Print

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

[Jeebus]

How to state the new Way ruling in a technically accurate way?
The ruling also covers Enchantress (and Highwayman, but it doesn't matter).

The description used to be just, "When you would follow the instructions of a played Action card, you may instead follow the Way's instructions."
For Enchantress: "...you instead get +1 Card and +1 Action."

We need to incorporate the concept of the played card "making you do" things because of Ways/Enchantress. (Donald X. has made it clear that it's not Harbor Village and Moat that are special in what they look for; it's Ways and Enchantress that are special in what they cause.)

Maybe we could just add, as an extra rule, "Using a Way means the played card makes you do what the Way says to do." But what about Enchantress? I guess you also "use" Enchantress, albeit involuntarily? So, "Using Enchantress means the played card makes you get +1 Card and +1 Action." But I think "using" is not really clear, and also we're repeating the effects when we have both of these rules, which is incorrect.

So no extra rule. We need a complete description.

Enchantress is easier:
"When you would follow the instructions of a played Action card, it makes you instead get +1 Card and +1 Action."

We could phrase individual Ways like this too, for instance Way of the Goat:
"When you would follow the instructions of a played Action card, you may choose that it makes you instead trash a card from your hand."

But what about a general Way description?
"When you would follow the instructions of a played Action card, you may choose that it makes you instead follow a Way's instructions."
The problem with this is that per the new ruling, following instructions is not the same as being made to do something*. Way of the Chameleon causes the card to make you follow instructions, but the other Ways don't do that. (To be clear, using a Way means you follow the Way's instructions, but it doesn't cause the played card to make you follow those instructions.)

So then:
"When you would follow the instructions of a played Action card, you may choose that it makes you instead do what the Way says to do."
But, "what the Ways says to do" - what does that mean? It sounds like the Way's instructions, but that's what we can't have. It could mean "what the Way makes you do", but then it says that both the card and the Way make you do it, so it would seem like you should do it twice.

The following must be true: When you follow a card's instructions to do something, it means that that card makes you do that thing. (If that were not the case, Harbor Village wouldn't work when you just play a card normally.) It follows that when you follow an Event's instructions, the Event makes you do it, and the same for Projects, Allies, etc. If this also applies to Ways, then it does seem like both Way of the Goat (for instance) and the played card makes you trash a card. The conclusion must be that this does not apply to Ways. Following instructions on a Way is different from following instructions on a card or an Event.

So when a Way (or Enchantress) has its effect, what you do as a result of following its instructions is something the card makes you do, but not something the Way (or Enchantress) makes you do.

So then, for Ways:
"When you would follow the instructions of a played Action card, you may choose that it makes you instead do what following the Way's instructions makes you do."

Hmmm, it still really says that two things make you do it. And actually, that is what's expressed in the paragraph preceding it too.

I'll have to give up for now.

*which is what I find illogical

[GendoIkari]

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.

Enchantress and HighWayman trigger when one attempts to FTI.

So I guess the part I bolded is the essence of how your model "requires only rulings about mechanisms to change rather than rulings about results". But the problem is still that the instructions that actually get followed in that step include the second Cultist and the +$2 from Priest.

Perhaps I'd have done better to phrase 4 as "Do something: either use a Way or follow the instructions on the card (in order, top to bottom, stop at a dividing line)." to make it clear that the same scoping rules applied as before.

(Also, no need to change the timing of Ways.)

I'll believe that when/if you and Gendolkari come to an agreement about how the existing timing gives rise to the results that have been ruled to occur.  I find it hard to believe that you will, given that we were all previously perfectly happy that the existing timing meant that Chameleon could override Enchantress.  To prevent Chameleon overriding Enchantress with the existing timing requires Enchantress to trigger twice, once on the first attempt at FTI and again on Chameleon's attempt at FTI.  If we are to be happy with that arrangement now, why were we previously happy with it triggering only on the first attempt?

I think (and not sure Jeebus would agree) that both old ruling and new ruling can be consistent without any changing of timing at all; only with changing what counts as an event that Enchantress looks for. Previously the ruling worked that Enchantress doesn’t trigger the same time because when Chameleon says “FTI”, that’s not an FTI that happens as a result of playing a card, therefore Enchantress does nothing. But now, we’re saying that what Chameleon does counts as what playing the card does, so when it says “FTI”,  Enchantress does see that.

[Donald X.]

Enchantress is easier:
"When you would follow the instructions of a played Action card, it makes you instead get +1 Card and +1 Action."

This isn't true! I'm not saying that any of the rest of your post is true; time does not permit. I can tell you though that this part is not.

Way of the Sheep attributes the +$2 to the card, for e.g. Harbor Village to see.
Enchantress does not do this. It just happens on the side, like the +$1 from the Adventures token.

Why does Way of the Sheep attribute the +$2 to the card, for Harbor Village to see?
- I read the cards and rulebook and what people had to say.
- I made a ruling.

Why does Enchantress not do this?
- ditto

Way of the Sheep attributes its +$2 to the card, for things that look in the way Harbor Village does; Enchantress doesn't attribute its cantrip.

[GendoIkari]

Enchantress is easier:
"When you would follow the instructions of a played Action card, it makes you instead get +1 Card and +1 Action."

This isn't true! I'm not saying that any of the rest of your post is true; time does not permit. I can tell you though that this part is not.

Way of the Sheep attributes the +$2 to the card, for e.g. Harbor Village to see.
Enchantress does not do this. It just happens on the side, like the +$1 from the Adventures token.

Given that Harbor Village wouldn't care about the Cantrip, and neither would Elder, and neither would Moat, is there anything that exists in the game currently for which the outcome would be different whether it were true or not? (Actually even if Elder looked for the Cantrip instead of looking for a choice, I don't think it would be possible since the card Elder plays can't be the card that Enchantress works on).

[Jeebus]

Enchantress is easier:
"When you would follow the instructions of a played Action card, it makes you instead get +1 Card and +1 Action."

This isn't true! I'm not saying that any of the rest of your post is true; time does not permit. I can tell you though that this part is not.

Way of the Sheep attributes the +$2 to the card, for e.g. Harbor Village to see.
Enchantress does not do this. It just happens on the side, like the +$1 from the Adventures token.

Oh. Well, it was based on what you have been saying in this thread of course. But I guess what you're saying now is that you changed your mind based on re-reading things.

As I was saying earlier, it would be better if Enchantress worked the same as Ways, since the rulebooks also suggest that (although they talk about how Enchantress and Ways interact, which is unrelated to the issue of "attributing" things to the card). But I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter either way for Enchantress with current cards.

[dane-m]

Enchantress is easier:
"When you would follow the instructions of a played Action card, it makes you instead get +1 Card and +1 Action."

This isn't true! I'm not saying that any of the rest of your post is true; time does not permit. I can tell you though that this part is not.

Way of the Sheep attributes the +$2 to the card, for e.g. Harbor Village to see.
Enchantress does not do this. It just happens on the side, like the +$1 from the Adventures token.

Given that Harbor Village wouldn't care about the Cantrip, and neither would Elder, and neither would Moat, is there anything that exists in the game currently for which the outcome would be different whether it were true or not? (Actually even if Elder looked for the Cantrip instead of looking for a choice, I don't think it would be possible since the card Elder plays can't be the card that Enchantress works on).

I think I've just realised why Donald X doesn't consider the Enchantress cantrip to be part of what the card is doing, unlike the +$2 from Way of the Sheep.  Now that the penny has dropped, it makes sense to me.  Just like Priest's +$2 from subsequent trashing, the Enchantress cantrip is an effect from a previously played card, though in this case one played by an opponent.

Edit: It has occurred to me that it's rather presumptuous to attribute thoughts to someone else without evidence.  I should have expressed the above as "Because Enchantress's cantrip isn't attributed to the card, I needed to come up with an explanation that made sense to me so that it wasn't just a case of remembering rulings.  The first explanation I thought of made so much sense that I'm mildly annoyed that I hadn't thought of it earlier.  Just like Priest's +$2 from subsequent trashing, the Enchantress cantrip is an effect from a previously played card, though in this case one played by an opponent."

[Jeebus]

Actually now that Ways and Enchantress work differently in this regard, I'm not sure how Ways are supposed to work anymore. Is the following still true?

[about Ways:] Enchantress from Empires also changes what an Action card does when played.

Are Ways still triggered at the same time as Enchantress, when you would follow the on-play instructions? Or do they have a completely different mechanism now?

[GendoIkari]

Actually now that Ways and Enchantress work differently in this regard, I'm not sure how Ways are supposed to work anymore. Is the following still true?

[about Ways:] Enchantress from Empires also changes what an Action card does when played.

Are Ways still triggered at the same time as Enchantress, when you would follow the on-play instructions? Or do they have a completely different mechanism now?

As far as I can tell, everything related to timing, how Ways/Enchantress mechanically work, and the technical rules for the model that explains it all, is a separate question completely from whether or not what Ways/Enchantress do is considered what the card does. At least, that’s how I’m reading what Donald X has been saying. Ways and Enchantress can have the same timing, can work via the same rules and mechanism, yet still have a different interaction with Harbor Village, simply because “did the card give you the thing you got” isn’t answered by those mechanisms.

[Jeebus]

Actually now that Ways and Enchantress work differently in this regard, I'm not sure how Ways are supposed to work anymore. Is the following still true?

[about Ways:] Enchantress from Empires also changes what an Action card does when played.

Are Ways still triggered at the same time as Enchantress, when you would follow the on-play instructions? Or do they have a completely different mechanism now?

As far as I can tell, everything related to timing, how Ways/Enchantress mechanically work, and the technical rules for the model that explains it all, is a separate question completely from whether or not what Ways/Enchantress do is considered what the card does. At least, that’s how I’m reading what Donald X has been saying. Ways and Enchantress can have the same timing, can work via the same rules and mechanism, yet still have a different interaction with Harbor Village, simply because “did the card give you the thing you got” isn’t answered by those mechanisms.

Yeah, I meant that question as a separate question. I have been describing Ways and Enchantress as having the same timing in my rules document, and I don't even know if that's true anymore. But obviously Ways and Enchantress can't have exactly the same mechanism anymore, since Enchantress just replaces FTI with something else, while Ways cause the card to make you do something else.

[Donald X.]

Ways and Enchantress are very similar, probably in all the ways you're used to. It's just that Way of the Sheep specifically attributes the +$2 to the played card for Harbor Village purposes, and Enchantress does not.

[GendoIkari]

But obviously Ways and Enchantress can't have exactly the same mechanism anymore, since Enchantress just replaces FTI with something else, while Ways cause the card to make you do something else.

I definitely might be wrong here, but it seems to me like this sentence is the underlying issue behind this entire thread. You're looking for a difference in mechanism that explains why Harbor Village works with Ways, whereas Donald X is saying that there isn't one. The mechanics and rules behind specifically how and when Ways work is exactly the same as you have always thought (and the same as Enchantress). All that is needed is to add on a little clause when resolving the Way: "This counts as what the card did". It doesn't need a new mechanic or instruction for the Way replacing the card's FTI.

Also, Donald X's rulings require the idea that a card can do something other than what it instructs you to do, which as I understand it you don't agree with or understand how it can be.

[Jeebus]

But obviously Ways and Enchantress can't have exactly the same mechanism anymore, since Enchantress just replaces FTI with something else, while Ways cause the card to make you do something else.

I definitely might be wrong here, but it seems to me like this sentence is the underlying issue behind this entire thread. You're looking for a difference in mechanism that explains why Harbor Village works with Ways, whereas Donald X is saying that there isn't one. The mechanics and rules behind specifically how and when Ways work is exactly the same as you have always thought (and the same as Enchantress). All that is needed is to add on a little clause when resolving the Way: "This counts as what the card did". It doesn't need a new mechanic or instruction for the Way replacing the card's FTI.

I don't think that makes any sense. If the Way effect counts as what the card did and the Enchantress effect doesn't, clearly that's a difference in how they work. It's not just an added thing that comes in addition, like +1 Card being the difference between Village and Necropolis. It's an integral part of how Ways work (compared to how Enchantress works). And Donald X. has been clear that he sees it that way; he's derving this ruling from the very description, the very sentence, in the rulebook that says how Ways work when you use them.

It's like saying that the card-gaining of Replace and Sea Hag is the same mechanism, just with an added clause that with Sea Hag it doesn't visit your discard pile.

Also, Donald X's rulings require the idea that a card can do something other than what it instructs you to do, which as I understand it you don't agree with or understand how it can be.

Yes, as I've repeated ad nauseam. Except that a more accurate phrasing would be, a card can make you do something other than what it instructs you to do.