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.