Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Possession rule  (Read 13309 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7092
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9371
    • 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: 1446
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1034
    • 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: 7075
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9799
    • 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: 8033
  • Respect: +8817
    • 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: 8033
  • Respect: +8817
    • 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: 1446
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1034
    • 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: 5398
  • Respect: +21945
    • 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: 5398
  • Respect: +21945
    • 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: 7075
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9799
    • 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: 5398
  • Respect: +21945
    • 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: 1446
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1034
    • 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: 1446
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1034
    • 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: 5590
  • Respect: +3605
    • View Profile
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.
Logged
3/4ths retired

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: 5398
  • Respect: +21945
    • 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: 5398
  • Respect: +21945
    • 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: 7092
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9371
    • 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: +9156
    • 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: 1272
  • Shuffle iT Username: irrationalE
  • Respect: +1306
    • 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: 7092
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9371
    • 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: 8033
  • Respect: +8817
    • 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: 1446
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1034
    • 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: 8164
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Let me tell you a secret...
  • Respect: +9539
    • 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: 1446
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +1034
    • 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: 5398
  • Respect: +21945
    • 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
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All
 

Page created in 0.172 seconds with 20 queries.