Print

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

[eHalcyon]

one of the reasons why Possession isn't an attack

I'm pretty sure the main reason Possession isn't an attack is because it doesn't directly harm an opponent, unlike every other card that bears the attack type.

[Grujah]

And because it doesn't effect every other player, just a single one.

[silverspawn]

one of the reasons why Possession isn't an attack

I'm pretty sure the main reason Possession isn't an attack is because it doesn't directly harm an opponent, unlike every other card that bears the attack type.

yet in fact it can hurt more than any other attack. i actually think that if possession were an attack it would be quite a bit less awful

[eHalcyon]

one of the reasons why Possession isn't an attack

I'm pretty sure the main reason Possession isn't an attack is because it doesn't directly harm an opponent, unlike every other card that bears the attack type.

yet in fact it can hurt more than any other attack. i actually think that if possession were an attack it would be quite a bit less awful

On its own? No, not really. The damage dealt by Possession alone is almost strictly less than Minion. Both cause you to lose your hand, but at least Possession lets you have 5 cards. The harm is mostly psychological, like how Torturer feels worse than Witch when the attack portion of Witch is almost strictly better. Possession does no harm on average. It's just that people tend to forget about when it helps them and get stuck on when an opponent played their hand and bought something good. It's actually about as much of an attack as Tribute.

[silverspawn]

one of the reasons why Possession isn't an attack

I'm pretty sure the main reason Possession isn't an attack is because it doesn't directly harm an opponent, unlike every other card that bears the attack type.

yet in fact it can hurt more than any other attack. i actually think that if possession were an attack it would be quite a bit less awful

On its own? No, not really. The damage dealt by Possession alone is almost strictly less than Minion. Both cause you to lose your hand, but at least Possession lets you have 5 cards. The harm is mostly psychological, like how Torturer feels worse than Witch when the attack portion of Witch is almost strictly better. Possession does no harm on average. It's just that people tend to forget about when it helps them and get stuck on when an opponent played their hand and bought something good. It's actually about as much of an attack as Tribute.

if you know what you're doing, and your opponent deck allows for it, you can really screw around with his deck. the most extreme way to do this is with sifting cards like store room: draw the whole deck, discard a bunch of victory or treasure cards, and make them his drawing pile. it can even be a real pin. but even if that isn't possible, you can often deny him key cards or trigger bad reshuflles and all of that stuff

[scott_pilgrim]

one of the reasons why Possession isn't an attack

I'm pretty sure the main reason Possession isn't an attack is because it doesn't directly harm an opponent, unlike every other card that bears the attack type.

yet in fact it can hurt more than any other attack. i actually think that if possession were an attack it would be quite a bit less awful

On its own? No, not really. The damage dealt by Possession alone is almost strictly less than Minion. Both cause you to lose your hand, but at least Possession lets you have 5 cards. The harm is mostly psychological, like how Torturer feels worse than Witch when the attack portion of Witch is almost strictly better. Possession does no harm on average. It's just that people tend to forget about when it helps them and get stuck on when an opponent played their hand and bought something good. It's actually about as much of an attack as Tribute.

People say this, but I think there are so many cases (notably coin tokens, durations, and re-shuffle controlling) where Possession really does hurt that it is actually, on average, noticeably hurtful.  That doesn't mean it should be an attack card, but I don't think it's fair to say it does no harm on average; that's only the case if your possessor does nothing to take advantage of the fact that it's your deck he's controlling, but any smart player will make sure he hurts you when given the option.  Plus, Possession really changes the way you play in most cases; certainly this wouldn't be the case if Possession were just a pseudo-minion attack.

[sudgy]

Possession can help your opponent too though, through cycling.

[eHalcyon]

if you know what you're doing, and your opponent deck allows for it, you can really screw around with his deck. the most extreme way to do this is with sifting cards like store room: draw the whole deck, discard a bunch of victory or treasure cards, and make them his drawing pile. it can even be a real pin. but even if that isn't possible, you can often deny him key cards or trigger bad reshuflles and all of that stuff

If that happens, it's mostly your opponent's fault for building a full blown draw-your-deck engine that was too slow to kick in before you bought and played Possession.  Besides that, you are just as likely to help opponents by skipping over bad hands as you are to hurt them by skipping over good ones.

People say this, but I think there are so many cases (notably coin tokens, durations, and re-shuffle controlling) where Possession really does hurt that it is actually, on average, noticeably hurtful.  That doesn't mean it should be an attack card, but I don't think it's fair to say it does no harm on average; that's only the case if your possessor does nothing to take advantage of the fact that it's your deck he's controlling, but any smart player will make sure he hurts you when given the option.  Plus, Possession really changes the way you play in most cases; certainly this wouldn't be the case if Possession were just a pseudo-minion attack.

Possession changes the way you play.  Yes, you have to take it into account when it's on the board, but that's not a property of attack cards alone.  I'll play differently if Embargo is on the board, or a trasher, or alt VP.  Most cards, really.

And if you take it into account, you'll be more careful about coin tokens, durations, reshuffles.  Yeah the Possession player is going to try to hurt you, but Possession alone doesn't enable that.  It depends on your deck composition, which is something you control a lot more than your opponent does.

[scott_pilgrim]

People say this, but I think there are so many cases (notably coin tokens, durations, and re-shuffle controlling) where Possession really does hurt that it is actually, on average, noticeably hurtful.  That doesn't mean it should be an attack card, but I don't think it's fair to say it does no harm on average; that's only the case if your possessor does nothing to take advantage of the fact that it's your deck he's controlling, but any smart player will make sure he hurts you when given the option.  Plus, Possession really changes the way you play in most cases; certainly this wouldn't be the case if Possession were just a pseudo-minion attack.

Possession changes the way you play.  Yes, you have to take it into account when it's on the board, but that's not a property of attack cards alone.  I'll play differently if Embargo is on the board, or a trasher, or alt VP.  Most cards, really.

And if you take it into account, you'll be more careful about coin tokens, durations, reshuffles.  Yeah the Possession player is going to try to hurt you, but Possession alone doesn't enable that.  It depends on your deck composition, which is something you control a lot more than your opponent does.

But you seemed to be arguing that Possession is roughly just a gainer combined with a Minion attack that draws five instead of four (which is obviously not hurtful), and I'm saying, no it forces you to play in what would, in the absence of Possession, be sub-optimal, a significant majority of the time.  Either you eat my coin tokens, or I have to use up my coin tokens earlier than I would like, or I have to skip that coin token card I wanted altogether; all three of those cases are things that hurt me.  The same way that the presence of Noble Brigand might make me play an engine because I can't let you steal all those Golds, the "attack" aspect of Possession forces me to re-consider how to play a board.  Of course what my opponent does might affect how I play for non-attack cards too, but these are almost always in a positive way.  If my opponent gets lots of Council Rooms maybe I can focus on getting other stuff instead of draw.  How often does the cycling you get from Possession change the way you build your deck positively?

Embargo obviously can't be an attack, and again I'm not saying Possession should be an attack either.  And the other stuff you mentioned, you play differently because you are planning on getting those, not because your opponent gets them.  (You still do play differently depending on what your opponent does, the piles situation, etc., but that's more of a property of general strategy and not specific cards.)

But actually Embargo is a really good comparison.  Embargo hurts you in roughly the same way that Possession hurts you: either it hurts you by forcing you to play differently than you would like (differently from what would be optimal if Embargo/Possession were not present), or it hurts you by giving you a curse/stealing coin tokens/durations, etc.  Either way slows you down, and either way hurts; you can decide which one hurts less and play accordingly, but neither is desirable.

My point is, in a particular game, if Possession doesn't hurt you on average, your opponent is probably either using it poorly, is getting unlucky, or should not have gone for it in the first place.  Sure there are a good number of games where it is worth going for Possession and none of those things are true, but my point is that Possession is hurtful on average, because in most games it's bad to be Possessed, and in some games it's neutral, and then in a very few games it's good (only considering games where at least one player goes for Possession, since I don't think games where it's there but both players ignore it are relevant).

[Awaclus]

People say this, but I think there are so many cases (notably coin tokens, durations, and re-shuffle controlling) where Possession really does hurt that it is actually, on average, noticeably hurtful.  That doesn't mean it should be an attack card, but I don't think it's fair to say it does no harm on average; that's only the case if your possessor does nothing to take advantage of the fact that it's your deck he's controlling, but any smart player will make sure he hurts you when given the option.  Plus, Possession really changes the way you play in most cases; certainly this wouldn't be the case if Possession were just a pseudo-minion attack.

Possession changes the way you play.  Yes, you have to take it into account when it's on the board, but that's not a property of attack cards alone.  I'll play differently if Embargo is on the board, or a trasher, or alt VP.  Most cards, really.

And if you take it into account, you'll be more careful about coin tokens, durations, reshuffles.  Yeah the Possession player is going to try to hurt you, but Possession alone doesn't enable that.  It depends on your deck composition, which is something you control a lot more than your opponent does.

But you seemed to be arguing that Possession is roughly just a gainer combined with a Minion attack that draws five instead of four (which is obviously not hurtful), and I'm saying, no it forces you to play in what would, in the absence of Possession, be sub-optimal, a significant majority of the time.  Either you eat my coin tokens, or I have to use up my coin tokens earlier than I would like, or I have to skip that coin token card I wanted altogether; all three of those cases are things that hurt me.  The same way that the presence of Noble Brigand might make me play an engine because I can't let you steal all those Golds, the "attack" aspect of Possession forces me to re-consider how to play a board.  Of course what my opponent does might affect how I play for non-attack cards too, but these are almost always in a positive way.  If my opponent gets lots of Council Rooms maybe I can focus on getting other stuff instead of draw.  How often does the cycling you get from Possession change the way you build your deck positively?

Embargo obviously can't be an attack, and again I'm not saying Possession should be an attack either.  And the other stuff you mentioned, you play differently because you are planning on getting those, not because your opponent gets them.  (You still do play differently depending on what your opponent does, the piles situation, etc., but that's more of a property of general strategy and not specific cards.)

But actually Embargo is a really good comparison.  Embargo hurts you in roughly the same way that Possession hurts you: either it hurts you by forcing you to play differently than you would like (differently from what would be optimal if Embargo/Possession were not present), or it hurts you by giving you a curse/stealing coin tokens/durations, etc.  Either way slows you down, and either way hurts; you can decide which one hurts less and play accordingly, but neither is desirable.

My point is, in a particular game, if Possession doesn't hurt you on average, your opponent is probably either using it poorly, is getting unlucky, or should not have gone for it in the first place.  Sure there are a good number of games where it is worth going for Possession and none of those things are true, but my point is that Possession is hurtful on average, because in most games it's bad to be Possessed, and in some games it's neutral, and then in a very few games it's good (only considering games where at least one player goes for Possession, since I don't think games where it's there but both players ignore it are relevant).

Is there a card that lets you harm your opponent in most games? There aren't that many coin token cards in the game.

Sure, you can always counter your opponent's Possession by ruining your deck, so it's something that makes you re-consider how to play the board, but the choice is yours to make; just like your opponent's Hermit/Market Square deck makes you want to buy more Militias than you normally would want, which slows you down.

[silverspawn]

Besides that, you are just as likely to help opponents by skipping over bad hands as you are to hurt them by skipping over good ones.

this is true only if you have zero control over your cycling. but you almost always have some control. play couryard and place a useless card on top. play cartographer and discard all good cards. draw lots of villages -> stop your engine right here even though you could probably draw the whole deck, your opponent will have no villages on his next hand. have both possessions your opponent bought in your hand -> trigger a reshuffle. have a big hand but no possessions -> avoid the reshuffle, now at least you didn't help your opponent. have a really great engine -> make your oppoent draw exactly 5 dead cards with his next hand. that's not hypothetical, it does happen.

you just can't tell me that possession doesn't hurt. it does. it's just a matter of how much. i'm almost certain that it hurts more on average than most attacks.

note that the boards where possession is viable tend to have strong engines, and especially good cycling.

[scott_pilgrim]

People say this, but I think there are so many cases (notably coin tokens, durations, and re-shuffle controlling) where Possession really does hurt that it is actually, on average, noticeably hurtful.  That doesn't mean it should be an attack card, but I don't think it's fair to say it does no harm on average; that's only the case if your possessor does nothing to take advantage of the fact that it's your deck he's controlling, but any smart player will make sure he hurts you when given the option.  Plus, Possession really changes the way you play in most cases; certainly this wouldn't be the case if Possession were just a pseudo-minion attack.

Possession changes the way you play.  Yes, you have to take it into account when it's on the board, but that's not a property of attack cards alone.  I'll play differently if Embargo is on the board, or a trasher, or alt VP.  Most cards, really.

And if you take it into account, you'll be more careful about coin tokens, durations, reshuffles.  Yeah the Possession player is going to try to hurt you, but Possession alone doesn't enable that.  It depends on your deck composition, which is something you control a lot more than your opponent does.

But you seemed to be arguing that Possession is roughly just a gainer combined with a Minion attack that draws five instead of four (which is obviously not hurtful), and I'm saying, no it forces you to play in what would, in the absence of Possession, be sub-optimal, a significant majority of the time.  Either you eat my coin tokens, or I have to use up my coin tokens earlier than I would like, or I have to skip that coin token card I wanted altogether; all three of those cases are things that hurt me.  The same way that the presence of Noble Brigand might make me play an engine because I can't let you steal all those Golds, the "attack" aspect of Possession forces me to re-consider how to play a board.  Of course what my opponent does might affect how I play for non-attack cards too, but these are almost always in a positive way.  If my opponent gets lots of Council Rooms maybe I can focus on getting other stuff instead of draw.  How often does the cycling you get from Possession change the way you build your deck positively?

Embargo obviously can't be an attack, and again I'm not saying Possession should be an attack either.  And the other stuff you mentioned, you play differently because you are planning on getting those, not because your opponent gets them.  (You still do play differently depending on what your opponent does, the piles situation, etc., but that's more of a property of general strategy and not specific cards.)

But actually Embargo is a really good comparison.  Embargo hurts you in roughly the same way that Possession hurts you: either it hurts you by forcing you to play differently than you would like (differently from what would be optimal if Embargo/Possession were not present), or it hurts you by giving you a curse/stealing coin tokens/durations, etc.  Either way slows you down, and either way hurts; you can decide which one hurts less and play accordingly, but neither is desirable.

My point is, in a particular game, if Possession doesn't hurt you on average, your opponent is probably either using it poorly, is getting unlucky, or should not have gone for it in the first place.  Sure there are a good number of games where it is worth going for Possession and none of those things are true, but my point is that Possession is hurtful on average, because in most games it's bad to be Possessed, and in some games it's neutral, and then in a very few games it's good (only considering games where at least one player goes for Possession, since I don't think games where it's there but both players ignore it are relevant).

Is there a card that lets you harm your opponent in most games? There aren't that many coin token cards in the game.

Sure, you can always counter your opponent's Possession by ruining your deck, so it's something that makes you re-consider how to play the board, but the choice is yours to make; just like your opponent's Hermit/Market Square deck makes you want to buy more Militias than you normally would want, which slows you down.

There's coin tokens, durations, a handful of attacks as well as things like council room that are better for your opponent when played under possession than they are normally for you, etc.  My point is that most boards will probably have at least one such card...I really didn't think I said anything that would be controversial.  Do people really think that, ON AVERAGE, being Possessed is neither helpful nor harmful?  I really feel like there are very obviously more cases where it hurts than where it helps...

And I guess you're right with Hermit/MS point, but again, I think most single cards that slow you down in some way like that are attack cards, or cards that hurt you.  I mean, I guess to me saying that something slows you down is roughly equivalent to saying that it hurts you.  The fact that Possession slows you down is indicative of that fact that it hurts you.  Maybe you don't agree with that interpretation of the word "hurt", but that's how I think of it anyway.  Embargo hurts me by making me stay away from more Fool's Golds, Possession hurts me by making me green earlier than I would like.

[Witherweaver]

No one is bringing up the psychological damage of being possessed.  Imagine, your actions are not your own!  You could buy a Scout and there's NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO STOP IT.  How is that not an attack?!

[eHalcyon]

Not quoting because the responses are getting long (and maybe this should be forked into a separate discussion).


Anything with player interaction is going to affect the way I play.  If Masquerade is on the board, I will think twice about using heavy trashing to get rid of all the junk.  If Tribute is available, I am just a bit less likely to buy Harem and Nobles.  If there's Embargo, I will be careful not to rely on any one key card.  If there is Lighthouse or a good reaction, I may abstain from an attack I might otherwise want.  I'll see if I can buy something that helps me more than my opponent when I suspect he has Smugglers in hand.  If my opponent is going for Philosopher's Stone or if Menagerie or Tunnel is available, I'm a bit less interested in playing discard attacks.  If Fairgrounds or Vineyards is around, I'm less inclined to play Marauder or Cultist.  These are all cases where non-attack cards can make me play in a way that is not optimal if those cards weren't around.

I am not arguing that Possession never hurts.  Yeah, it definitely does sometimes.  But any harm it causes is indirect.  It makes you change the way you play, or it just happens to catch you on a good hand, or it enables some nasty plays with Masquerade or Ambassador or something more esoteric.  But on its own, no, it doesn't hurt that much.  It usually doesn't hurt as much as or more than actual attacks.

@Witherweaver, I brought up that the harm is mostly psychological near the start of this discussion.

[silverspawn]

It usually doesn't hurt as much as or more than actual attacks.

but it does!!!

[scott_pilgrim]

This will be my last post on this topic because I think we are mostly in agreement (since I don't think Possession should be labeled as an attack; I was just arguing that yes it does hurt on average).  I didn't mean to imply that any of those examples you give are any different from coin tokens/durations/etc. with Possession.  Those are all ways that cards can slow you down and hurt you, even if they don't have the attack label.  Those are also all indirect (i.e. they don't happen when you play the card, just when you see that the card is available or that your opponent is going for it), so I guess that is the key difference.

But on average, Possession certainly hurts.  Skipping good hands-skipping bad hands=0, so skipping good hands-skipping bad hands-(coin token stealing, duration stealing, re-shuffle shenanigans, etc.)=hurt overall.  And, I think that that third category is not negligible, and I think that must be where we disagree.  I think it becomes relevant in >50% of the games where one player goes for Possession, so it is definitely reasonable to say that on average, having a Possession played hurts the possessed player.  I mean, I'm not saying the average is like getting hit by Mountebank, but probably more hurtful than a Spy attack (on boards where one or more players get Spy).

[eHalcyon]

It usually doesn't hurt as much as or more than actual attacks.

but it does!!!

Again, not on its own.

[ashersky]

I am not arguing that Possession never hurts.  Yeah, it definitely does sometimes.  But any harm it causes is indirect.

It usually doesn't hurt as much as or more than actual attacks.

but it does!!!

Again, not on its own.

eHal, if there was a card that just said "Discard your hand and draw five cards," would you say that hurts?

Your argument is: Possession, alone, does not "hurt" you.  But at the very least, it's a discard attack (that's weaker than Minion), but with other stuff that affects you.  If you are arguing that the only hurt caused by Minion is going from a 5-card hand to a 4-card hand, then your argument that Possession is just making you go from one 5-card hand to a different 5-card hand works, I suppose.  I'd disagree, though.

I think an argument can be made that the disruption alone (basically discarding your hand plus losing any other cards your opponent plays/draws while possessed) is "hurting" you.  That's just Possession on its own, alone, by itself.  Of course, in the same way that discard attacks sometimes help you (Tunnel, Margrave card exchange, etc.), Possession can help you skip a crap hand.  But that's not an argument to say that Possession BY ITSELF cannot hurt you.

[eHalcyon]

"Discard your hand and draw 5 cards" is not an attack and does not hurt on average.  The reason that Minion actually hurts is that it leaves you with one fewer card in hand.  Possession on its own does not hurt you on average for the same reason.  Sometimes it does hurt, in that it can cause you to lose a good hand and draw a bad hand.  But it could also help you by getting rid of a bad hand and giving you a good hand.  On average, it is neutral.  Minion is still an attack because 4 random cards from your deck will be worse than 5 random cards, on average.  Margrave is still an attack because the best 3 out of 6 cards is still usually worse than the 5 cards you started with.  Possession can hurt a player, but in the same way as Tribute which I'm pretty sure most players will agree has no business being called an "attack".

You guys are just nitpicking now though.  The major point is that Possession doesn't qualify as an attack.

Gonna self-report my post to get theory to fork this thread now.

[ashersky]

"Discard your hand and draw 5 cards" is not an attack and does not hurt on average.  The reason that Minion actually hurts is that it leaves you with one fewer card in hand.  Possession on its own does not hurt you on average for the same reason.  Sometimes it does hurt, in that it can cause you to lose a good hand and draw a bad hand.  But it could also help you by getting rid of a bad hand and giving you a good hand.  On average, it is neutral.  Minion is still an attack because 4 random cards from your deck will be worse than 5 random cards, on average.  Margrave is still an attack because the best 3 out of 6 cards is still usually worse than the 5 cards you started with.  Possession can hurt a player, but in the same way as Tribute which I'm pretty sure most players will agree has no business being called an "attack".

You guys are just nitpicking now though.  The major point is that Possession doesn't qualify as an attack.

Gonna self-report my post to get theory to fork this thread now.

The replies will go with the fork.

I think you are arguing around the point.  You made a bold statement that Possession does not hurt you on its own.  But we've (you and everyone else) have shown that it can hurt you on its own, and listed the ways how.  We're not talking about whether it should be an attack (anymore), just whether your bold statement is true or not.

I think it's untrue, and you've even conceded that Possession can hurt you on its own.  That's my point.

I mean, Cutpurse may not hurt on average but it's clearly a card that hurts you sometimes.  If you play Cutpurse 10 times in a game and I only meaningfully discard a Copper four times, it didn't hurt me on average.  But that's not a valid argument for me to defend the statement "Cutpurse does not hurt you on its own."

[eHalcyon]

"Discard your hand and draw 5 cards" is not an attack and does not hurt on average.  The reason that Minion actually hurts is that it leaves you with one fewer card in hand.  Possession on its own does not hurt you on average for the same reason.  Sometimes it does hurt, in that it can cause you to lose a good hand and draw a bad hand.  But it could also help you by getting rid of a bad hand and giving you a good hand.  On average, it is neutral.  Minion is still an attack because 4 random cards from your deck will be worse than 5 random cards, on average.  Margrave is still an attack because the best 3 out of 6 cards is still usually worse than the 5 cards you started with.  Possession can hurt a player, but in the same way as Tribute which I'm pretty sure most players will agree has no business being called an "attack".

You guys are just nitpicking now though.  The major point is that Possession doesn't qualify as an attack.

Gonna self-report my post to get theory to fork this thread now.

The replies will go with the fork.

I think you are arguing around the point.  You made a bold statement that Possession does not hurt you on its own.  But we've (you and everyone else) have shown that it can hurt you on its own, and listed the ways how.  We're not talking about whether it should be an attack (anymore), just whether your bold statement is true or not.

I think it's untrue, and you've even conceded that Possession can hurt you on its own.  That's my point.

I mean, Cutpurse may not hurt on average but it's clearly a card that hurts you sometimes.  If you play Cutpurse 10 times in a game and I only meaningfully discard a Copper four times, it didn't hurt me on average.  But that's not a valid argument for me to defend the statement "Cutpurse does not hurt you on its own."

No, that's false and a poor comparison.  Cutpurse hurts sometimes, but at best it is neutral (barring edge cases).  That still means that Cutpurse hurts you on average.  You discarded 4 coppers from 10 plays of Cutpurse, so you discarded 0.4 Coppers on average because of Cutpurse.  That's a net loss. 

Here is my actual claim, in case things got confused in the heat of rhetoric and I said something I didn't mean:

On its own, Possession does not hurt opponents on average.  The effect of Possession alone is that a player replaces a random hand of 5 cards with another random hand of 5 cards.  On average, a random hand is equal to an average hand.  Sometimes it actually hurts (causing opponents to skip a good hand) and sometimes it actually helps (causing opponents to skip a bad hand), but the average effect of Possession on its own is net neutral.  Some cards tip the scales to give the possessing player a way to do some more damage (e.g. durations, coin tokens) but this can be avoided by smart play.  Some other cards can make things even nastier (Ambassador, Masquerade) and that is the nature of the beast.  In all these cases, the problem comes from the combination of cards. 

Looking back, I stated that Possession "doesn't directly harm an opponent".  I meant that it doesn't do this on average.  The rest of the discussion (at least from my perspective) is about whether Possession should have an Attack type.  My answer to that question is an emphatic No.




As an aside, it would probably be better to point to Thief as an attack that doesn't hurt on average.  It actually helps most of the time.  That's why it's a terrible attack.

[ashersky]

No, that's false and a poor comparison.  Cutpurse hurts sometimes, but at best it is neutral (barring edge cases).  That still means that Cutpurse hurts you on average.  You discarded 4 coppers from 10 plays of Cutpurse, so you discarded 0.4 Coppers on average because of Cutpurse.  That's a net loss. 

Here is my actual claim, in case things got confused in the heat of rhetoric and I said something I didn't mean:

On its own, Possession does not hurt opponents on average.  The effect of Possession alone is that a player replaces a random hand of 5 cards with another random hand of 5 cards.  On average, a random hand is equal to an average hand.  Sometimes it actually hurts (causing opponents to skip a good hand) and sometimes it actually helps (causing opponents to skip a bad hand), but the average effect of Possession on its own is net neutral.  Some cards tip the scales to give the possessing player a way to do some more damage (e.g. durations, coin tokens) but this can be avoided by smart play.  Some other cards can make things even nastier (Ambassador, Masquerade) and that is the nature of the beast.  In all these cases, the problem comes from the combination of cards. 

Looking back, I stated that Possession "doesn't directly harm an opponent".  I meant that it doesn't do this on average.  The rest of the discussion (at least from my perspective) is about whether Possession should have an Attack type.  My answer to that question is an emphatic No.




As an aside, it would probably be better to point to Thief as an attack that doesn't hurt on average.  It actually helps most of the time.  That's why it's a terrible attack.

I disagree with your Cutpurse disagreement.  If I had Gold-Gold-Silver-Copper-Estate and was buying a Province, discarding the Copper had zero negative effect.  So I didn't lose anything.  It can't be said to be a negative.  I think "hurt on average" isn't a comparison of how often it hurts you vs. how often it helps you.  I think it's how often it hurts you vs. how often it helps you OR has no effect at all.  I would argue that, like Thief, more than 50% of all plays of Cutpurse against you in the course of a normal lifetime (say ~85 years) would either help you or have no effect at all.

However, for the purposes of this case (which has changed since you amended your statement), I was correct when refuting the statement that on its own, Possession does not hurt opponents.  If it hurts you even one time on its own over your lifetime, the statement was proven wrong.  I think it's fair to assume that almost all players who have been Possessed have been hurt solely by exchanging 5 cards for another 5 cards, not counting all the other stuff done with their cards by their opponent.  Ergo, on its own, Possession CAN hurt opponents.

Now, your argument is changed (or better defined to be) to on its own, Possession does not hurt opponents on average.  Again, over the average lifetime of a Dominion player, can it be said that the effect of discarding your random hand of 5 cards in exchange for 5 new random cards will have no effect or a positive effect at least 50% of the time?  I honestly don't know.  It's probably as indefinable as my statement on Cutpurse.  In the end, for these types of statements, I think we can just have our opinions and beliefs based on assumptions and experience.  Unless there's a way to scrub the Goko logs to show all plays of Possession that resulted in only a discarded hand, and to compare the resultant hand with the discarded one.

As for the now ancillary discussion of whether Possession should be an Attack type card, clearly it should NOT be.  I don't think anyone's arguing that point with you anymore).

[Donald X.]

I disagree with your Cutpurse disagreement.  If I had Gold-Gold-Silver-Copper-Estate and was buying a Province, discarding the Copper had zero negative effect.  So I didn't lose anything.  It can't be said to be a negative.  I think "hurt on average" isn't a comparison of how often it hurts you vs. how often it helps you.  I think it's how often it hurts you vs. how often it helps you OR has no effect at all.  I would argue that, like Thief, more than 50% of all plays of Cutpurse against you in the course of a normal lifetime (say ~85 years) would either help you or have no effect at all.

Man, you do not respect Cutpurse. Cutpurse attacks. If later in the game it whiffs, whatever, it did damage. It's like you're telling me we should consider the value of Chapel by seeing what % of the time it's a dead card in my hand. I draw it with my Golds and Labs and man, useless yet again.

Now, your argument is changed (or better defined to be) to on its own, Possession does not hurt opponents on average.  Again, over the average lifetime of a Dominion player, can it be said that the effect of discarding your random hand of 5 cards in exchange for 5 new random cards will have no effect or a positive effect at least 50% of the time?  I honestly don't know.  It's probably as indefinable as my statement on Cutpurse.  In the end, for these types of statements, I think we can just have our opinions and beliefs based on assumptions and experience.  Unless there's a way to scrub the Goko logs to show all plays of Possession that resulted in only a discarded hand, and to compare the resultant hand with the discarded one.

It's straightforward to argue that the high cost of Possession pushes plays of it to later in the game, and late in the game I am shuffling in VP cards and so making my deck worse (hey except vs. Possession) and so the deck cycling, on average, hurts more than it helps. This is pushed further in that direction by me buying VP cards as a way to fight Possession.

I say all that as someone who thinks that Possession is mostly just a big Workshop that uses your opponent's deck to see how good it is. It warps the game more often than it's worth buying, and the bulk of the way it hurts your opponent is psychologically. Still there is something helping Possession at least a little fairly often (if we count "I didn't buy that card because it would be better for you possessing me than it would be for me"), and you can't just ignore that; it's silly to decide things about Possession by considering it on its own when it's never on its own.

[ashersky]

I disagree with your Cutpurse disagreement.  If I had Gold-Gold-Silver-Copper-Estate and was buying a Province, discarding the Copper had zero negative effect.  So I didn't lose anything.  It can't be said to be a negative.  I think "hurt on average" isn't a comparison of how often it hurts you vs. how often it helps you.  I think it's how often it hurts you vs. how often it helps you OR has no effect at all.  I would argue that, like Thief, more than 50% of all plays of Cutpurse against you in the course of a normal lifetime (say ~85 years) would either help you or have no effect at all.

Man, you do not respect Cutpurse. Cutpurse attacks. If later in the game it whiffs, whatever, it did damage. It's like you're telling me we should consider the value of Chapel by seeing what % of the time it's a dead card in my hand. I draw it with my Golds and Labs and man, useless yet again.

Now, your argument is changed (or better defined to be) to on its own, Possession does not hurt opponents on average.  Again, over the average lifetime of a Dominion player, can it be said that the effect of discarding your random hand of 5 cards in exchange for 5 new random cards will have no effect or a positive effect at least 50% of the time?  I honestly don't know.  It's probably as indefinable as my statement on Cutpurse.  In the end, for these types of statements, I think we can just have our opinions and beliefs based on assumptions and experience.  Unless there's a way to scrub the Goko logs to show all plays of Possession that resulted in only a discarded hand, and to compare the resultant hand with the discarded one.

It's straightforward to argue that the high cost of Possession pushes plays of it to later in the game, and late in the game I am shuffling in VP cards and so making my deck worse (hey except vs. Possession) and so the deck cycling, on average, hurts more than it helps. This is pushed further in that direction by me buying VP cards as a way to fight Possession.

I say all that as someone who thinks that Possession is mostly just a big Workshop that uses your opponent's deck to see how good it is. It warps the game more often than it's worth buying, and the bulk of the way it hurts your opponent is psychologically. Still there is something helping Possession at least a little fairly often (if we count "I didn't buy that card because it would be better for you possessing me than it would be for me"), and you can't just ignore that; it's silly to decide things about Possession by considering it on its own when it's never on its own.

I actually overbuy Cutpurse, I'm pretty sure.  I just chose it randomly as an attack that could be shown to have no effect on a given play.  In the end I'm making silly, exagerrated points to argue against a silly, exagerrated point in a silly, exagerrated fight.

I think Possession hurts at least some of the time, even on its own.  I don't think it is an "attack."  It seemed like eHal (with whom I'm fairly certain I've argued more than anyone else on the face of the f.ds planet) believed Possession hurts none of the time, so we argued.

Now, I think we basically agree, with just a few percentage points difference in our opinions.

I do love "Possession is just a big Workshop" though.  That's awesome.

[eHalcyon]

Cutpurse never helps you.  The best case (as always, barring edge cases) is that it doesn't hurt you at all, whether it's because you had no copper or because you didn't need the copper you tossed.  If it hurts you once, then averaging all its plays means that it is a net negative.  If you are arguing this, then your definition of the average case is very different than mine, and I'd argue that it's an inaccurate use of the word.

I was not arguing that Possession never hurts, and I apologize that I made it seem that way.  Mainly I'm arguing that it doesn't hurt nearly as much as many people seem to think, sometimes actually helps, and quite often does nothing much at all as far as the possessed player is concerned.  Many players seem to think that Possession is super powerful and utterly crippling when they first learn about it, and they are surprised that it isn't classified as an attack.  I certainly felt that way.  But experience and logic shows that giving it the attack type would be silly.  Most of the impact of Possession is indirect (changing your strategy just because it's there) or psychological (remembering the bad times when it cost you a Province far more often than the good or neutral).

We may have argued a lot, ash, but that was mostly during Mafia.

[ashersky]

Mainly I'm arguing that it doesn't hurt nearly as much as many people seem to think, sometimes actually helps, and quite often does nothing much at all as far as the possessed player is concerned.  Many players seem to think that Possession is super powerful and utterly crippling when they first learn about it, and they are surprised that it isn't classified as an attack.  I certainly felt that way.  But experience and logic shows that giving it the attack type would be silly.  Most of the impact of Possession is indirect (changing your strategy just because it's there) or psychological (remembering the bad times when it cost you a Province far more often than the good or neutral).

We may have argued a lot, ash, but that was mostly during Mafia.

I agree with all of this completely.

[Davio]

Cutpurse never helps you.  The best case (as always, barring edge cases) is that it doesn't hurt you at all, whether it's because you had no copper or because you didn't need the copper you tossed.  If it hurts you once, then averaging all its plays means that it is a net negative.  If you are arguing this, then your definition of the average case is very different than mine, and I'd argue that it's an inaccurate use of the word.

I was not arguing that Possession never hurts, and I apologize that I made it seem that way.  Mainly I'm arguing that it doesn't hurt nearly as much as many people seem to think, sometimes actually helps, and quite often does nothing much at all as far as the possessed player is concerned.  Many players seem to think that Possession is super powerful and utterly crippling when they first learn about it, and they are surprised that it isn't classified as an attack.  I certainly felt that way.  But experience and logic shows that giving it the attack type would be silly.  Most of the impact of Possession is indirect (changing your strategy just because it's there) or psychological (remembering the bad times when it cost you a Province far more often than the good or neutral).

We may have argued a lot, ash, but that was mostly during Mafia.

I always viewed Possession as Outpost's evil big brother, you just play with your opponent's deck instead of your own.
The key thing about is that whoever buys and plays Possession usually already has a better deck (by being able to afford it), and in that case Possession is little more than a glorified Workshop, because during the Possession turn you're playing the lesser deck and likely have less to spend than during your own turns.

Possession just irks people, because you're playing their deck. It's like you're playing with their favorite toy. I think Possession can be mean and it's definitely not my favorite card, but it certainly isn't an attack.

[heron]

Possession: Action-Psychological Attack $6P

[Witherweaver]

Possession: Action-Psychological Attack $6P

That's the fix!

[silverspawn]

Mainly I'm arguing that it doesn't hurt nearly as much as many people seem to think, sometimes actually helps, and quite often does nothing much at all as far as the possessed player is concerned.  Many players seem to think that Possession is super powerful and utterly crippling when they first learn about it, and they are surprised that it isn't classified as an attack.  I certainly felt that way.  But experience and logic shows that giving it the attack type would be silly.  Most of the impact of Possession is indirect (changing your strategy just because it's there) or psychological (remembering the bad times when it cost you a Province far more often than the good or neutral).

but that's just not true. you can make your opponent have a bad next hand, and that's a powerful attack. not just with some cards, but all the time, just in varying degrees. yes, obv you can't do it if there aren't any other cards in the kingdom, but whenever you play possession there are other cards in the kingdom, and usually there is draw/trashing/sifting, because these are also the cards that make possession viable.

sometimes possession does nothing. sometimes it hurts the next hand by 1 card, like minion (e.g. through courtyard). sometimes it absorbes key cards and puts them far away into your discard pile. sometimes it disrupts your engine and makes your next hand dead. sometimes it makes you pass/exile a key card. and sometimes it's a complete pin.

i don't know how much it hurts on average, but it's more than, let's say, militia, or spy.

[Lekkit]

I consider Spy one of the weakest attacks in the game. Along with Scrying Pool. And I'd still say the attack there is much better than the potential disruptiveness of Possession.

[Awaclus]

Mainly I'm arguing that it doesn't hurt nearly as much as many people seem to think, sometimes actually helps, and quite often does nothing much at all as far as the possessed player is concerned.  Many players seem to think that Possession is super powerful and utterly crippling when they first learn about it, and they are surprised that it isn't classified as an attack.  I certainly felt that way.  But experience and logic shows that giving it the attack type would be silly.  Most of the impact of Possession is indirect (changing your strategy just because it's there) or psychological (remembering the bad times when it cost you a Province far more often than the good or neutral).

but that's just not true. you can make your opponent have a bad next hand, and that's a powerful attack. not just with some cards, but all the time, just in varying degrees. yes, obv you can't do it if there aren't any other cards in the kingdom, but whenever you play possession there are other cards in the kingdom, and usually there is draw/trashing/sifting, because these are also the cards that make possession viable.

sometimes possession does nothing. sometimes it hurts the next hand by 1 card, like minion (e.g. through courtyard). sometimes it absorbes key cards and puts them far away into your discard pile. sometimes it disrupts your engine and makes your next hand dead. sometimes it makes you pass/exile a key card. and sometimes it's a complete pin.

i don't know how much it hurts on average, but it's more than, let's say, militia, or spy.

More than Spy, perhaps, but Spy isn't very hurtful in the first place. I wouldn't say it hurts more than Militia, though.

[Polk5440]

Cutpurse never helps you?

Menagerie. Edge Cased.

But I agree "on average" Cutpurse hurts.

[eHalcyon]

Cutpurse never helps you?

Menagerie. Edge Cased.

But I agree "on average" Cutpurse hurts.

Yes, I mentioned that there were edge cases in another post. Draw-to-X cards are another.

Mainly I'm arguing that it doesn't hurt nearly as much as many people seem to think, sometimes actually helps, and quite often does nothing much at all as far as the possessed player is concerned.  Many players seem to think that Possession is super powerful and utterly crippling when they first learn about it, and they are surprised that it isn't classified as an attack.  I certainly felt that way.  But experience and logic shows that giving it the attack type would be silly.  Most of the impact of Possession is indirect (changing your strategy just because it's there) or psychological (remembering the bad times when it cost you a Province far more often than the good or neutral).

but that's just not true. you can make your opponent have a bad next hand, and that's a powerful attack. not just with some cards, but all the time, just in varying degrees. yes, obv you can't do it if there aren't any other cards in the kingdom, but whenever you play possession there are other cards in the kingdom, and usually there is draw/trashing/sifting, because these are also the cards that make possession viable.

Sifting can allow the possessor to mess with the player's next turn, but draw and trashing don't except in extreme cases.  As much as we love full-draw engines on f.ds, those do not happen every game.  Even if such an engine is available, a smart player will only build that engine if it can get going before Possession hits.  If that's not possible, a smart player will do something else instead.

sometimes possession does nothing. sometimes it hurts the next hand by 1 card, like minion (e.g. through courtyard). sometimes it absorbes key cards and puts them far away into your discard pile. sometimes it disrupts your engine and makes your next hand dead. sometimes it makes you pass/exile a key card. and sometimes it's a complete pin.

i don't know how much it hurts on average, but it's more than, let's say, militia, or spy.

You know what else can make you miss key cards?  Tribute.  And you are skipping the times when I get possessed with a poor hand, allowing me to play a good hand for my regular turn.

I think you are vastly over-estimating the power of Possession.  That, or you are only considering the boards where Possession is worth buying because of the factors that make it good.  But do you buy Possession every time it's available?  I doubt it.  I skip it most of the time, because most of the time it is just a big Workshop. 

Militia definitely hurts more than Possession.  And Spy, weak as it is, more consistently hurts the other player in making them skip good cards and keep bad cards than Possession does.

[scott_pilgrim]

Cutpurse never helps you?

Menagerie. Edge Cased.

But I agree "on average" Cutpurse hurts.

Yes, I mentioned that there were edge cases in another post. Draw-to-X cards are another.

Possession is another (getting cutpursed right before getting possessed)

[TheMirrorMan]

Regardless whether we consider it an attack ... You can't turn it into an attack. Possession, squire and trashing on the board (preferably chapel) and I have 2 consecutive turns from turn 5 on. Of course my opponent probably will too. So we have a complete stalemate.

[sudgy]

Masquerade isn't an attack when it probably is bad for your opponent more often than not (because you have a larger choice of cards to give him than he does).

[Awaclus]

Masquerade isn't an attack when it probably is bad for your opponent more often than not (because you have a larger choice of cards to give him than he does).

More like it's probably good for your opponent more often than not, but sometimes it's very bad for your opponent and that makes a bigger difference.

[GendoIkari]

The replies will go with the fork.

Discovered an annoying issue with forking though... the links to the posts in quotes still go to the other thread, where the post doesn't exist.

[GendoIkari]

I am not arguing that Possession never hurts.  Yeah, it definitely does sometimes.  But any harm it causes is indirect.

It usually doesn't hurt as much as or more than actual attacks.

but it does!!!

Again, not on its own.

eHal, if there was a card that just said "Discard your hand and draw five cards," would you say that hurts?

Your argument is: Possession, alone, does not "hurt" you.  But at the very least, it's a discard attack (that's weaker than Minion), but with other stuff that affects you.  If you are arguing that the only hurt caused by Minion is going from a 5-card hand to a 4-card hand, then your argument that Possession is just making you go from one 5-card hand to a different 5-card hand works, I suppose.  I'd disagree, though.

I think an argument can be made that the disruption alone (basically discarding your hand plus losing any other cards your opponent plays/draws while possessed) is "hurting" you.  That's just Possession on its own, alone, by itself.  Of course, in the same way that discard attacks sometimes help you (Tunnel, Margrave card exchange, etc.), Possession can help you skip a crap hand.  But that's not an argument to say that Possession BY ITSELF cannot hurt you.

Minion hurts more than "discard down to 4" because you can't choose which card to discard. If instead of "discard your hand, draw 4" Minion said "discard 1 card at random", it would be just as painful and annoying. Maybe moreso because you lose the free cycling. Obviously there's edge cases like Alchemist and Scheme. But no, a card that said "each opponent discards his hand and draws 5 cards" would not hurt on average, and shouldn't be considered an attack.

[GendoIkari]

No, that's false and a poor comparison.  Cutpurse hurts sometimes, but at best it is neutral (barring edge cases).  That still means that Cutpurse hurts you on average.  You discarded 4 coppers from 10 plays of Cutpurse, so you discarded 0.4 Coppers on average because of Cutpurse.  That's a net loss. 

Here is my actual claim, in case things got confused in the heat of rhetoric and I said something I didn't mean:

On its own, Possession does not hurt opponents on average.  The effect of Possession alone is that a player replaces a random hand of 5 cards with another random hand of 5 cards.  On average, a random hand is equal to an average hand.  Sometimes it actually hurts (causing opponents to skip a good hand) and sometimes it actually helps (causing opponents to skip a bad hand), but the average effect of Possession on its own is net neutral.  Some cards tip the scales to give the possessing player a way to do some more damage (e.g. durations, coin tokens) but this can be avoided by smart play.  Some other cards can make things even nastier (Ambassador, Masquerade) and that is the nature of the beast.  In all these cases, the problem comes from the combination of cards. 

Looking back, I stated that Possession "doesn't directly harm an opponent".  I meant that it doesn't do this on average.  The rest of the discussion (at least from my perspective) is about whether Possession should have an Attack type.  My answer to that question is an emphatic No.




As an aside, it would probably be better to point to Thief as an attack that doesn't hurt on average.  It actually helps most of the time.  That's why it's a terrible attack.

I disagree with your Cutpurse disagreement.  If I had Gold-Gold-Silver-Copper-Estate and was buying a Province, discarding the Copper had zero negative effect.  So I didn't lose anything.  It can't be said to be a negative.  I think "hurt on average" isn't a comparison of how often it hurts you vs. how often it helps you.  I think it's how often it hurts you vs. how often it helps you OR has no effect at all.  I would argue that, like Thief, more than 50% of all plays of Cutpurse against you in the course of a normal lifetime (say ~85 years) would either help you or have no effect at all.

I don't understand your definition of average at all. Sounds more like you're talking about "what are the chances that a single play of Cutpurse will hurt you?" That's not at all the same as saying "does Cutpurse hurt on average". It doesn't matter if the card is neutral 99 out of 100 times, and hurts the last 1 out of 100 times, that card would be hurtful on average. "On average" doesn't mean "most often."

[ashersky]

"On average" doesn't mean "at least once" either.

We are all using it wrong, anyway.  We should be arguing how often on average
Possession hurts you.  As in, "on average, it hurts you 27% of the times it is played."  That's the adverbial use we are seeking.

My argument is better phrased "slightly more often than not" while eHal is arguing "much less often than not" or something similar.  That's the 50% point I was making.

[scott_pilgrim]

ashersky, I think everyone else is using the sentence "Possession hurts you on average" to mean, the total utility I gain whenever I am possessed averages to a negative amount.  Whether that is what that sentence should mean, or if that is a useful metric, is another discussion, but I think that's where the confusion is coming from.

[SCSN]

The proper term to use is "expectation", which is the weighted average of all possible outcomes. In expectation Possession most definitely hurts the possessed player, and should therefore in principal be considered an attack.

There are, however, some good design reasons for not attributing the "Attack" card-type to Possession:

- The card isn't very strong as it is, so you don't want to have a single card like Lighthouse make it completely impotent.
- Same, but to a slightly lesser extent for Moat.
- Squire would be insanely overpowered on boards with Possession and some form of trashing.

[Davio]

I think Possession would be more fair if you couldn't take advantage of duration cards (Tactician being the biggest), Masq/Amb shenanigans, or any trashing of the Possesses player's cards (with Salvager for example).

What I'm trying to say with this is: It should only let you do things the player would have done himself.


What if after the Possession turn, the Possessed player puts his deck in the exact same state as before he was Possessed? So you get the bonus from your durations, important cards don't miss the reshuffle, etc... This is awkward in real life of course, but very easy to implement online. Any Masq'd and Amb'd cards should be returned of course.

[markusin]

I think Possession would be more fair if you couldn't take advantage of duration cards (Tactician being the biggest), Masq/Amb shenanigans, or any trashing of the Possesses player's cards (with Salvager for example).

What I'm trying to say with this is: It should only let you do things the player would have done himself.


What if after the Possession turn, the Possessed player puts his deck in the exact same state as before he was Possessed? So you get the bonus from your durations, important cards don't miss the reshuffle, etc... This is awkward in real life of course, but very easy to implement online. Any Masq'd and Amb'd cards should be returned of course.

In that case, it mostly would be a glorified Workshop.

[Holger]

I think Possession would be more fair if you couldn't take advantage of duration cards (Tactician being the biggest), Masq/Amb shenanigans, or any trashing of the Possesses player's cards (with Salvager for example).

What I'm trying to say with this is: It should only let you do things the player would have done himself.


What if after the Possession turn, the Possessed player puts his deck in the exact same state as before he was Possessed? So you get the bonus from your durations, important cards don't miss the reshuffle, etc... This is awkward in real life of course, but very easy to implement online. Any Masq'd and Amb'd cards should be returned of course.

In that case, it mostly would be a glorified Workshop.

Like Davio, I'd prefer to call it a glorified (or "JoaTed") Outpost, since it can gain any number of cards. And most games have Trash for Benefit, which make it preferable to play with the opponent's deck than with your own. I wonder if a "5 card-hand Outpost" would work at Possession's price...

[SirPeebles]

I think Possession would be more fair if you couldn't take advantage of duration cards (Tactician being the biggest), Masq/Amb shenanigans, or any trashing of the Possesses player's cards (with Salvager for example).

What I'm trying to say with this is: It should only let you do things the player would have done himself.


What if after the Possession turn, the Possessed player puts his deck in the exact same state as before he was Possessed? So you get the bonus from your durations, important cards don't miss the reshuffle, etc... This is awkward in real life of course, but very easy to implement online. Any Masq'd and Amb'd cards should be returned of course.

In that case, it mostly would be a glorified Workshop.

It would also give your opponent a bunch of information about what is coming next in their deck.

I like having card interactions.  Possession has some interesting interactions precisely because of its ability to shape the opponent's deck.  Unless the effect breaks the game -- which I don't believe Possession does -- it seems best to leave it as is, particularly since it is already wordy enough.  The current effect is rather elegant in its idea.  The ugliest part is in place to prevent one from trashing her opponent's deck, which must have been deemed too broken.  But Masq and Amb are less common, and are really only acutely abusable in two player games (since Amb gives your other opponents the card too).

[GendoIkari]

I think Possession would be more fair if you couldn't take advantage of duration cards (Tactician being the biggest), Masq/Amb shenanigans, or any trashing of the Possesses player's cards (with Salvager for example).

What I'm trying to say with this is: It should only let you do things the player would have done himself.


What if after the Possession turn, the Possessed player puts his deck in the exact same state as before he was Possessed? So you get the bonus from your durations, important cards don't miss the reshuffle, etc... This is awkward in real life of course, but very easy to implement online. Any Masq'd and Amb'd cards should be returned of course.

In that case, it mostly would be a glorified Workshop.

Like Davio, I'd prefer to call it a glorified (or "JoaTed") Outpost, since it can gain any number of cards.

Yes but Outpost is a glorified Workshop.

[GendoIkari]

[LastFootnote]

Or is Workshop simply a very limited (but reliable) Outpost?

[eHalcyon]

Or is Workshop simply a very limited (but reliable) Outpost?

Which would mean that Workshop is a mini-Possession. 

[Witherweaver]

Or is Workshop simply a very limited (but reliable) Outpost?

Which would mean that Workshop is a mini-Possession. 

Ruined Market is a mini-mini-Possession.

[GendoIkari]

Or is Workshop simply a very limited (but reliable) Outpost?

Which would mean that Workshop is a mini-Possession. 

Young Posession - Action $3

Gain a card costing up to $4.

[theblankman]

Young Posession - Action $3

Gain a card costing up to $4.

Young Workshop - Action $2

Opponent may reveal a Curse from his/her hand.  If they do not, gain a card costing up to $4.

[AJD]

I think Possession would be more fair if you couldn't take advantage of duration cards (Tactician being the biggest), Masq/Amb shenanigans, or any trashing of the Possesses player's cards (with Salvager for example).

What I'm trying to say with this is: It should only let you do things the player would have done himself.


What if after the Possession turn, the Possessed player puts his deck in the exact same state as before he was Possessed? So you get the bonus from your durations, important cards don't miss the reshuffle, etc... This is awkward in real life of course, but very easy to implement online. Any Masq'd and Amb'd cards should be returned of course.

In that case, it mostly would be a glorified Workshop.

Like Davio, I'd prefer to call it a glorified (or "JoaTed") Outpost, since it can gain any number of cards.

Yes but Outpost is a glorified Workshop.

And so Possession is a glorified Smugglers.

[Witherweaver]

Estate is a glorified Curse.

[Witherweaver]

Oh, and Grand Market is a glor..... grandified Market.

[Donald X.]

Young Posession - Action $3

Gain a card costing up to $4.

Fleeting Grasp: Reaction, $P
When another player plays an action card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, you make all decisions during the resolution of that card.

[Jack Rudd]

Young Posession - Action $3

Gain a card costing up to $4.

Fleeting Grasp: Reaction, $P
When another player plays an action card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, you make all decisions during the resolution of that card.

That would be an awesome counter to King's Court.

[theblankman]

Fleeting Grasp: Reaction, $P
When another player plays an action card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, you make all decisions during the resolution of that card.

So if an opponent plays Possession and I react with Fleeting Grasp, I control the ensuing extra turn, but the Possession player still gains any cards that the Possession target would have gained?  Might as well call it, "Here, hold these Curses." 

[Awaclus]

Fleeting Grasp: Reaction, $P
When another player plays an action card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, you make all decisions during the resolution of that card.

So if an opponent plays Possession and I react with Fleeting Grasp, I control the ensuing extra turn, but the Possession player still gains any cards that the Possession target would have gained?  Might as well call it, "Here, hold these Curses."

Is Fleeting Grasp a Reaction that hurts the attacker?

[GendoIkari]

Fleeting Grasp: Reaction, $P
When another player plays an action card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, you make all decisions during the resolution of that card.

So if an opponent plays Possession and I react with Fleeting Grasp, I control the ensuing extra turn, but the Possession player still gains any cards that the Possession target would have gained?  Might as well call it, "Here, hold these Curses."

Is Fleeting Grasp a Reaction that hurts the attacker?

Only with a few attacks like Oracle and Spy.

[Awaclus]

Fleeting Grasp: Reaction, $P
When another player plays an action card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, you make all decisions during the resolution of that card.

So if an opponent plays Possession and I react with Fleeting Grasp, I control the ensuing extra turn, but the Possession player still gains any cards that the Possession target would have gained?  Might as well call it, "Here, hold these Curses."

Is Fleeting Grasp a Reaction that hurts the attacker?

Only with a few attacks like Oracle and Spy.

And because explaining jokes makes them funnier, I was referring to Possession, which is funny because this is the "Is Possession an Attack?" thread.

[amalloy]

Fleeting Grasp: Reaction, $P
When another player plays an action card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, you make all decisions during the resolution of that card.

So if an opponent plays Possession and I react with Fleeting Grasp, I control the ensuing extra turn, but the Possession player still gains any cards that the Possession target would have gained?  Might as well call it, "Here, hold these Curses."

I don't think reacting with Fleeting Grasp does anything against Possession. A card is "resolved" when it's done being played, and there are no decisions to be made as part of playing Possession. What it does is unconditionally create a pending effect, which is resolved at the end of the turn. Similarly, if you Grasp a Scheme I'm playing, you don't get to choose which card I topdeck at the end of my turn.

[serakfalcon]

Fleeting Grasp: Reaction, $P
When another player plays an action card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, you make all decisions during the resolution of that card.

So if an opponent plays Possession and I react with Fleeting Grasp, I control the ensuing extra turn, but the Possession player still gains any cards that the Possession target would have gained?  Might as well call it, "Here, hold these Curses."

I don't think reacting with Fleeting Grasp does anything against Possession. A card is "resolved" when it's done being played, and there are no decisions to be made as part of playing Possession. What it does is unconditionally create a pending effect, which is resolved at the end of the turn. Similarly, if you Grasp a Scheme I'm playing, you don't get to choose which card I topdeck at the end of my turn.

Distraction (Reaction)
($6)
Attempt to get other players into a heated discussion/argument (suggestion: invent a new dominion card with weird side-effects). While this is in your hand, and until another player notices, you may take any victory card from the supply. When another player catches you, trash this. You gain any cards taken from the supply in this manner.

[SirPeebles]

Fleeting Grasp: Reaction, $P
When another player plays an action card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, you make all decisions during the resolution of that card.

So if an opponent plays Possession and I react with Fleeting Grasp, I control the ensuing extra turn, but the Possession player still gains any cards that the Possession target would have gained?  Might as well call it, "Here, hold these Curses."

Is Fleeting Grasp a Reaction that hurts the attacker?

Only with a few attacks like Oracle and Spy.

Mercenary may be the best.  Too bad you don't get to peek at her cards before deciding which to trash.

[theblankman]

Fleeting Grasp: Reaction, $P
When another player plays an action card, you may discard this from your hand. If you do, you make all decisions during the resolution of that card.

So if an opponent plays Possession and I react with Fleeting Grasp, I control the ensuing extra turn, but the Possession player still gains any cards that the Possession target would have gained?  Might as well call it, "Here, hold these Curses."

Is Fleeting Grasp a Reaction that hurts the attacker?

Only with a few attacks like Oracle and Spy.

And because explaining jokes makes them funnier, I was referring to Possession, which is funny because this is the "Is Possession an Attack?" thread.

If it makes you feel any better my first thought was, "No cause Possession's not an attack," but before I posted it I figured, "Better read the rest of the thread."  Preempted  

[Honkeyfresh]

I have to say the idea that Possesion isn't an attack is downright insane. Ya shoor.  as some guy ambassadors 2 of my colonies back and keeps one as a souvenir of this amicable encounter.

[Honkeyfresh]

one of the reasons why Possession isn't an attack

I'm pretty sure the main reason Possession isn't an attack is because it doesn't directly harm an opponent, unlike every other card that bears the attack type.

yet in fact it can hurt more than any other attack. i actually think that if possession were an attack it would be quite a bit less awful

On its own? No, not really. The damage dealt by Possession alone is almost strictly less than Minion. Both cause you to lose your hand, but at least Possession lets you have 5 cards. The harm is mostly psychological, like how Torturer feels worse than Witch when the attack portion of Witch is almost strictly better. Possession does no harm on average. It's just that people tend to forget about when it helps them and get stuck on when an opponent played their hand and bought something good. It's actually about as much of an attack as Tribute.

This is fundamentally untrue unless you too equally buy possessions.

[grrgrrgrr]

I think, due to its absurd cost, it is fair to call Possession a Divine Attack. Something that a punny Moat cannot stop.

[vidicate]

I think, due to its absurd cost, it is fair to call Possession a Divine Attack. Something that a punny Moat cannot stop.

Those punny Moats, always punning things up around the castle. “When the king’s herald is delivering a message after dusk, then he’s on a ‘Night’s’ errand. Hyuk yuk.”
groan

[Honkeyfresh]

I think, due to its absurd cost, it is fair to call Possession a Divine Attack. Something that a punny Moat cannot stop.

Or maybe classifications of attacks it can block.  Like spells can go over a 2 cost "hastily dug Moat" Certain attacks a "hastily dug moat" cannot defend like familiar, witches/sorcerers/enchantress etc, but not militia/margrave/followers/rabble etc. I'd even be fine with airborne specific cards being ok too, like archer/noble brigand/catapult (i mean he is holding a bow) but not for any horde and just claim they have arrows.

or maybe like Block any attack 4 or less for a moat, but have like a "impenetrable moat for 4 or something too.  Like they got Gandalf there blocking spells, boiling oil for the rabble, dragons to burn up catapults etc. For kicks maybe you could overpay and for every 1 you overpay on a regular moat buy and you get and extra +1 added to the 4 for every coin overpaid?  Just randomly made this up now, but i really like this idea for a card!