Dominion Strategy Forum
Dominion => Rules Questions => Topic started by: SirPeebles on February 11, 2013, 09:32:15 am
-
Suppose Alice is playing Dominion versus Bob. Alice plays a Possession. During the Possession round, which is one of Bob's turns, Bob plays two Action cards, and then buys a Border Village. Possession kicks in, and Alice gains the Border Village instead, allowing Alice to gain a card costing less than $6 (Assume no Highway, Bridge, Princess, or Quarry was played). Alice wants to gain a Peddler. For Bob, it's clear that Peddler only costs $4. But Peddler says that the cost drops during *your* buy phase. So can Alice gain a Peddler off of a Border Village gain during Bob's buy phase?
My hunch is that Alice cannot, but I'm not entirely sure. Moreover, Goko currently displays Peddler as being at a reduced cost to me during my opponents' buy phases, which I suspect is wrong.
Is Peddler the only card whose cost can be different for different players?
-
I don't follow your conclusion that cards can cost differently to different players at any single given moment. (Unless, of course, a card were to specify that cost changes were to be seen by certain players specifically.)
-
And to add to the confusion, would any duration cards you played on your last turn reduce the cost of Peddler to put it within range of being gained through Border Village on a Possession turn?
-
I don't follow your conclusion that cards can cost differently to different players at any single given moment. (Unless, of course, a card were to specify that cost changes were to be seen by certain players specifically.)
During Bob's Buy phase, Peddler costs $4 for him, but still $8 for Alice. I'm not sure if this conclusion is correct or not. Peddler's under-the-line text says: "During your Buy phase, this costs $2 less per Action card you have in play, but not less than $0"
So the thing is, Alice wants to gain a Peddler, but can only do so if it costs less than the $6 Border Village she just gained. But Peddler says it costs less during your Buy phase. But it's not Alice's Buy phase right now, it's Bob's Buy phase.
I'm also now noticing that that it counts the number of Action cards you have in play, so there is also the question of what happens if Alice, say, has three Action-Duration cards in play during Bob's Buy phase when all of this goes down.
Edit: Maybe Peddler costs the same for everyone, and whose Buy phase we're in simply determines whose in-play Action cards are counted to compute the price reduction?
-
In this case you are playing the cards for Bob, so wouldn't the "your" refer to Bob anyway? Meaning the cost would be reduced, Bob purchases Border Village and gains Peddler, and both cards go to Alice. That's how I would interpret at least.
-
The cost is still the same for all players during your turn, including your buy phase, whether or not you currently control your turn or buy phase. For instance, if Bridge is in play, cards cost less even during your opponent's turn; if your opponent plays Bridge, then Saboteur, he cannot sabotage a Silver, as your Silvers cost $2.
Or, in other words, during Bob's buy phase, Alice still sees Peddler as worth $4.
-
So the thing is, Alice wants to gain a Peddler, but can only do so if it costs less than the $6 Border Village she just gained. But Peddler says it costs less during your Buy phase. But it's not Alice's Buy phase right now, it's Bob's Buy phase.
Except that this still doesn't explicitly say that Peddler costs differently to different people.
-
So the thing is, Alice wants to gain a Peddler, but can only do so if it costs less than the $6 Border Village she just gained. But Peddler says it costs less during your Buy phase. But it's not Alice's Buy phase right now, it's Bob's Buy phase.
Except that this still doesn't explicitly say that Peddler costs differently to different people.
If it explicitly stated this, why would I ask about it on the Rules Questions subforum?
-
In this case you are playing the cards for Bob, so wouldn't the "your" refer to Bob anyway? Meaning the cost would be reduced, Bob purchases Border Village and gains Peddler, and both cards go to Alice. That's how I would interpret at least.
Gaining the Peddler is triggered by gaining the Border Village. Bob never gains the Border Village. Your resolution would work if the extra gain were coming from Haggler, since that gain is triggered on-buy, and Bob did buy a card.
My question really isn't about Possession. I only used it to create a scenario in which Alice cares about the cost of Peddler during someone else's buy phase.
-
Alice gains the border village (and peddler) during Bob's buy phase, during Bob's turn possessed by Alice. Bob has played action cards, it is his buy phase, so peddlers have their costs reduced.
-
If it explicitly stated this, why would I ask about it on the Rules Questions subforum?
It doesn't state it, so that's not how it works?
-
My question really isn't about Possession. I only used it to create a scenario in which Alice cares about the cost of Peddler during someone else's buy phase.
Right. The answer is that, Possession or not, during Bob's buy phase, Alice sees Peddler as having its cost modified by actions in play.
-
If it explicitly stated this, why would I ask about it on the Rules Questions subforum?
It doesn't state it, so that's not how it works?
Again, why would I ask the question here if I had the sort of certainty that you are accusing me of? Why are you putting up these strawmen? I asked this question because the rules felt ambiguous to me, and I could see arguments for at least two distinct interpretations. One resolution is not explicitly stated on the card, but neither is any other. Yes, I put forward a possible interpretation in my original post, but I called it a "hunch". If I were certain, rather than confused, I would have reported this as a bug to Goko rather than asking in Rules Questions.
Anyhow, after thinking about it more, I have come around to agreeing with DG's explanation.
-
Anyhow, after thinking about it more, I have come around to agreeing with DG's explanation.
Yeah; to put it simply, the wording of Peddler is equivalent to 'During anyone's buy phase, this costs $2 less per Action card that player has in play'.
-
I really don't think a clear answer has been provided. The part that gets to me isn't so much "Your buy phase" as it is "each action card you have in play". It seems to me to be very reasonable to think that the "you" in that case is the person who wishes to gain or buy Peddler, so unless Alice has Duration cards in play, then she has 0 action cards in play, thus Peddler costs $8.
You can also certainly make a good case for it being as AJD says, that the "you" is always the person whose buy phase it is. But I don't see any good reason to choose one of the other. I'd really like to hear Donald's opinion on this one.
-
Anyhow, after thinking about it more, I have come around to agreeing with DG's explanation.
Yeah; to put it simply, the wording of Peddler is equivalent to 'During anyone's buy phase, this costs $2 less per Action card that player has in play'.
I agree with this. Interpreting it otherwise seems a stretch to me.
-
But the 'you' refers to the same person that 'your' referred to previously. You could replace both instances with "The active player" for clarity.
-
I still think it's rather clear that the cost would be reduced.
From the rulebook on Possession:
"Possession - You are not taking a turn with the deck of the player to your left; that player is taking a turn, with you making the
decisions and gaining the cards. This is a crucial difference to keep in mind when considering card interactions – the “you” in all
cards still refers to the player being Possessed, not the player doing the Possessing."
So the "you" on Peddler refers to the actions already played during the Possessed hand, IMO.
-
To add to that, it doesn't say to whom the card costs less, only when. So if it's Bob's buy phase and Bob played the actions (it is and he did, just under possession) then it all lines up and peddler costs less to everyone, so it doesn't even matter if Border Village is activating because Bob tried to gain it or Alice actually gained it.
That last part I'm not entirely clear on. Wouldn't the Border Village on-gain activate simultaneously with possession attempting to set it aside anyway? If it does that would also make this a moot point.
-
That last part I'm not entirely clear on. Wouldn't the Border Village on-gain activate simultaneously with possession attempting to set it aside anyway? If it does that would also make this a moot point.
No, Possession will trigger first because it says "would gain". The Possessed player never gains the card.
-
I still think it's rather clear that the cost would be reduced.
From the rulebook on Possession:
"Possession - You are not taking a turn with the deck of the player to your left; that player is taking a turn, with you making the
decisions and gaining the cards. This is a crucial difference to keep in mind when considering card interactions – the “you” in all
cards still refers to the player being Possessed, not the player doing the Possessing."
So the "you" on Peddler refers to the actions already played during the Possessed hand, IMO.
Ah, this does indeed clarify it. It's not so much a question of how Possession works anyway, but the Possession FAQ does make it pretty clear that the word "you" in Dominion always refers to the player who is currently taking a turn.
-
I still think it's rather clear that the cost would be reduced.
From the rulebook on Possession:
"Possession - You are not taking a turn with the deck of the player to your left; that player is taking a turn, with you making the
decisions and gaining the cards. This is a crucial difference to keep in mind when considering card interactions – the “you” in all
cards still refers to the player being Possessed, not the player doing the Possessing."
So the "you" on Peddler refers to the actions already played during the Possessed hand, IMO.
Ah, this does indeed clarify it. It's not so much a question of how Possession works anyway, but the Possession FAQ does make it pretty clear that the word "you" in Dominion always refers to the player who is currently taking a turn.
Edited:
This interpretation of 'you' seems inconsistent.
The text on the Border Village reads 'When you gain this, gain a card costing less than this'. According to the interpretation 'you' should refer to the possessed player, who does not gain the BV, the BV wouldn't trigger and no second card would be gained. But this is not what happens when a BV is gained by a player on an opponents turn (eg through governor-trashing).
I think the 'you' on the BV has to refer to the player gaining the card.
-
I still think it's rather clear that the cost would be reduced.
From the rulebook on Possession:
"Possession - You are not taking a turn with the deck of the player to your left; that player is taking a turn, with you making the
decisions and gaining the cards. This is a crucial difference to keep in mind when considering card interactions – the “you” in all
cards still refers to the player being Possessed, not the player doing the Possessing."
So the "you" on Peddler refers to the actions already played during the Possessed hand, IMO.
Ah, this does indeed clarify it. It's not so much a question of how Possession works anyway, but the Possession FAQ does make it pretty clear that the word "you" in Dominion always refers to the player who is currently taking a turn.
Edited:
This interpretation of 'you' seems inconsistent.
The text on the Border Village reads 'When you gain this, gain a card costing less than this'. According to the interpretation 'you' should refer to the possessed player, who does not gain the BV, the BV wouldn't trigger and no second card would be gained. But this is not what happens when a BV is gained by a player on an opponents turn (eg through governor-trashing).
I think the 'you' on the BV has to refer to the player gaining the card.
Dang it, you're right. If "you" was always the current player's turn, then if your opponent gave you a Border Village with Ambassador, or Jester, or Governor-Remodel, then it wouldn't work right.... ugh, so confused.
-
Again, why would I ask the question here if I had the sort of certainty that you are accusing me of? Why are you putting up these strawmen?
I am not strawmanning anything. My implication was that this rule has an obvious answer and that you were thinking too hard about it.
-
The text on Peddler is insufficient. The text in the rules reads "During Buy phases, this costs $2 less per action you have in play. This cost applies to all Peddler cards, including ones in hands and decks" (emphasis mine).
The text of the rules, read literally, is probably wrong since each player has a different number of actions in play and so the Peddler cards in the game should have multiple costs. I believe the sensible thing to do is to read the 'you' in the first sentence of the rules as referring to the player whose buy phase it currently is, per dondon151's original dismissal of the question.
-
Here's how I read this:
"During your Buy phase ..."
Whose Buy phase is it? It's Bob's Buy Phase! So "you" on this card is Bob.
"this costs $2 less per action you have in play."
Since the "you" is Bob, Peddler is counting Bob's actions, and Bob's actions alone (none of Alice's Durations count). Does the cost count only for Bob? No, because then it would say "this costs ... for you".
"When you gain this ..."
Who's gaining this? Alice is gaining this! So "you" on this card is Alice.
So, if Bob has 3 actions in play then Peddler now costs $2, and so when Bob buys the Border Village and Alice gains it, she can choose to gain a Peddler as it now costs less than the Border Village.
-
The text on Peddler is insufficient. The text in the rules reads "During Buy phases, this costs $2 less per action you have in play. This cost applies to all Peddler cards, including ones in hands and decks" (emphasis mine).
The text of the rules, read literally, is probably wrong since each player has a different number of actions in play and so the Peddler cards in the game should have multiple costs. I believe the sensible thing to do is to read the 'you' in the first sentence of the rules as referring to the player whose buy phase it currently is, per dondon151's original dismissal of the question.
"You" applies to the player whose buy phase it is. This is implied by the second part of the quoted rule which you bolded, where it says "including ones in hands and decks". Each player has only one hand of cards, so the plural means it references all players hands.
-
Suppose Alice is playing Dominion versus Bob. Alice plays a Possession. During the Possession round, which is one of Bob's turns, Bob plays two Action cards, and then buys a Border Village. Possession kicks in, and Alice gains the Border Village instead, allowing Alice to gain a card costing less than $6 (Assume no Highway, Bridge, Princess, or Quarry was played). Alice wants to gain a Peddler. For Bob, it's clear that Peddler only costs $4. But Peddler says that the cost drops during *your* buy phase. So can Alice gain a Peddler off of a Border Village gain during Bob's buy phase?
My hunch is that Alice cannot, but I'm not entirely sure. Moreover, Goko currently displays Peddler as being at a reduced cost to me during my opponents' buy phases, which I suspect is wrong.
Is Peddler the only card whose cost can be different for different players?
There is no such card.
Alice possesses Bob.
During Bob's buy phase, Peddler costs $2 less per action card Bob has in play. That's what Peddler says. Suppose you are Alice and you are reading Peddler. "During your buy phase..." It isn't your buy phase so nothing happens there. Suppose you are Bob and you are reading Peddler. "During your buy phase..." Yes, it's your buy phase, let's read on. Peddler costs less, very good.
Peddler doesn't say "costs less for you personally" or some such. It just costs less during that time period. It is only ever one player's buy phase at a time; for that player, Peddler's rule causes it to cost less, and this cost change applies to everyone.
-
OK, it makes sense to me now. To me it seemed to take a lot of thought to see why the costs should be the same. I mean, Alice wants to pick a card costing less than $6. She picks up a Peddler to read, and it tells her that it costs less during her buy phase. "Oh well, not my buy phase" she'd naturally think. For this reason it used to irk me that Goko would show me the price drop, but I thought maybe it never mattered, until I thought of the Possession/Border Village scenario earlier today.
-
Again, why would I ask the question here if I had the sort of certainty that you are accusing me of? Why are you putting up these strawmen?
I am not strawmanning anything. My implication was that this rule has an obvious answer and that you were thinking too hard about it.
Obvious answers aren't always correct. Ironworks is a good example - the 'it' that refers to seems obvious, until you break it down, and this was the same. Donald has answered the question now, but until then, I think the question was entirely valid.
-
To me it seemed to take a lot of thought to see why the costs should be the same. I mean, Alice wants to pick a card costing less than $6. She picks up a Peddler to read, and it tells her that it costs less during her buy phase. "Oh well, not my buy phase" she'd naturally think.
So when Bob buys a Noble Brigand, Alice could go "Oh well, I didn't buy Noble Brigand so it doesn't affect me"?
Well, being that Alice is a woman, I wouldn't be too surprised. :P
-
I still think it's rather clear that the cost would be reduced.
From the rulebook on Possession:
"Possession - You are not taking a turn with the deck of the player to your left; that player is taking a turn, with you making the
decisions and gaining the cards. This is a crucial difference to keep in mind when considering card interactions – the “you” in all
cards still refers to the player being Possessed, not the player doing the Possessing."
So the "you" on Peddler refers to the actions already played during the Possessed hand, IMO.
This is the best argument, I think. It is still Bob's turn. Alice is controlling his actions, but technically he is the one playing. He is the one obtaining the Peddler, just as he is the one who bought the Border Village, though she decided and she gets both it and the benefits attached to it.
-
What about possession and farmland?
This looks like (with Alice possessing Bob with gold,gold,farmland,estate,estate in hand):
Alice plays bob's 2 gold
Alice has Bob buy a farmland.
The "You" in farmland would therefore apply to Bob,
so "When you buy this, trash a card from your hand"
means that Alice forces Bob to trash a farmland from his hand.
Alice selects a Province, which then she gains
Alice also gains the purchased farmland
Bob gains his farmland back form the trash.
It seems pretty clear if you just think of a possession turn as a normal turn where you make the choices for the person next to you, and just happen to gain anything they gain.
-
What about possession and farmland?
This looks like (with Alice possessing Bob with gold,gold,farmland,estate,estate in hand):
Alice plays bob's 2 gold
Alice has Bob buy a farmland.
The "You" in farmland would therefore apply to Bob,
so "When you buy this, trash a card from your hand"
means that Alice forces Bob to trash a farmland from his hand.
Alice selects a Province, which then she gains
Alice also gains the purchased farmland
All correct... (well, Alice has Bob play the 2 gold, but whatever).
Bob gains his farmland back form the trash.
...except that Bob doesn't gain the Farmland. It just teleports to his discard pile magically.
-
Bob gains his farmland back form the trash.
...except that Bob doesn't gain the Farmland. It just teleports to his discard pile magically.
To be even more nitpicky, Bob's farmland is never trashed. It is instead set aside, then discarded at the end of the Possessed turn.
-
Bob gains his farmland back form the trash.
...except that Bob doesn't gain the Farmland. It just teleports to his discard pile magically.
To be even more nitpicky, Bob's farmland is never trashed. It is instead set aside, then discarded at the end of the Possessed turn.
This is not true. Bob's Farmland is trashed (and Bob could discard a Market Square for Alice to gain a Gold), and then it's set aside, and then it's not discarded, but rather it magically teleports itself to the discard pile (which arguably matters if someone trashes a Tunnel during a Possessed turn).
-
Bob gains his farmland back form the trash.
...except that Bob doesn't gain the Farmland. It just teleports to his discard pile magically.
To be even more nitpicky, Bob's farmland is never trashed. It is instead set aside, then discarded at the end of the Possessed turn.
This is not true. Bob's Farmland is trashed (and Bob could discard a Market Square for Alice to gain a Gold), and then it's set aside, and then it's not discarded, but rather it magically teleports itself to the discard pile (which arguably matters if someone trashes a Tunnel during a Possessed turn).
Whoah. That leads to another set of weird edge cases:
Graverobber and Rogue. If Alice possesses Bob and plays an upgrade, trashing his duchy to gain a gold. Can Alice then play Bob's Rogue to gain the Duchy from the trash (causing possession to "lose track." Or is a trashed card still "trashed" but then immediately in this mystical "set-aside" stack? (never in the trash pile)
Assuming that last mechanic is correct, a trashed card is "set aside" for the remainder of the turn. What happens if a possessed player trashes a fortress? Does it go to back to hand (text on the fortress card) or into this "set aside" pile (text on possession).
And what about Forager? If the trash is empty, and I play forager on a possessed turn to trash a copper, is the forager worth 1$, or 0$?
-
Whoah. That leads to another set of weird edge cases:
Graverobber and Rogue. If Alice possesses Bob and plays an upgrade, trashing his duchy to gain a gold. Can Alice then play Bob's Rogue to gain the Duchy from the trash (causing possession to "lose track." Or is a trashed card still "trashed" but then immediately in this mystical "set-aside" stack? (never in the trash pile)
Graverobber/Rogue gains a card from the trash. The Duchy is set aside, not in the trash, so you cannot gain it.
Assuming that last mechanic is correct, a trashed card is "set aside" for the remainder of the turn. What happens if a possessed player trashes a fortress? Does it go to back to hand (text on the fortress card) or into this "set aside" pile (text on possession).
I think this was brought up and answered before, but I can't remember. Going purely from reading the cards...
You trash the Fortress. Now there are basically two on-trash effects occurring:
a) Fortress tells you to put the card in your hand when you trash it.
b) Possession tells you to set the card aside when you trash it.
They both occur simultaneously so you choose which one to resolve first. The second one does not occur because of lose-track.
And what about Forager? If the trash is empty, and I play forager on a possessed turn to trash a copper, is the forager worth 1$, or 0$?
It's worth $0. Not sure what the confusion is -- the Copper isn't in the trash so Forager does not count it.
-
Bob gains his farmland back form the trash.
...except that Bob doesn't gain the Farmland. It just teleports to his discard pile magically.
To be even more nitpicky, Bob's farmland is never trashed. It is instead set aside, then discarded at the end of the Possessed turn.
This is not true. Bob's Farmland is trashed (and Bob could discard a Market Square for Alice to gain a Gold), and then it's set aside, and then it's not discarded, but rather it magically teleports itself to the discard pile (which arguably matters if someone trashes a Tunnel during a Possessed turn).
Whoah. That leads to another set of weird edge cases:
Graverobber and Rogue. If Alice possesses Bob and plays an upgrade, trashing his duchy to gain a gold. Can Alice then play Bob's Rogue to gain the Duchy from the trash (causing possession to "lose track." Or is a trashed card still "trashed" but then immediately in this mystical "set-aside" stack? (never in the trash pile)
Assuming that last mechanic is correct, a trashed card is "set aside" for the remainder of the turn. What happens if a possessed player trashes a fortress? Does it go to back to hand (text on the fortress card) or into this "set aside" pile (text on possession).
And what about Forager? If the trash is empty, and I play forager on a possessed turn to trash a copper, is the forager worth 1$, or 0$?
I'm pretty sure about this:
Any card that is trashed visits the trash pile, but instantly leaves it and gets set aside. Just like when you top-deck a bought card with Watchtower, it does visit the discard pile for a moment.
So no, if you have someone trash a card while possessing them, you cannot gain it by having them play Graverobber or Rogue. And Forager will not see that particular treasure card in the trash pile, because it will be gone before Forager is played.
As for Fortress... you trash Fortress while possessed. At that moment 2 different triggers go off, Fortress's and Possession's. You would choose the order that they happen in, but because you're possessed your opponent chooses the order instead. If they choose Fortress first, then the Fortress ends up back in your hand, and then when Possession's trigger happens, it has lost track and cannot find it to set it aside. If you choose Possession's trigger first, then it gets set aside, and then when Fortress's trigger happens, it last lost track, and so does not return to your hand.
*Edit* Ninja'd by all the same answers.
-
And Forager will not see that particular treasure card in the trash pile, because it will be gone before Forager is played.
And even if you trash that treasure with Forager, it'll be gone from the trash pile before Forager calculates how much coin to give you.
-
This is the best argument, I think. It is still Bob's turn. Alice is controlling his actions, but technically he is the one playing. He is the one obtaining the Peddler, just as he is the one who bought the Border Village, though she decided and she gets both it and the benefits attached to it.
I just want to correct this for the record. Bob does not obtain Peddler. Border Village's ability triggers when it's gained. Bob bought it but never gained it. So Alice is the one gaining Peddler (not via Possession, as she did the Border Village). So she can only do so as long as Peddler's cost is reduced for all players in Bob's buy phase (which is the case).
-
Happened to be reading the FAQ for Possession, and came across this.
You only gain cards he would have; you do not gain tokens he would have (for example
from the Dominion: Seaside card Pirate Ship).
Hello, Guilds. :)
-
Happened to be reading the FAQ for Possession, and came across this.
You only gain cards he would have; you do not gain tokens he would have (for example
from the Dominion: Seaside card Pirate Ship).
Hello, Guilds. :)
Or prosperity?
-
Happened to be reading the FAQ for Possession, and came across this.
You only gain cards he would have; you do not gain tokens he would have (for example
from the Dominion: Seaside card Pirate Ship).
Hello, Guilds. :)
Or prosperity?
Or Seaside :P