Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Possession rule  (Read 10015 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jeebus

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1183
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +886
    • 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: 5003
  • Respect: +20632
    • 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: 5510
  • Shuffle iT Username: Seprix
  • luck is a glitch
  • Respect: +3420
    • View Profile
    • The Border Village
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.
Logged
WOWIE I GUESS I HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING AROUND HERE
Join Dominion Discord

Jeebus

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1183
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +886
    • 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: 5003
  • Respect: +20632
    • 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: 1183
  • Shuffle iT Username: jeebus
  • Respect: +886
    • 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: 5510
  • Shuffle iT Username: Seprix
  • luck is a glitch
  • Respect: +3420
    • View Profile
    • The Border Village
Re: Possession rule
« Reply #57 on: June 05, 2016, 12:40:34 am »
+2

Dominion rules belong in RSP.
Logged
WOWIE I GUESS I HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING AROUND HERE
Join Dominion Discord

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5003
  • Respect: +20632
    • 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 0.097 seconds with 21 queries.