Print

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

[-Stef-]

I have a question / request for confirmation about the interaction of the on-trash on fortress and possession.

Suppose I trash a fortress with hermit from my discard pile while being possessed. Now two things simultaneously try to alter the normal trash, which means I (=my possessor) have to choose the order. If I choose to let it go to my hand first, the possession will fail because of lose track. If I set it aside first with possession the fortress itself will fail, also because of lose track.

If I trash a fortress with Chapel from my hand, I also need to choose the order. However, since the fortress puts itself exactly where it was, the possession will never lose track of it and the fortress always ends up set aside regardless of the order.

Correct?

[Davio]

It seems this is covered in the Wiki, but it doesn't have a quote from DXV:

"If a Possessed player's Fortress is trashed, the Possessing player chooses whether to put it back in hand immediately, as usual, or to set it aside with other trashed cards, to be returned to the Possessed player's discard pile at the end of the turn."

Possession mentions this:

"Cards that are trashed and set aside on a Possession turn are not in the trash for the rest of the turn. This means that they can't be gained with Graverobber or Rogue and will not contribute to the value of Forager; and a trashed Fortress can be set aside like any other trashed card rather than returned to hand immediately (via the lose-track rule)."

This seems wrong to me, as I don't think lose-track applies to self-referencing cards. I think Fortress can always find itself even if you do choose to set it aside. At some point Fortress will ask itself: "was I trashed?" The answer is yes, so it will try to move itself to your hand. Does it matter where it tries to move itself from? I guess the consensus (see above in the wiki) is yes, but I don't think so...

Now the weird thing is that Possession doesn't seem to care where the trashed card is (whether it was going to the trash), it only matters that it's trashed. So does it expect to find the trashed card at a specific place? I would think both of these are legal:

Resolve Possession first: Set it aside, Fortress puts itself to your hand
Resolve Fortress first: Put it in your hand, but immediately set it aside

[-Stef-]

...now two things simultaneously try to alter the normal trash...

I now think this is nonsense. Nothing is trying to alter the normal trash. In fact the whole idea of altering a trash action is nonsense.
The normal trash just happens. After it happens, two things try to respond to it, one trying to move it from the trash to my hand, the other trying to move it from the trash to set aside.

If that is correct, it should be irrelevant if the trashed card originated in my discard (Hermit) or in my hand (Chapel). I will have a choice in both cases, and the lose-track rule applies in both cases.

[Jimmmmm]

Does this help?

What happens when you trash a Fortress on a Possession turn? Possession wants to set Fortress aside, but Fortress wants to be put into your hand. Which one takes priority?

When you need to do two things at the same time, you choose an order to do them in. If you are being possessed, then the possessing player makes decisions for you, so they decide.

So. I am possessing you. I make you Remodel a Fortress. You put Fortress into the trash. Now I decide whether to put it into your hand or set it aside. Whichever I pick, the other one fails as it can't find the Fortress where it expects it (in the trash).

I guess this might be important: in the text of Possession, what does "are trashed" mean?

It means "when one of that player's cards is trashed, blah blah blah." It's timed the same as the various Dark Ages cards.

When are the trashed cards set aside?

Directly after being trashed, provided nothing else happens first (such as a when-trashed trigger that the possessing player decides to resolve first).

[ben_king]

...now two things simultaneously try to alter the normal trash...

I now think this is nonsense. Nothing is trying to alter the normal trash. In fact the whole idea of altering a trash action is nonsense.
The normal trash just happens. After it happens, two things try to respond to it, one trying to move it from the trash to my hand, the other trying to move it from the trash to set aside.

If that is correct, it should be irrelevant if the trashed card originated in my discard (Hermit) or in my hand (Chapel). I will have a choice in both cases, and the lose-track rule applies in both cases.

I think the on-trash reactions occur before the Fortress leaves play, because when you trash Band of Misfits as Fortress, you're able to return the BoM to your hand using the Fortress on-trash reaction.  But if the BoM had actually left play, the Fortress reaction should no longer be available.

EDIT: that seems to contradict what Donald says above, so maybe BoM as Fortress is just an exception?

[singletee]

...now two things simultaneously try to alter the normal trash...

I now think this is nonsense. Nothing is trying to alter the normal trash. In fact the whole idea of altering a trash action is nonsense.
The normal trash just happens. After it happens, two things try to respond to it, one trying to move it from the trash to my hand, the other trying to move it from the trash to set aside.

If that is correct, it should be irrelevant if the trashed card originated in my discard (Hermit) or in my hand (Chapel). I will have a choice in both cases, and the lose-track rule applies in both cases.

I think the on-trash reactions occur before the Fortress leaves play, because when you trash Band of Misfits as Fortress, you're able to return the BoM to your hand using the Fortress on-trash reaction.  But if the BoM had actually left play, the Fortress reaction should no longer be available.

EDIT: that seems to contradict what Donald says above, so maybe BoM as Fortress is just an exception?

I think the reaction triggers before the card leaves play (while it's still a Fortress), but it is not resolved until it is in the trash (and is a BoM). Once it's been triggered, it doesn't care what its name is, it just says "put it in your hand". Now we're in Blue Dog territory, but there's no problem since the antecedent of "it" is "this", which just refers to this card, regardless of its attributes.

[Jeebus]

This seems wrong to me, as I don't think lose-track applies to self-referencing cards. I think Fortress can always find itself even if you do choose to set it aside. At some point Fortress will ask itself: "was I trashed?" The answer is yes, so it will try to move itself to your hand. Does it matter where it tries to move itself from? I guess the consensus (see above in the wiki) is yes, but I don't think so...

Every action that involves moving a card (so this includes trashing) will fail per lose-track if it's not where the effect expects it to be.

In fact the very first BGG thread about lose-track back in 2010 is about a self-referencing card, Mining Village, and Possession too. That old example can also be found in the FAQ in my sig: "Mining Village: When Throne Roomed in a turn when you're Possessed (with Possession), if trashed the first time, Mining Village is set aside (per the Possession rules). Although Throne Room has lost track of it, it can now be trashed since it's not already in Trash. But Mining Village has now lost track of itself. It tries to trash itself from play, but since it's not in play the second time, it can't trash itself." (And the FAQ also gives its sources.)

[Jeebus]

I think the on-trash reactions occur before the Fortress leaves play, because when you trash Band of Misfits as Fortress, you're able to return the BoM to your hand using the Fortress on-trash reaction.  But if the BoM had actually left play, the Fortress reaction should no longer be available.

EDIT: that seems to contradict what Donald says above, so maybe BoM as Fortress is just an exception?

When-trash effects are triggered right when a card is trashed, and all such effects are triggered, such as Fortress or Possession. Then, when (i.e. after) the card is trashed, they are resolved one at a time. At this point a trashed BoM-as-Fortress will be just a BoM. The same kind of thing happens with Inheritance. You can see more examples in the FAQ in my sig, in the section 10.5 (Atomicity of abilities), with links to the relevant posts by Donald.

[Donald X.]

...now two things simultaneously try to alter the normal trash...

I now think this is nonsense. Nothing is trying to alter the normal trash. In fact the whole idea of altering a trash action is nonsense.
The normal trash just happens. After it happens, two things try to respond to it, one trying to move it from the trash to my hand, the other trying to move it from the trash to set aside.

If that is correct, it should be irrelevant if the trashed card originated in my discard (Hermit) or in my hand (Chapel). I will have a choice in both cases, and the lose-track rule applies in both cases.

You are correct that nothing "alters a trash action" here. I could conceivably make such an ability - "when this card would be trashed, instead..." I probably wouldn't at this point, since Trader and Possession have such a thing for when-gain, and those abilities are too confusing.

Fortress is in the trash when Possession and Fortress try to move it; they both expect to find it in the trash; either one moving it means the other one can't find it.

A potentially relevant bit on the Chapel/Fortress angle: Once a card is lost track of, it's lost, even if it later ends up where it was expected. No effects make that matter here, but it can come up e.g. if a card is expected to be on top of your discard pile and is covered up and then uncovered.

[werothegreat]

This seems wrong to me, as I don't think lose-track applies to self-referencing cards.

But it does!  That's why Hermit/Scheme works!

[Davio]

This seems wrong to me, as I don't think lose-track applies to self-referencing cards.

But it does!  That's why Hermit/Scheme works!

I know, I was technically wrong, the best kind of wrong.

I guess it's just weird to think about cards having identity crises.

[GendoIkari]

This seems wrong to me, as I don't think lose-track applies to self-referencing cards.

But it does!  That's why Hermit/Scheme works!

I know, I was technically wrong, the best kind of wrong.

I guess it's just weird to think about cards having identity crises.

I suppose the explanation would be... cards don't execute their own instructions. When a card is played, it sends a bunch of instructions to an abstract game engine, all at once. That abstract game engine then is in charge of executing all instructions. So when it gets to the "return [Fortress] to your hand" instruction, it looks for Fortress but can't find it.

[Davio]

I'm a software developer, so I can think in terms of call stacks.

[Asper]

This seems wrong to me, as I don't think lose-track applies to self-referencing cards.

But it does!  That's why Hermit/Scheme works!

I know, I was technically wrong, the best kind of wrong.

I guess it's just weird to think about cards having identity crises.

I suppose the explanation would be... cards don't execute their own instructions. When a card is played, it sends a bunch of instructions to an abstract game engine, all at once. That abstract game engine then is in charge of executing all instructions. So when it gets to the "return [Fortress] to your hand" instruction, it looks for Fortress but can't find it.

Another way would be to interpret Fortress as a "no-visit" thing like Nomad Camp (you can trash Nomad Camp with Watchtower, right?), and argue that Possession knows where to find it because of this. Going with this reasoning, neither card fails to move Fortress, and it's the last one moving it that stays successful.

[Jeebus]

Another way would be to interpret Fortress as a "no-visit" thing like Nomad Camp (you can trash Nomad Camp with Watchtower, right?), and argue that Possession knows where to find it because of this. Going with this reasoning, neither card fails to move Fortress, and it's the last one moving it that stays successful.

It doesn't work like that. Fortress is actually trashed (otherwise its when-trash wouldn't trigger) and that means going to the trash pile. The when-trash is resolved when Fortress is already in the trash. Compare with how Watchtower and Royal Seal works. They are resolved when the gained cars is already in your discard pile (or wherever you gained it to).

[Davio]

I vaguely remember some FAQ/rule that a card always has to be somewhere. It can't change directions mid-air so to speak.
In Fortress' case, it does go to the trash, but immediately wants to return, trying to execute this statement:
- Move Fortress from trash to hand
Possession wants to execute this statement:
- Move Fortress from trash to set-aside-land

Only one of those can successfully execute.