Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Possession/Outpost  (Read 12721 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Morgrim7

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1701
  • Torturer chains? How primitive.
  • Respect: +748
    • View Profile
Possession/Outpost
« on: January 30, 2013, 02:29:39 am »
0

I know, guys. Theres been a good many topics on this, but let there be one more.

If I play a Possession during a Possession hand (causing my opponent to take another turn with my cards) aan then play the Outpost, does it take effect? That would be causing my opponent to take more than one consecutive turn, which Outpost prohibits.
Logged
"Oh sweet merciful heavens.

I sit here, lost amongst the cloud, that which is the brain of the Morgrim Mod. Perhaps I will learn the inner workings of that storied mind. Perhaps I will simply go mad.

Mad, I tell you.

Maaaaaaaaaaaaad." -Voltgloss
Dominion Notation: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7265.msg206246#msg206246

michaeljb

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1422
  • Shuffle iT Username: michaeljb
  • Respect: +2113
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2013, 03:10:10 am »
0

I think Outpost would take effect, and I think you're not quite right here:

(causing my opponent to take another turn with my cards)

That's not technically what Possession does; you would take another turn, but with your opponent making the decisions for you, and gaining the cards you would gain.

So, if I'm reading what you said correctly...(let's say I'm your opponent)

Morgrim - plays Possession
michael (possessed) - plays Possession and Outpost
michael - choose whether Outpost or Possession turn happens first; pick Outpost
michael - take Outpost turn
Morgrim (possessed) - just a turn where nothing confusing happens
Logged
🚂 Give 18xx games a chance 🚂

Morgrim7

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1701
  • Torturer chains? How primitive.
  • Respect: +748
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2013, 05:57:23 am »
0

Yeah okay. I see.
Logged
"Oh sweet merciful heavens.

I sit here, lost amongst the cloud, that which is the brain of the Morgrim Mod. Perhaps I will learn the inner workings of that storied mind. Perhaps I will simply go mad.

Mad, I tell you.

Maaaaaaaaaaaaad." -Voltgloss
Dominion Notation: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7265.msg206246#msg206246

neoeinstein

  • Herbalist
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
  • Respect: +15
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2013, 09:57:13 am »
0

michael (possessed) - plays Possession and Outpost
michael - choose whether Outpost or Possession turn happens first; pick Outpost
michael - take Outpost turn
Morgrim (possessed) - just a turn where nothing confusing happens

Just a clarification from the Possession FAQ in the Alchemy rule book (which is dense and has a lot of information in there) is this tidbit:
Code: [Select]
If you play both Outpost and Possession in the same turn,
the Outpost turn happens first.

So it is always Outpost turn, then Possession turn. It is an explicit ordering and not a choice.
Logged

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7096
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9411
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2013, 10:06:35 am »
0

michael (possessed) - plays Possession and Outpost
michael - choose whether Outpost or Possession turn happens first; pick Outpost
michael - take Outpost turn
Morgrim (possessed) - just a turn where nothing confusing happens

Just a clarification from the Possession FAQ in the Alchemy rule book (which is dense and has a lot of information in there) is this tidbit:
Code: [Select]
If you play both Outpost and Possession in the same turn,
the Outpost turn happens first.

So it is always Outpost turn, then Possession turn. It is an explicit ordering and not a choice.

Possession, the only Dominion card that required more than a full page of explanation.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.

Morgrim7

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1701
  • Torturer chains? How primitive.
  • Respect: +748
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2013, 05:58:21 pm »
0

michael (possessed) - plays Possession and Outpost
michael - choose whether Outpost or Possession turn happens first; pick Outpost
michael - take Outpost turn
Morgrim (possessed) - just a turn where nothing confusing happens

Just a clarification from the Possession FAQ in the Alchemy rule book (which is dense and has a lot of information in there) is this tidbit:
Code: [Select]
If you play both Outpost and Possession in the same turn,
the Outpost turn happens first.

So it is always Outpost turn, then Possession turn. It is an explicit ordering and not a choice.

Possession, the only Dominion card that required more than a topic of explanation.
fixed4u
Logged
"Oh sweet merciful heavens.

I sit here, lost amongst the cloud, that which is the brain of the Morgrim Mod. Perhaps I will learn the inner workings of that storied mind. Perhaps I will simply go mad.

Mad, I tell you.

Maaaaaaaaaaaaad." -Voltgloss
Dominion Notation: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=7265.msg206246#msg206246

michaeljb

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1422
  • Shuffle iT Username: michaeljb
  • Respect: +2113
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2013, 08:40:14 pm »
0

michael (possessed) - plays Possession and Outpost
michael - choose whether Outpost or Possession turn happens first; pick Outpost
michael - take Outpost turn
Morgrim (possessed) - just a turn where nothing confusing happens

Just a clarification from the Possession FAQ in the Alchemy rule book (which is dense and has a lot of information in there) is this tidbit:
Code: [Select]
If you play both Outpost and Possession in the same turn,
the Outpost turn happens first.

So it is always Outpost turn, then Possession turn. It is an explicit ordering and not a choice.

Now that I think about that a bit more, it makes sense. Just going back to my example, I figured I would choose whether to handle Outpost or Possession first, since it's two things trying to happen at the same time -- "after this turn". But really, Outpost makes me take another turn, and Possession makes Morgrim take another turn, so by the turn-order precedence, the Outpost would be first.

Thanks for clarifying.
Logged
🚂 Give 18xx games a chance 🚂

GigaKnight

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
  • Respect: +54
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #7 on: February 11, 2013, 07:30:43 pm »
0

michael (possessed) - plays Possession and Outpost
michael - choose whether Outpost or Possession turn happens first; pick Outpost
michael - take Outpost turn
Morgrim (possessed) - just a turn where nothing confusing happens

Just a clarification from the Possession FAQ in the Alchemy rule book (which is dense and has a lot of information in there) is this tidbit:
Code: [Select]
If you play both Outpost and Possession in the same turn,
the Outpost turn happens first.

So it is always Outpost turn, then Possession turn. It is an explicit ordering and not a choice.

Possession, the only Dominion card that required more than a full page of explanation.

I know Donald X has said he always thought Possession was worth the complexity but, man, when I saw that FAQ in the rule book (before I even found ds.com), I immediately thought "this FAQ ALONE says this card is a bad idea".  IMO, it's an un-creative idea that adds a ton of complexity and very little depth.  Plus, even after that wall-of-text-FAQ, the most involved and dedicated players still find questions to ask about it...  Yech... I never even bothered sleeving my IRL copies.

I probably sound like I'm railing against Donald, but I don't intend that.  He made an amazing game and the fact that I can just omit Possession from my own games is part of that.  I just really don't understand why that card made it into the final game.
Logged

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1345
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #8 on: February 11, 2013, 07:55:45 pm »
+1

I know Donald X has said he always thought Possession was worth the complexity but, man, when I saw that FAQ in the rule book (before I even found ds.com), I immediately thought "this FAQ ALONE says this card is a bad idea".  IMO, it's an un-creative idea that adds a ton of complexity and very little depth.  Plus, even after that wall-of-text-FAQ, the most involved and dedicated players still find questions to ask about it...  Yech... I never even bothered sleeving my IRL copies.

I probably sound like I'm railing against Donald, but I don't intend that.  He made an amazing game and the fact that I can just omit Possession from my own games is part of that.  I just really don't understand why that card made it into the final game.

It's definitely a weird card, but why would you say it's "uncreative" and "adds very little depth"? It not an easy card to use right, and it can completely change the game. It's definitely a weird card rules-wise and interaction-wise, but I wouldn't say it's uncreative, and it definitely adds a good bit of depth.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25671
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #9 on: February 11, 2013, 09:18:09 pm »
0

I probably sound like I'm railing against Donald, but I don't intend that.  He made an amazing game and the fact that I can just omit Possession from my own games is part of that.  I just really don't understand why that card made it into the final game.
I wanted Alchemy to have some exotic stuff because of the flavor, and I wanted it to have something really exciting because I always want that. Possession was exotic and exciting. There are people who hate it, and don't play with it; there are also people who cite it as their favorite Dominion card. As always the people who love it wouldn't have it if it wasn't in the set, the people who hate it can often leave it out, and if there were no hated cards there would be no loved cards.

The FAQ is a monster, for sure, I would like that to be simpler. Most of it comes down to "yes really" though.
Logged

GigaKnight

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
  • Respect: +54
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #10 on: February 12, 2013, 03:58:43 pm »
0

I know Donald X has said he always thought Possession was worth the complexity but, man, when I saw that FAQ in the rule book (before I even found ds.com), I immediately thought "this FAQ ALONE says this card is a bad idea".  IMO, it's an un-creative idea that adds a ton of complexity and very little depth.  Plus, even after that wall-of-text-FAQ, the most involved and dedicated players still find questions to ask about it...  Yech... I never even bothered sleeving my IRL copies.

I probably sound like I'm railing against Donald, but I don't intend that.  He made an amazing game and the fact that I can just omit Possession from my own games is part of that.  I just really don't understand why that card made it into the final game.

It's definitely a weird card, but why would you say it's "uncreative" and "adds very little depth"? It not an easy card to use right, and it can completely change the game. It's definitely a weird card rules-wise and interaction-wise, but I wouldn't say it's uncreative, and it definitely adds a good bit of depth.

I would say uncreative because I, personally, find it to be obvious.  More-objectively, there's nothing unique to Dominion about it.  You could put "steal a turn" in every game that has turns.

In a similar way, Smithy is also uncreative.  You could put "draw cards" in every game that has cards.  But I like Smithy and think it has a fine place in the game, especially as part of the base set; lack of creativity isn't the only reason I dislike Possession.

I say adds very little depth because, IMO, it discourages creativity.  Limitations should create trade-offs instead of cutting out strategic options.  Possession has no in-game counter (it's not an Attack), so the primary counter strategy is to play simpler.  Avoid powerful engines and megaturns as they could be used against you.  And if the winning engine on the board is still faster than Possession, then Possession was a wasted card in the kingdom.  Its fundamental competitive purpose is to counter a strategy slower than itself.

So, in my view, it's not adding much strategically.  I get that it adds flavor and Timmy players like it and, yes, that it can be used to great effect. But it's also a single card that temporarily and fundamentally alters what things like Trash and Gain mean.  No single card is worth that, IMO.

But the most unfortunate thing to me is that Possession takes a slot in a limited line-up of cards.  That's really what I was trying to say when I said "I just really don't understand why that card made it into the final game".  That's a slot that could have been used for something way cooler, IMO.  For my definition of cooler. :)

I probably sound like I'm railing against Donald, but I don't intend that.  He made an amazing game and the fact that I can just omit Possession from my own games is part of that.  I just really don't understand why that card made it into the final game.
I wanted Alchemy to have some exotic stuff because of the flavor, and I wanted it to have something really exciting because I always want that. Possession was exotic and exciting. There are people who hate it, and don't play with it; there are also people who cite it as their favorite Dominion card. As always the people who love it wouldn't have it if it wasn't in the set, the people who hate it can often leave it out, and if there were no hated cards there would be no loved cards.

The FAQ is a monster, for sure, I would like that to be simpler. Most of it comes down to "yes really" though.

Thanks, Donald X.  I didn't mean to summon you to defend Possession. :)
Logged

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1345
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #11 on: February 12, 2013, 06:03:25 pm »
+7

I would say uncreative because I, personally, find it to be obvious.  More-objectively, there's nothing unique to Dominion about it.  You could put "steal a turn" in every game that has turns.

Possession doesn't steal a turn; the other person still gets the same number of turns they would have had. You haven't "stolen" anything, unless you used an Amb or Masq. Possession lets you take a turn with the other person's deck, basically.

I don't think I've seen the equivalent of that in any turn-based game. What would that be in, say, Monopoly? Roll the dice and move the other person's piece instead of yours? I think it's pretty unique to Dominion... at least, I'm pretty sure none of the other board games I have have something equivalent to it, and basically all of them are turn-based. Plenty of games have "take another turn" or equivalent, and Dominion has Outpost for that role. Very few, if any, have "take a turn with your opponent's stuff" or equivalent. At the very least, you can fundamentally only do that in games where an opponent has stuff that you can reasonably use somehow.

Quote
I say adds very little depth because, IMO, it discourages creativity.  Limitations should create trade-offs instead of cutting out strategic options.  Possession has no in-game counter (it's not an Attack),

Possession has a bunch of in-game counters. Just because you can't Moat it doesn't mean you can't counter it.

One way is just not to get a possession and ignore it. It's expensive, and often by the time you get it it's not going to give you much.
Another is to get cards that give you a benefit even when possessed - Monument, Goons, Bishop.
...or cards which attack your opponent. If you build a Rabble or Torturer engine, your opponent is going to have to attack himself to death to use your deck.
Another is to get cards which don't work as well when you're possessed - for example, Mine, Explorer, Ironworks.
Another is to go for a different VP strategy than your opponent - say, if you go for duke/duchy, then by the time your opponent gets possession, you've got all the duchies and your opponent has no use for the dukes and can't use your deck to get provinces.
Or you can be tactical, and just use possession better than your opponent - possess them and then mess up their reshuffles.
You can build an engine, and then "cash out" and get a bunch of green just before they can possess you, and then you got good use out of your engine and left nothing for them. With all the on-trash stuff of Dark Ages, you can even make your deck basically trash itself!

There are lots of ways to deal with possession, with different ones available based on the board.

Quote
so the primary counter strategy is to play simpler.  Avoid powerful engines and megaturns as they could be used against you. 

Even that simple counter creates a rock-paper-scissors scenario. If you go for a really simple strategy, then you're basically immune to being possessed. But then if your opponent goes for the complex engine, that'll beat your simple strategy. But then building a Possession deck will beat the engine?

So it creates interaction. You can't just ignore what your opponent is doing - you have to react. This isn't multiplayer solitaire! Play to keep your options open, ready to grab and use possession if your opponent has left themselves open for it, but be ready to flood your deck with green and destroy your engine as soon as your opponent gets a possession they can play reliably, and pick the right time to do it.

Quote
And if the winning engine on the board is still faster than Possession, then Possession was a wasted card in the kingdom.  Its fundamental competitive purpose is to counter a strategy slower than itself.

I disagree with that "fundamental competitive purpose". Every card "counters a strategy slower than itself". Possession creates a whole new strategy space, with strategies fundamentally different than that which any other card creates.

Quote
So, in my view, it's not adding much strategically.

I think that view is straight-up wrong. You can like it or not, but denying that it's a fairly strategic card is just incorrect. There are a whole host of cards which are far less strategic than possession.
Logged

michaeljb

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1422
  • Shuffle iT Username: michaeljb
  • Respect: +2113
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #12 on: February 12, 2013, 06:39:09 pm »
0


I don't think I've seen the equivalent of that in any turn-based game. What would that be in, say, Monopoly? Roll the dice and move the other person's piece instead of yours? I think it's pretty unique to Dominion... at least, I'm pretty sure none of the other board games I have have something equivalent to it, and basically all of them are turn-based. Plenty of games have "take another turn" or equivalent, and Dominion has Outpost for that role. Very few, if any, have "take a turn with your opponent's stuff" or equivalent. At the very least, you can fundamentally only do that in games where an opponent has stuff that you can reasonably use somehow.


I'm not super familiar with Magic The Gathering (only played a few times), but my friend mentioned this card upon seeing Possession.

But anyway, +1 to the rest of your post.
Logged
🚂 Give 18xx games a chance 🚂

ftl

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2056
  • Shuffle iT Username: ftl
  • Respect: +1345
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #13 on: February 12, 2013, 06:43:16 pm »
0

Heh, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Magic has something similar. Fair enough.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9187
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #14 on: February 12, 2013, 06:46:58 pm »
0

The page says that Mindslaver is from Scars of Mirrodin, which according to this page was released October 2010.  If the wiki is correct, Dominion: Alchemy was released in May 2010. :P
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #15 on: February 12, 2013, 07:14:47 pm »
0

The page says that Mindslaver is from Scars of Mirrodin, which according to this page was released October 2010.  If the wiki is correct, Dominion: Alchemy was released in May 2010. :P
Actually, if you look closer, it was reprinted in Scars of Mirrodin, but was originally in Mirrodin, which was released October 2003.

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25671
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #16 on: February 12, 2013, 07:33:34 pm »
0

I would say uncreative because I, personally, find it to be obvious.  More-objectively, there's nothing unique to Dominion about it.  You could put "steal a turn" in every game that has turns.
This is just a really weird thing to be saying. By this measure most cards in games with rules on cards are uncreative. To the degree that those games are fun anyway, I guess it all works out! And Possession itself is just so ridiculously exotic. If it's so obvious, why don't all games have it? Because they're trying not to be so obvious?

I have made a lot of games with rules on cards. If you want something that isn't complex, there are only so many things to do. You have certain game "atoms" and there are the most straightforward bits of "program flow" to apply to them. Each game tries to do the things that feel the freshest or most appropriate based on the particular data in the particular game. You play up whatever's special to your game, tying it to the unspecial parts; you do the unspecial things that you can't always do but can do in this game. But there's always lots of overlap.

An example I like to use is getting a card from a discard pile. You can only do this in a game with a face-up discard pile. If the discard pile is shared, it's poor. Wiz-War has such a card but should not. Magic has a discard pile per player and has plenty of cards that get cards back from discard piles. In Dominion it's not straightforward, since the discard pile is recycled constantly. Any card referring to it is more complex to deal with that issue, and less compelling since you are seeing those cards again anyway, and potentially problematic since some games have Platinum and some don't.

When I make a game with a discard pile, I jump at the chance to make a way to get a card from it; that effect won't be as familiar as other more common things like drawing cards, and, a key thing, it will be different from other cards in this particular game. It's adding variety to this game even as it adds in something other games can do. I want all of the variety of effects I can get; the only reason I'm not making a way to get a card from the discard pile is if it really doesn't work for this game. Dominion only has a few, but this commonplace thing with Dominion-specific issues was still worth doing multiple times in Dominion, for the different things it could offer.

I say adds very little depth because, IMO, it discourages creativity.  Limitations should create trade-offs instead of cutting out strategic options.  Possession has no in-game counter (it's not an Attack), so the primary counter strategy is to play simpler.  Avoid powerful engines and megaturns as they could be used against you.  And if the winning engine on the board is still faster than Possession, then Possession was a wasted card in the kingdom.  Its fundamental competitive purpose is to counter a strategy slower than itself.
Possession is there for the people who like it - for them it is not a wasted card on the table or in the expansion. It has no "fundamental competitive purpose." I don't know what you mean by it having no "in-game counter." I guess you just mean you can't Moat it, as if Moat were the gold standard of counters (it is not). Some cards are better for the player whose deck/turn it is than for the Possessing player; for example Militia (barring the cases where it isn't). So, how is Militia not an in-game counter to Possession? It even makes it harder for them to buy Possession.

So, in my view, it's not adding much strategically.  I get that it adds flavor and Timmy players like it and, yes, that it can be used to great effect. But it's also a single card that temporarily and fundamentally alters what things like Trash and Gain mean.  No single card is worth that, IMO.
You want "creative" cards, but changing what trash and gain mean? Too creative! Wait, totally uncreative game staples, and bad for that reason?

It's fine to hate Possession, and I'm sure plenty of people thought of it before it showed up in Alchemy. Two guys thought of calculus (wikipedia actually indicates the number is higher than this). And I'm sure I do plenty of cliche things. You sound so crazy complaining about Possession being "uncreative" though.
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25671
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #17 on: February 12, 2013, 07:40:09 pm »
0

I'm not super familiar with Magic The Gathering (only played a few times), but my friend mentioned this card upon seeing Possession.
Possession is certainly reminiscent of Mindslaver, since they both let you make decisions for another player. They behave much differently though. You play Mindslaver to make your opponent miss a turn, and if you're lucky to use their cards to destroy their cards; you play Possession to gain a card for your deck. Possession is a weird Workshop and Mindslaver just isn't any such thing; Mindslaver makes them miss a turn and maybe lose stuff and Possession doesn't do those things. There is not much overlap despite the "make decisions for someone else" connection.
Logged

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1856
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #18 on: February 12, 2013, 10:51:50 pm »
+1

I don't honestly mind Possession too much, but I think that a "you may not take more than 1 extra turn this way" sort of clause would have made Possession games as a whole a much richer experience. Multiple Possession turns are not only tedious from a logistic perspective, but the prospect of multiple Possessions also makes for degenerate games in some kingdoms in addition to making it more of a runaway card for players already in the lead.
Logged

GigaKnight

  • Moneylender
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 169
  • Respect: +54
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #19 on: February 13, 2013, 02:59:42 am »
0

Ok, fists up!  :)  I'm going to interleave ftl and Donald X's replies here a bit.  Maybe a bad idea, but I don't want to respond multiple times to what I see as essentially the same points.

Also, Donald X, any time we get into one of these "discussions", it feels like either I'm not forming coherent sentences, I'm using vocabulary that has vastly different connotations to you, or you're not fully reading what I said.  Sometimes I literally feel like you respond to points I didn't make.  So 1) if you have any tips for helping me communicate with you, I'll totally hear them.  But, 2) if we're just going to talk past each other, maybe we can skip to the relevant XKCD? :)

I would say uncreative because I, personally, find it to be obvious.  More-objectively, there's nothing unique to Dominion about it.  You could put "steal a turn" in every game that has turns.

Possession doesn't steal a turn; the other person still gets the same number of turns they would have had. You haven't "stolen" anything, unless you used an Amb or Masq. Possession lets you take a turn with the other person's deck, basically.

Yes, I realize the opponent gets the same number of turns.  To me, the core concept is still best-described by "steal a turn", as you're taking your opponent's turn to benefit yourself.  You "stole" that hand from them and used it for yourself.  They don't get that hand again; they get the one after it.

I don't think I've seen the equivalent of that in any turn-based game. What would that be in, say, Monopoly? Roll the dice and move the other person's piece instead of yours? [I think it's pretty unique to Dominion... at least, I'm pretty sure none of the other board games I have have something equivalent to it, and basically all of them are turn-based. Plenty of games have "take another turn" or equivalent, and Dominion has Outpost for that role. Very few, if any, have "take a turn with your opponent's stuff" or equivalent. At the very least, you can fundamentally only do that in games where an opponent has stuff that you can reasonably use somehow.

ftl and Donald X, you seem to think that because it's not a common game mechanic, that it's an original one.  That could be true, but it's also not the only conclusion to draw.  Another plausible explanation is that it's not generally worth the complexity.  More on this below...

I would say uncreative because I, personally, find it to be obvious.  More-objectively, there's nothing unique to Dominion about it.  You could put "steal a turn" in every game that has turns.
This is just a really weird thing to be saying. By this measure most cards in games with rules on cards are uncreative. To the degree that those games are fun anyway, I guess it all works out! And Possession itself is just so ridiculously exotic. If it's so obvious, why don't all games have it? Because they're trying not to be so obvious?

On your first point ("By this measure..."), I think you're getting a little too black-and-white here.  There's obviously a continuum of creativity / originality; I didn't think I needed to state that, but now I will (so at least you know I understand that).  Anyway, if we want to go really pedantic, every game ever (except the first one) is uncreative because there are other games.  But nobody's taking that position and to represent mine in that light feels disingenuous.

On the continuum of creativity/originality, I personally place Possession rather low.  The card takes the concept of "turn" which is, by definition, fundamental to every "turn-based game" and says "what can we do with it"?  Well, plenty of older games do this and many end up with a simple Lose a Turn.  Possession is, in my mind, a variant on Lose a Turn (I also don't like what makes it the variant, but I'll get there).  It could apply to any turn-based game, which is the vast, vast majority of tabletop games.  I can't honestly call a card that could exist (for better or worse) in virtually every other turn-based game "original".  You said I sounded crazy and maybe that's because I didn't frame my argument well.  But, from my perspective, it's crazy to think of a twist on Lose a Turn as "creative".

But WAIT.  Because, as I type this, I really think you missed the core of my original post.  I'm criticizing Possession for being uncreative, yes, but I also explicitly said that's not the only reason I dislike it.  Remember the part where I also said Smithy is uncreative but that I like it and think it has a place in the game?  I think you got fixated on the "creativity" word and then used that to imply I think more creativity is always better and then tore me down as hypocritical.  Either that's a straight-up straw man or you just didn't understand what I was saying.  Here's your quote:

Quote
So, in my view, it's not adding much strategically.  I get that it adds flavor and Timmy players like it and, yes, that it can be used to great effect. But it's also a single card that temporarily and fundamentally alters what things like Trash and Gain mean.  No single card is worth that, IMO.
You want "creative" cards, but changing what trash and gain mean? Too creative! Wait, totally uncreative game staples, and bad for that reason?

It's fine to hate Possession, and I'm sure plenty of people thought of it before it showed up in Alchemy. Two guys thought of calculus (wikipedia actually indicates the number is higher than this). And I'm sure I do plenty of cliche things. You sound so crazy complaining about Possession being "uncreative" though.


I say adds very little depth because, IMO, it discourages creativity.  Limitations should create trade-offs instead of cutting out strategic options.  Possession has no in-game counter (it's not an Attack),

Possession has a bunch of in-game counters. Just because you can't Moat it doesn't mean you can't counter it.

This is such an obvious statement that it's clear I screwed something up.  Sorry, let me try to clarify.  For virtually every other attack-like thing in the game (except maybe Masquerade), the game provides tactical outs (as opposed to strategic outs).  Maybe a given board doesn't, but that's the nature of a random game.  But, with Possession, if it's viable, it's viable.  There's no protection from its effects other than to prune out your own strategies.  So, for me, that takes an aspect I don't like and amplifies it.  This can be true even if there's a subset of creativity it doesn't affect.

And, sigh, let me also say I like Masquerade for a host of other reasons.  My distaste for Possession is multi-faceted and I just want to cut somebody off from citing something that matches a subset of facets as evidence of hypocrisy...

so the primary counter strategy is to play simpler.  Avoid powerful engines and megaturns as they could be used against you. 

Even that simple counter creates a rock-paper-scissors scenario. If you go for a really simple strategy, then you're basically immune to being possessed. But then if your opponent goes for the complex engine, that'll beat your simple strategy. But then building a Possession deck will beat the engine?

So it creates interaction. You can't just ignore what your opponent is doing - you have to react. This isn't multiplayer solitaire! Play to keep your options open, ready to grab and use possession if your opponent has left themselves open for it, but be ready to flood your deck with green and destroy your engine as soon as your opponent gets a possession they can play reliably, and pick the right time to do it.

I don't think rock-paper-scissors is always a good thing.  There's a reason rock-paper-scissors isn't turn-based: the player who goes first loses.  The degenerate case here is that both players play simple until one flinches (usually in a last-ditch effort to come-from-behind).  How is that any different than just playing simple?  On a board where Possession is viable and opponents are skilled, you've taken the potentially-beautiful interactions of a kingdom and squashed them because exactly one card is present.  I personally think that's something to be avoided.  But, you know, I'm also just some guy on the internet who hasn't designed any sweet games. :)  Maybe you disagree strongly with me and that's fine.  I just hope to be understood.

I say adds very little depth because, IMO, it discourages creativity.  Limitations should create trade-offs instead of cutting out strategic options.  Possession has no in-game counter (it's not an Attack), so the primary counter strategy is to play simpler.  Avoid powerful engines and megaturns as they could be used against you.  And if the winning engine on the board is still faster than Possession, then Possession was a wasted card in the kingdom.  Its fundamental competitive purpose is to counter a strategy slower than itself.
Possession is there for the people who like it - for them it is not a wasted card on the table or in the expansion. It has no "fundamental competitive purpose."

About "fundamental competitive purpose": I meant the purpose for which one would leverage Possession in a competitive scenario.  Donald X, you may not have given it a specific purpose, but it still has one in competition.

And if the winning engine on the board is still faster than Possession, then Possession was a wasted card in the kingdom.  Its fundamental competitive purpose is to counter a strategy slower than itself.

I disagree with that "fundamental competitive purpose". Every card "counters a strategy slower than itself". Possession creates a whole new strategy space, with strategies fundamentally different than that which any other card creates.

You say this is a whole new strategy space, but I see it as primarily forcing a subset of the existing strategy space.  I'm sure there are scenarios where it adds some depth, but a big part of my belief is that the card is just not worth the added rules complexity.  I haven't seen Possession ever do anything I thought was exciting enough to justify it.  Who knows - maybe I'll play a game tomorrow that will totally change my mind.

« Last Edit: February 13, 2013, 03:02:05 am by GigaKnight »
Logged

Donald X.

  • Board Moderator
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6357
  • Respect: +25671
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #20 on: February 13, 2013, 03:51:52 am »
0

On your first point ("By this measure..."), I think you're getting a little too black-and-white here.  There's obviously a continuum of creativity / originality; I didn't think I needed to state that, but now I will (so at least you know I understand that).  Anyway, if we want to go really pedantic, every game ever (except the first one) is uncreative because there are other games.  But nobody's taking that position and to represent mine in that light feels disingenuous.
Possession is more creative than a typical card in a game with rules on cards. This is not a good discussion for me to be having. Man. It just leads to "oh wow he's the most egotistical person ever." Someone else can talk about how creative Possession is. Possession is more unusual than most cards in most games with rules on cards. It is not a blatant implementation of some obvious thing.

On the continuum of creativity/originality, I personally place Possession rather low.  The card takes the concept of "turn" which is, by definition, fundamental to every "turn-based game" and says "what can we do with it"?  Well, plenty of older games do this and many end up with a simple Lose a Turn.  Possession is, in my mind, a variant on Lose a Turn (I also don't like what makes it the variant, but I'll get there).
This makes no sense at all to me. Possession is in no respect a "lose a turn" card. It's a weird Workshop. Try not looking at your hand until it's your turn in games with Possession. Instead of drawing a certain 5 you drew a different 5; whatever. If anything that's marginally helping you by cycling your cards faster, until it isn't of course.

If you think Possession is "lose a turn" then that's the crux of it, that's the thing to focus on. It isn't "lose a turn" at all, not remotely, and we cannot get further while we disagree on this.

I can't honestly call a card that could exist (for better or worse) in virtually every other turn-based game "original".  You said I sounded crazy and maybe that's because I didn't frame my argument well.
This also sounds crazy! It doesn't matter how many games a card *could* appear in. That's like, this poem could have been included in any number of novels; therefore it's unoriginal! It's as original as it is, regardless of where it *could* have appeared.

I can't honestly call a card that could I think you got fixated on the "creativity" word and then used that to imply I think more creativity is always better and then tore me down as hypocritical.  Either that's a straight-up straw man or you just didn't understand what I was saying.  Here's your quote:
In general, when someone says "straw man" in an argument, I immediately think, there's the guy who's got nothing. Just an FYI! It never makes someone look good. I was on some forums once where it was word-filtered, no joke. Well it was a joke, that was why they did it, but you know, I'm not joking about it.

You said something I disagreed with. I disagreed with it. I don't need to quote your entire post and say what I think of each thing. I quoted the parts I had something to say about. This has zilch to do with the straw man concept. The bit you quote again there, you said it was uncreative earlier and then there you pointed out weird things it does. It's a contradiction!

I can't honestly call a card that could I This is such an obvious statement that it's clear I screwed something up.  Sorry, let me try to clarify.  For virtually every other attack-like thing in the game (except maybe Masquerade), the game provides tactical outs (as opposed to strategic outs).  Maybe a given board doesn't, but that's the nature of a random game.  But, with Possession, if it's viable, it's viable.  There's no protection from its effects other than to prune out your own strategies.  So, for me, that takes an aspect I don't like and amplifies it.  This can be true even if there's a subset of creativity it doesn't affect.
There is no sense in which Possession is different from say Militia in this regard. Some games there are good things to do about Militia. Some games there are good things to do about Possession. Playing Library because it's good against Militia is like playing Militia because it's good against Possession. They are both equally "pruning out your own strategies." Well obv. Militia "prunes strategies" more, because it's better and people can buy it turn one.

There's a reason rock-paper-scissors isn't turn-based: the player who goes first loses.
That wasn't aimed at me, but RPS isn't as trivial as that in this context; for example maybe I can play a mix of paper and rock.

About "fundamental competitive purpose": I meant the purpose for which one would leverage Possession in a competitive scenario.  Donald X, you may not have given it a specific purpose, but it still has one in competition.
You said "Its fundamental competitive purpose is to counter a strategy slower than itself." Man that's not what Possession does, more than anything else its contribution to competitive play is to sucker people into buying it when it's bad. The clever player does not buy it, and maybe shifts strategies to fight it if it's going to be played against them - more Militias, fewer Remodels, or whatever it is. And when it's good, it's not because you just buy one and then you win hooray. You are drawing your whole deck and Throning it or something. People vary in how good they are at building that deck.
Logged

timchen

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 704
  • Shuffle iT Username: allfail
  • Respect: +234
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #21 on: February 13, 2013, 04:37:23 am »
0

Giga: two things I want to say.

(1) about creativity: okay we define whatever you say as creative. So smithy is probably as you said the most uncreative cards of all. So what? On this aspect possession brings new in game mechanics and new strategies/counter strategies with it and that is just fine.

(2) Your other reasonings why possession is not good: first you say there is no tactical counter. For me this is probably good, as I really hate that my mountebank is always deflected while you somehow always hit me on a hand without a curse.

Second you say in lots of games it just sits there taking away a card slot. How is that bad? Lots of other cards do that. And in my opinion it is in some sense better than those cards which when they appear, they make other cards just sitting there. (minion, fool's gold, witch, anyone?)

Then you say it can only beat strategy which is slower than it. This is also untrue; slower than what? Getting your deck running vs. getting a possession or two? Once you really get into the strategy thinking you'll find it is not that simple to determine.

The only thing I think is quite bad for the card is that on certain boards it is too good and forces the game into a stalemate.
Logged

Davio

  • 2012 Dutch Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4787
  • Respect: +3412
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #22 on: February 13, 2013, 06:16:26 am »
0

The only thing I find badly designed about Possession is that it's Thronable. Just creates these weird Inception-games where you're both playing more with the other guy's deck than your own. And often the first one to pull off the megaturn will win, but that's true about a lot of other cards as well. But nothing says "I've won" more than taking 9 extra full turns.

Possession/Outpost is fun though: Here, take your turn with 3 cards!

From experience I think I've played a lot of games where Possession wasn't good and a lot where it was critical and then some in between. So overall I think it made out okay. In Province games especially it's a gamble, because every Possession bought is a Province not bought. Regular Province games also have a more shallow hill to climb (~40 VP) so if you've crossed that barrier, you have nothing more to fear from the Possessor.
Logged

BSG: Cagprezimal Adama
Mage Knight: Arythea

dondon151

  • 2012 US Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Respect: +1856
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #23 on: February 15, 2013, 04:08:35 pm »
0

I tried Possession/Outpost once, playing an opponent's Outpost when I was possessing him. He took his Outpost turn with 3 starting cards (which turned out to be a half-decent turn), and then he took his actual turn... Clearly I don't know how this interaction works.

EDIT: I think you need to play Possession on your opponent twice, then have him play an Outpost on his second Possession turn in order for your opponent to take his regular turn with only 3 cards...
« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 04:29:58 pm by dondon151 »
Logged

Robz888

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2644
  • Shuffle iT Username: Robz888
  • Respect: +3388
    • View Profile
Re: Possession/Outpost
« Reply #24 on: February 15, 2013, 04:28:01 pm »
0

In the one game I did this, what ended up happening was not what I expected and I was confused.
Logged
I have been forced to accept that lackluster play is a town tell for you.
Pages: [1] 2  All
 

Page created in 0.074 seconds with 21 queries.