Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]

Author Topic: Possession rule  (Read 12118 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

2.71828.....

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1264
  • Shuffle iT Username: irrationalE
  • Respect: +1297
    • View Profile
Possession rule
« on: May 24, 2016, 03:01:29 pm »
0

I totally don't follow discussion on new sets or anything (basically just wait to play them), but I just saw this post:

I took this info from the wiki:

Quote
With the release of Empires, how Possession works has been changed. Now, when Possessing someone, the Possessing player also gains all tokens taken during the Possessed turn. This is in contrast to the Official FAQ as originally published. The exception to this is Pirate Ship Coin tokens, which would still be put on the Possessed player's mat.

I believe this was not implemented yet. I figured out today when I used Ferry to reduce Possession cost in a Possessed turn (it did not work out as I thought  :-\)
Should I report this in MF forum or here is fine?

Just wondering if all you wonderful people can explain (again most likely) when/where/why this change of rule was made.
Logged
Man. I had four strips of bacon yesterday. Was one automatically undercooked, one automatically overcooked? No, let's put a stop to that right here, all four strips were excellent.

JW

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 741
  • Shuffle iT Username: JW
  • Respect: +1332
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2016, 03:05:31 pm »
+2

It's so that Possession isn't terrible with the new debt mechanic.

That reddish hexagon means you don't pay for City Quarter or Royal Blacksmith up front. Instead you take some tokens that say how much you owe. While you have the tokens, you can't buy cards or Events. Those are the only things you can't do; you can still play cards, including the one that got you into Debt if you draw that one; you can still trash cards and get attacked and win the game and so on. You can pay off Debt tokens in your Buy phase, before and/or after buying cards, at $1 per token. So, you have $4, you buy City Quarter, you get 8 Debt, you pay off 4 of it immediately, you have 4 debt left. In your next Buy phase, if you had $6, you could pay off the rest of your Debt and then have $2 left to spend. Get it? It's pretty simple. The one tricky thing is how these things work when cards compare costs. There it works like Potion: apples and oranges. A reddish hexagon with an 8 isn't more or less than $3. There's a rulebook, okay? It covers all the tricky things. And uh why a hexagon, why that color? The physical tokens are reddish hexagons.

So City Quarter is one of these things, it costs $8 but you don't need any $ up front. You can buy it with $0 and a leftover Buy. But you'll be paying it off before you buy more things and well I went over that already. So uh City Quarter. It looks snazzy. You could draw so many cards. And it's a Village too, which helps you play those cards you had to have to draw those other cards.

Buying debt cards while possessing someoen sounds pretty good.
Oh right. I forgot to mention it, but Possession is getting errata. No joke, errata. It will now cause the possessing player to also get all tokens the other player would have gotten. This means they will also get VP tokens, which wasn't the point, but was the simplest way to make debt + Possession not suck.
Logged

2.71828.....

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1264
  • Shuffle iT Username: irrationalE
  • Respect: +1297
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2016, 03:25:10 pm »
+2

Ok, yeah. Makes sense. I will miss collecting monuments to counter possession though.
Logged
Man. I had four strips of bacon yesterday. Was one automatically undercooked, one automatically overcooked? No, let's put a stop to that right here, all four strips were excellent.

Calamitas

  • Tactician
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 407
  • Shuffle iT Username: Calamitas
  • Respect: +47
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2016, 04:41:52 pm »
+1

Ok, yeah. Makes sense. I will miss collecting monuments to counter possession though.
Or goons...

Does the changed rule also apply when playing without any Empire cards?
Logged
Oh, i just don't like mafia games.

Town (5/9): M85, RMM35, M87, NM9, M90RMM38, M92, M91, M102,
Scum (3/3): M84, M88, M100

MVPs (1): M84

Joseph2302

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 845
  • Shuffle iT Username: Joseph2302
  • "Better to be lucky than good"
  • Respect: +552
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #4 on: June 01, 2016, 04:47:55 pm »
+1

Ok, yeah. Makes sense. I will miss collecting monuments to counter possession though.
Or goons...

Does the changed rule also apply when playing without any Empire cards?
Yes it's a permanent rule change errata from Donald X for all cards with VP tokens.
Logged
Mafia Stats: (correct as of 2017)
Town: 22 games, 8 wins
Scum: 5 games, 3 wins

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7846
  • Respect: +8671
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #5 on: June 01, 2016, 05:07:30 pm »
0

Ok, yeah. Makes sense. I will miss collecting monuments to counter possession though.
Or goons...

Does the changed rule also apply when playing without any Empire cards?
Yes it's a permanent rule change errata from Donald X for all cards with VP tokens.

And coin tokens. And debt tokens. I don't know for sure if the exact wording will automatically include any future tokens. I know that it doesn't include Pirate Ship tokens, but that's because Pirate Ship tokens aren't tokens in the same sense as those other ones; they're simply a counter that you use to mark how many times something has happened.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7054
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9762
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2016, 05:11:26 pm »
+3

Ok, yeah. Makes sense. I will miss collecting monuments to counter possession though.
Or goons...

Does the changed rule also apply when playing without any Empire cards?
Yes it's a permanent rule change errata from Donald X for all cards with VP tokens.

And coin tokens. And debt tokens. I don't know for sure if the exact wording will automatically include any future tokens. I know that it doesn't include Pirate Ship tokens, but that's because Pirate Ship tokens aren't tokens in the same sense as those other ones; they're simply a counter that you use to mark how many times something has happened.

Any future tokens that you "take" will be affected; the ruling is that you get all the tokens the possessed player would have gotten. Pirate Ship tokens are uh not taken, but rather added to your mat in the same way that VP tokens are added to Gathering piles. And Pirate Ship itself needs errata to correct this.
Logged

Doom_Shark

  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 325
  • Shuffle iT Username: Doom_Shark
  • Respect: +281
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #7 on: June 02, 2016, 03:01:47 am »
0

Tokens put on piles, such as, uh, the -2 cost token a la ferry, aren't taken, either. So tje guy quoted in the OP was actually wrong in assuming that it would be his token
Logged
"I swear to drunk I'm not officer, God."
Generation 33 The first time you see this, copy it, add 1 to the generation number, and add it to your signature. (On any forum) Social experiment.

Jeebus

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1416
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1017
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #8 on: June 02, 2016, 02:53:53 pm »
+1

Tokens put on piles, such as, uh, the -2 cost token a la ferry, aren't taken, either. So tje guy quoted in the OP was actually wrong in assuming that it would be his token

None of the player tokens from Adventures are affected, right? I mean, they all talk about "your" token, and "you" is the Possessed player. It would be weird if I Possessed you, bought Ball, and took your -$1 token. (Great for you though; no more -$ token!)

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
  • Respect: +21671
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #9 on: June 02, 2016, 04:34:57 pm »
+1

Tokens put on piles, such as, uh, the -2 cost token a la ferry, aren't taken, either. So tje guy quoted in the OP was actually wrong in assuming that it would be his token

None of the player tokens from Adventures are affected, right? I mean, they all talk about "your" token, and "you" is the Possessed player. It would be weird if I Possessed you, bought Ball, and took your -$1 token. (Great for you though; no more -$ token!)
Tentatively ruling that the possessing player does in fact take the -$1 or -1 Card token. The wording on e.g. Ball is the same as e.g. Candlestick Maker.

Possession doesn't interact with the +1 Action token etc., because they aren't taken, they are put somewhere. This would be the same for Pirate Ship with a better wording.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7054
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9762
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #10 on: June 02, 2016, 04:36:28 pm »
+1

The -$1 token is taken, but the -1 Card token is put onto your deck.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
  • Respect: +21671
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #11 on: June 02, 2016, 04:43:19 pm »
+3

The -$1 token is taken, but the -1 Card token is put onto your deck.
Yes, right, thanks. So, the -$1 token would be affected by Possession, but not the -1 Card token.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
  • Respect: +21671
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #12 on: June 02, 2016, 04:50:09 pm »
+1

It says to take "your" (the Possessed player's) token. I don't see how any reasonable interpretation of the text could possibly result in anyone taking the Possessor's token.
Well I am looking at the cards and that's how I see it. Ball says "Take your -$1 token." I Possess you. Possession says "cards or tokens" ("gain" isn't the precise word, but there's only so much room on a card and Possession is already microtext). So, I Possess you and make you buy Ball, I take *your* -$1 token.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11153
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (。 ω 。`)
  • Respect: +11809
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #13 on: June 02, 2016, 04:51:09 pm »
0

If I get my opponent's -$1 token, what happens to it after I lose it?
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The Twitch channel where I stream DominionThe YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's albums for free

singletee

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 894
  • Shuffle iT Username: singletee
  • Gold, Silver, Copper, Let's Jam!
  • Respect: +1564
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #14 on: June 02, 2016, 04:52:27 pm »
0

It says to take "your" (the Possessed player's) token. I don't see how any reasonable interpretation of the text could possibly result in anyone taking the Possessor's token.
Well I am looking at the cards and that's how I see it. Ball says "Take your -$1 token." I Possess you. Possession says "cards or tokens" ("gain" isn't the precise word, but there's only so much room on a card and Possession is already microtext). So, I Possess you and make you buy Ball, I take *your* -$1 token.

Yeah, I misunderstood. So the Possessor gets the Possessed's token. Weird, but it makes sense. At first I thought you were saying that the Possessor would take their own token.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
  • Respect: +21671
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #15 on: June 02, 2016, 04:52:55 pm »
+5

If I get my opponent's -$1 token, what happens to it after I lose it?
It goes to Token Limbo, with all of the other tokens players don't have. In practice players may choose to separate Token Limbo into different areas around the table, but that's just players making things convenient for themselves.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7054
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9762
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2016, 04:54:25 pm »
0

Presumably you can take -$1 tokens directly from other players. I will venture a guess that if any -$1 token is taken from you, the penalty also goes away.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
  • Respect: +21671
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #17 on: June 02, 2016, 05:01:49 pm »
+2

Presumably you can take -$1 tokens directly from other players. I will venture a guess that if any -$1 token is taken from you, the penalty also goes away.
My first thought was no because if you Possess me and I already have the -$1 token, I wouldn't be taking the token and so you don't take it. You take tokens I would take and I wouldn't take that one.

My second thought is, how do you even manage this. You can't buy Ball without $5. If you got $ it already returned the token. Bridge Troll doesn't do the trick here either.

If I Possess you and make you buy Ball twice, the second time, you would take the token from me, so I take it instead, but I already have it so I fail to. The way this technically plays out involves considering this, but what actually happens isn't different from if you couldn't take it from me.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7054
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9762
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2016, 05:07:21 pm »
+1

Presumably you can take -$1 tokens directly from other players. I will venture a guess that if any -$1 token is taken from you, the penalty also goes away.
My first thought was no because if you Possess me and I already have the -$1 token, I wouldn't be taking the token and so you don't take it. You take tokens I would take and I wouldn't take that one.

My second thought is, how do you even manage this. You can't buy Ball without $5. If you got $ it already returned the token. Bridge Troll doesn't do the trick here either.

If I Possess you and make you buy Ball twice, the second time, you would take the token from me, so I take it instead, but I already have it so I fail to. The way this technically plays out involves considering this, but what actually happens isn't different from if you couldn't take it from me.

I possess you and make you buy Ball, taking your -$1 token. Then you take your normal turn and also buy Ball. What happens?
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
  • Respect: +21671
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #19 on: June 02, 2016, 05:08:54 pm »
+4

I possess you and make you buy Ball, taking your -$1 token. Then you take your normal turn and also buy Ball. What happens?
Ah right, you taking it back.

You take it back. Take it, it says.

And without the token you don't have the penalty.
Logged

J Reggie

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 704
  • Shuffle iT Username: J Reggie
  • Respect: +1116
    • View Profile
    • Jeff Rosenthal Music
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #20 on: June 02, 2016, 05:12:05 pm »
0

What happens if I make you play Bridge Troll and then make your buy Ball while possessing you? Do I get both tokens?

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
  • Respect: +21671
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #21 on: June 02, 2016, 05:15:04 pm »
+2

What happens if I make you play Bridge Troll and then make your buy Ball while possessing you? Do I get both tokens?
Yes. So be careful everyone.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7054
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9762
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #22 on: June 02, 2016, 05:25:00 pm »
0

What happens if I make you play Bridge Troll and then make your buy Ball while possessing you? Do I get both tokens?

Bridge Troll's penalty is only upon buying a card, no?

No.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7054
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9762
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #23 on: June 02, 2016, 05:26:10 pm »
+1

What happens if I make you play Bridge Troll and then make your buy Ball while possessing you? Do I get both tokens?
Yes. So be careful everyone.

Do those tokens actually stack, though? Seems like they only would if you got +$2 or more at once.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1416
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1017
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #24 on: June 02, 2016, 05:32:08 pm »
+2

Wow, that was a very weird ruling. I see that it only applies to Ball. It would be so much better if Ball said to turn your -$1 token over (which is how we play it) or to put it somewhere, instead of "taking" it.

First I thought it meant not having a -$1 token again, ever, in this game. But I see that it only means losing it right now and then you can get it back later.

So it means that your token can affect me? Your -$1 token will have the same effect on me as my own -$1 token? So I can actually have two -$1 tokens? And the next time I get $, I can choose which one to lose first? Even the idea that another player's token can work for me, is pretty counter-intuitive to the rules for the tokens.

I really wish that Ball would get a fix like Pirate Ship about this, just to avoid a ton of confusion and strangeness.

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7089
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9358
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2016, 05:32:32 pm »
+3

This thread is why Possession is at the top of my list of hated cards.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

Jeebus

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1416
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1017
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #26 on: June 02, 2016, 05:40:05 pm »
+1

Even the idea that another player's token can work for me, is pretty counter-intuitive to the rules for the tokens.

Checking the rulebook...

"Tokens are counter-limited; there is just one of each per player, and players can never have more than that."

And about the -$1 token:
"There is only one token per player; a player who already has the token is not further affected by being instructed to take the token."

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7054
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9762
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #27 on: June 02, 2016, 05:47:16 pm »
0

I really wish that Ball would get a fix like Pirate Ship about this, just to avoid a ton of confusion and strangeness.

I think the token itself would need errata, along with Ball and Bridge Troll. Ball might be, "Turn your -$1 token face up." And then the token would be, "When you get $, get $1 less and turn this face down." Or something.
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7846
  • Respect: +8671
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #28 on: June 02, 2016, 05:51:56 pm »
+5

Wow, that was a very weird ruling. I see that it only applies to Ball. It would be so much better if Ball said to turn your -$1 token over (which is how we play it) or to put it somewhere, instead of "taking" it.

First I thought it meant not having a -$1 token again, ever, in this game. But I see that it only means losing it right now and then you can get it back later.

So it means that your token can affect me? Your -$1 token will have the same effect on me as my own -$1 token? So I can actually have two -$1 tokens? And the next time I get $, I can choose which one to lose first? Even the idea that another player's token can work for me, is pretty counter-intuitive to the rules for the tokens.

I really wish that Ball would get a fix like Pirate Ship about this, just to avoid a ton of confusion and strangeness.

Yeah all this. This is by far the least intuitive ruling I've seen made on a rules question in Dominion. Even when a ruling has been changed, I've generally understood the reasons for both the old and new ruling. But here... The -$1 token belongs to specific players. Each player has 1. They're even color-coded to make this clear. The very notion that you can get another player's token, just due to a technicality in wording, makes little sense. So what if the wording is technically "take"? The wording on Envoy is "draw", but it's been ruled that it doesn't count as "drawing" for the -1 card token. Why should this be different?

Coin tokens, debt tokens, and VP tokens are generic token items that represent a resource that players can collect and keep. These are nothing like the -$1 token or the -1 card token. Those are just reminders that your next card draw or next money-getting will be changed. The fact that the reminders happen to be called "tokens" by the cards that deal them out shouldn't cause weird and confusing interactions with Possession.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7846
  • Respect: +8671
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #29 on: June 02, 2016, 05:54:43 pm »
+2

I really wish that Ball would get a fix like Pirate Ship about this, just to avoid a ton of confusion and strangeness.

I think the token itself would need errata, along with Ball and Bridge Troll. Ball might be, "Turn your -$1 token face up." And then the token would be, "When you get $, get $1 less and turn this face down." Or something.

My ideal errata would be to treat the tokens as what they really are in practice.. reminders. So Ball might be "The next time you get $, get $1 less (Take your $-1 token as a reminder.)" Of course you would need additional clarifications around the fact that the effect can't stack, but that's the basic idea.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Jeebus

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1416
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1017
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #30 on: June 02, 2016, 05:57:28 pm »
0

I really wish that Ball would get a fix like Pirate Ship about this, just to avoid a ton of confusion and strangeness.

I think the token itself would need errata, along with Ball and Bridge Troll. Ball might be, "Turn your -$1 token face up." And then the token would be, "When you get $, get $1 less and turn this face down." Or something.

My ideal errata would be to treat the tokens as what they really are in practice.. reminders. So Ball might be "The next time you get $, get $1 less (Take your $-1 token as a reminder.)" Of course you would need additional clarifications around the fact that the effect can't stack, but that's the basic idea.

Or just specifying that "taking" and "losing" the token is just a shorthand way of saying that it's active or inactive. Same thing as you're saying.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
  • Respect: +21671
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #31 on: June 02, 2016, 06:03:29 pm »
+1

Do those tokens actually stack, though? Seems like they only would if you got +$2 or more at once.
Looking at the easiest-to-look-at copy of the rulebook I have, I am going with, they stack.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
  • Respect: +21671
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #32 on: June 02, 2016, 06:05:47 pm »
+1

Even the idea that another player's token can work for me, is pretty counter-intuitive to the rules for the tokens.

Checking the rulebook...

"Tokens are counter-limited; there is just one of each per player, and players can never have more than that."

And about the -$1 token:
"There is only one token per player; a player who already has the token is not further affected by being instructed to take the token."
That can all be overturned by Possession. I am sure you can find other rulebook passages that were previously overturned by Possession.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7054
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9762
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #33 on: June 02, 2016, 06:09:55 pm »
+1

Do those tokens actually stack, though? Seems like they only would if you got +$2 or more at once.
Looking at the easiest-to-look-at copy of the rulebook I have, I am going with, they stack.

I was just going by the wording on the token itself: "When you get $, get $1 less and lose this." Hmm, you're right, it still stacks, but if you get just +$1, you're left with -$1. Oof.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
  • Respect: +21671
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #34 on: June 02, 2016, 06:13:10 pm »
+1

Yeah all this. This is by far the least intuitive ruling I've seen made on a rules question in Dominion. Even when a ruling has been changed, I've generally understood the reasons for both the old and new ruling. But here... The -$1 token belongs to specific players. Each player has 1. They're even color-coded to make this clear. The very notion that you can get another player's token, just due to a technicality in wording, makes little sense. So what if the wording is technically "take"? The wording on Envoy is "draw", but it's been ruled that it doesn't count as "drawing" for the -1 card token. Why should this be different?

Coin tokens, debt tokens, and VP tokens are generic token items that represent a resource that players can collect and keep. These are nothing like the -$1 token or the -1 card token. Those are just reminders that your next card draw or next money-getting will be changed. The fact that the reminders happen to be called "tokens" by the cards that deal them out shouldn't cause weird and confusing interactions with Possession.
The tokens aren't a reminder though, they are Items of Power. They could have been reminders but no, Ball just says to take the token; the token works the magic.

Envoy has an incorrect wording, that either has errata or will get errata. Ball has a correct wording, that has come nowhere near getting errata prior to today, and today still doesn't seem like it's getting it. It has just the wording it wants. Possession is the card to hate on here, not Ball (addressed at people commenting on Ball).

Possibly Possession could spell out the affected tokens in a list. But I mean. That would be satisfying people who are sad about this obscure interaction. If Possession gets printed with new text, I want that text to be at its best for the almost-all-games situations. Maybe in 5 years there will be a set with shmoo tokens that players get; I don't want Possession having a weird interaction there, where you'd think you'd get them but you don't, because I took pity on people who didn't like having the wrong color -$1 in front of them.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1416
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1017
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #35 on: June 02, 2016, 06:24:17 pm »
0

Do those tokens actually stack, though? Seems like they only would if you got +$2 or more at once.
Looking at the easiest-to-look-at copy of the rulebook I have, I am going with, they stack.

I was just going by the wording on the token itself: "When you get $, get $1 less and lose this." Hmm, you're right, it still stacks, but if you get just +$1, you're left with -$1. Oof.

Yes, all your -$1 tokens (you could have several!) would trigger and all of them would give you $1 less. Is there a general rule that you can't go below $0? All other coin reduction abilities specifically say so. In any case you lose all your -$1 tokens.

If you can't go below $0, then it's better to play Coppers instead of Silvers! The first Copper makes you lose all your $1 tokens with just a -$1 penalty.

Jeebus

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1416
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1017
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #36 on: June 02, 2016, 06:32:59 pm »
0

Envoy has an incorrect wording, that either has errata or will get errata. Ball has a correct wording, that has come nowhere near getting errata prior to today, and today still doesn't seem like it's getting it. It has just the wording it wants. Possession is the card to hate on here, not Ball (addressed at people commenting on Ball).

Well, we can hate on Possession instead of anything else, but Pirate Ship is still getting an errata/ruling about what it means to take the tokens.

With Possession and tokens, it seems like everything has to be ruled on specifically anyway. Even +1 VP is defined in the Prosperity rulebook as a player taking a VP token and putting it on his mat. Going by this, Possessing you will only let me take VP tokens and put them on your mat.

Seprix

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5583
  • Shuffle iT Username: Seprix
  • #NoMorePeasant
  • Respect: +3585
    • View Profile
    • The Overlord Blog
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #37 on: June 02, 2016, 07:16:27 pm »
+1

Here's a much better idea: Banish Possession from Dominion completely, so we don't have to deal with any of this crap. This is the most headache inducing thread on f.ds since, I don't even know. Maybe ever.

Darth Vader

  • Young Witch
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 131
  • You don't know the power of the draw card
  • Respect: +314
    • View Profile
    • Best Site Ever
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #38 on: June 02, 2016, 07:52:10 pm »
0

This is a much better idea than a second Death Star!
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
  • Respect: +21671
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #39 on: June 02, 2016, 07:56:10 pm »
+1

Well, we can hate on Possession instead of anything else, but Pirate Ship is still getting an errata/ruling about what it means to take the tokens.
Pirate Ship needs errata to deal with Guilds.

With Possession and tokens, it seems like everything has to be ruled on specifically anyway. Even +1 VP is defined in the Prosperity rulebook as a player taking a VP token and putting it on his mat. Going by this, Possessing you will only let me take VP tokens and put them on your mat.
There are no VP mats in Empires.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
  • Respect: +21671
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #40 on: June 02, 2016, 07:58:59 pm »
+2

Yes, all your -$1 tokens (you could have several!) would trigger and all of them would give you $1 less. Is there a general rule that you can't go below $0? All other coin reduction abilities specifically say so. In any case you lose all your -$1 tokens.
Bridge etc. specifically say that they don't reduce costs below $0; it's part of their effects, not part of the rules.

Tentatively playing Copper with two tokens will only remove one token. The token specifically does not interact with getting $0. Once one token has been applied you are getting $0.
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7089
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9358
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #41 on: June 02, 2016, 09:24:05 pm »
0

Is there a general rule that you can't go below $0? All other coin reduction abilities specifically say so. In any case you lose all your -$1 tokens.

Though Donald has answered this in a different way, it was my understanding that it's entirely possible to have negative coins.  Play Laboratory, then Poor House, reveal five Coppers, you currently have -1 coins.  Kirian can't read.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2016, 10:02:51 pm by Kirian »
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9148
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #42 on: June 02, 2016, 09:27:59 pm »
+1

Is there a general rule that you can't go below $0? All other coin reduction abilities specifically say so. In any case you lose all your -$1 tokens.

Though Donald has answered this in a different way, it was my understanding that it's entirely possible to have negative coins.  Play Laboratory, then Poor House, reveal five Coppers, you currently have -1 coins.

Poor House specifies "minimum of $0" as well.
Logged

2.71828.....

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1264
  • Shuffle iT Username: irrationalE
  • Respect: +1297
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #43 on: June 02, 2016, 09:35:51 pm »
+2

I was slightly confused when this thread seemed to die after the first answer. I knew there had to be other edge cases and weird situations that people would talk about.


Thank you, f.ds. you didn't let me down
Logged
Man. I had four strips of bacon yesterday. Was one automatically undercooked, one automatically overcooked? No, let's put a stop to that right here, all four strips were excellent.

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7089
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9358
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #44 on: June 02, 2016, 10:02:34 pm »
0

Is there a general rule that you can't go below $0? All other coin reduction abilities specifically say so. In any case you lose all your -$1 tokens.

Though Donald has answered this in a different way, it was my understanding that it's entirely possible to have negative coins.  Play Laboratory, then Poor House, reveal five Coppers, you currently have -1 coins.

Poor House specifies "minimum of $0" as well.

Dammit.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7846
  • Respect: +8671
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #45 on: June 02, 2016, 10:38:32 pm »
+12

Possession - Action -
The player to your left takes an extra
turn after this one, in which you can see
all cards he can and make all decisions
for him.
Any cards he would gain on that turn,
you gain instead; any cards of his that
are trashed are set aside and returned to
his discard pile at end of turn.
Any tokens he would gain on that turn,
you gain instead. Except Pirate Ship tokens.
And not -1 card tokens, because those
aren't "taken", they just go on his deck.
But - tokens, yes.


In games using this, other cards and
effects may be confusing.


Setup: Remove Ball, Relic, Outpost,
King's Court, Mission, Borrow,
Bridge Troll, Raid,
and Pirate Ship from the Kingdom.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2016, 10:40:19 pm by GendoIkari »
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

Jeebus

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1416
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1017
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #46 on: June 02, 2016, 11:10:19 pm »
0

Well, we can hate on Possession instead of anything else, but Pirate Ship is still getting an errata/ruling about what it means to take the tokens.
Pirate Ship needs errata to deal with Guilds.

Right, I see. Now Pirate Ship says to take tokens and put them on your Pirate Ship mat, so you can't get them with Possession (for the same reason you can't get VP tokens following the Prosperity rulebook).

With Possession and tokens, it seems like everything has to be ruled on specifically anyway. Even +1 VP is defined in the Prosperity rulebook as a player taking a VP token and putting it on his mat. Going by this, Possessing you will only let me take VP tokens and put them on your mat.
There are no VP mats in Empires.

But that means you are changing how "+1 VP" is described in the Prosperity rulebook. I mean, someone could have Alchemy and Prosperity, but not Empires, and play with someone who has Empires (or in a tournament where the errata are known), and if they play with Monument and Possession that person needs to be told both about the Possession errata and about the change of how "+1 VP" works (i.e. not put on your mat).

Yes, all your -$1 tokens (you could have several!) would trigger and all of them would give you $1 less. Is there a general rule that you can't go below $0? All other coin reduction abilities specifically say so. In any case you lose all your -$1 tokens.
Bridge etc. specifically say that they don't reduce costs below $0; it's part of their effects, not part of the rules.

Tentatively playing Copper with two tokens will only remove one token. The token specifically does not interact with getting $0. Once one token has been applied you are getting $0.

I don't understand how getting +$1 don't just trigger both tokens? "When you get $" happens for both tokens, and then you resolve them in an order you choose. That's how abilities normally work.

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8153
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Let me tell you a secret...
  • Respect: +9512
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #47 on: June 02, 2016, 11:19:38 pm »
0

Me reading this thread:

Logged
Contrary to popular belief, I do not run the wiki all on my own.  There are plenty of other people who are actively editing.  Go bother them!

Check out this fantasy epic adventure novel I wrote, the Broken Globe!  http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Globe-Tyr-Chronicles-Book-ebook/dp/B00LR1SZAS/

Jeebus

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1416
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1017
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #48 on: June 02, 2016, 11:45:45 pm »
+3

I'm thinking that the best way to handle debt with Possession, would be to just define debt that way: When you buy a debt-cost card while Possessed, the Possessor gets the debt. No Possession errata for other tokens. Debt already changes how either buying or overpaying works (we're not sure which yet), why not have it have a special rule for Possession too? Too late now, I guess.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
  • Respect: +21671
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #49 on: June 03, 2016, 01:45:16 am »
+2

But that means you are changing how "+1 VP" is described in the Prosperity rulebook. I mean, someone could have Alchemy and Prosperity, but not Empires, and play with someone who has Empires (or in a tournament where the errata are known), and if they play with Monument and Possession that person needs to be told both about the Possession errata and about the change of how "+1 VP" works (i.e. not put on your mat).
That would not actually play out that way. No-one needs to be told "it doesn't go to your mat, you are just putting it there as a handy place to store VP tokens" because no-one is staring at the rulebook trying to find problems. The one person says "oh hey Possession has errata, you get tokens now" and the other person says "oh including VP tokens" and the first person says "yes."

In any case that conversation was unavoidable and has zilch to do with this -$1 token business. It would be the exact same conversation without Adventures.

It is bad to have errata. You bought Alchemy, the errata isn't on the card. I know this already. This errata let me do debt; I decided it was worth it.

I don't understand how getting +$1 don't just trigger both tokens? "When you get $" happens for both tokens, and then you resolve them in an order you choose. That's how abilities normally work.
The token is a token; it didn't have space for precise rules text and doesn't have it. It doesn't say "would" but that's how it works; it's not "you get $ and then lose $1," it's "when you would get $, you get less." They apply one at a time and the second one can't apply because you are no longer getting $.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1416
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1017
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #50 on: June 03, 2016, 10:14:12 am »
+5

But that means you are changing how "+1 VP" is described in the Prosperity rulebook. I mean, someone could have Alchemy and Prosperity, but not Empires, and play with someone who has Empires (or in a tournament where the errata are known), and if they play with Monument and Possession that person needs to be told both about the Possession errata and about the change of how "+1 VP" works (i.e. not put on your mat).
That would not actually play out that way. No-one needs to be told "it doesn't go to your mat, you are just putting it there as a handy place to store VP tokens" because no-one is staring at the rulebook trying to find problems. The one person says "oh hey Possession has errata, you get tokens now" and the other person says "oh including VP tokens" and the first person says "yes."

Right, and then if they play with Pirate Ship, "no", and if they play with tokens from Adventures, "mostly no, but yes on this one".

I don't understand how getting +$1 don't just trigger both tokens? "When you get $" happens for both tokens, and then you resolve them in an order you choose. That's how abilities normally work.
The token is a token; it didn't have space for precise rules text and doesn't have it. It doesn't say "would" but that's how it works; it's not "you get $ and then lose $1," it's "when you would get $, you get less." They apply one at a time and the second one can't apply because you are no longer getting $.

It's very understandable that it doesn't say "would", because it would be pointless (and maybe confusing) except for this one interaction that you never thought about.

The reason you're ruling that you get the other player's -$1 token, is not that it's intuitive or that most people would think so. Surely the exact opposite is true. It's because that's what the abilities happen to technically say. So you're ruling on a technicality which is against how most people would think it works, and it's not even mentioned in a rulebook.

So I guess we're not really talking about what casual players would do, because they would either just figure that the Adventures rulebook is correct and you could never take your opponent's token, or look it up online and maybe find this ruling.

We're talking about the rules and rulings that people who care about them could find online (hopefully collected somewhere, like the wiki here or my rules document). And they should hopefully make sense and be consistent, and not just for instance be a list of tokens that work or don't work with Possession with no explanation why. It's in that context that Pirate Ship works logically so that you don't get tokens from Possession, and you don't get your opponent's +1 Card token. And it's in that context I'm saying that based on what things literally say, you are changing "+1 VP" from Prosperity, and "when you get $" on the -$1 token.

I guess I just don't understand why some things can be fixed, but not others. It seems a bit arbitrary.

Possession says you get the tokens the other player would get. Adventures says you never get your opponents' tokens; nowhere does it say that about any other tokens (obviously because there are no other tokens specifically for each player.) Unless Possession specifically said that you get your opponent's Adventures tokens, I would never think that it overrode the rules for the tokens, given no other information.

Sorry for being a pain in the ass, as is often the case, but I care about the game and the rules, and this just seems to make everything more fuzzy and introduces several more special scenarios that need rulings/explanations (having two or more tokens, losing your opponent's token etc) just for sticking to the literal reading of this one thing when it seems equally legitimate to say the token rules override Possession, which would also jibe with the intuitive understanding.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
  • Respect: +21671
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #51 on: June 03, 2016, 07:50:11 pm »
+2

Right, and then if they play with Pirate Ship, "no", and if they play with tokens from Adventures, "mostly no, but yes on this one".
They have an easy conversation any which way.

It's very understandable that it doesn't say "would", because it would be pointless (and maybe confusing) except for this one interaction that you never thought about.
It wouldn't be pointless to have precise text; it would be great, because Dominion is a game of interacting rules, and when you aren't precise you get confusing interactions. There wasn't space though. That "would" thing has only been established to be relevant so far for the case where you get two -$1 tokens, which will be Rare.

The reason you're ruling that you get the other player's -$1 token, is not that it's intuitive or that most people would think so. Surely the exact opposite is true. It's because that's what the abilities happen to technically say. So you're ruling on a technicality which is against how most people would think it works, and it's not even mentioned in a rulebook.
To me it is 100% intuitive that I get the -$1 token. It's a token a player gets. Possession, if printed with errata, says you get those. The unintuitive part is that printed Possessions don't mention tokens.

The technicality is that technically it's a token you get. I am just going to continue to fail to see why I shouldn't get it via new Possession.

We're talking about the rules and rulings that people who care about them could find online (hopefully collected somewhere, like the wiki here or my rules document).
When you-all ask these questions that have not come up in games, for sure we are just talking about things that people who like to poke at the rules like to talk about. When it gets to be too much I slow down the rate at which I look at the threads, but in general I am there for you to have this fun.

In actual games, as always, feel free to play whatever variants you want. In a game with Possession and tokens, players will probably tend to not know the errata, and not play with it, and that doesn't hurt me. In some games they will know the errata and that's okay too. The key thing to avoid was Possession plus debt and it's at least in the Empires rulebook, trying to stop you from having that bad experience. But other rulings will try to line up with the rulebooks; they must.

And they should hopefully make sense and be consistent, and not just for instance be a list of tokens that work or don't work with Possession with no explanation why. It's in that context that Pirate Ship works logically so that you don't get tokens from Possession, and you don't get your opponent's +1 Card token. And it's in that context I'm saying that based on what things literally say, you are changing "+1 VP" from Prosperity, and "when you get $" on the -$1 token.
In a desperate attempt to be consistent and make sense, I have made the rulings I have.

I guess I just don't understand why some things can be fixed, but not others. It seems a bit arbitrary.
It's bad to have errata. Possession and Pirate Ship have to have it.

Possession says you get the tokens the other player would get. Adventures says you never get your opponents' tokens; nowhere does it say that about any other tokens (obviously because there are no other tokens specifically for each player.)
All rule statements are eventually false when taking into account all cards. This will just never impress me. Adventures says they can't get them but Possession says they get to. Adventures doesn't take into account the errata because it didn't exist; no surprise there.

Sorry for being a pain in the ass, as is often the case, but I care about the game and the rules, and this just seems to make everything more fuzzy and introduces several more special scenarios that need rulings/explanations (having two or more tokens, losing your opponent's token etc) just for sticking to the literal reading of this one thing when it seems equally legitimate to say the token rules override Possession, which would also jibe with the intuitive understanding.
I continue to struggle to have the best possible rulings. I have been convinced to overturn rulings on occasion in the past but you have not managed to convince me here. New Possession means you get the tokens they would have; the -$1 token is a token they would have gotten; so you get it.
Logged

nana-king

  • Swindler
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
  • Respect: +51
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #52 on: June 03, 2016, 10:07:22 pm »
0

Tentatively ruling that the possessing player does in fact take the -$1 or -1 Card token. The wording on e.g. Ball is the same as e.g. Candlestick Maker.

Possession doesn't interact with the +1 Action token etc., because they aren't taken, they are put somewhere. This would be the same for Pirate Ship with a better wording.

This topic is what started the biggest Dominion related fight of my marriage.  Thank you for clearing this up and ruling my way.  I feel vindicated to the point that I might play a game with Possession again. 
Logged

Seprix

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5583
  • Shuffle iT Username: Seprix
  • #NoMorePeasant
  • Respect: +3585
    • View Profile
    • The Overlord Blog
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #53 on: June 03, 2016, 10:10:23 pm »
+3

Tentatively ruling that the possessing player does in fact take the -$1 or -1 Card token. The wording on e.g. Ball is the same as e.g. Candlestick Maker.

Possession doesn't interact with the +1 Action token etc., because they aren't taken, they are put somewhere. This would be the same for Pirate Ship with a better wording.

This topic is what started the biggest Dominion related fight of my marriage.  Thank you for clearing this up and ruling my way.  I feel vindicated to the point that I might play a game with Possession again.

Don't. It's better that way.

Jeebus

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1416
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1017
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #54 on: June 04, 2016, 09:52:45 am »
0

It's very understandable that it doesn't say "would", because it would be pointless (and maybe confusing) except for this one interaction that you never thought about.
It wouldn't be pointless to have precise text; it would be great, because Dominion is a game of interacting rules, and when you aren't precise you get confusing interactions. There wasn't space though. That "would" thing has only been established to be relevant so far for the case where you get two -$1 tokens, which will be Rare.

I would think it deserves an official errata then. So the text would be the following? "When you would get $, instead get $1 less and lose this."

The reason you're ruling that you get the other player's -$1 token, is not that it's intuitive or that most people would think so. Surely the exact opposite is true. It's because that's what the abilities happen to technically say. So you're ruling on a technicality which is against how most people would think it works, and it's not even mentioned in a rulebook.
To me it is 100% intuitive that I get the -$1 token. It's a token a player gets. Possession, if printed with errata, says you get those. The unintuitive part is that printed Possessions don't mention tokens.

The technicality is that technically it's a token you get. I am just going to continue to fail to see why I shouldn't get it via new Possession.

Right, following what Ball literally says, you should. I'm just saying following literally what the -$1 token says, and the rules for "+1 VP" from Prosperity, they work differently from how you are ruling on those. So one gets a "literal" interpretation, the others get errata/updates.

We're talking about the rules and rulings that people who care about them could find online (hopefully collected somewhere, like the wiki here or my rules document).
When you-all ask these questions that have not come up in games, for sure we are just talking about things that people who like to poke at the rules like to talk about. When it gets to be too much I slow down the rate at which I look at the threads, but in general I am there for you to have this fun.

I don't view it that way. If this doesn't even matter, why even have an errata for Envoy? It's just a two-ability interaction, same as with Possession and the -$1 token. Seems it would "come up in games" just as often.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
  • Respect: +21671
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #55 on: June 04, 2016, 04:19:23 pm »
+2

I would think it deserves an official errata then. So the text would be the following? "When you would get $, instead get $1 less and lose this."
It's something I will have to consider Later.

Right, following what Ball literally says, you should. I'm just saying following literally what the -$1 token says, and the rules for "+1 VP" from Prosperity, they work differently from how you are ruling on those. So one gets a "literal" interpretation, the others get errata/updates.
I am sorry you are not more pleased with the Prosperity rulebook. The Empires rulebook, the only one that mentions the Possession errata, just says to take VP tokens, and includes no mats.

I don't view it that way. If this doesn't even matter, why even have an errata for Envoy? It's just a two-ability interaction, same as with Possession and the -$1 token. Seems it would "come up in games" just as often.
Envoy has incorrect text. It was always incorrect; the -1 Card token made it matter. Ball has correct text.
Logged

Jeebus

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1416
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1017
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #56 on: June 05, 2016, 12:05:24 am »
0

I am sorry you are not more pleased with the Prosperity rulebook.

Obviously not what I meant, but thanks for the snide remark.

I don't view it that way. If this doesn't even matter, why even have an errata for Envoy? It's just a two-ability interaction, same as with Possession and the -$1 token. Seems it would "come up in games" just as often.
Envoy has incorrect text. It was always incorrect; the -1 Card token made it matter. Ball has correct text.

Fine. My point was that this ruling matters. You know, since you said it doesn't matter for game play, and it's just people in the forum having fun and annoying you. It matters for game play just as much as Envoy, and that made it into a printed rulebook.

If you're not interested in people questioning your ruling, just say that. I don't see the need for the sarcasm and belittling of people who care that the rules make sense to them.

Seprix

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5583
  • Shuffle iT Username: Seprix
  • #NoMorePeasant
  • Respect: +3585
    • View Profile
    • The Overlord Blog
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #57 on: June 05, 2016, 12:40:34 am »
+2

Dominion rules belong in RSP.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
  • Respect: +21671
    • View Profile
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #58 on: June 05, 2016, 12:55:06 am »
0

I am sorry you are not more pleased with the Prosperity rulebook.

Obviously not what I meant, but thanks for the snide remark.
My words are there for whatever emotion you care to put on them.

Fine. My point was that this ruling matters. You know, since you said it doesn't matter for game play, and it's just people in the forum having fun and annoying you. It matters for game play just as much as Envoy, and that made it into a printed rulebook.
I specifically said I didn't mind people poking at the rules; just that I only have so much time to interact with that. You have not had these issues come up in a game, correct? I mean I'm pretty sure you haven't.

I do not dodge making rulings. In some cases I make tentative rulings because it will require Time to know I haven't blown it, and of course just making the tentative ruling may prompt someone to speak up with how I've blown it.

If you're not interested in people questioning your ruling, just say that. I don't see the need for the sarcasm and belittling of people who care that the rules make sense to them.
If you need to feel like I'm not interested in you questioning my rulings, I don't mind. I can't beg you to question them, that's for sure.

Obv. it's bad if we are that point that you are saying "I don't see the need for sarcasm and belittling" so so much for this thread.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]
 

Page created in 0.178 seconds with 20 queries.