Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: the possession errata is the worst thing to happen to dominion in ages  (Read 16219 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

trivialknot

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 757
  • Respect: +1171
    • View Profile
0

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.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2017, 12:18:54 pm by trivialknot »
Logged

AJD

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3292
  • Shuffle iT Username: AJD
  • Respect: +4434
    • View Profile
+2

Outpost:Possession :: Workshop:Smugglers
Logged

gloures

  • Conspirator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 218
  • Shuffle iT Username: gloures
  • Respect: +257
    • View Profile
+3

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...
Logged

funkdoc

  • Witch
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 472
  • Respect: +414
    • View Profile
0

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

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +3457
    • View Profile
+2

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.

Quote
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.
Logged
Twitch channel: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisisme2791

bug me on discord

pm me if you wanna do stuff for the blog

they/them

pacovf

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3499
  • Multiediting poster
  • Respect: +3838
    • View Profile
+2

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.
Logged
pacovf has a neopets account.  It has 999 hours logged.  All his neopets are named "Jessica".  I guess that must be his ex.

aku_chi

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 622
  • Shuffle iT Username: aku chi
  • Respect: +1435
    • View Profile
+1

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.
Logged

4est

  • Duke
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 374
  • Shuffle iT Username: 4est
  • Respect: +1454
    • View Profile
+2

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. 
Logged

pacatak

  • Chancellor
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
  • Respect: +26
    • View Profile
+4

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.

Logged

Holger

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 736
  • Respect: +458
    • View Profile
0

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.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (΄。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12849
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
0

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).
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

Chris is me

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +3457
    • View Profile
+6

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."
Logged
Twitch channel: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisisme2791

bug me on discord

pm me if you wanna do stuff for the blog

they/them

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (΄。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12849
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
0

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".
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
+2

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.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 01:57:25 pm by LastFootnote »
Logged

markusin

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3846
  • Shuffle iT Username: markusin
  • I also switched from Starcraft
  • Respect: +2437
    • View Profile
+1

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.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 02:24:59 pm by markusin »
Logged

Chris is me

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +3457
    • View Profile
0

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?
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 03:08:39 pm by Chris is me »
Logged
Twitch channel: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisisme2791

bug me on discord

pm me if you wanna do stuff for the blog

they/them

trivialknot

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 757
  • Respect: +1171
    • View Profile
0

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.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
0

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.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7495
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +10721
    • View Profile
0

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.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
+3

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.
Logged

Awaclus

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11809
  • Shuffle iT Username: Awaclus
  • (΄。• ω •。`)
  • Respect: +12849
    • View Profile
    • Birds of Necama
+1

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.
Logged
Bomb, Cannon, and many of the Gunpowder cards can strongly effect gameplay, particularly in a destructive way

The YouTube channel where I make musicDownload my band's Creative Commons albums for free

faust

  • Cartographer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3377
  • Shuffle iT Username: faust
  • Respect: +5142
    • View Profile
0

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.
Logged
You say the ocean's rising, like I give a shit
You say the whole world's ending, honey it already did

Holger

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 736
  • Respect: +458
    • View Profile
0

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.
Logged

Holger

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 736
  • Respect: +458
    • View Profile
0

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.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Dominion Designer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25672
    • View Profile
+2

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.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All
 

Page created in 0.203 seconds with 21 queries.