Print

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

[funkdoc]

so i love the 2nd edition sets, the masquerade errata, and most of empires.  these recent changes have been wonderful for the game!  but there is one recent change i have come to despise...

possession has always been the least fun card in all of dominion when it's good (who *doesn't* love trashing their deck down to nothing and reaching a stalemate?), but now it's good way more often.  in fact, i would rank it only behind scrying pool among the potion cards now, and i'm not even sure about that.  remember when it always used to be below university & golem?

the main problem is that the recent errata have killed most of the viable counters to it.  now you only have a few strategies that hinge on specific cards, like beggar-gardens.  i get why they had to change the rules for debt, but changing VP tokens was a hugely unnecessary buff.  goons or bishop engines used to make possession skippable, but now they can work together to make games extra miserable!

with the general engine buffs in empires (hellooooooooo, city quarter!), possession was going to become stronger anyway.  the rule change combined with this has made it the only card i've seen level 60+ players want to ban in random matching.  i may follow suit soon!

donald, i've got mad love for ya, but i really am not understanding this right now.  it's the biggest damper on a game that otherwise keeps getting better and better.

[McGarnacle]

I agree. I think it was a strange change.

[Seprix]

#banPossession

I even did the code initcap where the first word isn't capitalized, so you can't get angry at me for using a hashtag.

[ThetaSigma12]

Possession has always sucked FYI.

[pacovf]

Making it so that you get all tokens that the possessed player would get is much more straightforward than to say you only get Debt tokens and nothing else, and more resilient to future cards or mechanics that introduce tokens.

I think you just dislike Possession, not the errata per se. That's fine.

[Limetime]

I wish you could like ban 5 cards from rated games.

[Chris is me]

I agree Possession is just an unfun card to play with and is too often unbalanced.

I think Bishop, Goons, Monument, and Baker being counters to it, and now not being counters to it, really didn't change anything.

[LastFootnote]

I think Possession would be fine if it were only once per turn. But that's more words on the wordiest card in the game.

[LastFootnote]

I think Possession would be fine if it were only once per turn. But that's more words on the wordiest card in the game.

Man, I just came up with a nice word-saving, time-machine fix for Possession.

"The player to your left takes an extra turn after this one, in which you can see all cards they can and make all decisions for them. They can't trash cards on that turn, and any cards or tokens they would gain, you gain instead."

…with the understanding that "can't" always trumps "do". That should leave room for a "If this is the first time you played Possession this turn" clause.

"If this is the first time you played Possession this turn, the player to your left takes an extra turn after this one, in which you can see all cards they can and make all decisions for them. They can't trash cards on that turn, and any cards or tokens they would gain, you gain instead."

Yep, still shorter than the original (errata-ed) version.

[liopoil]

I think the biggest problem is the mechanic itself... Dominion is full of edge-cases, but there's no reason that there has to be an edge case to the rule "You play your own turns". Imagine all the other cool cost cards that could have existed instead.

[LastFootnote]

I think the biggest problem is the mechanic itself... Dominion is full of edge-cases, but there's no reason that there has to be an edge case to the rule "You play your own turns". Imagine all the other cool cost cards that could have existed instead.

That's a weird way to think of it. I mean, I don't think Possession was created in order to have a super-expensive Potion-cost card. I bet the mechanic came first, and $6P was just what it ended up costing.

Which is not to say we couldn't have fun imagining some other crazy expensive Potion-cost cards. It just struck me as an odd question.

[GendoIkari]

I also am not a fan of the change; but does it really affect things very often? There's only a handful of cards that give VP tokens (more with Empires, of course, but still not a lot). I would think that it's a pretty small minority of Possession games where the errata changes things (especially compared to a version that only affects debt).

But also, was the ruling on - tokens ever finalized? Donald was going for saying that yes, if you would take your - token while possessed, the possessor gets it instead. But this has weird interactions with the - rules themselves (what was the ruling if you play a single Copper while you have multiple tokens, do you discard both or just 1?).

[Qvist]

The problem with the rules change to "fix" debt with Possession, I recently found out that it doesn't actually fix it. I recently had 2 games with Possession and debt cards that were terribly broken. The first person that gets a multiple Possession turn and is able to get it regularly it just going to win as he can just buy the debt card on every Possession turn giving himself tons of debt tokens. When the opponent possesses him, he then has the awkward decision to pay back the first player's debt which he probably won't do unless he's confident that it works out. But it makes his Possession basically useless. Additionally the opponent doesn't get any debt as well which enables the first player to just possess him again multiple times being able to buy lots of cards and possibly getting even more debt.

[Beyond Awesome]

My favorite is Donate Possession games.   

[Watno]

I think Bishop, Goons, Monument, and Baker being counters to it, and now not being counters to it, really didn't change anything.

Baker is still good against Possession. it gives economy only the real owner of a deck can use.

[Donald X.]

Making it so that you get all tokens that the possessed player would get is much more straightforward than to say you only get Debt tokens and nothing else, and more resilient to future cards or mechanics that introduce tokens.

Right, that is the idea. Debt tokens did not work with Possession, you could lock someone out of the game. I decided Debt was worth doing anyway. To fix the problem Possession got errata to also steal tokens. One day the errata will be on new copies of the printed card, and it would be super weird to call out Debt tokens specifically, since Possession isn't in Empires.

[Donald X.]

I wish you could like ban 5 cards from rated games.

I agree, this continues to sound good to me. Players shouldn't have to play with cards they hate, even for the privilege of playing rated games. The only reason to not let you ban cards is to avoid gaming the system, and 5 cards doesn't give you much room to game the system, while going a long way towards letting you ban the cards you hate.

[Donald X.]

Man, I just came up with a nice word-saving, time-machine fix for Possession.

My time-machine fix is a bigger Smugglers. Like how Fortune is a much simpler Outpost. Instead of processing another turn with their deck, let's look at the results for a turn that just happened.

Possession: Action, $6 [P]
For each card the player to your right gained in their last turn, gain a card costing as much or less.

[Donald X.]

That's a weird way to think of it. I mean, I don't think Possession was created in order to have a super-expensive Potion-cost card. I bet the mechanic came first, and $6P was just what it ended up costing.

That's true of course. Possession was just a card idea that got an expensive cost because it needed it.

During work on Alchemy-to-be-published it became a thing, that it seemed good to have one especially expensive card, as a way for the Potion-costing cards to not all be non-terminal (while keeping Potion worth getting even with just one Potion-coster on the table). And I had one.

[Haddock]

Man, I just came up with a nice word-saving, time-machine fix for Possession.

My time-machine fix is a bigger Smugglers. Like how Fortune is a much simpler Outpost. Instead of processing another turn with their deck, let's look at the results for a turn that just happened.

Possession: Action, $6 [P]
For each card the player to your right gained in their last turn, gain a card costing as much or less.

This would probably be moderately challenging to track IRL, but hell.  Gotta be easier than playing Possession IRL!

[Donald X.]

But also, was the ruling on - tokens ever finalized? Donald was going for saying that yes, if you would take your - token while possessed, the possessor gets it instead. But this has weird interactions with the - rules themselves (what was the ruling if you play a single Copper while you have multiple tokens, do you discard both or just 1?).

Oh man, this thread seemed so innocent.

Okay I have re-read the previous conversation. Mostly the questions are answered, to someone's satisfaction or not but answered nevertheless, with no loose ends. The one thing you could point at is Jeebus saying I should errata the token, to "When you would get $, instead get $1 less and lose this." I say I will have to consider that Later and well I have not gotten to it. That is how it works but there is no errata, just a ruling (so to answer your question, it's the same as in that thread, you just lose one token).

[ThetaSigma12]

My favorite is Donate Possession games.   

I'm assuming because people buy Donate after possessing you but before reading the text on Donate and Possession really well.

[werothegreat]

Man, I just came up with a nice word-saving, time-machine fix for Possession.

My time-machine fix is a bigger Smugglers. Like how Fortune is a much simpler Outpost. Instead of processing another turn with their deck, let's look at the results for a turn that just happened.

Possession: Action, $6 [P]
For each card the player to your right gained in their last turn, gain a card costing as much or less.

This sounds like an online only card if I ever saw one

[Jack Rudd]

"The player to your left takes an extra turn after this one, in which you can see all cards they can and make all decisions for them. They can't trash cards on that turn, and any cards or tokens they would gain, you gain instead."

…with the understanding that "can't" always trumps "do". That should leave room for a "If this is the first time you played Possession this turn" clause.

Needs some clarification as to what cards like Lookout do when they get played in that situation, but could work.

[Chris is me]

Man, I just came up with a nice word-saving, time-machine fix for Possession.

My time-machine fix is a bigger Smugglers. Like how Fortune is a much simpler Outpost. Instead of processing another turn with their deck, let's look at the results for a turn that just happened.

Possession: Action, $6 [P]
For each card the player to your right gained in their last turn, gain a card costing as much or less.

I legitimately might make a proxy card version of this and replace all of my Possessions IRL with this. It's a really cool concept and I'm already never playing with Possession IRL anyway. I'm sure there are rules quirks I'm forgetting, but regardless.

[trivialknot]

Man, I just came up with a nice word-saving, time-machine fix for Possession.

My time-machine fix is a bigger Smugglers. Like how Fortune is a much simpler Outpost. Instead of processing another turn with their deck, let's look at the results for a turn that just happened.

Possession: Action, $6 [P]
For each card the player to your right gained in their last turn, gain a card costing as much or less.

I legitimately might make a proxy card version of this and replace all of my Possessions IRL with this. It's a really cool concept and I'm already never playing with Possession IRL anyway. I'm sure there are rules quirks I'm forgetting, but regardless.

The main rules quirk is if multiple players play possessions in consecutive turns.  At least it would all be over soon.

As far as offline play goes, banning possession is a perfectly adequate solution.

[AJD]

Outpost:Possession :: Workshop:Smugglers

[gloures]

Just a thought that crossed my mind while reading this... What would you guys think about a duration version of Possession? In my (very crude) version it would be something like:

Possession -  Action/Duration - 6P

While this is in play, every time your opponent gains a card, gain a card with the same cost or lower. The effect of multiple Possessions do not stack.

It has the unfortunate effect off mixing mechanics from different expansions, and the wording definetely would need a lot of tweaking (it should specify an specific opponent in multiplaye for a start), but I think I managed to pass the idea. I think this might solve quite a few of the common issues with Possession, while somewhat keeping more in line with (my) current idea of the card...

[funkdoc]

glad to see Donald support the idea of a small personal banlist!  that's actually a sweet idea, though maybe it could cause league drama if people have weird ban choices? doubt that would be too big of a problem though.

also, at the time of the OP i had forgotten about some of the new counters like groundskeeper and wild hunt, so i will gladly admit that the errata aren't as big a factor as i thought. probably just all the engine improvements in the recent sets plus the players getting better at building those engines, then. after all, possession should get better as decks get better...

[Chris is me]

A modification of gloures' idea, to fix some things. The card needs to do something on your next turn to stay in play between turns. So I preserved a really silly thing from the old Possession just to give it something to do.

At the start of your next turn, look at the hand of the player to your right.

---

While this is in play, when the player to your right gains a card during their turn, gain a card costing as much or less.

I don't think you need to prevent multiple Possessions from stacking - you just need to stop them from reacting off of each other. This does that by specifying a turn.

[pacovf]

I do think you want it to trigger on gains from last turn, not next, otherwise the next player has a pretty unfun choice to make.

[aku_chi]

I do think you want it to trigger on gains from last turn, not next, otherwise the next player has a pretty unfun choice to make.

I don't think making Possession 2.0 act on the previous turn's gains changes the incentives for the players, it just moves the dilemma up one turn and makes it a little speculative.

I think the duration effect idea is pretty elegant.  I think it's good that it has some element of player interaction.

[4est]

I like Chris's addition of "during their turn"--with gloures' original wording, any time you play a junker with Possession 2.0 in play, you'd also have to take junk.  The duration idea is great though. 

Along those lines, would adding "you may" make this card too strong?  By forcing the Possessor to gain a card for each card their opponent gains, you could have interesting situations where the opponent can "counter" Possession by playing something like Beggar or buying a bunch of Coppers with Goons or Merchant Guilds in play, and then the Possessor also has to take a bunch of Coppers.  I think it might make for some pretty funny interactions, but I also wonder if the "you may" language might be fairer for the Possessor. 

[pacatak]

I enjoy a good possession every now and then, i love a possession inside a possession.  that's really all i can add.  but i figured someone who liked the card could chime in.

[Holger]

I think Possession would be fine if it were only once per turn. But that's more words on the wordiest card in the game.

Man, I just came up with a nice word-saving, time-machine fix for Possession.

"The player to your left takes an extra turn after this one, in which you can see all cards they can and make all decisions for them. They can't trash cards on that turn, and any cards or tokens they would gain, you gain instead."

…with the understanding that "can't" always trumps "do". That should leave room for a "If this is the first time you played Possession this turn" clause.

"If this is the first time you played Possession this turn, the player to your left takes an extra turn after this one, in which you can see all cards they can and make all decisions for them. They can't trash cards on that turn, and any cards or tokens they would gain, you gain instead."

Yep, still shorter than the original (errata-ed) version.

I think I still prefer this fix. The no-trashing clause removes the Forge pin and the synergy with TfB (though the victim can still lose cards due to Amb. or Masq., unfortunately). And the once-per turn clause prevents stalemates: It's usually no longer sensible to mess up your deck, since you'll play with it at least as much as the opponent (barring the rare Possession-Outpost or -Mission combination).
Stalemates are a problem both with the existing version and with the "super-Smugglers" versions suggested: With two "super-Smugglers" in play each turn, the opponent won't want to gain any good card since the "Smuggler" will get two copies of it, unless they can almost empty the pile.

[Awaclus]

Along those lines, would adding "you may" make this card too strong?

No, it would still be entirely unplayable unless it cost like $4 (without the Potion).

[Chris is me]

Along those lines, would adding "you may" make this card too strong?

No, it would still be entirely unplayable unless it cost like $4 (without the Potion).

do you just say things that at least appear wrong on the surface without even beginning to back up your argument in the slightest just because you're entertained when people react? or do you take some perverse pleasure in your inevitable "ha ha! you didn't read my mind! I had a really specific reason you didn't guess, and now you look ignorant! I'm such a winner."

[Awaclus]

Along those lines, would adding "you may" make this card too strong?

No, it would still be entirely unplayable unless it cost like $4 (without the Potion).

do you just say things that at least appear wrong on the surface without even beginning to back up your argument in the slightest just because you're entertained when people react? or do you take some perverse pleasure in your inevitable "ha ha! you didn't read my mind! I had a really specific reason you didn't guess, and now you look ignorant! I'm such a winner."

No, I say things that are true statements. Duplicate isn't an amazing card and the Duration Possession is hardly (and very much not strictly) an improvement over it even without the "you may".

[LastFootnote]

Man, I just came up with a nice word-saving, time-machine fix for Possession.

My time-machine fix is a bigger Smugglers. Like how Fortune is a much simpler Outpost. Instead of processing another turn with their deck, let's look at the results for a turn that just happened.

Possession: Action, $6 [P]
For each card the player to your right gained in their last turn, gain a card costing as much or less.

Hmm, well as Holger pointed out, that doesn't fix Possession's stalemate problem at all. I like it in general, but it still needs "If this is the first time you played a Possession this turn" clause. Historically, your advice for countering Possession has been, "don't build a deck that can buy multiple Provinces in a turn", but that implicitly assumes your opponent only plays one Possession per turn. In reality, you want to play multiple Possessions in a turn. And usually the only reasonable counter to a multi-Possession deck is to make your deck awful; Victory cards help you, but not your opponent.

My fix preserves the joy of taking somebody else's turn, but some people probably hate that extra-turn aspect. I guess the question is: how much Possession hate comes from different aspects of Possession. There's…

1. I hate that the extra turns make the game drag.
2. I hate that somebody else gets to benefit from my deck.
3a. I hate that the only sensible counter is to make my deck awful.
3b. I hate the stalemates that happen when we're both playing multi-Possession decks, so we both make our decks awful.
4. I hate that some cards become dangerous traps in a Possession game (TfB, Cartographer, etc.).

#2 is baked into the concept of the card, and so much for that. Your fix removes #1 and #4, but leaves #3 intact. And it adds a significant tracking component. My version fixes #3 and some of #4 (TfB is now a counter rather than a trap), but leaves some of #1 intact (but not all since multiple Possessions don't stack).

Anyway it's a tough call. Personally, I think the joy of taking a turn using another player's deck is worth preserving, but your mileage may vary.

I do think you want it to trigger on gains from last turn, not next, otherwise the next player has a pretty unfun choice to make.

I don't think making Possession 2.0 act on the previous turn's gains changes the incentives for the players, it just moves the dilemma up one turn and makes it a little speculative.

I think the duration effect idea is pretty elegant.  I think it's good that it has some element of player interaction.

I think you're implicitly assuming expert players here. I will bet that casual players would not like having Duration Possession hanging over their head, making them not want to buy good stuff. You can already see some of that with Swamp Hag. I do like that it removes the tracking component of Donald's version, but I don't think that makes up for the bad feelings.

EDIT: In other words, I agree with pacovf.

[markusin]

Of that numbered list, I only really have a problem with #1 and #3.b, but I find them related since they are both part of the multi-turn possession ability. All the others at least turn the game on it's head in a way I personally find interesting at times.

I do think you want it to trigger on gains from last turn, not next, otherwise the next player has a pretty unfun choice to make.

I don't think making Possession 2.0 act on the previous turn's gains changes the incentives for the players, it just moves the dilemma up one turn and makes it a little speculative.

I think the duration effect idea is pretty elegant.  I think it's good that it has some element of player interaction.

I think you're implicitly assuming expert players here. I will bet that casual players would not like having Duration Possession hanging over their head, making them not want to buy good stuff. You can already see some of that with Swamp Hag. I do like that it removes the tracking component of Donald's version, but I don't think that makes up for the bad feelings.

EDIT: In other words, I agree with pacovf.

I also like the last-turn version because it leaves all the possessor's decision making to one continuous chunk of time, rather than having to pause while the possessor thinks about what they want to gain every time the possessed player gains something.

[Chris is me]

Duration Possession or Smugglers Possession doesn't really have the same stalemate effect at all, because of one subtle difference.

In a real Possession game - you counter it by making your deck terrible. In these games, you just change what you buy every turn.

You don't have to junk yourself, you can still have a very, very lean engine, it just has to very carefully buy things.

To me this is much much much much less bad than ruining your own deck in terms of gameplay. Like it's night and day. You aren't choosing to have the least possible fun in order to win. That's the fundamental design problem.

With some thought, I'm beginning to think Possessions do have to be able to react off of each other. It allows one player to "start the chain" of gaining, as long as they feel they can win it. But I'm not sure.

LFN - I just don't get how you're making the leap to saying the gainer Possessions make 1 and 3 true. They just DONT. They don't make you make your own deck terrible. They are much faster than extra turns. They are better at solving these complaints than your solution - though maybe they also need to prevent stacking, idk.

Awaclus's opinion is just shitty though. Comparing Duration Possession to a $4 cost card that gains a single card bounded by price, and saying these are around the same power level?

[trivialknot]

As long as we're getting into fan-card territory, I propose a reaction version of Possession:

Possession: Action-Reaction (somewhat less than $6P)
Put this on top of your deck.
-------------------------
When another player gains a card, you may reveal and discard this to gain a card costing as much or less than the card they gained.

[LastFootnote]

LFN - I just don't get how you're making the leap to saying the gainer Possessions make 1 and 3 true. They just DONT. They don't make you make your own deck terrible. They are much faster than extra turns. They are better at solving these complaints than your solution - though maybe they also need to prevent stacking, idk.

Awaclus's opinion is just shitty though. Comparing Duration Possession to a $4 cost card that gains a single card bounded by price, and saying these are around the same power level?

I'm confused; possibly you misread my post? I said the gaining version does solve #1. Yes, it's much faster than extra turns. And you haven't convinced me that it actually doesn't cause stalemates? Is it just that it stacks? Maybe you're right, but if you actually have a Treasure Hunter-style Possession chain, that's a tracking nightmare.

[LastFootnote]

As long as we're getting into fan-card territory, I propose a reaction version of Possession:

Possession: Action-Reaction (somewhat less than $6P)
Put this on top of your deck.
-------------------------
When another player gains a card, you may reveal and discard this to gain a card costing as much or less than the card they gained.

Having to wait every time you gain any card to see if somebody's going to react would be awful. Doing it in turn order would be even more awful. So as attractive as this idea is, it's a non-starter.

[Donald X.]

Hmm, well as Holger pointed out, that doesn't fix Possession's stalemate problem at all.

I didn't know I was supposed to be fixing a stalemate problem. My first thought there is to make a Haggler-Smugglers instead of a straight Smugglers - you get something cheaper for each thing they got. Haggler says non-VP and well I'm not putting in the work right now to polish this card concept and so know how close I am to a good version.

Possession is super-confusing. In the years since it came out, that has been most of what I have uh felt apologetic about. The big Smugglers 100% fixes that, and that's 100% of what it's trying to fix (yes it's also faster). You have to remember stuff but at least know it's coming up. A lot of the time it is not much to remember. I'm not saying "yeeha let's make some cards with awful tracking issues." In case it seems like that.

Possession is also hated by some people. I like to say, if there were no cards people hated, there would be no cards people loved. But well. You have to consider things case by case anyway. Maybe something is too hated by the people who hate it, or hated too often. Mostly I have not felt like this is the case with Possession - instead again I think the confusion is the big problem. But. I don't have market research really. Maybe it's too hated. It's not like the game has to have that particular concept. If time had permitted I would have tried other big effects for that slot, because it was in fact clear that the card was confusing; time did not permit. A lesson in what to do when people say "we need this fast."

I always think that kids in particular like Possession, but I don't know that they need that particular thing to get that particular joy. Smugglers for example may be doing the trick. They (in my imagination with no market research) want to be rewarded for Mom being better at the game than them; that doesn't require taking a turn with her deck.

And yes take it to the variants forum guys.

[Awaclus]

Awaclus's opinion is just shitty though. Comparing Duration Possession to a $4 cost card that gains a single card bounded by price, and saying these are around the same power level?

It's not like you can expect a triple Province turn or anything like that from the real Possession, either, and Duration Possession is an enormous nerf. Your opponent can gain the last card in a pile before you get a chance to do that, your opponent can choose to spend his turn more like a Mission turn than a real one, your opponent can buy a card at a low price point where he wants some card and you don't really want anything that cheap, and pretty much the only way you're ever getting Provinces is if it's beneficial for your opponent that both players get a Province. You lose the advantage of real Possession that you get to play your opponent's newly acquired cards before they get a chance to do that (which is super super significant if they're still building the deck and somewhat detrimental if they're already greening) and you gain an extra disadvantage that you'll give your opponent a chance to do stuff after your turn before you actually get to gain anything.

Donald X.'s time machine Possession is significantly closer in strength to the real Possession, although it's also a nerf for sure.

[faust]

Duration Possession or Smugglers Possession doesn't really have the same stalemate effect at all, because of one subtle difference.

I mean I seriously doubt that, given that even Smugglers itself can already have a stalemate effect, and Smuggler-Possession gives an even stronger incentive not to buy anything.

[Holger]

My fix preserves the joy of taking somebody else's turn, but some people probably hate that extra-turn aspect. I guess the question is: how much Possession hate comes from different aspects of Possession. There's…

1. I hate that the extra turns make the game drag.
2. I hate that somebody else gets to benefit from my deck.
3a. I hate that the only sensible counter is to make my deck awful.
3b. I hate the stalemates that happen when we're both playing multi-Possession decks, so we both make our decks awful.
4. I hate that some cards become dangerous traps in a Possession game (TfB, Cartographer, etc.).

#2 is baked into the concept of the card, and so much for that. Your fix removes #1 and #4, but leaves #3 intact. And it adds a significant tracking component. My version fixes #3 and some of #4 (TfB is now a counter rather than a trap), but leaves some of #1 intact (but not all since multiple Possessions don't stack).

That's a good list. I think #2 and #1 with the once-per-turn clause are no big problems, since these aspects are shared (though in a weakened form) by other cards that are not hated (Outpost, Mission for #1, Smugglers for #2).
I would separate #4 into

4a. I hate that some of my cards help the Possessor more than myself (like TfB).
4b. I hate that the Possessor can sometimes destroy my next regular turn (Forge pin, Cart., Alchemist, Mandarin, etc.)

Your version fixes 4a, but not 4b (except for the worst offender, Forge), while super-Smugglers fixes 4b, but only partially fixes 4a. While it doesn't occur that often, 4b is a real problem when it does - Attack cards go out of their way to ensure that they (almost) never cause opponents to have completely crappy turns, and Possession isn't even an Attack.

[Holger]

Hmm, well as Holger pointed out, that doesn't fix Possession's stalemate problem at all.

I didn't know I was supposed to be fixing a stalemate problem. My first thought there is to make a Haggler-Smugglers instead of a straight Smugglers - you get something cheaper for each thing they got. Haggler says non-VP and well I'm not putting in the work right now to polish this card concept and so know how close I am to a good version.
[...]
And yes take it to the variants forum guys.

I think such a "Haggler-super-Smugglers" would be too weak, since the opponent can e.g. still gain Provinces and more Possessions while you only get Gold (or cheaper Actions) for it; it may sometimes even be weaker than regular Smugglers.

But of course you're not supposed to suggest a "perfect" fix for Possession (which probably doesn't exist). I don't know if it's possible to move this thread (or at least the last two dozen replies) to Variants; the OP was appropriately posted here, after all.

[Donald X.]

I think such a "Haggler-super-Smugglers" would be too weak

I don't follow you.

"Too weak for a Dominion card" is "I don't consider that ability when deciding whether or not to get the card." It's a low bar. Many effects that you wouldn't buy at $0 (except all the times you would) are nevertheless fine deals and interesting at $4 with +$2 tacked on. Haggler for example does not just haggle.

[Holger]

I think such a "Haggler-super-Smugglers" would be too weak

I don't follow you.

"Too weak for a Dominion card" is "I don't consider that ability when deciding whether or not to get the card." It's a low bar. Many effects that you wouldn't buy at $0 (except all the times you would) are nevertheless fine deals and interesting at $4 with +$2 tacked on. Haggler for example does not just haggle.

Sorry, I didn't mean that it's too weak for a Dominion card. (After all, Smugglers itself is a fine card.) I only meant that it's likely too weak for $6P, since it's substantially weaker than the printed Possession or the pure super-Smugglers. At a cheaper price (or even with something extra tacked on) it would certainly be fine.

[ackmondual]

I think Possession would be fine if it were only once per turn. But that's more words on the wordiest card in the game.

If we're already in errata territory, this seems moot.