Print

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

[Jimmmmm]

What happens when you trash a Fortress on a Possession turn? Possession wants to set Fortress aside, but Fortress wants to be put into your hand. Which one takes priority?

I guess this might be important: in the text of Possession, what does "are trashed" mean?
Does it mean:
A) any cards that are (still) trashed (present tense adjective) at the end of the turn (ie not including Fortress); or
B) any cards that are trashed (past tense verb) at any point?

When are the trashed cards set aside? Is it when they are trashed or at the end of the turn? Are the cards:
C) "[set aside and returned to his discard pile] at end of turn"; or
D) "[set aside (when trashed)] and [returned to his discard pile at end of turn]"?

I suspect it's D, since C would mean that while Possessing someone you could make them trash a card then Graverob it, and take it for yourself.
But that means that for Fortress the setting aside happens at the same time as the putting in hand. So again, which one takes priority?

[Donald X.]

What happens when you trash a Fortress on a Possession turn? Possession wants to set Fortress aside, but Fortress wants to be put into your hand. Which one takes priority?

When you need to do two things at the same time, you choose an order to do them in. If you are being possessed, then the possessing player makes decisions for you, so they decide.

So. I am possessing you. I make you Remodel a Fortress. You put Fortress into the trash. Now I decide whether to put it into your hand or set it aside. Whichever I pick, the other one fails as it can't find the Fortress where it expects it (in the trash).

I guess this might be important: in the text of Possession, what does "are trashed" mean?

It means "when one of that player's cards is trashed, blah blah blah." It's timed the same as the various Dark Ages cards.

When are the trashed cards set aside?

Directly after being trashed, provided nothing else happens first (such as a when-trashed trigger that the possessing player decides to resolve first).

[Jimmmmm]

Thanks. I considered the whole "you choose the order" thing, but thought that it didn't makes sense. Turns out I was wrong.

[Donald X.]

Thanks. I considered the whole "you choose the order" thing, but thought that it didn't makes sense. Turns out I was wrong.

The real ruling was inside you all along.

[Brando Commando]

Just a warning: I know this post is kind of gratuitous and only for legal nerds.

I want to point out that this thread is interesting and quasi-important. Here's my reason: As far as I can tell, DXV's ruling here sets a precedent, rather than just serving as a logical answer to a question where someone simply hasn't thought through all the logical implications of the existing rules.

In my reading, the original question -- are fortresses trashed during possession set aside as "trash" or sent back to hand? -- is not already determined in the rules. My reasoning is that unlike almost any other decision that Possession allows the possessor to make, this particular decision (whether to return to hand or set aside Fortress) was never a choice the player would have to make if he/she were not being possessed.

Possession's card text says that the possessor will "make all the decisions for him," i.e., the possessed player. But this wouldn't be a decision that the player could make unless he were being possessed, so it's not clear that the possessed player would make them to begin with. That is, since we don't know who would make that decision in the non-possessed case (because it's impossible in the non-possessed case) we can't say the possessed player makes that decision, and therefore we can't then assign the actual decision to the possessor.

I can't think of a parallel situation, but I'd be interested to hear if anybody can come up with a similar case, especially one on which DXV has already ruled. Or if they just plain disagree with me.

I suppose my point is, in case future Dominion scholars are studying the legal framework of the game, they should take note that case law has determined that "make all decisions for him" includes decisions that the player was never licensed to make in the first place but which have been forced upon him.

I know, I know...hair-splitting.

[SirPeebles]

The possessed player plays, say, Chapel, and chooses Fortress as one of the cards to trash.  This triggers two things simultaneously:  the Fortress being moved to the possessed player's hand and the Fortress being set aside.  Since this does not affect multiple players directly, the active player (the possessed player, in this case) determines the order in which these effects take place.  The "lose track rule" then prevents the other event from occurring.

Edit:  But since the active player has this decision to make, of course the possessing player makes the decision.

[Brando Commando]

Edit:  But since the active player has this decision to make, of course the possessing player makes the decision.

I agree that it's common sense that the possessing player will make this decision. The point I'm trying to get at is that the rules themselves -- minus DXV's above ruling -- don't imply this.

We don't know that the possessed player would have the authority to make that decision, since the decision would never happen if the player were not possessed. (In fact, normally he would have no choice and the Fortress would be returned to his hand.) And since we don't know if the possessed player would have the authority to make that decision, we can't transfer that authority to the possessor.

[SirPeebles]

I'm not seeing the confusion.  The possessed player has a decision to make.  The possessing player therefore makes that decision instead.  Why does it matter that the decision wouldn't have presented itself had possession not been played?

[Brando Commando]

I'm not seeing the confusion.  The possessed player has a decision to make.  The possessing player therefore makes that decision instead.  Why does it matter that the decision wouldn't have presented itself had possession not been played?

We don't know that the possessed player would have the authority to make that decision, since the decision would never happen if the player were not possessed.

I'm not trying to be snide, but I think I'm addressing that in my quote above.

I think it seems intuitive that the possessed player would have had the authority if he weren't possessed -- I mean, who else would make the decision? -- but I'm not sure that grants him the authority to make the decision.

[SirPeebles]

Isn't the possessed player invested with this authority by virtue of having performed the trashing? The trashing of the Fortress is what has simultaneously triggered multiple events.

[RiemannZetaJones]

So. I am possessing you. I make you Remodel a Fortress. You put Fortress into the trash. Now I decide whether to put it into your hand or set it aside. Whichever I pick, the other one fails as it can't find the Fortress where it expects it (in the trash).

This implies that the when someone tries to trash a Fortress, the Fortress visits the trash before being returned to hand. It also implies that a card that is trashed on a Possession turn visits the trash before being set aside.

This doesn't seem consistent with other rules (e.g. anything that modifies where a card is gained) that generally say that the card whose destination is changed does not visit the location it would otherwise have gone before going to its new destination. I would instead have expected the last line

"Whichever I pick, the other one fails as it can't find the Fortress where it expects it (in play)."

But it's possible trashing is different.

[Brando Commando]

Isn't the possessed player invested with this authority by virtue of having performed the trashing? The trashing of the Fortress is what has simultaneously triggered multiple events.

I think I see the problem now: I'm confused by the fact that Possession has in effect created a new trigger. ("...any of his cards that are trashed are set aside and returned to his discard pile at end of turn.") Normally, triggers "you control" and that "happen to you" are coming from the cards you yourself play. But I think DXV is saying that these new triggers, created by another player, will still "happen" to the possessed player.

I'm happy with this answer, but I think it still creates a precedent whereby triggers can be applied to other players besides the one who plays them or has them in hand.

[AdamH]

sooo... related question. I possess player B. Player B plays Junk Dealer, trashing a copper (the first card in the trash, let's say) and then Forager. How much is that forager worth? My guess is $0 since the trashed copper isn't actually in the trash, but it's "Set aside" from Possession. Yes?

[shMerker]

Yes because Possession's trigger overrules the trashing entirely, just like Trader overrules whatever gain would have happened when it is revealed. The reason this can conflict with Fortress is that Fortress can also overrule a trashing.

[AJD]

Yes because Possession's trigger overrules the trashing entirely, just like Trader overrules whatever gain would have happened when it is revealed. The reason this can conflict with Fortress is that Fortress can also overrule a trashing.

This isn't quite true. The trashing still happens (unlike Trader, which does cancel the gain), which is important because e.g. trashing a Cultist on a Possession turn still gets you +cards. But the trashed card is removed from the trash and set aside immediately, before Forager's +$ can trigger off it.

[RiemannZetaJones]

Yes because Possession's trigger overrules the trashing entirely, just like Trader overrules whatever gain would have happened when it is revealed. The reason this can conflict with Fortress is that Fortress can also overrule a trashing.

This isn't quite true. The trashing still happens (unlike Trader, which does cancel the gain), which is important because e.g. trashing a Cultist on a Possession turn still gets you +cards. But the trashed card is removed from the trash and set aside immediately, before Forager's +$ can trigger off it.

So trashing happens, the card is moved to the trash, and then the card is moved out of the trash again?

[AdamH]

Yes because Possession's trigger overrules the trashing entirely, just like Trader overrules whatever gain would have happened when it is revealed. The reason this can conflict with Fortress is that Fortress can also overrule a trashing.

This isn't quite true. The trashing still happens (unlike Trader, which does cancel the gain), which is important because e.g. trashing a Cultist on a Possession turn still gets you +cards. But the trashed card is removed from the trash and set aside immediately, before Forager's +$ can trigger off it.

So trashing happens, the card is moved to the trash, and then the card is moved out of the trash again?

I would guess that:

-The card "is trashed"
-The card "would be moved to the trash"
-The card "is moved to the trash"

and the Possession clause takes effect when the card "would be moved to the trash"? Or am I way off?

[Drab Emordnilap]

"... any cards of his that are trashed are..."

I think it's

The card would be trashed.
The card is trashed and is moved to the trash. (These are the same thing)

"Any cards of his that are trashed" is the same as "each card of his that is trashed" is the same as "when a card of his is trashed". This triggers the same time that Fortress triggers, and the two are resolved in either order.

[Donald X.]

This implies that the when someone tries to trash a Fortress, the Fortress visits the trash before being returned to hand. It also implies that a card that is trashed on a Possession turn visits the trash before being set aside.

This doesn't seem consistent with other rules (e.g. anything that modifies where a card is gained) that generally say that the card whose destination is changed does not visit the location it would otherwise have gone before going to its new destination. I would instead have expected the last line

This just comes down to what that text on Possession would say if it were longer. It's not longer because, too many words. Would it say "when one of their cards would be trashed, instead..." or would it say "when one of their cards is trashed, ..." And my answer has to fit the actual text and FAQ as well as possible.

As it happens the FAQ addresses this specific case. It says that the trashed cards were actually trashed, and gives Mining Village's "if you do" as an example.

Cards that gain a card directly somewhere don't have it visit somewhere else. They say something like what Mine does; they describe the gain, so that this interpretation is plausible. Nomad Camp is an exception; somehow I went with a simpler wording rather than tacking on "instead of into your discard pile." That "instead" would clear things up, although, this never comes up. Watchtower and Royal Seal, which modify where another gained card ends up, both actually move a card that was already put somewhere else.

[AdamH]

"... any cards of his that are trashed are..."

I think it's

The card would be trashed.
The card is trashed and is moved to the trash. (These are the same thing)

"Any cards of his that are trashed" is the same as "each card of his that is trashed" is the same as "when a card of his is trashed". This triggers the same time that Fortress triggers, and the two are resolved in either order.

The reason for my wording is because of on-trash benefits. I'm not sure where they would fit in your model...

[AJD]

"... any cards of his that are trashed are..."

I think it's

The card would be trashed.
The card is trashed and is moved to the trash. (These are the same thing)

"Any cards of his that are trashed" is the same as "each card of his that is trashed" is the same as "when a card of his is trashed". This triggers the same time that Fortress triggers, and the two are resolved in either order.

The reason for my wording is because of on-trash benefits. I'm not sure where they would fit in your model...

"Being trashed" and "moving to the trash" are the same thing. On-trash effects happen after the card is moved to the trash. This includes the on-trash effects of Fortress (move card from trash to hand) and Possession (move card from trash to set-aside-cards-land). There are no known would-trash effects.

[AJD]

(Cf. <a href="http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4651">this thread</a>.)

[blueblimp]

Nomad Camp is an exception; somehow I went with a simpler wording rather than tacking on "instead of into your discard pile." That "instead" would clear things up, although, this never comes up. Watchtower and Royal Seal, which modify where another gained card ends up, both actually move a card that was already put somewhere else.

Interesting, and isotropic implements it like this. If you buy a Nomad Camp with a Watchtower in hand, it asks which effect to resolve. If you choose to put the Nomad Camp on your deck, you no longer have the option to reveal Watchtower (although you maybe should be allowed to reveal it, I assume it would do nothing since it has lost track of the Nomad Camp, right?).

[Donald X.]

Interesting, and isotropic implements it like this. If you buy a Nomad Camp with a Watchtower in hand, it asks which effect to resolve. If you choose to put the Nomad Camp on your deck, you no longer have the option to reveal Watchtower (although you maybe should be allowed to reveal it, I assume it would do nothing since it has lost track of the Nomad Camp, right?).

Actually Watchtower can find cards that were gained directly to other locations, just not ones that were gained to a certain location and then moved.

[blueblimp]

Interesting, and isotropic implements it like this. If you buy a Nomad Camp with a Watchtower in hand, it asks which effect to resolve. If you choose to put the Nomad Camp on your deck, you no longer have the option to reveal Watchtower (although you maybe should be allowed to reveal it, I assume it would do nothing since it has lost track of the Nomad Camp, right?).

Actually Watchtower can find cards that were gained directly to other locations, just not ones that were gained to a certain location and then moved.

With Nomad Camp, doesn't it move itself as an on-gain effect? Since it reads: "When you gain this, put it on top of your deck." I thought that was the point you were making in your previous post.