, not the first. Enchantress says that when the player plays the card, "they get +1 Card and +1 Action", not "it gives them +1 Card and +1 Action". (If Enchantress instead had Way of the Goat's effect, it would say "they trash a a card", not "it makes them trash a card".)

So according to the card text on Enchantress, it works as the old ruling, not the new ruling. (The rulebook does have one instance of "the Action will give them +1 Card +1 Action", but I would think the actual card text saying the opposite should take precedence.)
Isn't it normal for the rulebook to take precedence?  Admittedly that's usually because in some instances the card text can't cover everything, so extra explanation is required in the rulebook, but shouldn't it also carry through to when the rulebook and the card are in disagreement?
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #149 on: January 21, 2023, 03:56:51 pm »
0

Normally (in fact almost always), when playing a card gets you +$, that's due to following its instructions, but that's not the only way things can happen, and Harbor Village doesn't refer to any such thing.

For example, consider a hypothetical "This turn, when you play an Action card, it also gives you +$1." That clearly causes Harbor Village to trigger. We don't "follow card instructions" to get that +$1; it's a trigger waiting around, from instructions followed earlier.

Whereas of course "This turn, when you play an Action card, +$1" does not attribute the +$ to the card-play and so would not trigger Harbor Village.

How does the game possibly have anything like that first hypothetical? But it does, e.g. Way of the Sheep.

Donald X. here explained an important difference in wording. But actually, Enchantress has the second wording, not the first. Enchantress says that when the player plays the card, "they get +1 Card and +1 Action", not "it gives them +1 Card and +1 Action". (If Enchantress instead had Way of the Goat's effect, it would say "they trash a a card", not "it makes them trash a card".)

So according to the card text on Enchantress, it works as the old ruling, not the new ruling. (The rulebook does have one instance of "the Action will give them +1 Card +1 Action", but I would think the actual card text saying the opposite should take precedence.)
Isn't it normal for the rulebook to take precedence?  Admittedly that's usually because in some instances the card text can't cover everything, so extra explanation is required in the rulebook, but shouldn't it also carry through to when the rulebook and the card are in disagreement?

Not when the card text has an important keyword that explicitly distinguishes it from the explanation in the rulebook. For example, Ironworks does not say that the gained card "gives you" +1 Action, +$1 or +1 Card. But the rulebook does say that: "A card with 2 types gives you both bonuses." Going by the rulebook, it's the gained card that gives you +$1 and so Harbor Village would not trigger from an Ironworks used to gain a Silver. That is obviously wrong.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2023, 03:58:40 pm by Jeebus »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #150 on: January 21, 2023, 04:00:56 pm »
0

Quote from: Jeebus
Dude, that sentence also covers Way effects! Ways are supposed to make the Action card "give" you stuff, remember? That's the whole point here, I mean your point. Mentioning Ways in the first sentence is redundant and makes your definition even worse than it already needs to be. But I think part of the problem here is also that you're not sure what you're definining. What we were actually talking about was Barber Village's technical definition. Somehow you're now conflating it with the definition of using a Way. I think that's why we're getting stuff double up.

This is the second time I've explained this. Yes the second sentence covers Way effects, but there are possible effects that aren't ways that are not covered by the first sentence. Hence saying "non-ways."

Wow. The problem is the first sentence. It's redundant since Ways are also covered by the second. I have to stop responding to you now, which I had mostly done already.

Gdan0

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +10
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #151 on: January 21, 2023, 05:44:34 pm »
+2

Quote from: Jeebus
Dude, that sentence also covers Way effects! Ways are supposed to make the Action card "give" you stuff, remember? That's the whole point here, I mean your point. Mentioning Ways in the first sentence is redundant and makes your definition even worse than it already needs to be. But I think part of the problem here is also that you're not sure what you're definining. What we were actually talking about was Barber Village's technical definition. Somehow you're now conflating it with the definition of using a Way. I think that's why we're getting stuff double up.

This is the second time I've explained this. Yes the second sentence covers Way effects, but there are possible effects that aren't ways that are not covered by the first sentence. Hence saying "non-ways."

Wow. The problem is the first sentence. It's redundant since Ways are also covered by the second. I have to stop responding to you now, which I had mostly done already.

That's probably a good thing since you're interpreting what I'm saying in bad faith. It's worded the way it is to reinforce the fact that it's the action that's being played for the way. The second sentence covers effects that are attributed to the action that are not from the action's on-play effect, nor the way. I'm pretty sure I described what "if it gave" means in Harbor Village, but you probably disregarded it. "Give" doesn't need a specific game definition. Its context is sufficient on a case-by-case basis, since it's a basic English word.
 The mentioned defenition of what it means to play an action (and other effects that may happen) describes what Harbor Village cares or doesn't care about. I'm going to assume you concede to my points then if you don't want to engage any further.

Oh and one last thing.  You're making the assertion that the rulings are bad. You have to provide the concrete proof and reasons why the rulings are bad. I don't believe you've done that. If you had, I'd be in agreement with you.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2023, 06:49:45 pm by Gdan0 »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #152 on: January 21, 2023, 07:11:34 pm »
+1

Normally (in fact almost always), when playing a card gets you +$, that's due to following its instructions, but that's not the only way things can happen, and Harbor Village doesn't refer to any such thing.

For example, consider a hypothetical "This turn, when you play an Action card, it also gives you +$1." That clearly causes Harbor Village to trigger. We don't "follow card instructions" to get that +$1; it's a trigger waiting around, from instructions followed earlier.

Whereas of course "This turn, when you play an Action card, +$1" does not attribute the +$ to the card-play and so would not trigger Harbor Village.

How does the game possibly have anything like that first hypothetical? But it does, e.g. Way of the Sheep.

Donald X. here explained an important difference in wording. But actually, Enchantress has the second wording, not the first. Enchantress says that when the player plays the card, "they get +1 Card and +1 Action", not "it gives them +1 Card and +1 Action". (If Enchantress instead had Way of the Goat's effect, it would say "they trash a a card", not "it makes them trash a card".)

So according to the card text on Enchantress, it works as the old ruling, not the new ruling. (The rulebook does have one instance of "the Action will give them +1 Card +1 Action", but I would think the actual card text saying the opposite should take precedence.)
Isn't it normal for the rulebook to take precedence?  Admittedly that's usually because in some instances the card text can't cover everything, so extra explanation is required in the rulebook, but shouldn't it also carry through to when the rulebook and the card are in disagreement?

Not when the card text has an important keyword that explicitly distinguishes it from the explanation in the rulebook. For example, Ironworks does not say that the gained card "gives you" +1 Action, +$1 or +1 Card. But the rulebook does say that: "A card with 2 types gives you both bonuses." Going by the rulebook, it's the gained card that gives you +$1 and so Harbor Village would not trigger from an Ironworks used to gain a Silver. That is obviously wrong.

Right, the Dominion FAQs are often inaccurate in very technical and normally meaningless ways. They are intended to be more like a person explaining the rules; more helpful for understanding but less technically accurate.
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: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #153 on: January 22, 2023, 01:03:37 am »
0

Try to play nice, guys.

1) Enchantress
2) Reckless
I see what you are saying about Enchantress. The card text does not attribute the cantrip to the card. Both card texts and FAQs may end up not perfect, due to both sides trying to communicate card functionality to normal people. For Enchantress, the question then is, is it better to go by the card text - the Dominion classic, who reads the rulebooks, as much as possible the game should work from just the basic rules and card texts - or, is it better to line up Enchantress with Ways and Reckless, which is sure nice, and hey then the rulebook is right and that's something.

For Reckless, I think the two follow-instructions have to play the same; all else is madness. No-one is ever guessing that they're different in edge cases.
Logged

scott_pilgrim

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1102
  • Respect: +2146
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #154 on: January 22, 2023, 10:04:33 am »
+2

I'm going to assume you concede to my points then if you don't want to engage any further.

I am not following the discussion very carefully, but this seems like a really problematic approach. If your goal is to convince someone of something (which I would argue should generally not be your goal in these sorts of discussions, but that's beside the point), and then you declare (to yourself or to everyone else) "if this person stops engaging with me, that means I've convinced them", you essentially give yourself an incentive to do a bunch of things other than actually convincing the person. For example, someone might stop engaging with you because you are attacking them, or because you've shown yourself to be especially closed-minded on the topic, or because you're trolling them, etc. I'm not saying any of those things is what happened here, since I haven't really followed the discussion. But by equating "this person has stopped engaging" with "this person agrees with me", you incentivize behavior in yourself that is probably not conducive toward producing actual agreement.
Logged

Gdan0

  • Pearl Diver
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +10
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #155 on: January 22, 2023, 11:32:04 am »
0

I'm going to assume you concede to my points then if you don't want to engage any further.

I am not following the discussion very carefully, but this seems like a really problematic approach. If your goal is to convince someone of something (which I would argue should generally not be your goal in these sorts of discussions, but that's beside the point), and then you declare (to yourself or to everyone else) "if this person stops engaging with me, that means I've convinced them", you essentially give yourself an incentive to do a bunch of things other than actually convincing the person. For example, someone might stop engaging with you because you are attacking them, or because you've shown yourself to be especially closed-minded on the topic, or because you're trolling them, etc. I'm not saying any of those things is what happened here, since I haven't really followed the discussion. But by equating "this person has stopped engaging" with "this person agrees with me", you incentivize behavior in yourself that is probably not conducive toward producing actual agreement.

I agree with what you're saying. It was convenient that he stopped addressing what I was saying at the particular point since I thought I did a really good job explaining a few things after that point. It wasn't necessary to make such a bold declaration, haha.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #156 on: January 23, 2023, 05:35:41 am »
0

Try to play nice, guys.

1) Enchantress
2) Reckless
I see what you are saying about Enchantress. The card text does not attribute the cantrip to the card. Both card texts and FAQs may end up not perfect, due to both sides trying to communicate card functionality to normal people. For Enchantress, the question then is, is it better to go by the card text - the Dominion classic, who reads the rulebooks, as much as possible the game should work from just the basic rules and card texts - or, is it better to line up Enchantress with Ways and Reckless, which is sure nice, and hey then the rulebook is right and that's something.

For Reckless, I think the two follow-instructions have to play the same; all else is madness. No-one is ever guessing that they're different in edge cases.

Then you're saying that the reason Reckless works the way it does is not because it specifically "attributes" its effects to the played card (like Ways and Enchantress apparently do), but because it tells the player to "follow the card's instructions". That's exactly what Chameleon does too, and you ruled that the opposite way: that you got the effects from Chameleon, not from the played card; so Lantern and Elder didn't work with Chameleon any more than it worked with the other Ways. Of course with the new ruling on Ways, that ruling doesn't have any practical significance anymore for Chameleon; but it still has the implication that "follow the card's instructions" doesn't in itself mean that you're getting the effects from the card. But I agree that it's good to change that ruling, since as we agree, that's what everybody thinks anyway. Except: what they actually think is what those cards literally say, that you're following the card's instructions, not just somehow "getting the effects" from the card without following its instructions.

When it comes to Enchantress, yes this makes the rulebook correct in this case. But the "give" phrasing is used several places in the rulebooks, for instance for Ironworks as I quoted above, and all of those would be wrong. The two phrasings are used interchangeably because of course that's how they were intended. Introducing a distinct meaning based on this phrasing now, introduces several incorrect explanations in the rulebooks and is certainly not intuitive language.

I will again stress that the Way rules don't explicitly require your new ruling. Unlike the rulebook note for Enchantress, the Way rules don't say explicitly that the Action card gives you the effect or makes you do it. (They actually say: "Each Way gives Action cards an additional option." This seems to mean shapeshifting the card so that it has another option. Of course, that's not how we should read it.) The rules only say that you can play it to do what the Way says to do. That is an accurate description whether we say that "doing what the Way says to do" is "attributed" to the card, or that it's just something that is triggered when we play the card. Both interpretations are supported by the Way rules*. (Then of course I've been saying that I don't see any way technically that effects from outside instructions can be "attributed" to a card, but I won't go into that again here.)

*Which is probably why you interpreted it the other way before.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2023, 05:37:47 am by Jeebus »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #157 on: January 23, 2023, 09:57:37 am »
+1

That's exactly what Chameleon does too, and you ruled that the opposite way: that you got the effects from Chameleon, not from the played card

Hmm, is this right? Although the question was never asked before this thread, it was always assumed to be the ruling that Moat protected you from Chameleon'd Militia, (which has the advantage of being a very realistic game-play scenario). The only way that Moat could protect you is if you were getting the effects from Militia, right? I guess the point is that even if it was ruled that way in the past, I think that ruling would have been "fixed" a while ago if Moat had been brought up back then.
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

Jack Rudd

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1330
  • Shuffle iT Username: Jack Rudd
  • Respect: +1392
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #158 on: January 23, 2023, 10:22:13 am »
0

-how can Moat block a Chameleon'd Witch if you aren't following the Witch's instructions?
- Again the rulebook text says that Way change what a card does - A Way of the Sheep'd Witch results in Witch making $2, Witch is making the $2, that's what the Way rules say. So Moat means you're unaffected by that.

Apologies if I misunderstood, but does this mean that you've finally had to rule on how Masquerade would behave as a Moatable Attack? I.e. what happens if you play an Attack, someone Moats it, then you use Way of the Mouse to play a set aside Masquerade?

No, see similar question about Mouse and Duchess here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=21600.msg899501#msg899501. The difference is that Mouse causes you to play a card, so that card's effects are separate from the original played card's effects. If Mouse had Masquerade's text printed on it directly, then yes a Moat would protect you from Masquerade (which would cause all sorts of issues).
My ruling for such issues would probably be that a player who was protected in that way would be treated the same way as a player with a 0-card hand. (Doesn't pass a card, doesn't receive a card, the Masquerade skips over them to the next player.) Still, it's good that this sort of thing was avoided.
Logged
Centuries later, archaeologists discover the remains of your ancient civilization.

Evidence of thriving towns, Pottery, roads, and a centralized government amaze the startled scientists.

Finally, they come upon a stone tablet, which contains but one mysterious phrase!

'ISOTROPIC WILL RETURN!'

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #159 on: January 23, 2023, 10:37:04 am »
0

That's exactly what Chameleon does too, and you ruled that the opposite way: that you got the effects from Chameleon, not from the played card

Hmm, is this right? Although the question was never asked before this thread, it was always assumed to be the ruling that Moat protected you from Chameleon'd Militia, (which has the advantage of being a very realistic game-play scenario). The only way that Moat could protect you is if you were getting the effects from Militia, right? I guess the point is that even if it was ruled that way in the past, I think that ruling would have been "fixed" a while ago if Moat had been brought up back then.

Yes, Donald X. ruled that Chameleon worked exactly like other Ways and like Enchantress, so Lantern and Elder don't do anything on a Chameleoned card. Nobody thought about Moat though, and yes, I think it would have been "fixed" somehow if brought up.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9759
  • Respect: +10841
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #160 on: January 23, 2023, 11:38:56 am »
0

That's exactly what Chameleon does too, and you ruled that the opposite way: that you got the effects from Chameleon, not from the played card

Hmm, is this right? Although the question was never asked before this thread, it was always assumed to be the ruling that Moat protected you from Chameleon'd Militia, (which has the advantage of being a very realistic game-play scenario). The only way that Moat could protect you is if you were getting the effects from Militia, right? I guess the point is that even if it was ruled that way in the past, I think that ruling would have been "fixed" a while ago if Moat had been brought up back then.

Yes, Donald X. ruled that Chameleon worked exactly like other Ways and like Enchantress, so Lantern and Elder don't do anything on a Chameleoned card. Nobody thought about Moat though, and yes, I think it would have been "fixed" somehow if brought up.

Yeah I'm with you that I can't think of any good way for Moat to protect you from Chameleon while Lantern and Elder don't work; not without some completely new concept of how Moat works.

Also, I didn't realize until just now that Elder also says "gives". I had previously thought and I think said that Harbor Village introduced "give" as a new keyword.
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

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3329
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4507
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #161 on: January 23, 2023, 01:28:11 pm »
0

That's exactly what Chameleon does too, and you ruled that the opposite way: that you got the effects from Chameleon, not from the played card

Hmm, is this right? Although the question was never asked before this thread, it was always assumed to be the ruling that Moat protected you from Chameleon'd Militia, (which has the advantage of being a very realistic game-play scenario). The only way that Moat could protect you is if you were getting the effects from Militia, right? I guess the point is that even if it was ruled that way in the past, I think that ruling would have been "fixed" a while ago if Moat had been brought up back then.

Yes, Donald X. ruled that Chameleon worked exactly like other Ways and like Enchantress, so Lantern and Elder don't do anything on a Chameleoned card. Nobody thought about Moat though, and yes, I think it would have been "fixed" somehow if brought up.

Yeah I'm with you that I can't think of any good way for Moat to protect you from Chameleon while Lantern and Elder don't work; not without some completely new concept of how Moat works.

I think the difference is that Moat (unlike Lantern and Elder) don't tell the person playing a card to do something other than follow the card's instructions. The person playing the card is still all like "now I get to make my opponents discard", and the person with the Moat is like "not including me! :) "

...whereas Lantern and Elder both tell the player to do something other than exactly follow the instructions on the card, but Way of the Chameleon comes in and says "actually you do have to follow the instructions on the card (with the following minor modifications)", so that overrules the Lantern and Elder effects.

That said, I think ruling Lantern and Elder the other way would also be consistent with other rulings and probably more intuitive.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2023, 01:59:33 pm by AJD »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #162 on: January 23, 2023, 06:10:05 pm »
+1

Then you're saying that the reason Reckless works the way it does is not because it specifically "attributes" its effects to the played card (like Ways and Enchantress apparently do), but because it tells the player to "follow the card's instructions".
No, not at all.

I'm saying Reckless works the way it does because I don't see how players would possibly guess otherwise. I'm re-reading what I said; it looks so clear to me.

I wasn't proposing a particular computer program to make this work out.


Except: what they actually think is what those cards literally say, that you're following the card's instructions, not just somehow "getting the effects" from the card without following its instructions.
Well I don't know about that. For the most part of course, no-one is "actually thinking" anything along any of these lines; they're playing Harbor Village, then either a Smithy, no +$1, or a Militia, +$1, and that's that. They're not trying to figure out edge cases. The main thing that comes up is, if you play two Harbor Villages and then a Militia, damn, only +$1. This can be worked out but people also ask.

And I haven't done a survey of, "what would you think would happen if you played Harbor Village and then used Way of the Sheep on a Smithy."

When it comes to Enchantress, yes this makes the rulebook correct in this case. But the "give" phrasing is used several places in the rulebooks, for instance for Ironworks as I quoted above, and all of those would be wrong. The two phrasings are used interchangeably because of course that's how they were intended. Introducing a distinct meaning based on this phrasing now, introduces several incorrect explanations in the rulebooks and is certainly not intuitive language.
These rulebooks, trying to be clear with friendly English, and the card wordings, trying to be clear with friendly English, cannot always handle edge cases. Ideally I catch the ones people will actually ask about and put the answers in the rulebooks.

I will again stress that the Way rules don't explicitly require your new ruling.
Well I mean. You, Jeebus, you are the entity that requires a ruling. Sometimes, the online programmers require a ruling, but you know, once there's code, doing whatever it does, well if no-one is asking, they aren't thinking to worry about it. You asked; I answered; you weren't satisfied; here we are. Yes the "Way rules" don't require a ruling; you do.

In order to give you a ruling, I have to try to figure out what makes sense given the card texts and rulebooks. And also consider, what would people possibly think. This result may vary based on what people chime in with, or how large these things loom on a particular day; I always just do the math as best as I can though.

For me, it remains sensible to have it be that Way of the Sheep on Smithy means that that Smithy gave you +$2 as far as Harbor Village is concerned. That still sounds fine to me, like a reasonable answer given that I have to answer the question. To me, Way of the Sheep feels like Reckless, but not like the Adventures +$1 token. The Adventures token could have been explained differently, so that it felt the same to me, but it wasn't and it doesn't. That's where things were a while ago; that's where they stand today.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #163 on: January 24, 2023, 02:50:36 am »
0

That's exactly what Chameleon does too, and you ruled that the opposite way: that you got the effects from Chameleon, not from the played card

Hmm, is this right? Although the question was never asked before this thread, it was always assumed to be the ruling that Moat protected you from Chameleon'd Militia, (which has the advantage of being a very realistic game-play scenario). The only way that Moat could protect you is if you were getting the effects from Militia, right? I guess the point is that even if it was ruled that way in the past, I think that ruling would have been "fixed" a while ago if Moat had been brought up back then.

Yes, Donald X. ruled that Chameleon worked exactly like other Ways and like Enchantress, so Lantern and Elder don't do anything on a Chameleoned card. Nobody thought about Moat though, and yes, I think it would have been "fixed" somehow if brought up.

Yeah I'm with you that I can't think of any good way for Moat to protect you from Chameleon while Lantern and Elder don't work; not without some completely new concept of how Moat works.

I think the difference is that Moat (unlike Lantern and Elder) don't tell the person playing a card to do something other than follow the card's instructions. The person playing the card is still all like "now I get to make my opponents discard", and the person with the Moat is like "not including me! :) "

...whereas Lantern and Elder both tell the player to do something other than exactly follow the instructions on the card, but Way of the Chameleon comes in and says "actually you do have to follow the instructions on the card (with the following minor modifications)", so that overrules the Lantern and Elder effects.

That said, I think ruling Lantern and Elder the other way would also be consistent with other rulings and probably more intuitive.

Lantern and Elder trigger as you are resolving the card, which is after Ways and Enchantress makes you change what instructions to follow. According to the old ruling on Ways, when you use Chameleon, you're not resolving the card anymore, so Lantern/Elder does nothing. It would be exactly the same with Moat and Harbor Village. But with the new ruling on Ways/Ench, Donald X. also changed the ruling on Lantern and Elder (in this thread), so all these four cards work the same.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2023, 03:12:07 am by Jeebus »
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #164 on: January 24, 2023, 03:09:59 am »
0

Then you're saying that the reason Reckless works the way it does is not because it specifically "attributes" its effects to the played card (like Ways and Enchantress apparently do), but because it tells the player to "follow the card's instructions".
No, not at all.

I'm saying Reckless works the way it does because I don't see how players would possibly guess otherwise. I'm re-reading what I said; it looks so clear to me.

I wasn't proposing a particular computer program to make this work out.

I was saying that there is no phrasing for Reckless about "attributing" anything to the card. You replied that Reckless's "follow" instruction has to work like the card's normal instructions since that's what everybody would think, so I assumed that you meant that that was the reason rather than Reckless specifically "attributing" like Ways and Enchantress. I mean, since Reckless doesn't say that on the card or in the rules. But then I guess I misunderstood you. Reading your response again, I don't find it particularly clear.

Quote from: Donald X.
Except: what they actually think is what those cards literally say, that you're following the card's instructions, not just somehow "getting the effects" from the card without following its instructions.
Well I don't know about that. For the most part of course, no-one is "actually thinking" anything along any of these lines; they're playing Harbor Village, then either a Smithy, no +$1, or a Militia, +$1, and that's that. They're not trying to figure out edge cases. The main thing that comes up is, if you play two Harbor Villages and then a Militia, damn, only +$1. This can be worked out but people also ask.

And I haven't done a survey of, "what would you think would happen if you played Harbor Village and then used Way of the Sheep on a Smithy."

You're talking about Harbor Village here, but you're responding to something I said about Reckless and Chameleon, not Harbor Village. Reckless and Chameleon tell you to "follow the card's instructions". I was saying that most people read that literally. So they would probably think that you couldn't escape Enchantress with Chameleon, unlike with other Ways.

Quote from: Donald X.
When it comes to Enchantress, yes this makes the rulebook correct in this case. But the "give" phrasing is used several places in the rulebooks, for instance for Ironworks as I quoted above, and all of those would be wrong. The two phrasings are used interchangeably because of course that's how they were intended. Introducing a distinct meaning based on this phrasing now, introduces several incorrect explanations in the rulebooks and is certainly not intuitive language.
These rulebooks, trying to be clear with friendly English, and the card wordings, trying to be clear with friendly English, cannot always handle edge cases. Ideally I catch the ones people will actually ask about and put the answers in the rulebooks.

Of course. But introducing "give" as jargon with a technical meaning on cards, as you are now, is a bit different. For instance, I don't think there are mistakes in the friendly rulebooks using "draw" when what is actually meant is just putting cards in your hand.

Quote from: Donald X.
I will again stress that the Way rules don't explicitly require your new ruling.
Well I mean. You, Jeebus, you are the entity that requires a ruling. Sometimes, the online programmers require a ruling, but you know, once there's code, doing whatever it does, well if no-one is asking, they aren't thinking to worry about it. You asked; I answered; you weren't satisfied; here we are. Yes the "Way rules" don't require a ruling; you do.

I guess maybe you're misunderstanding my use of "require" (unless you're just twisting it to make a point), and it was probably not a good word. I tried to avoid "imply" since that can be interpreted in two different ways. But what I meant was simply, your new ruling doesn't follow as the only possible ruling based on the Way rules, for the specific reasons I gave.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #165 on: January 24, 2023, 03:46:20 pm »
0

I was saying that there is no phrasing for Reckless about "attributing" anything to the card. You replied that Reckless's "follow" instruction has to work like the card's normal instructions since that's what everybody would think, so I assumed that you meant that that was the reason rather than Reckless specifically "attributing" like Ways and Enchantress. I mean, since Reckless doesn't say that on the card or in the rules. But then I guess I misunderstood you. Reading your response again, I don't find it particularly clear.
I was providing a philosophical reason, not a mechanical one. It would be super confusing if the two follow-instructions from Reckless were resolved differently somehow; so, I don't want that. That doesn't say anything about "why, mechanically"; that's up in the air.

Mechanically, it may well be that the simplest thing is if "follow the instructions of Foo" means "Foo is the source of that effect" for purposes of Harbor Village and Moat.

I guess maybe you're misunderstanding my use of "require" (unless you're just twisting it to make a point), and it was probably not a good word. I tried to avoid "imply" since that can be interpreted in two different ways. But what I meant was simply, your new ruling doesn't follow as the only possible ruling based on the Way rules, for the specific reasons I gave.
Sure, the rulebooks and texts aren't precise enough to just say "this is the only way this could go." And even precise rules may need changing due to e.g. "everyone will get this wrong."
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #166 on: January 25, 2023, 07:45:20 am »
+2

I wrote this trying to figure out a way that this ruling could work. I don't expect it to make any difference, but here it is.

This is somewhat similar to chipperMDW's interpretation.

The main problem lies in figuring out "when would" abilities, which are actually very strange. First of all, the whole concept of several abilities triggering at the same time and then resolving consecutively is strange in itself, and not in line with physical reality. In reality, if several things happen as a result of something, they happen at the same time (very simplified of course); there is no mechanism that makes any of them wait. So it's an artificial (but of course necessary) game concept that we make the rest wait while we resolve one. This creates a logical problem with "when would".

Let's start with Trader 1E and Possession. Let's say we gain a card with Ironworks, and we resolve Possession first.
It would seem that when we resolve Possession in the "when would" window, the other player gains the card. Afterwards (after the card has been gained) we would still be in the "when would" window, and Trader would fail. This does work as intended. But now we get to the actual "gaining" step, and we would have to say that it's been cancelled by Possession. This is probably not the intended meaning and not how most people think it works. Rather, Possession changes the whole "gaining thing" and then Trader fails to change it, and THEN we resolve whatever it has been changed into.

So then, in the "when would" window, all we do is change a future instruction. We're not changing Ironworks's instruction of course. Ironworks says to choose a card based on certain criteria, and then gain that card. We now have an instruction from the game, a "meta instruction", which is the same instruction that Ironworks had, namely "gain that card". In the "when would" window, that meta instruction can be changed. Possession changes "gain that card" into "the other player gains that card". It's still the meta instruction that we're set to follow when we would normally "gain that card", but now it's different. Trader now tries to change it, but can only change it from "gain that card". Then we follow the meta instruction.


So how do Ways and Enchantress work?
We have the meta instruction "follow the card's on-play instructions" that we're set to follow at a certain time when playing a card. In the "when would" window, the Way rules change that meta instruction into "follow the Ways's instructions".
First of all, cards like Moat and Harbor Village cannot look at simply what we get from playing the card, since that would include all abilities that trigger from that (tokens etc.). They're supposed to look at what we get from "what the card does when played", but this of course means "what we do when playing the card", so we're back to the wrong thing. Saying "what the card instructs us to do" would eliminate the unwanted abilities; but it would only include the card's instructions and not the changed meta instruction. So we have to interpret Harbor Village, Moat, etc., in a peculiar way: They look at the instructions that we follow as a result of the "follow the card's on-play instructions" meta instruction we follow as the normal step of playing a card, but also if that meta instruction has been changed into something else.

In this way, Ways and Enchantress actually work just like Trader 1E and Possession: They change a meta instruction. Note that Reckless does not do this. It could: we could decide that it works like Chameleon, triggering on "when would" and making us resolve the card's instructions twice instead of once. That would change the meta instruction "follow the card's instructions" into something else. But per the ruling, it triggers during our resolution of the card's instructions, making us do something. It's not "when would".

Anyway, the weirdness here is not Ways and Enchantress, it's that Harbor Village etc. look at the changed meta instruction. It would be simpler and more straighforward if they looked at the card's instructions, that they expected the normal meta instruction to happen, like most things in Dominion expect. For instance, a played card expects the normal meta instruction of "put the card in play" to happen, and can't be moved from any other place. That's because of a specific rule of course, but you'd expect that an ability looking for "direct effects" of a played card would follow a similar rule, that the default meta instruction were expected.

Also, this makes Harbor Village etc. inconsistent with Ironworks. Ironworks looks at "that card" (the card that was chosen and gained), which certainly doesn't exist if Trader was used, so that's perfectly fine. But if Possession was used, the meta instruction is "the other player gains that card", so Ironworks (if it worked like Harbor Village) should be able to see the card. But Ironworks expects only the default meta instruction, while Harbor Village etc. don't.

In this interpretation, Ways/Ench are not interpreted as behaving differently than Trader 1E and Possession. It's sufficient to interpret Harbor Village etc. in the described way. Is it possible to interpret Ways/Ench as "attributing" effects to the card in a special way (as Donald X. has been suggesting) and have Harbor Village etc. be more in line with how for instance Ironworks works? We would have to add a rule that the meta instruction that Ways/Ench create counts as the "default meta intruction" that HV is looking for, meaning that when HV looks for effects from "following the card's instructions", it recognizes "following Way/Ench's instructions" as the same. This is simply the same as my earlier idea, having a rule that "following Way/Ench's instructions" counts as "following the card's instructions". The implication of that is that using Chameleon on an Enchanted card would give +$1 and +1 Action. (This still seems like the best ruling to me.)
« Last Edit: January 27, 2023, 05:11:14 am by Jeebus »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #167 on: January 25, 2023, 04:02:49 pm »
+2

The most important thing here I think is, absolutely nothing should look to Possession for guidance. In every situation, ignore Possession, figure out the best way for cards to work while ignoring Possession, then be happy at a job well done. When having to specifically look at Possession, in order to rule on Possession itself, well, ideally it will get fixed, and if not it will be a rules nightmare mess all on its own, not extending its tentacles to any other cards whatsoever.

Trader 1E meanwhile does not exist. The fix to Trader is, there's errata. Absolutely nothing wants to look to Trader 1E for guidance.

Basing an argument on "here's how a no-longer-exists card and Possession work" is bad. Sorry! It's bad though. Let's never look to those cards for guidance, absolutely never.

Time did not permit me to get past that part today.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #168 on: January 26, 2023, 06:19:12 am »
0

Well, Trader 1E exists just as much as Feast exists. IRL people play with them, and almost certainly people IRL play with Trader 1E more than the new version. I don't think it should be expected that they use the new card text when playing with Trader 1E.

I don't understand what's the rules problem with Possession? Both Possession and Trader 1E have a "when would" timing, which you have said is confusing for players, but the fact is that Ways and Enchantress do too (and are also confusing for players). But we can substitute Ways/Enchantress for Possession/Trader when it comes to the "when would" timing, it's the same.

In any case, per the "blue dog" ruling, Ironworks (along with Groom, etc.) doesn't give a bonus if you didn't gain the card, and I thought that would still be an existing principle of "when would gain".
« Last Edit: January 26, 2023, 06:26:10 am by Jeebus »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #169 on: January 26, 2023, 04:31:06 pm »
+1

Well, Trader 1E exists just as much as Feast exists. IRL people play with them, and almost certainly people IRL play with Trader 1E more than the new version. I don't think it should be expected that they use the new card text when playing with Trader 1E.
No. People who don't go on the internet to find out how Trader 1E works will just play it however they play it. I don't expect them to play by the new text, or know about it; but, they're also not asking for a ruling on it. People who do go on the internet to look it up will find the errata. If anyone ever asks for a ruling on Trader 1E, the ruling is, it's Trader 2E. I think this is a reasonable position.

I just was not thrilled to see an argument starting "well this is how Possession and a no-longer-exists card work..." It's no way to talk me into anything, and doesn't make me too interested in plowing through what the argument is. Now you know!

In any case, per the "blue dog" ruling, Ironworks (along with Groom, etc.) doesn't give a bonus if you didn't gain the card, and I thought that would still be an existing principle of "when would gain".
Ironworks does not give the bonus if you didn't gain the card.

So then, in the "when would" window, all we do is change a future instruction. We're not changing Ironworks's instruction of course. Ironworks says to choose a card based on certain criteria, and then gain that card. We now have an instruction from the game, a "meta instruction", which is the same instruction that Ironworks had, namely "gain that card". In the "when would" window, that meta instruction can be changed. Possession changes "gain that card" into "the other player gains that card". It's still the meta instruction that we're set to follow when we would normally "gain that card", but now it's different. Trader now tries to change it, but can only change it from "gain that card". Then we follow the meta instruction.
I don't really want to agree to a definition for the new jargon "meta instruction," or deal with finding out I didn't use it how you did or any of that. It's just, another obstacle to communication. I know it's intended to help communication; it isn't doing it for me.

So how do Ways and Enchantress work?
We have the meta instruction "follow the card's on-play instructions" that we're set to follow at a certain time when playing a card. In the "when would" window, the Way rules change that meta instruction into "follow the Ways's instructions".
"When you would x" does have a "window" in which to resolve with other things timed the same. I'm not sure why you're guessing that it changes what *will* happen, rather than, it cancels the old thing and makes the new thing happen.

First of all, cards like Moat and Harbor Village cannot look at simply what we get from playing the card, since that would include all abilities that trigger from that (tokens etc.). They're supposed to look at what we get from "what the card does when played", but this of course means "what we do when playing the card", so we're back to the wrong thing. Saying "what the card instructs us to do" would eliminate the unwanted abilities; but it would only include the card's instructions and not the changed meta instruction. So we have to interpret Harbor Village, Moat, etc., in a peculiar way: They look at the instructions that we follow as a result of the "follow the card's on-play instructions" meta instruction we follow as the normal step of playing a card, but also if that meta instruction has been changed into something else.
The rules can totally say - not that they have to in some particular case, but they totally can - that some x qualifies as being y. They can totally say that. And then it's true.

And they do, in the case of Ways; getting the +$2 from Way of the Sheep is treated like the Smithy you were playing gave you the +$2. That's what happens, because that's what Ways say happens, and because I've interpreted it that way, which is the most sensible way for me and that continues to not change.

Anyway, the weirdness here is not Ways and Enchantress, it's that Harbor Village etc. look at the changed meta instruction.
No. It's not that Harbor Village is doing this special thing of looking at a changed something; it's that Ways do this special thing of changing the very thing that Harbor Village looks at.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #170 on: January 27, 2023, 05:09:51 am »
0

Well, Trader 1E exists just as much as Feast exists. IRL people play with them, and almost certainly people IRL play with Trader 1E more than the new version. I don't think it should be expected that they use the new card text when playing with Trader 1E.
No. People who don't go on the internet to find out how Trader 1E works will just play it however they play it. I don't expect them to play by the new text, or know about it; but, they're also not asking for a ruling on it. People who do go on the internet to look it up will find the errata. If anyone ever asks for a ruling on Trader 1E, the ruling is, it's Trader 2E. I think this is a reasonable position.

Okay, but I don't agree that it's reasonable. People who look up an explanation of how to play a card they own, can't be expected to then play that card with a different card text. If it were a completely broken card that needed errata to not ruin the game, I would agree, but that's not the case. About 70 cards have been functionally changed. When I play IRL with my original sets, I don't expect the other players to play the cards differently than the printed text. If a rules question comes up, I'll answer it based on the cards we're actually playing with.

Quote from: Donald X.
I don't really want to agree to a definition for the new jargon "meta instruction," or deal with finding out I didn't use it how you did or any of that. It's just, another obstacle to communication. I know it's intended to help communication; it isn't doing it for me.

I was not intending it to be new jargon, just a short-hand way of saying "what the game rules tell you to do in a certain situation".

Quote from: Donald X.
"When you would x" does have a "window" in which to resolve with other things timed the same. I'm not sure why you're guessing that it changes what *will* happen, rather than, it cancels the old thing and makes the new thing happen.

Because of what I explained further up in the post; I marked it in blue now. But I can say it another way:

If it doesn't change what will happen, then it must be:
  • "when would" window opens.
  • Way of the Sheep and Enchantress trigger.
  • We choose to resolve Way of the Sheep: We get $2.
  • We resolve Enchantress: Enchantress fails.
  • "when would" window closes.
  • We should now resolve the card's on-play instruction, except it was cancelled by Enchantress.
As I said, I don't think that's how anybody thinks it works, nor, I assume, how it was intended. I think instead it must be:
  • "when would" window opens.
  • Way of the Sheep and Enchantress trigger.
  • We choose to resolve Way of the Sheep: We change "follow the card's on-play instruction" into "follow Way of the Sheep's instructions".
  • We resolve Enchantress: Enchantress fails.
  • "when would" window closes.
  • We now resolve what would normally be "follow the card's on-play instruction" (the default meta instruction) but is now "follow Way of the Sheep's instructions" (the changed meta instruction).
In other words, "when would" abilities change what will happen. (ChipperMDW's model also follows this.)

Quote from: Donald X.
The rules can totally say - not that they have to in some particular case, but they totally can - that some x qualifies as being y. They can totally say that. And then it's true.

I agree with that.

Quote from: Donald X.
And they do, in the case of Ways; getting the +$2 from Way of the Sheep is treated like the Smithy you were playing gave you the +$2.

And that's saying that "following Ways/Ench's instructions" counts as "following the card's instructions". (I explained why at the end of my post.)

Quote from: Donald X.
Anyway, the weirdness here is not Ways and Enchantress, it's that Harbor Village etc. look at the changed meta instruction.
No. It's not that Harbor Village is doing this special thing of looking at a changed something; it's that Ways do this special thing of changing the very thing that Harbor Village looks at.

Then Harbor Village looks at what we get as a result of the normal "follow the card's on-play instructions" step of playing a card.
And "following Ways/Ench's instructions" must qualify as that if Harbor Village should see it without looking at a changed thing.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #171 on: January 27, 2023, 05:01:21 pm »
+1

Okay, but I don't agree that it's reasonable. People who look up an explanation of how to play a card they own, can't be expected to then play that card with a different card text. If it were a completely broken card that needed errata to not ruin the game, I would agree, but that's not the case. About 70 cards have been functionally changed. When I play IRL with my original sets, I don't expect the other players to play the cards differently than the printed text. If a rules question comes up, I'll answer it based on the cards we're actually playing with.
I can see how it's not ideal from your perspective as a rules-document maintainer. It's essential from my perspective as a game-maintainer though, and it's doing just fine for players.

Of course people play cards by their wordings; they don't even know there's errata. And weird Trader questions don't come up and they're fine. No-one demands rulings beyond "there's errata" but you. It's beyond the scope for me; it's not happening.

As I said, I don't think that's how anybody thinks it works, nor, I assume, how it was intended. I think instead it must be:
I would not lean on these "it must be" words like you do. We could also say, my rulings are inconceivable. Yet there they are.

I think the "anybody" who's thinking how things work, is not baffled by Way of the Sheep; it means you can play a card to make +$2, and that's how they use it. They're not possibly baffled by the minutiae that you're looking at but which they absolutely never are. They're not programming Dominion or writing a rules document for it.

And that's saying that "following Ways/Ench's instructions" counts as "following the card's instructions". (I explained why at the end of my post.)
Yet again what it is actually saying is what I said, not what you say while saying "this is what you're saying." I again refuse to let you put new words into my mouth.

It would be nice if we were better at communicating with each other. I can share the blame but there's only so much time I have to devote to fixing it.

Quote from: Donald X.
Anyway, the weirdness here is not Ways and Enchantress, it's that Harbor Village etc. look at the changed meta instruction.
No. It's not that Harbor Village is doing this special thing of looking at a changed something; it's that Ways do this special thing of changing the very thing that Harbor Village looks at.

Then Harbor Village looks at what we get as a result of the normal "follow the card's on-play instructions" step of playing a card.
And "following Ways/Ench's instructions" must qualify as that if Harbor Village should see it without looking at a changed thing.

This may be the important point, but I have used up my ability to focus on these for the day. I'm not sure if you're arguing for a different ruling somewhere here or what.

When you try to come up with a new way to say what Harbor Village does, it just makes it so hard to try to follow it or agree to anything ever. Harbor Village does what it says and what I've explained; your terms for it just shut me down.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #172 on: January 28, 2023, 04:21:40 am »
0

Okay, but I don't agree that it's reasonable. People who look up an explanation of how to play a card they own, can't be expected to then play that card with a different card text. If it were a completely broken card that needed errata to not ruin the game, I would agree, but that's not the case. About 70 cards have been functionally changed. When I play IRL with my original sets, I don't expect the other players to play the cards differently than the printed text. If a rules question comes up, I'll answer it based on the cards we're actually playing with.
I can see how it's not ideal from your perspective as a rules-document maintainer. It's essential from my perspective as a game-maintainer though, and it's doing just fine for players.

Of course people play cards by their wordings; they don't even know there's errata. And weird Trader questions don't come up and they're fine. No-one demands rulings beyond "there's errata" but you. It's beyond the scope for me; it's not happening.

I was talking about me as a player, not as a rules-document manintainer (if I shared your thinking I could just delete all the stuff about old versions in the document). I'm not going to explain before we start a game that Trader allows when-gain stuff to happen and Haggler triggers on when-gain, unlike what the cards say. And I expect other people to do that even less (out of those people who know about the changes). I don't imagine that most people that look up their card is fine with playing with a different card text that works differently. And I don't imagine that IRL tournaments include all the changed card texts unless the organizers actually bought all the new sets (and tournaments need rulings).

Quote from: Donald X.
As I said, I don't think that's how anybody thinks it works, nor, I assume, how it was intended. I think instead it must be:
I would not lean on these "it must be" words like you do. We could also say, my rulings are inconceivable. Yet there they are.

I think the "anybody" who's thinking how things work, is not baffled by Way of the Sheep; it means you can play a card to make +$2, and that's how they use it. They're not possibly baffled by the minutiae that you're looking at but which they absolutely never are. They're not programming Dominion or writing a rules document for it.

Several people here are trying to explain how this ruling makes sense to them. (They are mostly following what I said it "must be" above.) Of course it's possible to just accept a ruling of how card A, B and C individually work with card D, E and F, but it's easier to parse if there were some commonality that could actually be understood, so that we could predict how the next card that is similar to A, B and C would also work with D, E and F without asking for another ruling. That's what I've been trying to get at, along with some other posters. Although they don't agree with me, we have all been trying to figure out how this actually works.

Quote from: Donald X.
And that's saying that "following Ways/Ench's instructions" counts as "following the card's instructions". (I explained why at the end of my post.)
Yet again what it is actually saying is what I said, not what you say while saying "this is what you're saying." I again refuse to let you put new words into my mouth.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I was trying to find a way that I could explain it, and it lead to what it lead to. Since you were responding to that, I referred to it.

Quote from: Donald X.
It would be nice if we were better at communicating with each other. I can share the blame but there's only so much time I have to devote to fixing it.

Quote from: Donald X.
This may be the important point, but I have used up my ability to focus on these for the day. I'm not sure if you're arguing for a different ruling somewhere here or what.

When you try to come up with a new way to say what Harbor Village does, it just makes it so hard to try to follow it or agree to anything ever. Harbor Village does what it says and what I've explained; your terms for it just shut me down.

To me, I'm doing what we always do in these threads, going back to Ironworks/Trader or maybe earlier, and in threads about all games, figuring out how two things actually work in order to work out the interaction.

I get that you don't want to engage with this anymore. I actually thought you wouldn't even respond to that post; and in the end you didn't actually respond to its arguments.

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #173 on: January 28, 2023, 05:47:53 am »
0

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"?

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3329
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4507
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #174 on: January 28, 2023, 10:02:33 am »
0

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"?

How about, they change what a card's effect is?

(In addition to Ways, Enchantress, and Reckless, I suppose Highwayman and the late lamented Coppersmith also do that.)
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #175 on: January 28, 2023, 10:11:24 am »
0

(In addition to Ways, Enchantress, and Reckless, I suppose Highwayman and the late lamented Coppersmith also do that.)

Highwayman, yes it's the same as Enchantress.

Coppersmith and Envious were ruled to be shapeshifters. Of course, that was when saying that a card does something meant that its instructions were changed. Donald X. might think differently about it now that this he's introduced this new concept.

dane-m

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 166
  • Shuffle iT Username: dane-m
  • Respect: +199
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #176 on: January 28, 2023, 01:30:16 pm »
0

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"?)
Logged

Jeebus

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2586
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1680
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #177 on: January 28, 2023, 01:42:43 pm »
0

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"?)

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. In short, applying Enchantress and then Chameleon will produce +$1 and +1 Action, applying Chameleon and then Enchantress will produce +1 Card and +1 Action, applying Enchantress and then Reckless will produce +1 Card and +1 Action twice, applying Sheep and then Reckless will produce +$2 twice. None of that is according to current rulings. But your explanation is pretty much what I've been advocating.

I'll try to write a summary of the rulings one of the upcoming days.

(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.)

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6500
  • Respect: +26173
    • View Profile
Re: Lantern, Elder, Harbor Village, Moat
« Reply #178 on: January 28, 2023, 02:50:50 pm »
0

I was talking about me as a player, not as a rules-document manintainer (if I shared your thinking I could just delete all the stuff about old versions in the document). I'm not going to explain before we start a game that Trader allows when-gain stuff to happen and Haggler triggers on when-gain, unlike what the cards say. And I expect other people to do that even less (out of those people who know about the changes). I don't imagine that most people that look up their card is fine with playing with a different card text that works differently. And I don't imagine that IRL tournaments include all the changed card texts unless the organizers actually bought all the new sets (and tournaments need rulings).
This is just another case where we fail to communicate? You, and people reading this thread, are trying to figure out weird cases. Normal people are not! They are not. They aren't. They don't. It's not a thing.

When a weird situation comes up, they don't necessarily even think to ask. They think they know what happens and they do that.

I get that you don't want to engage with this anymore. I actually thought you wouldn't even respond to that post; and in the end you didn't actually respond to its arguments.
You could try sticking to the thing you care the most about, and saying it tersely, and seeing how it goes.

I'll try to write up a summary like dane-m's later.
Logged