RZJ, that ruling was revised again later to agree with what the others in this thread are saying.
Edit: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=210.msg14030#msg14030
The only cards left out are the cards that have direct interaction with the durations. In this case, the second TR was being played twice, and you chose a duration both times. Even though you had to have another TR to actually TR your TR, the first had no direct interaction with the duration cards. Same for KC.
But your point 1. is just wrong, or I should say, not well defined. What do you mean by "provided the reshuffle is not triggered"?
For any given specific draw that leaves more than one card on your deck, the expected value may rise or fall depends on that specific draw.
If you average over all draws that do not trigger a reshuffle by drawing the next card, for a deck containing more than one $3 cards, this basically means average over all draws and yes, the expected value of the next card does not change.
However, in the specific case with exactly one $3 or more card in your deck, for all the draw that do not trigger a reshuffle by drawing the next card, the expected value of the next card is worsened. This has nothing to do with reshuffle.
Revealing cards until you reveal a card which meets certain criteria "usually" has the consequence of leaving you, on average, with a lower proportion of cards in your deck which meet that criteria.Actually, if you do this calculation, what you find is that this extreme case (with only 1 saboteurable card in the deck) is a singular one. For any other number of saboteurable cards in the deck the remaining deck quality does not change.
So, on average, loan leaves you with a deck with proportionally less treasures, and saboteur leaves you with a deck with proportionally less cards costing 3$+. The effect, however, is pretty ignorable, on average.
This can be demonstrated (painfully), but if you want to visualize it, imagine the extreme case of two players that open saboteur/nothing, and assume that P1 plays saboteur turn 1, before P2 has a chance to draw his five cards because of some obscure rule that doesn't exist. So P2 is left with 0/n cards costing 3$+ in his deck (n being the number of cards not cycled, and averages 5), which is lower than the normal 1/11.
EDIT: to clarify, this has nothing to do with reshuffle. If you know you have exactly 1 saboteurable card in your remaining deck, then you know you will not trigger a reshuffle by the saboteur. As long as that card is not the last card in your deck, your average quality of the remaining deck will be 0. If that card is the last card, the remaining deck quality is undefined; but any sensible definition will not define that to be higher than the original average, so in this case the average quality of the next card is indeed lower.
It is quite curious why this case is just different from the cases for all other number of saboteurable cards in your deck though.
Here's the discussion for venture, everything there should carry over.
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1914.0
I want to self promote my experiment on page 4.
I would say no, there's no effect.
Edited: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.
Okay, whenever I am on, I will go to the Outpost room, but I won't hang in there too long... I am not a fan of playing bots.
EDIT: But, why not meet in the Secret Chamber instead? That seems to have more of an iso connotation than Outpost.
In the early game he still usually manages to hit $5 with 3 cards, so Militia doesn't hurt much there either.
How can he reasonably expect to "usually manage to hit $5 with 3 cards" (which he needs to do to get Venture in the first place), when he only ever buys the one Silver?
Right, this was addressed above. Except, I still don't think that this is THE proper way, just A proper way. I don't think the guy who made the rules really cares that much about something so trivial, and I *know* that he has consistently said that if all players agree to something (that isn't breaking any laws), go for it.I know that guy and confirm. The top/bottom thing in the rulebooks was just a way to trivially provide a good answer such that if you combined them together you weren't ruling out games with both Platinum/Colony and Shelters.
Onigame I believe is going to go with, pick a card at random from your collection, if it's from Prosperity use Platinum/Colony, then pick a card at random from your collection, if it's from Dark Ages use Shelters. I am not sure if that will become the default on Goko or will only function with his uh thing. The idea here is to preserve the percentage of the time you see them while not requiring a Prosperity or Dark Ages card to be in the game in order to have them.
Yes because Possession's trigger overrules the trashing entirely, just like Trader overrules whatever gain would have happened when it is revealed. The reason this can conflict with Fortress is that Fortress can also overrule a trashing.
This isn't quite true. The trashing still happens (unlike Trader, which does cancel the gain), which is important because e.g. trashing a Cultist on a Possession turn still gets you +cards. But the trashed card is removed from the trash and set aside immediately, before Forager's +$ can trigger off it.
So. I am possessing you. I make you Remodel a Fortress. You put Fortress into the trash. Now I decide whether to put it into your hand or set it aside. Whichever I pick, the other one fails as it can't find the Fortress where it expects it (in the trash).
All three are functionally the same. Randomly taking out a card doesn't affect the probability.
