Print

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

[dane-m]

Also does this mean that Chameleon loses to Highwayman? I'd guess that Highwayman's wording is secretly a shorter version of Enchantress. The longer wording would be something like:

"Each turn, the first time each other player plays a Treasure card, they get +$0 instead of following its instructions"

Hmm, given that there’s a FAQ ruling on Highwayman which says that Ways can be used to counter it, I think you’d have to be right. But it’s not how I would have read the text on Highwayman if I were just reading that; I’d have assumed you can’t choose to use a Way at all, because letting you choose a Way is something that playing a card “does”, and Highwayman says it does “nothing”.

I have an answer to this, but I need to reference something else to support (I hope) my argument:

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.

Let's expand this.

Playing a card:
1. Announce it.
2. Move it to the "in play" area.
3. "When you play a card, first..." abilities trigger here.
4. Follow the instructions on the card (in order, top to bottom, stop at a dividing line).
5. "When you play a card" abilities trigger here.

There's nothing on the card to tell you to announce it, there's nothing on the card to tell you that you move it to the "in play" area, and there's nothing on the card to say that "When you play a card, first..." abilities trigger at this stage.  These are all things that the rules of the game are doing, not the card.  Similarly there's nothing on the card to say that you can choose a Way, so that is surely also something that the rules of the game are doing.  Effectively there's an extra step (3˝) in the above that says "Choose whether to FTI or use a Way." and step 4 becomes conditional on having made the appropriate choice in 3˝.   Consequently saying that the card does nothing doesn't affect the ability to choose a Way. 

[Jeebus]

Also does this mean that Chameleon loses to Highwayman? I'd guess that Highwayman's wording is secretly a shorter version of Enchantress. The longer wording would be something like:

"Each turn, the first time each other player plays a Treasure card, they get +$0 instead of following its instructions"

Hmm, given that there’s a FAQ ruling on Highwayman which says that Ways can be used to counter it, I think you’d have to be right. But it’s not how I would have read the text on Highwayman if I were just reading that; I’d have assumed you can’t choose to use a Way at all, because letting you choose a Way is something that playing a card “does”, and Highwayman says it does “nothing”.

The phrasing is poor, but the rulebook (as you're implying) says straight that it does the same as Enchantress and Ways, with the same timing.

[Jeebus]

Also does this mean that Chameleon loses to Highwayman? I'd guess that Highwayman's wording is secretly a shorter version of Enchantress. The longer wording would be something like:

"Each turn, the first time each other player plays a Treasure card, they get +$0 instead of following its instructions"

Hmm, given that there’s a FAQ ruling on Highwayman which says that Ways can be used to counter it, I think you’d have to be right. But it’s not how I would have read the text on Highwayman if I were just reading that; I’d have assumed you can’t choose to use a Way at all, because letting you choose a Way is something that playing a card “does”, and Highwayman says it does “nothing”.

I have an answer to this, but I need to reference something else to support (I hope) my argument:

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.

Let's expand this.

Playing a card:
1. Announce it.
2. Move it to the "in play" area.
3. "When you play a card, first..." abilities trigger here.
4. Follow the instructions on the card (in order, top to bottom, stop at a dividing line).
5. "When you play a card" abilities trigger here.

There's nothing on the card to tell you to announce it, there's nothing on the card to tell you that you move it to the "in play" area, and there's nothing on the card to say that "When you play a card, first..." abilities trigger at this stage.  These are all things that the rules of the game are doing, not the card.  Similarly there's nothing on the card to say that you can choose a Way, so that is surely also something that the rules of the game are doing.  Effectively there's an extra step (3˝) in the above that says "Choose whether to FTI or use a Way." and step 4 becomes conditional on having made the appropriate choice in 3˝.   Consequently saying that the card does nothing doesn't affect the ability to choose a Way.

This kind of confusion is caused by the fuzziness of the new ruling, in my opinion. Let's not forget how Ways/Enchantress and Highwayman all work:

When you would follow the on-play instructions of the played card, instead follow <instructions>.

Ways: <instructions> = the Way's instructions
Enchantress: <instructions> = +1 Card, +1 Action
Highwayman: <instructions> = nothing

They all trigger at the same time, and per the normal rules, you choose which to resolve first. After resolving the first one, any others will fail to do anything because at that point you're not following the card's on-play instructions anymore.

Your model with the extra step might not actually be in accordance to how these abilities trigger on "when you would follow the instructions". (In my opinion it's impossible to make a coherent model or explanation for this ruling.)

[Jeebus]

You don't have to keep repeating it, it's clear: Way of the Goat means that Smithy makes you trash. I've been trying to explain how I can't see any difference between a card (in this case Smithy) making you trash and that card giving you an instruction to trash. You still haven't really responded to this (which is understandable if you don't follow).

- An instruction to trash doesn't mean you will necessarily trash. For example, we could have Highwayman cause us to not do the instruction.

Right, but that's not relevant to the question of the difference between being instructed/made to do something and following an instruction to do that thing. It's about instructions being followed; other instructions of course don't make you do anything.

Or, as I wrote to AJD:

If you're following a card's instruction to trash, it means that it instructs you to trash. (or any other words you want to use)
And vice versa, if the card instructs you to trash, it means that you're following its instruction to trash / its instruction to you is to trash. (or any other words you want to use)

[segura]

Or, as I wrote to AJD:

If you're following a card's instruction to trash, it means that it instructs you to trash. (or any other words you want to use)
And vice versa, if the card instructs you to trash, it means that you're following its instruction to trash / its instruction to you is to trash. (or any other words you want to use)

Cool tautology.

[dane-m]

Let's not forget how Ways/Enchantress and Highwayman all work:

When you would follow the on-play instructions of the played card, instead follow <instructions>.

Ways: <instructions> = the Way's instructions
Enchantress: <instructions> = +1 Card, +1 Action
Highwayman: <instructions> = nothing

They all trigger at the same time, and per the normal rules, you choose which to resolve first. After resolving the first one, any others will fail to do anything because at that point you're not following the card's on-play instructions anymore.

Except that the above model is not what the rules actually say.  It's the model that we've been using to understand how the rules work.  Here's what the rules actually say about Ways:

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.

The only place where 'would' appears in the rules about Ways is:

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.

I've mentioned previously that sometimes the rules specify the outcome but not the mechanism by which the outcome is achieved.  That's all that's really needed, but we like to envisage a mechanism that helps us to understand the outcomes.  At some stage in the past the model you describe proved adequate to describe the mechanism by which Ways and Enchantress interacted.  It continued to prove adequate when Highwayman came along.  It has now hit a problem when confronted with Reckless.  All that proves is that the model has become inadequate, not that the rules make no sense.

(Edited to correct typo)

[Jeebus]

Let's not forget how Ways/Enchantress and Highwayman all work:

When you would follow the on-play instructions of the played card, instead follow <instructions>.

Ways: <instructions> = the Way's instructions
Enchantress: <instructions> = +1 Card, +1 Action
Highwayman: <instructions> = nothing

They all trigger at the same time, and per the normal rules, you choose which to resolve first. After resolving the first one, any others will fail to do anything because at that point you're not following the card's on-play instructions anymore.

Except that the above model is not what the rules actually say.  It's the model that we've been using to understand how the rules work.  Here's what the rules actually say about Ways:

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.

The only place where 'would' appears in the rules about Ways is:

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.

I've mentioned previously that sometimes the rules specify the outcome but not the mechanism by which the outcome is achieved.  That's all that's really needed, but we like to envisage a mechanism that helps us to understand the outcomes.  At some stage in the past the model you describe proved adequate to describe the mechanism by which Ways and Enchantress interacted.  It continued to prove adequate when Highwayman came along.  It has now hit a problem when confronted with Reckless.  All that proves is that the model has become inadequate, not that the rules make no sense.

(Edited to correct typo)

They all trigger at the same time, otherwise you can't order them. And they all trigger before you get to the FTI part, obviously. That's what the model I described says. And that's what Donald X. has said before, and he hasn't said otherwise now. What do you actually disagree with?

[Jeebus]

Or, as I wrote to AJD:

If you're following a card's instruction to trash, it means that it instructs you to trash. (or any other words you want to use)
And vice versa, if the card instructs you to trash, it means that you're following its instruction to trash / its instruction to you is to trash. (or any other words you want to use)

Cool tautology.

Aah, but it isn't. Look again.

[dane-m]

They all trigger at the same time, otherwise you can't order them. And they all trigger before you get to the FTI part, obviously. That's what the model I described says. And that's what Donald X. has said before, and he hasn't said otherwise now. What do you actually disagree with?

They do not all need to trigger at the same time.  Enchantress and Highwayman must trigger at the same time, but the decision to use a Way can occur at a separate time.  Indeed given that you evidently haven't been able to find an explanation for all the rulings that you consider compatible with them all triggering at the same time, it's quite possibly the case that it must occur at a separate time.

Let's go back to another extract from the Menagerie rule book:

The choice to use a Way or not happens after "first" abilities on cards like Moat and Kiln.

So in Donald X's 5-step outline of what playing a card involves, we know that choosing to use a Way comes after step 3, the triggering of "When you play a card, first..." abilities – that's why I inserted it as step 3˝ – but as far as I'm aware there's nothing in any of the rules that specify exactly when the triggering of the Highwayman and Enchantress attacks occur.  The Allies rules for Highwayman do say "If the Treasure is also an Action, a Way (from Menagerie) can still be used on it, and Enchantress (from Empires) can still work on it; the player who played the Treasure decides which effect applies" but that doesn't force the Way decision to be simultaneous with the attack effects.

How I continue this discussion depends on what the current state of play with Enchantress/Reckless and Way of the Chameleon is.  Earlier in this thread Donald X tentatively reversed the ruling on Enchantress and Chameleon, but has subsequently agreed that Reckless and Enchantress should match for Chameleon.  It's not clear to me, however, whether that has resulted in the tentative reversal being reversed.

If the reversal stands, then the attacks have to trigger before the choice to use a Way happens so that when Chameleon tries to FTI with $/cards reversed it finishes up doing whatever Enchantress or Highwayman said to do instead.  If on the other hand the reversal has been reversed, then the attacks have to trigger after the choice to use a Way happens so that when Chameleon tries to FTI with $/cards reversed it succeeds.  The model for the latter scenario is a bit cleaner than the one for the former, so I'll present it, continuing to number my introduced extra step as 3˝.

Playing a card:
1. Announce it.
2. Move it to the "in play" area.
3. "When you play a card, first..." abilities trigger here.
3˝. If it's an Action card, choose to use a Way if desired.
4. If a Way wasn't used, follow the instructions on the card (in order, top to bottom, stop at a dividing line) unless overridden by an attack.
5. "When you play a card" abilities trigger here.

(Edit: why do I always spot typos after I post rather than when I'm previewing?)

[GendoIkari]

If the reversal stands, then the attacks have to trigger before the choice to use a Way happens so that when Chameleon tries to FTI with $/cards reversed it finishes up doing whatever Enchantress or Highwayman said to do instead.

Wait, this isn’t why Enchantress can beat Chameleon under the ruling that it can. It’s not that the attack has already triggered and thus Chameleon fails to override it. It’s that Chameleon says to FTI, which would trigger the attack again (if we say that it also triggered originally when you chose to use the Way; if it’s as you say that Way triggered first, then Enchantress would only be triggering once; not twice). I’m not understanding your idea of the attack triggering before the choice to use a way; what does that mean? Enchantress pretty clearly only triggers when you would follow the instructions; that one is printed on the card. And how can that be something that happens before you choose to use a Way?

[Jeebus]

I'm also not clear on what Dane-m is saying. Again, I don't think the intention is that this timing has changed. So before, the ruling on all Ways, including Chameleon, was that they could help you escape Enchantress and Highwayman. It's like I said:

They all trigger at the same time, and per the normal rules, you choose which to resolve first. After resolving the first one, any others will fail to do anything because at that point you're not following the card's on-play instructions anymore.

I still think that this means (as in ChipperMDW's model) that these abilities all change what instructions we're following, and that they make that change before we're following the instructions.

So, the Way and Enchantress trigger at the same time, then you choose which to resolve first. If you choose Enchantress, then when you resolve the Way it does nothing (since you're not FTI). If you choose the Way, then when you resolve Enchantress it does nothing (since you're not FTI). Then you get to the actual FTI step (which would be whichever you chose).

Now, with the suggested ruling that Chameleon actually makes you FTI, it would be like this (with the same timing):

Chameleon and Enchantress trigger at the same time, then you choose which to resolve first. If you choose Enchantress, then when you resolve Chameleon it does nothing (since you're not FTI). If you choose Chameleon, then when you resolve Enchantress it makes you do the cantrip (since you are FTI after applying Chameleon). Then you get to the actual FTI step (which would be the Enchantress cantrip in any case).

The other way would be to say that Ways/Ench actually make you resolve their instructions while we're still in the when-would window, which I think is what GendoIkari is saying? To me it's weird and counter-intuitive, but it doesn't make any difference for the outcome of the Enchantress + Chameleon interaction. It would be like this, I guess:

Chameleon and Enchantress trigger at the same time, then you choose which to resolve first. If you choose Enchantress, you get the cantrip right away and the card instructions that you're set to follow are cancelled, and then when you resolve Chameleon it does nothing (since you're not FTI). If you choose Chameleon, then it makes you FTI "modified" right away and the card instructions that you're set to follow are cancelled, but before that Enchantress triggers again on the when-would of that FTI and you get the cantrip and those instructions are cancelled too.
EDIT: Actually no, I don't think Enchantress would trigger again, since you're not playing the card again. And that actually means that this way of looking at it must be wrong!

[dane-m]

If the reversal stands, then the attacks have to trigger before the choice to use a Way happens so that when Chameleon tries to FTI with $/cards reversed it finishes up doing whatever Enchantress or Highwayman said to do instead.

Wait, this isn’t why Enchantress can beat Chameleon under the ruling that it can. It’s not that the attack has already triggered and thus Chameleon fails to override it. It’s that Chameleon says to FTI, which would trigger the attack again (if we say that it also triggered originally when you chose to use the Way; if it’s as you say that Way triggered first, then Enchantress would only be triggering once; not twice).

OK, I understand the logic.

I’m not understanding your idea of the attack triggering before the choice to use a way; what does that mean? Enchantress pretty clearly only triggers when you would follow the instructions; that one is printed on the card. And how can that be something that happens before you choose to use a Way?

I had been thinking in terms of the attacks, when they triggered, setting up an effect that said "When you try to FTI, this is what you're going to do instead."  Having the attacks trigger before the Way choice would therefore override Chameleon, while having them trigger after the Way choice would allow Chameleon to work.

Now that I understand the logic behind the ruling reversal, it makes a lot of sense to me, and I think all the complications disappear just so long as one doesn't try, like Jeebus is doing, to make the Way choice and the attack triggers be synchronous and hence orderable.  Instead make the Way choice occur first and make the attacks trigger (as you have said) at the point at which one attempts to FTI.

[Jeebus]

If the reversal stands, then the attacks have to trigger before the choice to use a Way happens so that when Chameleon tries to FTI with $/cards reversed it finishes up doing whatever Enchantress or Highwayman said to do instead.

Wait, this isn’t why Enchantress can beat Chameleon under the ruling that it can. It’s not that the attack has already triggered and thus Chameleon fails to override it. It’s that Chameleon says to FTI, which would trigger the attack again (if we say that it also triggered originally when you chose to use the Way; if it’s as you say that Way triggered first, then Enchantress would only be triggering once; not twice).

OK, I understand the logic.

I’m not understanding your idea of the attack triggering before the choice to use a way; what does that mean? Enchantress pretty clearly only triggers when you would follow the instructions; that one is printed on the card. And how can that be something that happens before you choose to use a Way?

I had been thinking in terms of the attacks, when they triggered, setting up an effect that said "When you try to FTI, this is what you're going to do instead."  Having the attacks trigger before the Way choice would therefore override Chameleon, while having them trigger after the Way choice would allow Chameleon to work.

Now that I understand the logic behind the ruling reversal, it makes a lot of sense to me, and I think all the complications disappear just so long as one doesn't try, like Jeebus is doing, to make the Way choice and the attack triggers be synchronous and hence orderable.  Instead make the Way choice occur first and make the attacks trigger (as you have said) at the point at which one attempts to FTI.

Nobody has said that Ways trigger first except you. The ruling on Ways/Ench/Highw has always been that they all work exactly the same in terms of effect and in terms of timing. Here is Donald X.'s original explanation of Enchantress's timing. Here is Donald X. saying that Ways and Enchantress have the same timing.

Nothing Donald X. has said here has remotely indicated that he changed when Ways trigger by creating a new timing window between "first" (Reactions) and Ench/Highw. There is nothing in the rules or on the cards suggesting this timing difference either, quite the contrary.

The reasoning for the ruling on what Ways/Ench/Highw do in relation to Harbor Village, Moat, etc., has nothing to do with a changed timing either.

And the new ruling on Chameleon works purely based on the fact that we're FTI with it; there is certainly no need to have it trigger earlier.

Furthermore, what you're saying still contradicts what GendoIkari said about Enchantress triggering twice. If the "Way choice" happens first, and then Enchantress triggers after that, Enchantress will only trigger once.

Making Ways trigger before Enchantress does not solve anything in terms of the Harbor Village ruling either. If one thinks that a card making you do something can be a completely separate phenomenon from you following the card's instructions, the ruling makes sense no matter the timing of Ways; and if one doesn't think that, the ruling doesn't make sense no matter the timing of Ways.

As I explained in my last post, there are two ways to look at what Ways/Ench/Highw do when it comes to changing what instructions you follow. This presents a further complication and hinderance to discussion. Either they do it right away (have you follow the new instructions), before you actually get to the FTI part (which must be what GendoIkari is thinking), or they change what you're going to do when you will get to the FTI part. The latter is what I've always been thinking, what ChipperMDW's model follows, and what you are saying (at least partially). In the middle of this post I presented two numbered lists explaining these two "models".
EDIT: I'm pretty sure the first option (marked in brown) must be wrong. The only way this can work is that Ways/Ench/Highw change the future instructions.

[GendoIkari]

The other way would be to say that Ways/Ench actually make you resolve their instructions while we're still in the when-would window, which I think is what GendoIkari is saying? To me it's weird and counter-intuitive, but it doesn't make any difference for the outcome of the Enchantress + Chameleon interaction. It would be like this, I guess:

Chameleon and Enchantress trigger at the same time, then you choose which to resolve first. If you choose Enchantress, you get the cantrip right away and the card instructions that you're set to follow are cancelled, and then when you resolve Chameleon it does nothing (since you're not FTI). If you choose Chameleon, then it makes you FTI "modified" right away and the card instructions that you're set to follow are cancelled, but before that Enchantress triggers again on the when-would of that FTI and you get the cantrip and those instructions are cancelled too.

But as I said, I think following the new instructions in the when-would window of following the instructions is just weird.

I didn't even realize until now that I was saying something different than you were... but no, I didn't mean to suggest that Enchantress's Cantrip would happen at a time different than the normal FTI would have happened had Enchantress not been played. "When would.. instead" replaces one event with another, the replaced event happens at the same time as the original would have.

What I meant be Enchantress triggering again was this:

1) You start to play a card, Enchantress and Chameleon trigger due to the fact that the game rules tell you to FTI now.
2) You choose Chameleon, so you FTI on Chameleon.
3) The instruction on Chameleon tells you to FTI on the card you played. This is now the second time during this card play that you are about to FTI of the played card. Enchantress triggers again. Chameleon only doesn't trigger again because Donald X has ruled that you can't use 2 Ways on a single card play.

So any time you choose Chameleon, you have 2 separate "when you would FTI" windows. The first one created by the game rules that tell you to FTI when you play a card, and the second created by Chameleon that tells you to FTI of the played card.

*Edit*
I don't know if this is necessary, but in case there's some confusion over why the second FTI I'm talking about has to be at a different time than the first/original, imagine that Chameleon could easily instead say

+1 Card
Follow this card's instructions; each time that would give you +Cards this turn, you get +$ instead, and vice-versa.

In that case, Enchantress would trigger once before you've drawn that extra card, and then trigger again after you've drawn that extra card. The point being that you resolve Ways' instructions in order one at a time, just like you do for resolving cards' instructions.

[Jeebus]

I see. But actually I think we're both wrong when it comes to how Enchantress can trigger a second time. Donald X. has actually specified several times that Enchantress (and Ways) only trigger when you FTI as a result of playing the card. If an ability instructs you to FTI without actually playing the card, that should not trigger Ench/Ways. Compare to Reckless; it tells you to FTI an extra time, but this doesn't trigger Ench/Ways one more time. Chameleon does the same thing. If Chameleon had said "play this card" instead of "follow this card's instructions", then of course Enchantress would trigger again. (I think Ways would too; I'm not sure exactly what Donald meant about not using two Ways, but it doesn't really matter with current rulings anyway.)

[GendoIkari]

I see. But actually I think we're both wrong when it comes to how Enchantress can trigger a second time. Donald X. has actually specified several times that Enchantress (and Ways) only trigger when you FTI as a result of playing the card. If an ability instructs you to FTI without actually playing the card, that should not trigger Ench/Ways. Compare to Reckless; it tells you to FTI an extra time, but this doesn't trigger Ench/Ways one more time. Chameleon does the same thing. If Chameleon had said "play this card" instead of "follow this card's instructions", then of course Enchantress would trigger again. (I think Ways would too; I'm not sure exactly what Donald meant about not using two Ways, but it doesn't really matter with current rulings anyway.)

Hmm, now I'm surprised that the official FAQ doesn't mention whether or not you can choose to use a Way when following a Reckless card's instructions the second time (after not using a Way during the first time). But assuming that you indeed can't, do we know the same goes for Enchantress? It is possible to have a scenario where your opponent plays Enchantress after you play your Reckless card but before you follow the Reckless card's instructions a second time (Mouse has Enchantress, your opponent plays a "play this" type reaction). Is there a ruling that Enchantress will not do anything to the Reckless card's second instruction-following?

I would have thought that a newly-played Enchantress would in fact stop a Reckless card's repeat instructions from happening... but if so, I also can't see a good reason that you can't use a Way on the second time.

Assuming that both of those don't work, the question becomes "why not"? If it is as you suggest that Enchantress and Ways only trigger when playing a card makes you FTI instead of other things like Reckless, then Chameleon should in fact avoid Enchantress; the fact that Chameleon makes you FTI wouldn't matter for Enchantress.

*Edit* Never mind to some of that, I just realized Enchantress looks for when another player "plays an Action card", so that window is long-gone if you play Enchantress in the middle of them resolving an action. So for sure it doesn't work like I was saying. But then the question becomes, exactly how does it work against Chameleon's FTI instruction? It's no longer part of "when a card is played", it seems.

[Jeebus]

Hmm, now I'm surprised that the official FAQ doesn't mention whether or not you can choose to use a Way when following a Reckless card's instructions the second time (after not using a Way during the first time).

Hmm. Well, this is what Donald X. wrote about Reckless:

Reckless as printed actually cares about playing the card, not following its instructions. And this is reinforced in the FAQ. When you play a card, normally, you follow its instructions; Reckless gets in there and says "follow them an extra time." So "Reckless happens whenever you follow the card's instructions" is wrong. You have to be playing the card for (that part of) Reckless to do anything.

(In the rest of that post he made the ruling about Reckless + Chameleon that he has now probably reversed - but because of a different interpretation of Chameleon, not Reckless.)
And:

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.

But assuming that you indeed can't, do we know the same goes for Enchantress? It is possible to have a scenario where your opponent plays Enchantress after you play your Reckless card but before you follow the Reckless card's instructions a second time (Mouse has Enchantress, your opponent plays a "play this" type reaction). Is there a ruling that Enchantress will not do anything to the Reckless card's second instruction-following?

I would have thought that a newly-played Enchantress would in fact stop a Reckless card's repeat instructions from happening... but if so, I also can't see a good reason that you can't use a Way on the second time.

Assuming that both of those don't work, the question becomes "why not"? If it is as you suggest that Enchantress and Ways only trigger when playing a card makes you FTI instead of other things like Reckless, then Chameleon should in fact avoid Enchantress; the fact that Chameleon makes you FTI wouldn't matter for Enchantress.

Yes it would, since Enchantress already triggered when you played the card (in the "when-would-resolve" window). As I wrote above: Chameleon and Enchantress trigger at the same time, then you choose which to resolve first. If you choose Enchantress, then when you resolve Chameleon it does nothing (since you're not FTI). If you choose Chameleon, then when you resolve Enchantress it makes you do the cantrip (since you are FTI after applying Chameleon).

But I think we need Donald X. to answer the specific question you brought up:
1) Can you choose to use a Way when following a Reckless card's instructions the second time (after not using a Way during the first time)?
EDIT: I  deleted the second question after reading GendoIkari's edit, which I agree with. It's also pretty clear from the Donald X. quotes above that the answer to the remaining question is no.

[GendoIkari]

But assuming that you indeed can't, do we know the same goes for Enchantress? It is possible to have a scenario where your opponent plays Enchantress after you play your Reckless card but before you follow the Reckless card's instructions a second time (Mouse has Enchantress, your opponent plays a "play this" type reaction). Is there a ruling that Enchantress will not do anything to the Reckless card's second instruction-following?

I would have thought that a newly-played Enchantress would in fact stop a Reckless card's repeat instructions from happening... but if so, I also can't see a good reason that you can't use a Way on the second time.

Assuming that both of those don't work, the question becomes "why not"? If it is as you suggest that Enchantress and Ways only trigger when playing a card makes you FTI instead of other things like Reckless, then Chameleon should in fact avoid Enchantress; the fact that Chameleon makes you FTI wouldn't matter for Enchantress.

Yes it would, since Enchantress already triggered when you played the card (in the "when-would-resolve" window). As I wrote above: Chameleon and Enchantress trigger at the same time, then you choose which to resolve first. If you choose Enchantress, then when you resolve Chameleon it does nothing (since you're not FTI). If you choose Chameleon, then when you resolve Enchantress it makes you do the cantrip (since you are FTI after applying Chameleon).

Unclear what you're talking about here, "yes it would" is what, yes Enchantress would make you do the cantrip? Or yes, Chameleon would avoid the Enchantress? If you meant the first one, then I'm talking about a situation when Enchantress wasn't in play when you played the card. It was played by your opponent during the resolution of your played card, so it should be too late for the now-played Enchantress to do anything, since it looks specifically for "when a card is played" (and also looks for "when you would FTI", but only when you would FTI as a result of playing a card).

[Jeebus]

But assuming that you indeed can't, do we know the same goes for Enchantress? It is possible to have a scenario where your opponent plays Enchantress after you play your Reckless card but before you follow the Reckless card's instructions a second time (Mouse has Enchantress, your opponent plays a "play this" type reaction). Is there a ruling that Enchantress will not do anything to the Reckless card's second instruction-following?

I would have thought that a newly-played Enchantress would in fact stop a Reckless card's repeat instructions from happening... but if so, I also can't see a good reason that you can't use a Way on the second time.

Assuming that both of those don't work, the question becomes "why not"? If it is as you suggest that Enchantress and Ways only trigger when playing a card makes you FTI instead of other things like Reckless, then Chameleon should in fact avoid Enchantress; the fact that Chameleon makes you FTI wouldn't matter for Enchantress.

Yes it would, since Enchantress already triggered when you played the card (in the "when-would-resolve" window). As I wrote above: Chameleon and Enchantress trigger at the same time, then you choose which to resolve first. If you choose Enchantress, then when you resolve Chameleon it does nothing (since you're not FTI). If you choose Chameleon, then when you resolve Enchantress it makes you do the cantrip (since you are FTI after applying Chameleon).

Unclear what you're talking about here, "yes it would" is what, yes Enchantress would make you do the cantrip? Or yes, Chameleon would avoid the Enchantress? If you meant the first one, then I'm talking about a situation when Enchantress wasn't in play when you played the card. It was played by your opponent during the resolution of your played card, so it should be too late for the now-played Enchantress to do anything, since it looks specifically for "when a card is played" (and also looks for "when you would FTI", but only when you would FTI as a result of playing a card).

I have colored and bolded the sentence I was replying to. I replied, yes it would. Meaning, yes the fact that Chameleon makes you FTI would matter for Enchantress.

You're now saying that you were talking about the scenario where your opponent played Enchantress during your resolution of the played card. I didn't think you were talking about that. I thought you were asking how it was possible for Chameleon to avoid Enchantress at all given the changed ruling on Chameleon. You also said: "exactly how does it work against Chameleon's FTI instruction? It's no longer part of 'when a card is played', it seems." So it REALLY seems like that's what you were talking about.

[GendoIkari]

Well I was talking about playing Enchantress in the middle of resolving an action, but then my edit was saying that I realized my mistake; that Enchantress only ever does something if it's in play "when your opponent plays a card".

But you said right before my post "Donald X. has actually specified several times that Enchantress (and Ways) only trigger when you FTI as a result of playing the card". This makes sense to me based on the wording on Enchantress; it states that it triggers "the first time each other player plays an Action card on their turn". So this would mean that the only FTI that Enchantress can stop would be the FTI that the rulebook causes you to do when playing a card. But the FTI on Chameleon is a separate thing completely; it's just part of resolving Chameleon's instructions. I don't see how Enchantress also works to stop that FTI.

Enchantress's "instead of following its instructions" could technically be read in 2 different ways:

1) It could mean "replace following the rulebook's normal rule that playing a card causes you to follow that card's instructions". This reading makes the most sense to me, and lines up with what you quoted Donald X as saying. But it would mean that Chameleon can stop Enchantress from doing anything; when Chameleon tells you to FTI, that's not the event that Enchantress is replacing.

2) It could mean "replace any instance of FTI that happens during the resolution of the played card". This seems like an awkward interpretation to me, now that I've noticed that Enchantress looks for a card being played, not just an instruction being followed. 24 hours ago I had missed that fact, and thought there was no difference between the regular FTI and the Chameleon's instruction to FTI. I think this interpretation would be required to make it so that Enchantress till hits you even if you choose to use Chameleon.

[Jeebus]

I know you were talking about playing enchantress in the middle of resolving an action earlier in that post. But the part that I colored blue and bolded was not that part. In that part you were expressing the same doubt you're expressing now. And I replied to that part . I said that enchantress already triggered. (Your first reading of enchantress is the correct one.) I don't see you addressing my reply. What is it that is unclear about it or you disagree with?

[GendoIkari]

I know you were talking about playing enchantress in the middle of resolving an action earlier in that post. But the part that I colored blue and bolded was not that part. In that part you were expressing the same doubt you're expressing now. And I replied to that part . I said that enchantress already triggered. (Your first reading of enchantress is the correct one.) I don't see you addressing my reply. What is it that is unclear about it or you disagree with?

I'm confused because you're saying my first reading is correct, but your "Yes it would" reply relies on the second reading being correct... if the first reading is correct, then how does Enchantress replace Chameleon's instruction to FTI? The first reading specifically states that the only thing Enchantress can replace is the game rules' instruction to FTI when you play a card. Any FTI that happens after that initial window should have no interaction with Enchantress. To list it out specifically, this is how I would see it working if the first interpretation of Enchantress is correct:

1) You announce and start to play your first action (after your opponent has played Enchantress last turn).
2) You deal with "when play, first" stuff.
3) The game rules tell you to FTI. Enchantress and Chameleon both trigger. Enchantress specifically triggers because it is the first time you're playing an action card this turn, and you're about to FTI on that action card.
4) You choose Chameleon. The FTI is replaced with following Chameleon's instructions instead.
5) You're no longer being told by the game rules to FTI; because you replaced that instruction. Enchantress resolves and does nothing.
6) You resolve Chameleon. First step is to FTI on the card you played. Enchantress doesn't care about this at all, because it's not an FTI that is happening because the game rules told you to FTI. And interpretation 1 is that Enchantress only cares about FTI that happens normally due to game rules.

Now, under interpretation 2 of Enchantress, steps 1-5 would be the same. But step 6 becomes:
6) You resolve Chameleon. First step is to FTI on the card you played. Enchantress sees that you are about to FTI, and so replaces that with a cantrip. This would be the second time this turn that Enchantress triggered; first when you played the card, and second when you're resolving Chameleon's instructions.

[Jeebus]

Okay, I see what you're saying. The way I have been thinking about it is that in step 4, the FTI is already replaced with (a modified version of) the FTI. So you're still FTI at that point.

Your interpretation is (I assume) what lead Donald X. to rule that Chameleoen does override Enchantress in the first place. In order for the new (reversed) ruling to work, I think we'd have to say that Ways all are like Enchantress, they implicitly start with "when you would FTI after playing the card, instead do this..."; and with the new ruling, Chameleon instead implicitly says "when you would FTI after playing the card, do FTI but with these modifications...". In this way, Chameleon, unlike the other Ways, don't actually make you not FTI.

I think the new ruling is more intuitive for most players. But yeah, if we go into the technical workings, the old ruling probably makes a bit more sense. (But to keep the old ruling, Reckless should of course not work when Chameleon is applied either.)

[dane-m]

I'll have one more try and then stay shut up unless anyone requires something to be explained more fully.

First let me remind everyone that what I've been trying to do is come up with an explanation that gives all the required results, i.e. I have been trying to find a model, preferably as simple as possible, that would require only rulings about mechanisms to change rather than rulings about results.  I think the following reduces such changes to a minimum.

Treat Lantern and Way of the Chameleon as shape-shifting the instructions on the relevant cards.

Playing a card:
1. Announce it.
2. Move it to the "in play" area.
3. "When you play a card, first..." abilities trigger here.
4. Either use a Way or follow the instructions on the card (in order, top to bottom, stop at a dividing line).  Whatever instructions actually get followed count as what the card does.
5. "When you play a card" abilities trigger here.

Enchantress and HighWayman trigger when one attempts to FTI.

Moat protects against what a card does.

Harbor Village cares about what a card did.

Now, in tedious detail, here is how the results of the above compare to the results Donald X has specified.
 

- Normally you FTI.

Matches (of course).

- if you have Reckless, you FTI twice.

Matches (of course).

- If you have Enchantress, you cantrip instead. There's no FTI.

The result matches, i.e. one cantrips, but the explanation of why it arises differs.  I don't think this has any impact on any existing cards, but were a future card to say something like "After the next Action you play this turn, if it gave you +card, …" there might be an issue, depending on what Donald X specified the result in that case to be.  My proposed explanation of the mechanism would cause it to trigger.

- If Highwayman hits it, you do nothing instead. There's no FTI.

Again the result matches but with a different explanation of why.  I don't think the different explanation could cause any problem for future cards.

- If you use Way of the Sheep, you get +$2 instead of the FTI. +$2 becomes what the card did.

Matches.

- If you use Chameleon, you FTI flipping cards/$. And this is what the card did.

Matches.

- Normally you FTI. Harbor Village sees this.

Matches.

- if you have Reckless, you FTI twice. Harbor Village sees both.

Matches.

- If you have Enchantress, you cantrip instead. Harbor Village is blind.

The result matches, but the explanation of it differs.  Harbor Village saw the card doing a cantrip, but it was irrelevant.

- If Highwayman hits it, you do nothing instead. Harbor Village is blind.

The result matches, but the explanation of it differs.  Harbor Village saw the card doing nothing.

- If you use Way of the Sheep, you get +$2 instead of the FTI. Harbor Village magically sees this +$2.

The result matches, but the explanation of it differs.  No magic is needed.  Harbor Village saw the card doing +$2.

- If you use Chameleon, you FTI flipping cards/$. Harbor Village sees the result.

Matches.

- Reckless + Enchantress
-- You just get one cantrip.

Matches.  When FTI was attempted, Enchantress triggered, so FTI did not occur, so Reckless can't FTI a second time (cf "If you skip following the instructions of the card then you don't follow them an extra time" in the rule book).

- Reckless + Highwayman
-- You just get one nothing.

Matches as per Reckless + Enchanted.

- Reckless + Way of the Sheep
-- You only get +$2.

Matches.  No FTI was even attempted, so Reckless can't FTI a second time.

- Reckless + Way of the Chameleon
-- This could go either way, but I have ruled that it works, you get the flipped effect twice. (a reversal)

Matches.  I'd also tend to saying that it would match even if one didn't consider Way of the Chameleon to have shape-shifted the card, but some people might disagree.

- Enchantress + Highwayman
-- Your choice!

Matches.  Enchantress and Highwayman trigger at the same time, so you choose which order they apply in.

- Enchantress + Way of the Sheep
-- Your choice!

Matches, but for a different reason compared to the existing ruling about how Ways and the attacks interact.  If the Way was chosen, no FTI was attempted, so Enchantress never got the opportunity to trigger (but this was nonetheless still the first Action played).

- Enchantress + Way of the Chameleon
-- Used to be your choice; tentatively switching to, Enchantress wins.

Matches.  Enchantress triggers when Way of the Chameleon tries to FTI.

- Highwayman + Way of the Sheep
-- Your choice!

Matches as per Enchantress + Way of the Sheep (but this was nonetheless still the first Treasure played).

- Highwayman + Way of the Chameleon
-- Your choice!

I had failed to spot that this is one instance where my model gives the wrong result (I think Jeebus and Gendolkari might find the same oversight in their discussion).  When Way of the Chameleon tries to FTI, Highwayman would trigger and have the card do nothing.

- Way of the Sheep + Way of the Chameleon
-- Not recommended! But supported. Your choice!

Matches.

- Lantern / Chameleon'd Border Guard: Lantern applies.

Matches so long as one considers the applied shape-shifting to be cumulative, i.e. Chameleon shape-shifts the instructions that are now 'on' the card after Lantern has had its way (or possibly in the opposite order).  Matches even more clearly if one doesn't consider Chameleon to be shape-shifting the card.

- Lantern / Reckless Border Guard: Lantern applies both times.

Matches.

- Elder / Chameleon'd Minion: Elder applies.

Matches.

- Elder / Reckless Minion: Elder applies.

Matches.

[Jeebus]

I'll have one more try and then stay shut up unless anyone requires something to be explained more fully.

First let me remind everyone that what I've been trying to do is come up with an explanation that gives all the required results, i.e. I have been trying to find a model, preferably as simple as possible, that would require only rulings about mechanisms to change rather than rulings about results.  I think the following reduces such changes to a minimum.

Treat Lantern and Way of the Chameleon as shape-shifting the instructions on the relevant cards.

Playing a card:
1. Announce it.
2. Move it to the "in play" area.
3. "When you play a card, first..." abilities trigger here.
4. Either use a Way or follow the instructions on the card (in order, top to bottom, stop at a dividing line).  Whatever instructions actually get followed count as what the card does.
5. "When you play a card" abilities trigger here.

Enchantress and HighWayman trigger when one attempts to FTI.

Moat protects against what a card does.

Harbor Village cares about what a card did.

As I said earlier, I don't agree that any valid model can say that Ways and Ench/Highw trigger at different times. The original reasoning as to why they can override each other is that they trigger at the same time. This is of course also why Enchantress and Highwayman can override each other.

Also, it seems to me that your explanation does include rulings about results, since you're including language about "what the card does". Maybe I'm not understanding you. But the way I see it, if we allow the concept of "what the card does" as its own thing, we don't need anything else to explain the ruling, it all falls into place. (My objection has always been that I don't see that as its own thing separate from "the card's instructions that you're following".)

- If you have Enchantress, you cantrip instead. There's no FTI.

The result matches, i.e. one cantrips, but the explanation of why it arises differs.  I don't think this has any impact on any existing cards, but were a future card to say something like "After the next Action you play this turn, if it gave you +card, …" there might be an issue, depending on what Donald X specified the result in that case to be.  My proposed explanation of the mechanism would cause it to trigger.

I don't really understand how your model works that makes the explanation of the interactions different (according to you). In this case, since Enchantress works like Way of the Sheep, your proposed future card should indeed work exactly like Harbor Village + Sheep - according to that ruling.

- If you have Enchantress, you cantrip instead. Harbor Village is blind.

The result matches, but the explanation of it differs.  Harbor Village saw the card doing a cantrip, but it was irrelevant.

- If Highwayman hits it, you do nothing instead. Harbor Village is blind.

The result matches, but the explanation of it differs.  Harbor Village saw the card doing nothing.

I actually wondered why Donald X. said, "Harbor Village is blind." I assume he meant that it doesn't see "+$" but it does see the card doing things (it's just that those things are not +$).

- Highwayman + Way of the Chameleon
-- Your choice!

I had failed to spot that this is one instance where my model gives the wrong result (I think Jeebus and Gendolkari might find the same oversight in their discussion).  When Way of the Chameleon tries to FTI, Highwayman would trigger and have the card do nothing.

Yes, I see that Donald X. updated his ruling for Enchantress + Chameleon, but not for Highwayman + Chameleon. I assume that's just an oversight. Since Highwayman is exactly like Enchantress, any model should give the same result. Everything that was discussed about Enchantress is equally valid for Highwayman.

- Lantern / Chameleon'd Border Guard: Lantern applies.

Matches so long as one considers the applied shape-shifting to be cumulative, i.e. Chameleon shape-shifts the instructions that are now 'on' the card after Lantern has had its way (or possibly in the opposite order).  Matches even more clearly if one doesn't consider Chameleon to be shape-shifting the card.

Lantern can never trigger before Way of the Chameleon; this has been ruled on. Chameleon, like all Ways, trigger before you FTI. Lantern, like Elder, trigger as you're following certain instructions. So there is no need for Lantern to shapeshift.

When it comes to Chameleon, there is a clear ruling that none of these cards cause shapeshifting and that includes Chameleon. Possibly saying that Chameleon shapeshifts would make the new ruling on Enchantres/Highwayman + Chameleon "work better"; I haven't thought it through.

Shapeshifting instructions might cause problems that Donald X. wants to avoid, so he will probably never rule that way. I indicated earlier that it could cause problems with for instance Way of the Rat, but that's not the case, since "gaining a copy" instructions only care about the name. The potential problem would be for something like Capitalism, which looks at the "card text"; I have no idea how real this problem would be, it would depend on a lot of things.