Print

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

[Donald X.]

For the next printing of Hinterlands - coming right up somehow - I am considering errata for Trader. Specifically:

Trader: Action - Reaction, $4
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a Silver per $1 it costs.
----------
When you gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand, to exchange the card for a Silver.

This is functionally different in cases you can think of. Mostly it's the same. It's way simpler.

Is there a problem with this?

[[TP] Inferno]

I don't have many experiences with Trader, but this looks like a much cleaner wording to me. It does remove the ability to Watchtower the Silvers and stuff, but I see it as a positive change.

[GendoIkari]

Maybe too strong with on-gain combos?

Is the reason for this to get rid of "would gain" as a timing window, and if so, would you also try to get rid of it on Possession?

Requires the Hinterlands rulebook to define "Exchange".

[Donald X.]

Maybe too strong with on-gain combos?

Is the reason for this to get rid of "would gain" as a timing window, and if so, would you also try to get rid of it on Possession?

Requires the Hinterlands rulebook to define "Exchange".

Feel free to consider power level, but I am super not worried there.

The reason is to get rid of "would gain" which is super crazy confusing. Alchemy is not being reprinted currently and I mean it's not at all relevant. If I can't fix Possession, oh well, one awful mess instead of two.

Yes I would have to explain "exchange" in the Hinterlands rulebook; that would take a small fraction of the space Trader takes now.

[Chris is me]

This fixes a lot of silly rules junk and dumb infinite's.

[Titandrake]

This fixes a lot of silly rules junk and dumb infinite's.

Trader + Forum + cost reduction still lets you empty the Silver pile, but doesn't keep going past that since Exchange requires at least 1 Silver to be in the supply.

You do get an infinite with Cavalry now. If you can reduce Cavalry's cost to $2, then you can gain Cavalry, exchange for Silver, get +2 Cards +1 Buy to draw the Silver, then repeat. Reducing to $1 gives you net money that should let you pile Cavalry + Estates afterwards.

I don't think that's a problem though.

[crlundy]

I have hoped for this errata for a while, thanks for alerting me. It has no problems that I see, and has my full support. Plus future cards won't have to worry about breaking Livery-Trader, and people can't reveal Trader forever online.

My only suggestion would be to have the Reaction say "exchange that card for a Silver", to match Watchtower's phrasing.

[ednever]

+1 on this.

The "exchange" cards like Changeling are very fun. The game has changed so much that gaining silver is not great in any case. This gives the Trader a little power bump, and makes it cleaners and makes it more consistent with the later cards.

I feel like if this change were NOT made, I would still play it as a house rule IRL....

Ed

[ConMan]

It feels like a pretty clean erratum to me, especially since 95% of the time it looks like it will work essentially the same, 4% of the time it makes some of the weird stuff less weird, and 1% of the time might enable something a little weirder but it doesn't look like it will be in any particularly game-breaking way.

[mad4math]

I am personally a fan of the silly 4+ card infinite combos, so I am a little sad to see this change. This also looks like the end of the blue dog rule, which is one of my favorite pieces of dominion rules trivia.

Otherwise it does look like it makes normal interactions cleaner and less weird.

[GendoIkari]

This also looks like the end of the blue dog rule, which is one of my favorite pieces of dominion rules trivia.

Blue dog lives on with Possession!

[Jack Rudd]

Suggested fix for Possession:

"...any cards they gain are set aside; you gain them at the end of the turn"

[Holger]

This fixes a lot of silly rules junk and dumb infinite's.

Trader + Forum + cost reduction still lets you empty the Silver pile, but doesn't keep going past that since Exchange requires at least 1 Silver to be in the supply.

You do get an infinite with Cavalry now. If you can reduce Cavalry's cost to $2, then you can gain Cavalry, exchange for Silver, get +2 Cards +1 Buy to draw the Silver, then repeat. Reducing to $1 gives you net money that should let you pile Cavalry + Estates afterwards.

I don't think that's a problem though.

You don't get to do this infinitely often: New Trader's on-gain ability only works until the Silver pile is empty, it's the same as with Forum.
Draining the Silver pile in one turn is still very strong, but that's not a problem for a 3-card combo. (We already have a 2-card combo that drains the Gold pile, after all. )

[Holger]

Suggested fix for Possession:

"...any cards they gain are set aside; you gain them at the end of the turn"

Or simply: "...any cards they gain are put into your discard pile". You usually can't use your own deck during a Possession turn anyway, and there's now ample precedent for cards entering your deck without being gained.

(However, this would require an extra wording for Debt tokens...)

[GendoIkari]

Any fixes to Possession that trigger on-gain would end up extra bad with things like Watchtower, because it would allow you to buy Curses and have them stay in your opponent's deck. Of course Possession is already bad in that same way with Masquerade or Ambassador, but that's a bit harder to pull off; and is limited to 1 bad interaction per copy of the card; while a single Watchtower could mean getting a bunch of Curses.

[Holger]

Any fixes to Possession that trigger on-gain would end up extra bad with things like Watchtower, because it would allow you to buy Curses and have them stay in your opponent's deck. Of course Possession is already bad in that same way with Masquerade or Ambassador, but that's a bit harder to pull off; and is limited to 1 bad interaction per copy of the card; while a single Watchtower could mean getting a bunch of Curses.

You could only get a "bunch of curses" this way if the possessed player has lots of extra gains/buys (for which the possessor could also get something useful for themself instead). And even putting several curses into the possessed player's deck doesn't seem worse to me than a 12 VP or even 18 VP swing that is possible with a single Masquerade or Ambassador.
Also, Watchtower is weak enough that you could just not use it in Possession games as a precaution (while Masq. and Amb. are usually too strong to ignore, AND can give copies of themselves to the unwilling opponent).

[spineflu]

i already have this with my IRL set and it's much nicer than all the finnicky errata around "would gain"

[urza]

Is Trader the only effect in the game that triggers when you would do something?  (Similar to replacement effects in Magic?)  If so, I'm definitely in favor of getting rid of that wording.

[GendoIkari]

i already have this with my IRL set and it's much nicer than all the finnicky errata around "would gain"

What do you mean by you already have this? Do you mean that you've been just choosing to play it that way?

[pubby]

I wouldn't expect most players to fully understand "exchange" so this may not be the best wording. For example, if the board has Guildhall + Trader and my opponent reveals trader, I'm sure I'd get in an argument with the guy when I tell him he doesn't get a coffer because he's gaining a treasure but technically he's not gaining a treasure because exchange is not gaining.

The OG trader had ruling issues, but they were rare to appear in an actual game and otherwise the card was straightforward. This new text has clearer rulings, but I'd expect it to confuse more players.

[spineflu]

i already have this with my IRL set and it's much nicer than all the finnicky errata around "would gain"

What do you mean by you already have this? Do you mean that you've been just choosing to play it that way?

i sleeve because i print fan cards and ive made a couple quality of life improvements to the canon cards - updating BoM/Inheritance/etc post errata, rewording Trader to this (nearly identical, fewer commas in mine tho), making Lost In The Woods an artifact (so as to further codify things you fight over as Artifacts, and more strongly define states as a thing that a player gets), adding Coppersmith back into Intrigue.
So yeah, i already have this. or, i'm choosing to play it this way, i guess, but also i dont have to explain to others that "we're choosing to play it this way", they just get that thats how the card is worded.

I wouldn't expect most players to fully understand "exchange" so this may not be the best wording. For example, if the board has Guildhall + Trader and my opponent reveals trader, I'm sure I'd get in an argument with the guy when I tell him he doesn't get a coffer because he's gaining a treasure but technically he's not gaining a treasure because exchange is not gaining.

The OG trader had ruling issues, but they were rare to appear in an actual game and otherwise the card was straightforward. This new text has clearer rulings, but I'd expect it to confuse more players.

I mean, just explain to him at the beginning of the game that exchanging isn't gaining. The only issue here is mid-game rules explanations.

[GendoIkari]

i already have this with my IRL set and it's much nicer than all the finnicky errata around "would gain"

What do you mean by you already have this? Do you mean that you've been just choosing to play it that way?

i sleeve because i print fan cards and ive made a couple quality of life improvements to the canon cards - updating BoM/Inheritance/etc post errata, rewording Trader to this (nearly identical, fewer commas in mine tho), making Lost In The Woods an artifact (so as to further codify things you fight over as Artifacts, and more strongly define states as a thing that a player gets), adding Coppersmith back into Intrigue.
So yeah, i already have this. or, i'm choosing to play it this way, i guess, but also i dont have to explain to others that "we're choosing to play it this way", they just get that thats how the card is worded.

Did you do this based on something Donald said before, or did you just happen to think of the same errata?

[spineflu]

i already have this with my IRL set and it's much nicer than all the finnicky errata around "would gain"

What do you mean by you already have this? Do you mean that you've been just choosing to play it that way?

i sleeve because i print fan cards and ive made a couple quality of life improvements to the canon cards - updating BoM/Inheritance/etc post errata, rewording Trader to this (nearly identical, fewer commas in mine tho), making Lost In The Woods an artifact (so as to further codify things you fight over as Artifacts, and more strongly define states as a thing that a player gets), adding Coppersmith back into Intrigue.
So yeah, i already have this. or, i'm choosing to play it this way, i guess, but also i dont have to explain to others that "we're choosing to play it this way", they just get that thats how the card is worded.

Did you do this based on something Donald said before, or did you just happen to think of the same errata?

I happened to think it should work on the exchange mechanic (based on something someone had said in... idk the endless interview? somewhere on the board). the wording similarity was a happy coincidence.

[pubby]

I mean, just explain to him at the beginning of the game that exchanging isn't gaining. The only issue here is mid-game rules explanations.

Followed by them wondering why the card requires that extra special "exchange" rule in the first place instead of just say "gain". If you haven't played adventures or nocturne the mechanic looks like an unnecessary contrivance.

FWIW I think exchange makes sense on the traveler and vampire line. People can see that the card you're exchanging represents the same character and they can also understand the game design reasons for having the effect distinct from "gain". But when it attached to on-gain effects like changeling it starts to become confusing. Like, if you ironworks an action and exchange it for a silver, how many people are going to guess that you get +Action instead of  +$1? The old trader was confusing in this manner too, but man, this version doesn't fix that.

Anyway Donald, have you considered a version that just trashes the gained card to gain a silver?

[GendoIkari]

Like, if you ironworks an action and exchange it for a silver, how many people are going to guess that you get +Action instead of  +$1? The old trader was confusing in this manner too, but man, this version doesn't fix that.

I think that particular interaction is clearer in the new version. You gained an action card, Ironworks cares about the card you gained. Some might still ask the question, but I don't see this wording leading to a multi-page thread on BGG where Donald changes his mind on the correct ruling 2 separate times and needing to invoke blue dogs to explain how it works. The rules answer is much more straight forward; you gained whatever you gained with Ironworks, so Ironworks just works completely normally, same as it would if Trader weren't involved.

[crlundy]

FWIW I think exchange makes sense on the traveler and vampire line.

It's also on Changeling, and I don't think that has tripped up too many people. I think Changeling is similar to Trader.

Anyway Donald, have you considered a version that just trashes the gained card to gain a silver?

You'd have to add "other than Silver" or you keep revealing Trader until you've trashed through the whole Silver pile. I think you ideally want the Reaction to result in just one gain: with the old version you gained the Silver and not the original card, with the new version you gain the original card and not the Silver.

[Donald X.]

Anyway Donald, have you considered a version that just trashes the gained card to gain a silver?

For Trader itself, no. Exchanging feels closer to the original card.

This is happening, incidentally; there's a new card image, the rulebook has been changed. It's who knows how many months away for anyone to have it, but from my perspective it's done.

[Jeebus]

Is Trader the only effect in the game that triggers when you would do something?  (Similar to replacement effects in Magic?)  If so, I'm definitely in favor of getting rid of that wording.

There are a few others. Let me check my rules document.

• Enchantress and all the Ways are most naturally thought of as "when you would resolve".
• Your -$1 token is "when you would get $". (This "would" timing doesn't currently matter, but did with a prior version of Possession.)
• Your -1 Card token is pretty much "when you would draw a card", although not exactly, since it also triggers when you have no cards to draw.
• Possession is "when you would get Debt".
• As has been mentioned, Possession also has "when you would gain a card", the same timing as Trader had up until now.
• Outpost is "when you would draw cards in Clean-up".
• Lantern triggers when you would resolve some of the effects of playing Border Guard.
• Star Chart lets you take out a card when you would shuffle your deck.

(Of these, the only ones that actually say "would" on the card are Possession and the -1 Card token.)

I don't think any of these currently present timing questions except the first one. Ways and Enchantress trigger at the same time, and you have to know that it's "when would".

[spineflu]

Anyway Donald, have you considered a version that just trashes the gained card to gain a silver?

For Trader itself, no. Exchanging feels closer to the original card.

This is happening, incidentally; there's a new card image, the rulebook has been changed. It's who knows how many months away for anyone to have it, but from my perspective it's done.

new art too? or just new text?

[michaeljb]

Anyway Donald, have you considered a version that just trashes the gained card to gain a silver?

For Trader itself, no. Exchanging feels closer to the original card.

This is happening, incidentally; there's a new card image, the rulebook has been changed. It's who knows how many months away for anyone to have it, but from my perspective it's done.

new art too? or just new text?

Previous wording changes have kept the same art, presumably this would as too.

[[TP] Inferno]

Anyway Donald, have you considered a version that just trashes the gained card to gain a silver?

For Trader itself, no. Exchanging feels closer to the original card.

This is happening, incidentally; there's a new card image, the rulebook has been changed. It's who knows how many months away for anyone to have it, but from my perspective it's done.

[NoMoreFun]

Improve is "Trash an Action card you would discard from play" but seems pretty safe in terms of rules.

[kieranmillar]

"New card image" does not mean different artwork, it means a new version of the entire card for the printer to print the card from, text and borders and all.

[Donald X.]

Anyway Donald, have you considered a version that just trashes the gained card to gain a silver?

For Trader itself, no. Exchanging feels closer to the original card.

This is happening, incidentally; there's a new card image, the rulebook has been changed. It's who knows how many months away for anyone to have it, but from my perspective it's done.

new art too? or just new text?

I don't see why you would guess that there might be new art, but I can tell you, there isn't.

[GendoIkari]

Anyway Donald, have you considered a version that just trashes the gained card to gain a silver?

For Trader itself, no. Exchanging feels closer to the original card.

This is happening, incidentally; there's a new card image, the rulebook has been changed. It's who knows how many months away for anyone to have it, but from my perspective it's done.

new art too? or just new text?

I don't see why you would guess that there might be new art, but I can tell you, there isn't.

“New card image” can be easily misinterpreted as talking about the image that appears on cards above the text; the art.

[[TP] Inferno]

"New card image" does not mean different artwork, it means a new version of the entire card for the printer to print the card from, text and borders and all.

Oh.

[Holger]

I mean, just explain to him at the beginning of the game that exchanging isn't gaining. The only issue here is mid-game rules explanations.

Followed by them wondering why the card requires that extra special "exchange" rule in the first place instead of just say "gain". If you haven't played adventures or nocturne the mechanic looks like an unnecessary contrivance.

FWIW I think exchange makes sense on the traveler and vampire line. People can see that the card you're exchanging represents the same character and they can also understand the game design reasons for having the effect distinct from "gain". But when it attached to on-gain effects like changeling it starts to become confusing. Like, if you ironworks an action and exchange it for a silver, how many people are going to guess that you get +Action instead of  +$1? The old trader was confusing in this manner too, but man, this version doesn't fix that.

[...]

What is the game design reason reason why "Exchange" couldn't be defined as returning a card to its pile and gaining the new one? (Similar to how buying a card implies gaining it , unless prevented by a specific card interaction.)* Before Adventures, every card entering your deck was gained (with  Masquerade being the only exception back then). This would be much more intuitive IMO (e.g. fixing your Guildhall example for the new Trader). And I don't see an immediate reason how this would break anything:

Exchanging would then work with on-gain topdecking like Seal, but there's not that many topdeckers as to significantly change the power level of the cards using the Exchange mechanic.
It would also allow Trader (old or new), Changeling and Watchtower to replace the exchanged card by a Silver or Changeling resp. trash it, but the upgraded Travellers and Vampire/Bat are strong enough that you would very rarely want to do this.



*Specifically, I would define "You may Exchange card A for card B" as just a formal shortcut for "If there is a pile for both A and B and the B pile isn't empty, return card A to its pile and gain card B."

[dz]

What is the game design reason reason why "Exchange" couldn't be defined as returning a card to its pile and gaining the new one? (Similar to how buying a card implies gaining it , unless prevented by a specific card interaction.)* Before Adventures, every card entering your deck was gained (with  Masquerade being the only exception back then). This would be much more intuitive IMO (e.g. fixing your Guildhall example for the new Trader). And I don't see an immediate reason how this would break anything:

Exchanging would then work with on-gain topdecking like Seal, but there's not that many topdeckers as to significantly change the power level of the cards using the Exchange mechanic.
It would also allow Trader (old or new), Changeling and Watchtower to replace the exchanged card by a Silver or Changeling resp. trash it, but the upgraded Travellers and Vampire/Bat are strong enough that you would very rarely want to do this.

*Specifically, I would define "You may Exchange card A for card B" as just a formal shortcut for "If there is a pile for both A and B and the B pile isn't empty, return card A to its pile and gain card B."

Generally, DXV wanted to avoid "this keyword is also this other keyword."

What was the reason for making it so that cards Exiled from the Supply aren't considered "gained"?  While you were developing Menagerie, was there a point where they were treated as gained?

They were never gained (in Menagerie or Renaissance). It's not gaining so I didn't make it gaining. I don't want something to "count as" something else if I can avoid it. The cards could have said "gain it and exile it" but then a lot of effects can squeeze in there and make off with the card. So they don't.

Here's about why exchanging isn't gaining/trashing for Travellers/exchanging:

Why doesn't exchanging cause you to gain the new cards? Is it to lower their power level by removing Royal Seal, Traveling Fair, or Watchtower combos? Or did you feel like it would be simpler to just not have it gaining?

I obv. didn't want to trash the Travellers because it would reduce your ability to go up the path, or require 40 more cards. It made no sense to both trash and return them, it's just extra words to confuse people. Since you weren't trashing them, I automatically preferred not gaining them, it seems simpler. Gaining them but not trashing them just seems weird to me.

This "not trashing, so not gaining" also applies to Masquerade.

Originally Masquerade counted as both gaining and trashing. Valerie didn't like how it was gaining without gaining and trashing without trashing. To me gaining meant "now it's yours" and trashing meant "now it isn't," but to Valerie gaining meant "take it and put it into your discard pile" and trashing meant "move it to the trash." She could see it being that you gained the card but didn't trash it, but I felt it should be both or neither. So it's neither.

[crlundy]

This is happening, incidentally; there's a new card image, the rulebook has been changed. It's who knows how many months away for anyone to have it, but from my perspective it's done.

Hooray! Do you know when this change will be rolled out in the online version?

[Donald X.]

Hooray! Do you know when this change will be rolled out in the online version?

I don't. I haven't offered it yet, as I also don't know when the physical version will appear.

[hhelibebcnofnena]

Any fixes to Possession that trigger on-gain would end up extra bad with things like Watchtower, because it would allow you to buy Curses and have them stay in your opponent's deck. Of course Possession is already bad in that same way with Masquerade or Ambassador, but that's a bit harder to pull off; and is limited to 1 bad interaction per copy of the card; while a single Watchtower could mean getting a bunch of Curses.

"All cards gained during the turn are gained to your discard pile" or something like that might work. It would change some things, and it's maybe a little unclear on Nomad Camp etc. but there are already rulings for this.

[Jeebus]

Any fixes to Possession that trigger on-gain would end up extra bad with things like Watchtower, because it would allow you to buy Curses and have them stay in your opponent's deck. Of course Possession is already bad in that same way with Masquerade or Ambassador, but that's a bit harder to pull off; and is limited to 1 bad interaction per copy of the card; while a single Watchtower could mean getting a bunch of Curses.

"All cards gained during the turn are gained to your discard pile" or something like that might work. It would change some things, and it's maybe a little unclear on Nomad Camp etc. but there are already rulings for this.

It should be "Any cards you gain on that turn are gained to their discard pile".

I'm not so sure that would work. Although I can't find it in any rulebook, the idea is that Nomad Camp, Den of Sin, Ghost Town, Guardian and Night Watchman have a different default gaining location than all other cards (which have the discard pile). Then Armory, Artificer, Artisan, Transmogrify etc. can change that. So those cards override the default gaining location. For instance, Artisan gains Nomad Camp to your hand.

If the idea is that Possession sets a different default gaining location for other cards (not itself), first of all that's a new thing and a little weird. (A "default location" should be the default for a given card; it's weird that it can be changed.) Second, we would then have competing default locations (gain Nomad Camp while possessed), which there's no rule for.

It makes a bit more sense to say that Possession is like Armory - it overrides the default location. It would override Nomad Camp. But we then have the problem of competing overrides. Gain a card with Armory while possessed, does it go on your deck or in your opponent's discard pile?

[GendoIkari]

Any fixes to Possession that trigger on-gain would end up extra bad with things like Watchtower, because it would allow you to buy Curses and have them stay in your opponent's deck. Of course Possession is already bad in that same way with Masquerade or Ambassador, but that's a bit harder to pull off; and is limited to 1 bad interaction per copy of the card; while a single Watchtower could mean getting a bunch of Curses.

"All cards gained during the turn are gained to your discard pile" or something like that might work. It would change some things, and it's maybe a little unclear on Nomad Camp etc. but there are already rulings for this.

It should be "Any cards you gain on that turn are gained to their discard pile".

I'm not so sure that would work. Although I can't find it in any rulebook, the idea is that Nomad Camp, Den of Sin, Ghost Town, Guardian and Night Watchman have a different default gaining location than all other cards (which have the discard pile). Then Armory, Artificer, Artisan, Transmogrify etc. can change that. So those cards override the default gaining location. For instance, Artisan gains Nomad Camp to your hand.

If the idea is that Possession sets a different default gaining location for other cards (not itself), first of all that's a new thing and a little weird. (A "default location" should be the default for a given card; it's weird that it can be changed.) Second, we would then have competing default locations (gain Nomad Camp while possessed), which there's no rule for.

It makes a bit more sense to say that Possession is like Armory - it overrides the default location. It would override Nomad Camp. But we then have the problem of competing overrides. Gain a card with Armory while possessed, does it go on your deck or in your opponent's discard pile?

Even then, it's not immediately obvious that just because a card you gained was gained to another player's discard pile, that the card is now theirs and not yours. Without extra rule clarifications, it sounds like you simply have a card in someone else's pile.

[Jeebus]

Any fixes to Possession that trigger on-gain would end up extra bad with things like Watchtower, because it would allow you to buy Curses and have them stay in your opponent's deck. Of course Possession is already bad in that same way with Masquerade or Ambassador, but that's a bit harder to pull off; and is limited to 1 bad interaction per copy of the card; while a single Watchtower could mean getting a bunch of Curses.

"All cards gained during the turn are gained to your discard pile" or something like that might work. It would change some things, and it's maybe a little unclear on Nomad Camp etc. but there are already rulings for this.

It should be "Any cards you gain on that turn are gained to their discard pile".

I'm not so sure that would work. Although I can't find it in any rulebook, the idea is that Nomad Camp, Den of Sin, Ghost Town, Guardian and Night Watchman have a different default gaining location than all other cards (which have the discard pile). Then Armory, Artificer, Artisan, Transmogrify etc. can change that. So those cards override the default gaining location. For instance, Artisan gains Nomad Camp to your hand.

If the idea is that Possession sets a different default gaining location for other cards (not itself), first of all that's a new thing and a little weird. (A "default location" should be the default for a given card; it's weird that it can be changed.) Second, we would then have competing default locations (gain Nomad Camp while possessed), which there's no rule for.

It makes a bit more sense to say that Possession is like Armory - it overrides the default location. It would override Nomad Camp. But we then have the problem of competing overrides. Gain a card with Armory while possessed, does it go on your deck or in your opponent's discard pile?

Even then, it's not immediately obvious that just because a card you gained was gained to another player's discard pile, that the card is now theirs and not yours. Without extra rule clarifications, it sounds like you simply have a card in someone else's pile.

True, you actually gained the card, but it was never yours! And another confusing thing is that you could still use Watchtower, Innovation etc. to move it from that discard pile. The possessor decides this, so usually they wouldn't want to, since they would then lose the card. But maybe they want it played right now, so they make you use Innovation, moving it from their discard pile to your play area.

[ephesos]

Any fixes to Possession that trigger on-gain would end up extra bad with things like Watchtower, because it would allow you to buy Curses and have them stay in your opponent's deck. Of course Possession is already bad in that same way with Masquerade or Ambassador, but that's a bit harder to pull off; and is limited to 1 bad interaction per copy of the card; while a single Watchtower could mean getting a bunch of Curses.

"All cards gained during the turn are gained to your discard pile" or something like that might work. It would change some things, and it's maybe a little unclear on Nomad Camp etc. but there are already rulings for this.

It should be "Any cards you gain on that turn are gained to their discard pile".

I'm not so sure that would work. Although I can't find it in any rulebook, the idea is that Nomad Camp, Den of Sin, Ghost Town, Guardian and Night Watchman have a different default gaining location than all other cards (which have the discard pile). Then Armory, Artificer, Artisan, Transmogrify etc. can change that. So those cards override the default gaining location. For instance, Artisan gains Nomad Camp to your hand.

If the idea is that Possession sets a different default gaining location for other cards (not itself), first of all that's a new thing and a little weird. (A "default location" should be the default for a given card; it's weird that it can be changed.) Second, we would then have competing default locations (gain Nomad Camp while possessed), which there's no rule for.

It makes a bit more sense to say that Possession is like Armory - it overrides the default location. It would override Nomad Camp. But we then have the problem of competing overrides. Gain a card with Armory while possessed, does it go on your deck or in your opponent's discard pile?

Even then, it's not immediately obvious that just because a card you gained was gained to another player's discard pile, that the card is now theirs and not yours. Without extra rule clarifications, it sounds like you simply have a card in someone else's pile.

Do the rules define when a card becomes "yours" or "theirs"? I always figured it was location-based: a card in your hand is yours, a card in your deck is yours, a card in your opponent's discard is your opponent's, cards you set aside or put in play are yours, cards in the Supply and trash are no one's, etc.

Otherwise, you'd have similar weirdness with Masquerade, where a card that's "yours" is now in your opponent's hand because you passed it to them, but it never became "theirs" since they never gained it.

[GendoIkari]

Any fixes to Possession that trigger on-gain would end up extra bad with things like Watchtower, because it would allow you to buy Curses and have them stay in your opponent's deck. Of course Possession is already bad in that same way with Masquerade or Ambassador, but that's a bit harder to pull off; and is limited to 1 bad interaction per copy of the card; while a single Watchtower could mean getting a bunch of Curses.

"All cards gained during the turn are gained to your discard pile" or something like that might work. It would change some things, and it's maybe a little unclear on Nomad Camp etc. but there are already rulings for this.

It should be "Any cards you gain on that turn are gained to their discard pile".

I'm not so sure that would work. Although I can't find it in any rulebook, the idea is that Nomad Camp, Den of Sin, Ghost Town, Guardian and Night Watchman have a different default gaining location than all other cards (which have the discard pile). Then Armory, Artificer, Artisan, Transmogrify etc. can change that. So those cards override the default gaining location. For instance, Artisan gains Nomad Camp to your hand.

If the idea is that Possession sets a different default gaining location for other cards (not itself), first of all that's a new thing and a little weird. (A "default location" should be the default for a given card; it's weird that it can be changed.) Second, we would then have competing default locations (gain Nomad Camp while possessed), which there's no rule for.

It makes a bit more sense to say that Possession is like Armory - it overrides the default location. It would override Nomad Camp. But we then have the problem of competing overrides. Gain a card with Armory while possessed, does it go on your deck or in your opponent's discard pile?

Even then, it's not immediately obvious that just because a card you gained was gained to another player's discard pile, that the card is now theirs and not yours. Without extra rule clarifications, it sounds like you simply have a card in someone else's pile.

Do the rules define when a card becomes "yours" or "theirs"? I always figured it was location-based: a card in your hand is yours, a card in your deck is yours, a card in your opponent's discard is your opponent's, cards you set aside or put in play are yours, cards in the Supply and trash are no one's, etc.

Otherwise, you'd have similar weirdness with Masquerade, where a card that's "yours" is now in your opponent's hand because you passed it to them, but it never became "theirs" since they never gained it.

They did with in Adventures due to Inheritance:

An Estate is yours if either it started
in your deck, or you gained it or bought it, or you were passed it
with Masquerade (from Intrigue). An Estate stops being yours if
you trash it, return it to the Supply, pass it with Masquerade, or
are stopped from gaining it due to Possession (from Alchemy) or
Trader (from Hinterlands)

The rulebook misses a couple of edge cases; if you trash Fortress or trash a card while Possessed, the card stops being yours temporarily but becomes yours again when it is returned to you.

[ephesos]

Any fixes to Possession that trigger on-gain would end up extra bad with things like Watchtower, because it would allow you to buy Curses and have them stay in your opponent's deck. Of course Possession is already bad in that same way with Masquerade or Ambassador, but that's a bit harder to pull off; and is limited to 1 bad interaction per copy of the card; while a single Watchtower could mean getting a bunch of Curses.

"All cards gained during the turn are gained to your discard pile" or something like that might work. It would change some things, and it's maybe a little unclear on Nomad Camp etc. but there are already rulings for this.

It should be "Any cards you gain on that turn are gained to their discard pile".

I'm not so sure that would work. Although I can't find it in any rulebook, the idea is that Nomad Camp, Den of Sin, Ghost Town, Guardian and Night Watchman have a different default gaining location than all other cards (which have the discard pile). Then Armory, Artificer, Artisan, Transmogrify etc. can change that. So those cards override the default gaining location. For instance, Artisan gains Nomad Camp to your hand.

If the idea is that Possession sets a different default gaining location for other cards (not itself), first of all that's a new thing and a little weird. (A "default location" should be the default for a given card; it's weird that it can be changed.) Second, we would then have competing default locations (gain Nomad Camp while possessed), which there's no rule for.

It makes a bit more sense to say that Possession is like Armory - it overrides the default location. It would override Nomad Camp. But we then have the problem of competing overrides. Gain a card with Armory while possessed, does it go on your deck or in your opponent's discard pile?

Even then, it's not immediately obvious that just because a card you gained was gained to another player's discard pile, that the card is now theirs and not yours. Without extra rule clarifications, it sounds like you simply have a card in someone else's pile.

Do the rules define when a card becomes "yours" or "theirs"? I always figured it was location-based: a card in your hand is yours, a card in your deck is yours, a card in your opponent's discard is your opponent's, cards you set aside or put in play are yours, cards in the Supply and trash are no one's, etc.

Otherwise, you'd have similar weirdness with Masquerade, where a card that's "yours" is now in your opponent's hand because you passed it to them, but it never became "theirs" since they never gained it.

They did with in Adventures due to Inheritance:

An Estate is yours if either it started
in your deck, or you gained it or bought it, or you were passed it
with Masquerade (from Intrigue). An Estate stops being yours if
you trash it, return it to the Supply, pass it with Masquerade, or
are stopped from gaining it due to Possession (from Alchemy) or
Trader (from Hinterlands)

The rulebook misses a couple of edge cases; if you trash Fortress or trash a card while Possessed, the card stops being yours temporarily but becomes yours again when it is returned to you.

That seems to be pretty much the same, just that ownership is transferred whenever a card moves from a location you would own it in to a location where you wouldn't. The only difference is if you forget to mention a possible way to change locations in the definition of ownership, like how you said with Fortress and Possession.

That definition also doesn't mention Exchanging. When you get a new card off an Exchange, it doesn't count as being bought or gained, so technically under this definition it shouldn't be yours, should it?

[GendoIkari]

That definition also doesn't mention Exchanging. When you get a new card off an Exchange, it doesn't count as being bought or gained, so technically under this definition it shouldn't be yours, should it?

Right; I suppose that's because it wasn't (still isn't?) possible to have an Exchange involving an Estate, and that rules quote was only concerned with when an Estate is considered yours or not.

Now that Inheritance is different; I think Market Square might be the only thing that cares if a card is "yours" or not.

[ephesos]

That definition also doesn't mention Exchanging. When you get a new card off an Exchange, it doesn't count as being bought or gained, so technically under this definition it shouldn't be yours, should it?

Right; I suppose that's because it wasn't (still isn't?) possible to have an Exchange involving an Estate, and that rules quote was only concerned with when an Estate is considered yours or not.

Now that Inheritance is different; I think Market Square might be the only thing that cares if a card is "yours" or not.

I think you can also Exile an Estate (e.g. Way of the Worm), and that wouldn't count as gaining or trashing either.

[Jeebus]

What Ephesos said at first must be the technically correct rule for which cards are yours. The definition in the Adventures rulebook misses Fortress og Possession, as GendoIkari said. We also need to add that a card can become yours by setting it aside (with Inheritance itself), with Exchanging and with Exiling. So it becomes clear that the location of the card is what matters.

The other problem with the Adventures definition is that it says that an Estate is yours when you buy it, at which point it's actually still in the Supply. This was because Donald felt that people would think that when-buy abilities trigger when you buy an Inherited Estate. I don't know if that was supposed to be a general rule or only for Inherited Estates. I assume the latter. And now of course Inheritance doesn't care whether the Estate is yours anymore.

Now that Inheritance is different; I think Market Square might be the only thing that cares if a card is "yours" or not.

Also Possession when you trash a card. And actually all the cards that care about "your cards" at the end of the game, from Gardens to Keep.

[Jonatan Djurachkovitch]

A card is "yours" if you are the owner of the physical set you are playing with.

[Jonatan Djurachkovitch]

I mean, just explain to him at the beginning of the game that exchanging isn't gaining. The only issue here is mid-game rules explanations.

Followed by them wondering why the card requires that extra special "exchange" rule in the first place instead of just say "gain". If you haven't played adventures or nocturne the mechanic looks like an unnecessary contrivance.

FWIW I think exchange makes sense on the traveler and vampire line. People can see that the card you're exchanging represents the same character and they can also understand the game design reasons for having the effect distinct from "gain". But when it attached to on-gain effects like changeling it starts to become confusing. Like, if you ironworks an action and exchange it for a silver, how many people are going to guess that you get +Action instead of  +$1? The old trader was confusing in this manner too, but man, this version doesn't fix that.

Anyway Donald, have you considered a version that just trashes the gained card to gain a silver?

That version could empty the silver pile into the trash with just one gain.

[dz]

I mean, just explain to him at the beginning of the game that exchanging isn't gaining. The only issue here is mid-game rules explanations.

Followed by them wondering why the card requires that extra special "exchange" rule in the first place instead of just say "gain". If you haven't played adventures or nocturne the mechanic looks like an unnecessary contrivance.

FWIW I think exchange makes sense on the traveler and vampire line. People can see that the card you're exchanging represents the same character and they can also understand the game design reasons for having the effect distinct from "gain". But when it attached to on-gain effects like changeling it starts to become confusing. Like, if you ironworks an action and exchange it for a silver, how many people are going to guess that you get +Action instead of  +$1? The old trader was confusing in this manner too, but man, this version doesn't fix that.

Anyway Donald, have you considered a version that just trashes the gained card to gain a silver?

That version could empty the silver pile into the trash with just one gain.

The obvious solution to that is to say "when you gain a card other than Silver." I also imagine that nowadays, Reactions would either discard (like Sleigh) or play themselves (like Sheepdog), instead of revealing themselves.

Trashing the card (just like how Watchtower does it) was considered.

That ability - mostly with different other halves - tried on different wordings. One issue with the non-would wordings was that, at the time, I didn't say "to" and so it ends up with two if-you-do's. "When you gain a card, you may reveal this from your hand. If you do, trash that card. If you do, gain a Silver."

But I mean, there's no interesting story here. I tried to get a good wording for the ability, that made interactions clear. I ended up with what you see in Hinterlands. It was a mistake but I didn't realize that in time.