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.

[Donald X.]

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.

No, it never visits the discard pile, it goes straight to the top of your deck.

[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...

"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.

I'm still failing to understand how someone can possess me, trash one of my cards, receive the on-trash benefit, but have the card be set aside under this model.

If:   "Being trashed" and "moving to the trash" are the same thing.    [which is a direct quote]; then any card that gives an on-trash benefit MUST be moved to the trash in order to give it (which we established it goes). So when does it move from the trash to the Set-Aside pile? It must be before some other card gets a chance to touch it (like Graverobber, Forager, etc.) and after on-trash benefits occur; but I don't know which entry in "When Cards Do Things" applies here.

Donald's post on this issue quoted the Possession FAQ which said "The trashed cards are actually trashed". My interpretation is that the default rule for trashing involved the card moving to the trash pile at some point, but Possession being in play changed that rule to the card moving to a set-aside pile at that point instead. The wording of the Possession FAQ seems to imply to me that that's what happens.

[SirPeebles]

"... 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.

I'm still failing to understand how someone can possess me, trash one of my cards, receive the on-trash benefit, but have the card be set aside under this model.

If:   "Being trashed" and "moving to the trash" are the same thing.    [which is a direct quote]; then any card that gives an on-trash benefit MUST be moved to the trash in order to give it (which we established it goes). So when does it move from the trash to the Set-Aside pile? It must be before some other card gets a chance to touch it (like Graverobber, Forager, etc.) and after on-trash benefits occur; but I don't know which entry in "When Cards Do Things" applies here.

Donald's post on this issue quoted the Possession FAQ which said "The trashed cards are actually trashed". My interpretation is that the default rule for trashing involved the card moving to the trash pile at some point, but Possession being in play changed that rule to the card moving to a set-aside pile at that point instead. The wording of the Possession FAQ seems to imply to me that that's what happens.

I don't think that "trashing" and "moving to the trash" are the same thing.  I think that the event "card X is trashed" triggers the subsequent event "card X is moved to the trash pile".  It's sort of like how the event "I buy card X" triggers the subsequent event "I gain card X".  In both cases, however, it is possible for either an "on trash"/"on buy" effect to be triggered simultaneously and prevent the subsequent "move to trash"/"gain card" event.  An example for my analogy is when you buy a Noble Brigand, triggering the on-buy effect which allows you to steal treasures, and then reveal a Trader to prevent the gain and to gain a Silver instead.  In this case you bought the Noble Brigand but never gained it.

[SirPeebles]

Another example is the subtle distinction between "discard card X" and "move card X to the discard pile".  The first event triggers the latter event.  However, both Chancellor and Scavenger are able to "move card X to the discard pile" directly, without first triggering "discard card X".  This is of course relevant when card X is tunnel, since then "discard card X" is a trigger for "gain Gold".

[Drab Emordnilap]

I'm still failing to understand how someone can possess me, trash one of my cards, receive the on-trash benefit, but have the card be set aside under this model.

If:   "Being trashed" and "moving to the trash" are the same thing.    [which is a direct quote]; then any card that gives an on-trash benefit MUST be moved to the trash in order to give it (which we established it goes). So when does it move from the trash to the Set-Aside pile? It must be before some other card gets a chance to touch it (like Graverobber, Forager, etc.) and after on-trash benefits occur; but I don't know which entry in "When Cards Do Things" applies here.

Donald's post on this issue quoted the Possession FAQ which said "The trashed cards are actually trashed". My interpretation is that the default rule for trashing involved the card moving to the trash pile at some point, but Possession being in play changed that rule to the card moving to a set-aside pile at that point instead. The wording of the Possession FAQ seems to imply to me that that's what happens.

I Possess you. On your turn, I make you Chapel a Cultist. The Cultist is trashed. The Cultist is in the trash pile. There isn't any time that one of those things is true but not the other.

Now, there are things that care that something was trashed. Cultist wants to +3 cards, and Possession wants to set Cultist aside. They're your effects, so you choose what order to resolve them. Except I'm Possessing you, so I make decisions for you. I can resolve Cultist then Possession, which does +3 cards, then set aside Cultist. Or I can resolve Possession then Cultist, which sets aside Cultist, then +3 cards.

I don't think that "trashing" and "moving to the trash" are the same thing.

This is possibly true, but there isn't any way to move something to the trash without trashing it, like there is to move something to the discard pile without discarding it. If Chancellor said "You may put your deck into the trash pile", then I agree that wouldn't trigger Cultist.

[AJD]

"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.

I'm still failing to understand how someone can possess me, trash one of my cards, receive the on-trash benefit, but have the card be set aside under this model.

...By doing exactly what you just said. They trash your Cultist, meaning the Cultist moves to the trash; and then the two on-trash effects both happen (namely +3 cards, the on-trash effect of Cultist, and moving Cultist out of the trash, the on-trash effect of Possession). I'm not sure what the confusing part is here.

[blueblimp]

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.

No, it never visits the discard pile, it goes straight to the top of your deck.

Maybe isotropic is a bit off in its implementation then?

Here's what happens on iso when buying a Nomad Camp with Watchtower in hand:

It asks: "gain a Nomad Camp>  put it on your deck     reveal Watchtower".

Selecting "put it on your deck" puts it on your deck, and it is not possible to reveal Watchtower:

You play a Watchtower.
... You draw a Watchtower and a Copper.
You play 4 Coppers.
You buy a Nomad Camp.
... You put it on your deck.
(You reshuffle.)

Selecting "reveal Watchtower" gives the Watchtower reveal options. Either way, nothing special happens after:

You play 4 Coppers.
You buy a Nomad Camp.
... You reveal a Watchtower.
... You trash the Nomad Camp.

You buy a Nomad Camp.
... You reveal a Watchtower.
... You put the Nomad Camp on your deck.

If I understand you correctly, what should happen is when Nomad Camp is gained, it goes directly on to your deck; it's not an effect that you get to choose when to resolve. So isotropic should ask whether you want to reveal Watchtower, and should not give the option of revealing Watchtower before Nomad Camp goes on top of your deck.

[ftl]

You can't reveal Watchtower after the NC is on your deck, because of the lose-track rule.

When you reveal Watchtower, the Nomad Camp is still in the supply pile and hasn't been moved anywhere at all yet.  Works the same way as with a non-nomad-camp gain, I think? If I gain a silver, I can reveal Watchtower to put it on top of my deck or to trash it. Either way, it never visits my discard pile, I think...

[AJD]

You can't reveal Watchtower after the NC is on your deck, because of the lose-track rule. When you reveal Watchtower, the Nomad Camp is still in the supply pile and hasn't been moved anywhere at all yet. 

This isn't correct; Nomad Camp goes directly to your deck, so after it goes to your deck is when you have the option to reveal Watchtower. It's mechanically the same as revealing Watchtower in response to a Sea Hag.

Works the same way as with a non-nomad-camp gain, I think? If I gain a silver, I can reveal Watchtower to put it on top of my deck or to trash it. Either way, it never visits my discard pile, I think...

Nope. The gain goes through, the card lands in the discard pile (usually), and then you reveal Watchtower and move the gained card from your discard pile to the decktop or trash.

[Donald X.]

Maybe isotropic is a bit off in its implementation then?

Yes. There should be no chance to reveal Watchtower prior to actually gaining Nomad Camp; it will already be on your deck when you reveal Watchtower.

[ftl]

oh, ok.

[brokoli]

Each time I see this thread, I read "pRoCession + fortress" 

[Drab Emordnilap]

Each time I see this thread, I read "pRoCession + fortress" 

Probably because of the "Procession + Island" Thread.

Also because Procession + Fortress is awesomsticks.

[brokoli]

Each time I see this thread, I read "pRoCession + fortress" 

Probably because of the "Procession + Island" Thread.

Also because Procession + Fortress is awesomsticks.

Precisely.

[Jeebus]

Sorry to reanimate this thread. I just want to comment on a few things.

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.

I disagree with your original claim that this ruling sets a new precedent. The Possession card creates several triggers: After this turn, the player to your left gets another turn (which you see/control); when he would gain a card, you gain it instead; when he trashes a card, he sets it aside; and the trashed-and-set-aside cards are put into his discard at the end of the turn. This is of course what you are saying in your latest post, quoted above. There is nothing in any rule or ruling that says that triggers can only apply to the player "creating" the triggers. In fact, Embargo does this too, with the Embargo token.

As others have said, the card is actually trashed. "When-trash" effects can only happen when a card is trashed. And they happen after the card is trashed. Possession's effect (setting the card aside) is a when-trash effect. The only thing that isn't entirely clear on the card is whether the trashed card is set aside at the end of the turn or immediately. But first of all, why set it aside at the end of the turn if you're going to return it to the discard straight after that? Logically, it's clear that the point is to set it aside as you go. Second of all, this is explained in the rulebook FAQ anyway.

I don't think that "trashing" and "moving to the trash" are the same thing.  I think that the event "card X is trashed" triggers the subsequent event "card X is moved to the trash pile". It's sort of like how the event "I buy card X" triggers the subsequent event "I gain card X".

"Moving to the trash" doesn't appear anywhere on any cards. It's just a way to explain what happens when you trash a card. It's moved from where it was to trash. So it has nothing to do with the buy/gain thing. If a card did say "move to trash" however, then it would be like "put into discard": it wouldn't trigger when-trash effects (like Drab Emordnilap said).

[Brando Commando]

There is nothing in any rule or ruling that says that triggers can only apply to the player "creating" the triggers. In fact, Embargo does this too, with the Embargo token.

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.

It's true that no rule book told us that triggers only "happen" to somebody setting them, but the question is more, "What order do we play the triggers in"? And so far, we haven't really had a precedent to decide who controls the order when a card you haven't played is creating the trigger for you. Really, I don't think the "rules" apply insofar as I understand it, as I don't think there is anything in the rulebook explaining exactly how triggers work. (I'm not super familiar with Dark Ages, though.)

I hadn't thought of Embargo, and looking through the rules questions, I see that  http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1701.msg28853#msg28853 establishes that Embargo, even though you don't play it, is "something that happens to you" that you control the timing of vs. other triggers. So yes, maybe that's an earlier precedent. (I think Embargo is an odd case in any event, since it seems that playing the Embargo card doesn't create the trigger so much as having it in the setup.) I don't see this as being a well-established principle, however, since it's only been now that it mattered and I can't think of any other cards beside Embargo and Possession that create this issue.

[Jeebus]

Well, the rules talk about "things happening to you", and that can of course both be things that happen right at the moment a card is played (like someone playing a Witch) or things that happen because a card established earlier that it would happen now (which we call triggers).

What order concurrent "things" are resolved in, is established. It's turn order if it's happening to several players. If it's happening to you, you decide.

Really the only question that can be fuzzy, is "Is this thing happening to you or not?" See this thread for more on this: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=4535.msg104666#msg104666
I think the definition of when something is actually happening to you isn't explicitly stated in the rules, but it's obvious except in some edge cases (like the Noble Brigand issue talked about in the thread I linked to). As far as setting aside your trashed card because of Possession, that's clearly happening to you.

[GendoIkari]

Ok, related question with Nomad Camp and other things that change where something is gained to. With Watchtower it's a little more clear, because that's a reaction to gaining something. But... what about Armory, Royal Seal, or Develop? Those tell you to gain cards to the top of your deck. If you gain Nomad Camp with one of those, it obviously will be gained to the top of your deck, but was it Nomad Camp's text that made it happen, or the other card's text? Or was it a choice of 2 things trying to happen at once, and you get to choose which one, even though they both have the same outcome?

I ask because of the card being discussed here. What if a new card comes along and says "when you gain this, set it aside" or even "when you gain this, put it on the bottom of your deck"? Where would the card go if it were gained with Develop or Armory?

[Donald X.]

Ok, related question with Nomad Camp and other things that change where something is gained to. With Watchtower it's a little more clear, because that's a reaction to gaining something. But... what about Armory, Royal Seal, or Develop? Those tell you to gain cards to the top of your deck. If you gain Nomad Camp with one of those, it obviously will be gained to the top of your deck, but was it Nomad Camp's text that made it happen, or the other card's text? Or was it a choice of 2 things trying to happen at once, and you get to choose which one, even though they both have the same outcome?

I ask because of the card being discussed here. What if a new card comes along and says "when you gain this, set it aside" or even "when you gain this, put it on the bottom of your deck"? Where would the card go if it were gained with Develop or Armory?

It was not lost on me that the fact that Nomad Camp went the same place that Armory etc. send cards meant I was dodging a rules question. I don't feel like tying myself down to a ruling on imaginary cards, but if I made a card that went somewhere other than your deck top and you gained it with Armory, odds are you would pick where the card went.

[Brando Commando]

Ok, related question with Nomad Camp and other things that change where something is gained to. With Watchtower it's a little more clear, because that's a reaction to gaining something. But... what about Armory, Royal Seal, or Develop? Those tell you to gain cards to the top of your deck. If you gain Nomad Camp with one of those, it obviously will be gained to the top of your deck, but was it Nomad Camp's text that made it happen, or the other card's text? Or was it a choice of 2 things trying to happen at once, and you get to choose which one, even though they both have the same outcome?

I ask because of the card being discussed here. What if a new card comes along and says "when you gain this, set it aside" or even "when you gain this, put it on the bottom of your deck"? Where would the card go if it were gained with Develop or Armory?

It's an interesting question. I'd like to hear other answers, but my take on it is "when" that begins most of the bottom-half instructions creates a trigger that happens immediately before any non-trigger event. I say this partly because it's how we time reactions -- immediately after an attack card is played and before any of that attack cards instructions are executed.

That said, Possession seems to create triggers as well, so may other things are triggers even when not created by bottom-half-"when" instructions.

[GendoIkari]

Ok, related question with Nomad Camp and other things that change where something is gained to. With Watchtower it's a little more clear, because that's a reaction to gaining something. But... what about Armory, Royal Seal, or Develop? Those tell you to gain cards to the top of your deck. If you gain Nomad Camp with one of those, it obviously will be gained to the top of your deck, but was it Nomad Camp's text that made it happen, or the other card's text? Or was it a choice of 2 things trying to happen at once, and you get to choose which one, even though they both have the same outcome?

I ask because of the card being discussed here. What if a new card comes along and says "when you gain this, set it aside" or even "when you gain this, put it on the bottom of your deck"? Where would the card go if it were gained with Develop or Armory?

It was not lost on me that the fact that Nomad Camp went the same place that Armory etc. send cards meant I was dodging a rules question. I don't feel like tying myself down to a ruling on imaginary cards, but if I made a card that went somewhere other than your deck top and you gained it with Armory, odds are you would pick where the card went.

Thanks! I knew you wouldn't want to rule on a theoretical card, but I appreciate that input!

It's like you're here for us.